Kevin Smith Does Horror?

I heard about this the other day, and I can't see myself taking this movie seriously.

Although some may argue that Jersey Girl was a horror flick in it's own right.

That was the only thing I found entertaining in Scream 3. I'm still calling bullshit for it not having a McCarthy shower scene.

Smith failed miserably in his first step outside his comfort zone, but I'm willing to wait for the trailers/preliminary reviews before I start bashing him to death on this. Still, when he wasn't comfortable with writing/directing a super hero flick (Green Hornet) which is right up his fanboy alley, I can't figure out why he would jump so far out of type for something like this.

If he pulls off some kind of Devil's Rejects surprise classic, I'm going to shoot somebody.

Could be a good transition piece to something of a larger scale.

Many of the "classic" horror films I grew up with as a kid didn't look too difficult to shoot. Here's hoping he stops hiring his neighborhood buddies and gets someone like KNB to do the effects...

Yeah, but "that doesn't look too difficult to shoot" is how Smith saw Slacker, and came up with Clerks.

I'll believe it when it's actually getting made, not just when Smith is talking about making it.

Good point.

Maybe it'll involve a crazy film-maker who systematically stalks & kills internet trolls & talk-backers. He can pin their laminated reviews/forum-posts onto their viscerated corpses. The twist ending reveals him writing the self-depracating reviews himself to feed his blood-lust or that the whole movie (and his career) is a bong-induced dellusion.

FEAR.BONG

All joking aside, if Smith is trying to branch out, horror is the ideal genre. Many of the most effective horror films (TX Chainsaw, Halloween, Night of the Living Dead) have featured mimimal budgets, uncomplicated shots, and unknown casts. While Smith has strayed far from his indie roots, horror fits perfectly with the associated attributes. Could be a return to form for the guy. Or it could just be another project that he massively hypes before quietly discarding in favor of Mallrats 2.

You know what? Thats PRECISELY what I thought when reading the news. "I think we'd have a much better chance of seeing Mallrats 2 than getting a horror movie."

I love Kevin Smith but I'll believe this when it is actually being filmed. He's said he is going to do too many things for me to believe him just yet. But just like anything else he doesn I'll see it.

Well, since I don't consider Smith to be an interesting or inventive filmmaker, I'm sure a future horror film coming from his warped brain would fit in with the majority of shitty films that are being released in the genre.

While those movies were certainly low budget and populated with unknowns, it does them an enormous disservice to say they featured "uncomplicated shots".

I suppose it depends what you mean by "uncomplicated", but if you're suggesting that those three movies were directorially undemanding then you're quite, quite wrong.

Horror - or at least good horror - is not easy.

Hooper, Carpenter and Romero used the frame in ways that Kevin Smith has yet to demonstrate. Successful horror requires an understanding of the dynamics of film, the interplay with the audience and the use of light and space. It requires an eye that makes the most of what the screen can show and conceal. In other words, it requires someone who is thinking about every inch of the screen and what it can be used for. It's a true gift, and there's nothing in Smith's filmography to suggest he has it.

However, I'm rooting for Smith to make this happen. The guy's taken plenty of knocks about his adherence to a creatively-stifling comfort zone, and if he's genuinely going to try something this different, if he's honestly going to stretch himself, then I'm all for it.

You only get away with doing something like Clerks 2 once. It's a one-time deal, and he's played that trump card now. If he balks at the horror idea and instead follows up with Still Chasing Amy or More Mallrats then his credibility outside of his hardcore fanbase will never recover, and I'm sure he's aware of that.

Yeah, horror is a pretty ballsy choice, since aside from maybe sci-fi, there's no other genre that relies so heavily on its visual style. And like everyone else has noted...atmosphere, pacing, choreography, it's all uncharted territory for Smith.

But I'd imagine this is all just vapor that'll end up as a running gag in some Clerks cartoon someday. Looking at the guy's filmography, it's crazy to expect any other outcome.

Maybe Smith can get a horror-experienced DOP, storyboard artist, & editor (and not his neighborhood buddies).

Smith may be one of the worst film makers out there. and i have no doubts that if he makes a horror movie, it won't matter if it's good or not, his fans will say it's the best thing ever.

Just to clarify, I couldn't agree more. "Uncomplicated" was a lousy way of expressing what I meant - which was indie horror directors have never been able to afford the luxury of overly elaborate, self-indulgent, CGI enhanced, Michael Bay style shots. Every frame counts in the classics, often because the directors couldn't afford to be wasteful.

One of my favorite shots from any movie, horror or not, is from the original TX Chainsaw when Tobe Hopper uses ground level tracking to follow one of the female victims toward the house. As she gets closer to doom, the house looms larger before her, pretty much filling the frame. It's a damn effective shot, but it required more skill than dollars to create.

I still insist that Smith came on leaps and bounds in style with 'Jersey Girl' but people shit on that movie too much too notice.

I'm not saying there's anything there to suggest he's got the chops to make a horror classic but I think he's moved on more as a director than apparantly he's willing to admit.

Credit Jersey Girl's "visual style" to Vilmos Zsigmond, who is incapable of making a shitty-looking movie. When Smith went back to his old DP for Clerks II, he instantly reverted to the same static shots and sitcom framing. Which kind of blows the whole "he's evolving as a visual storyteller" argument straight out of the water.

Which Smith does regularly, whenever anyone compliments him on the visual style for JG, he always quickly points to Zsigmond.
I'm not sure how good of a move this is for Smith, anyone who is a fanboy of his films (myself guilty) generally appreciates the dialogue more than anything. I wonder if a dialogue driven horror film (rather than visual) could be effective.
Let me put it this way, are there any examples of horror movies out there now that people could compare to what a Smith horror flick would resemble?

I would say the Scream movies... lots of referential dialogue there... However, Smith's got nothing on Craven so far in the pacing or visual departments.

I'm still not quite sure what you meant by your original comment, and I have to agree with Dan here. The opening sequence in Halloween shows more visual flair than any Smith flick, but I see that you agree with your TCM example (by the way, of all the states to abbreviate TX has to be one of the laziest - no offense).

The only way I can interpret your "uncomplicated" comment is to assume you mean that perhaps there won't be nearly as much pressure involved. And in this case, I am doubly confused; Smith NEEDS to commit to something that will allow him to break out of his little New Jersey world, and as you said, the economical use of the frame is one of the traits most of the horror classics share. I see Kevin Smith tackling a horror film as a tremendous challenge, and, assuming he's good and god-damn serious, I hope he succeeds.

I was mostly thinking along the lines of genre expectations. Green Lantern, as an big budget, action-oriented superhero film, would have demanded a higher degree of cinematic verve than Smith was comfortable handling. By taking on horror, Smith can step out of his genre comfort zone while still applying the aesthetics of indie filmmaking.

Not to mention that horror films can still be made on the relatively cheap, reducing the pressure of being held accountable to the Weinsteins for a financial flop.

Gotcha. That I can definitely get behind (particularly the idea of Smith's "comfort zone").

Thanks for elaborating.

Or storytelling and atmosphere departments.

Here's to hoping he can come up with a Jersey version of The Burning.

Exactly. He'll probably remake the Weinsteins' The Burning.

If you're looking for cheap-horror parallels to what Smith did with his first film, you'd probably have to go to some seriously bottom feeder shit, like 2,000 Maniacs or The Wizard of Gore, where the sum total dedication to the look of the film was to turn the camera on.

I think it could have the potential to be. (I always thought the most important aspect of horror was audio rather than visual anyway)
Whether Smith could pull it off? Unsure. His films have always been more of a guilty pleasure for me than anything else, and seeing him actually talk himself has convinced me that his real gifts probably lie in stand-up.

I think you could argue that "Night of the Living Dead" is an excellent dialogue driven horror film. In fact, I always thought a great stage play could be made of it. This isn't to discount the visual merits of the film in any way. The raw black and white style and the more documentary-like camerawork combine to give the film an increible intesity and clostrophobic atmosphere.

My main beef with Smith is that I honestly don't think he has ever done anything with either such dramtically charged dialogue(tension) or an inspired visual approach. (Night, of course, having both)

There is always room for improvement and I like that he is willing to finally try something not comedy, so i'll check it out.

I'd have considered Rosemary's Baby to be a much better candidate myself.
NotLD relies to at least some extent on horrifying imagery (that little girl, for instance, has tended to stay with me). Rosemary's Baby is all about the dialogue and acting.

Another good example. Rosemary's Baby also has a very careful visual contruction and atmosphere too. The last scene (especially the use of POV, pacing and cutting) comes to mind. The acting in it is also wonderful. Anything that Cassavetes acts in I love. The actors I think brought a very twisted comedic element to the movie.

I think of directors like Cronenberg, Romero and now that you mentioned it, Polanski, as having great strength as far as working with actors and characterization, within the genre. It wil be fun to compare Smith's stuff to them, hahahaha.

well in Dogma he did have this ghoul that was a Shit Monster or something like that. OH maybe he will have "Attack of the Shit monsters?" or something to do with a shit creature made out of radioactive poop? i hope not

From what I've seen of Smith, personally, he seems like a decent enough guy. That being said, no amount of good will can redeem the majority of his movies. I despised everything he's done except for the two Clerks films.

I just caught wind of the plot for his movie. It goes a little bit like this:

Jay and Silent Bob decide to go to college. Then the ghoulies show up just in time for the annual prank week. Suddenly, wierd horrific things begin to happen. Who broke the stereo? Who emptied the fridge? Who destroyed the teacher's desk? The Ghoulies, that's who! And only Jay and Silent Bob can't stop them.

He said elsewhere his flick was "sort of like Race With the Devil" (which, by the way, is fucking awesome for the very 70s 'holy shit' factor of the car chases, let alone the presence of Peter Fonda and Warren Oates), but on the other hand, McWeeny just wrote a script for an actual remake of Race With the Devil, so...