My turn to say: damn you blip!
Blip could eat my ass!
I'll be damned.
Dammit! Now I wanna see 'Casablanca' remade shot-for-shot with Pauly Shore!
Hey Brad, Do you have any plans to upload all the Midnight Screenings videos on your YouTube Channel?
Yes, I know League of Super Critics is the official YouTube distributor for the Cinema Snob. But no offense, I'm not a fan of the Cinema Snob. Can you try to do something similar to the Channel Awesome YouTube Channel?
"hey Brad, after I insult you, will you do a favor for me!"
Nathan. This dude wasn't insulting Brad Jones..He was being nice I'm also not a fan of the Cinema Snob. But I love Brad's movies and the Midnight Screenings videos. Not everyone will love the same thing. There's no reason for you being a jerk.
@Steven You and "OFF TOPIC" are the same person. Don't be that guy.
yeah, but i'll second asking him to put his stufff somewhere that isn't blip. a week after would be fine as long as it gets there, because i am fed up with blip's bullshit. Mostly i'm sick of not being able to go back even one goddamn second without it jumping all the way to the beginning and then not even letting me go forward again(seriously; what the fuck is up with that? you'd think they could at least get something as basic as the frikkin' loadbar -or whatever it's called- to work correctly), i'm sick of geting the same ad over and over and over again. And is anyone else getting a massive fucking pause before and after the ads lately? i'd swear it takes about 90 seconds to get through two 25-second ads. it's bad enough that it's almost always the same one, but having to sit there and wait for it is just insufferable. Heck, it would e better if it was just one big two-minute chunk right in the middle, just so it would be done with.
Sometimes I feel you and Dave don't know the first thing about post-Lang 16mm tungstarian b&w filmization mood lenses.
lol ok. I'll follow you.
Hey, gotta agree with Dave, a hole is a hole.
Oh, interesting, Leon Thomas did a video on Psycho over on TGWTG today, too.
Man, they're re-releasing this one too? They are already re-releasing 'Saw' this weekend. I have a feeling you guys are reviewing 'Nightcrawler', 'Before I Go to Sleep', and 'St. Vincent' this week.
I first mistook Dave for Brad's Mum. Is that normal?
That's what I said.
Well Brad or anyone else. With this video's talk about the Psycho remake which redid the original shot for shot. If someone is making a remake (or reboot), do you think that's a bad idea for someone to attempt? I mean, in principle someone can do plays with different casts that are the same words/sets/songs/choreography. I think it's an interesting idea for someone to do the same material with film being interpreted by different people held up for direct comparison rather than a lot of "remakes" being directors feeling "The source material is so great I wanna put it on screen but I'm gonna put my spin, my touch on it so now it rains on Dune, Robocop will keep his memory & the Ghostbusters will be all female - it'll be sensational!"
There's several reasons for live performances to replace people, but movies? If it's the exact same thing, why bother?
(And don't say: because the special effects look dated.)
Very true, why bother. Like The Critic's essay on English for Cabdrivers. "If it's a remake of a classic - watch the classic!" However, in a remake the words for one example may be the same but the actors could add their own inflection with potentially new subtext to the story. There's still room for variance within the remakes. And besides, we know the real reason remakes get green-lit is because the Hollywood machine wants to keep all its parts employed rather that regularly releasing those remakes outside of one night select screen affairs such as those they here attend. The ego's of the director/writer/producer wanting to put their own stamp on it is only secondary to brand recognition.
I get all that - I'm just a humourless grump who prefers remakes that go for changes beyond "same shit, just dumbed down". Like Scarface or The Thing - for all purposes, they're not remakes. The filmmakes took the core idea and did their own thing with it.
Well, first off, plays and films are two completely different animals entirely. A film is it's own single entity, while a play is by and large not the only time you are going to see that material produced or performed, regardless of cast and crew.
A good remake typically has its own spin on the material or its own voice or ambition. When a remake constantly reminds you of the much better movie that you should be watching instead, that's a bad thing. In the case of Gus Van Sant's Psycho you're constantly reminded of better performances, better moods and better atmosphere. And the stuff they did add (the masturbation scene, the weird cuts to animals etc when Bates killed people) were just unnecessary and weird.
Psycho is a movie that has 3 sequels, an 80s TV pilot, and a modern day TV series. It is a franchise, so it's possible that a remake to it could have been fine. It's even possible that a near scene for scene remake could be ok, depending on the performances, but it would still be pointless. Van Sant's version was definitely a misstep. It's a weird experiment, but it's also an experiment where it's not that hard to figure out what the answer is going to be.
Gus Van Sant's remake failed because they decided to replicate black-and-white cinematography with color. So scenes that were scary or effective then look laughable and cheesy in color.
Furthermore, the idea of a shot-for-shot remake is just lazy. In a play, of course you're going to use the same script and songs. You might use the same sets, and possibly the same choreography or blocking. But things are still going to be different. And a play is mostly reliant on performances, as opposed to films, which also rely on editing, cinematography, score, etc., etc.
A "Psycho" remake could be done very well, but the director SHOULD put their own spin on it. That's the only way a remake of a film should be done, because otherwise you're going to be watching a copy of something that was probably done better.
Films are not just stories or scripts, They are complete works of art, More like novels or records than theater productions . So when you cover them too closely they become a bit pointless.
You watch Hitchcock's Psycho because it's Hitchcock's Psycho, In the same way read s book for the author or listen to a record for the performance. It's the singer not the song. Plays are the song not the singer.
In the case of Psycho it was a template or if you prefer standard that had already been used multiple times. Don't Go Into the House is basically Psycho. TCM takes the same real life inspiration and does something very different. The Robert Bloch book Psycho is based on is actually is also very different to the film. In the novel Norman Bates is more like Joe Spinelli in Maniac than Anthony Perkins.
It took me a long time after watching Psycho to muster the courage to watch Psycho II, believing that there was no way in hell it could be as entertaining--or good--as the first one. I was wrong--partially.
I think it's a worthy sequel, that is, up to the last few minutes of the film: the big reveal of Mrs. Bates being Norman's aunt pissed me off to no end. It totally goes against what the first film had established, and felt cheap; like the filmmakers were trying to one-up the last twist.
I watched Psycho in the theater earlier this year (they've been doing a Hitchcock retrospective at all these arthouse theaters in Holland for the past few months) and many people were laughing at the movie because by today's standards it's kinda tame and cheesy.
It was really annoying.
Ug, please don't say arthouse, it offends me.
Hell yeah Demonic Toys holds up! When you have the fine writing of David Goyer, how can you go wrong? Wait....,
Dave hates Casablanca?
I must question his taste in movies now.
Dave, you hate "Casablanca"?
How dare you have an opinion that differs from the rest of us homo sapiens, you insensitive ape!
Yes, you get what I'm saying.
Maybe Man of Steel is actually good, since he hates it?
Mmmmmm I don't know, he's not fond of "Pet Semetary" but I love it. Not scary (not much is) but creepy & sad, being an animal lover. So yeah, I'm conflicted. . . . . . .eh, different soaks :)
dammit i want a mcrib too. it fucking sucks living in europe
At least we still have Cherry Coke and Pepsi Twist unlike Americans.
I showed my dad Halloween III last night.
As for this movie, I saw it on a big screen as part of a Halloween marathon last year.
Oh cool, a mention of Killing Zoe. That's an interesting movie that no one ever talks about
I just got back from seeing Halloween 3 at the Alamo in Northern VA. Good times.
I'm with you on a Blow Out/Blow Up double feature.
And Halloween III. That film almost defines being a kid and late night TV in the late 80s early 90s.
But if there is one film I'd love to see, on a huge screen with really amped up sound, it's Suspiria.
When it comes to "Scream" I thought it was very uncool for Mr. Craven to have the killers be horror movie fans that take it too far, makes the rest of look bad, not mention giving some validity to all those critics who use these films to say violence in movies transcends into real life. Thanks Wes!
Apparently, Anthony Perkins was a pop singer, singing some harmless little ditties that most definitely did not rock. His previous ten or eleven movie roles seemed to have been relatively good characters for the most part from what I can tell. In any case, his playing against type must have been a shock to the original audiences.
I saw the original Psycho at an Atlanta indie theater a few years ago in a really good-looking 35mm print. It was like I was watching it for the first time, despite the fact I'd seen it a bunch of times on television. Like Dave was talkiing about, there are so many little details you notice when you watch a film on the big screen in the theater. Anthony Perkins's performance wowed me in a completely new way when watching his nervous ticks and little things I never noticed on television. Great video, guys!
We don't have AMC up here in Canada but cineplex does this kind of stuff every now and then but it's never super classics it's usually 80's movies. The last one I can remember was Predator lol I went because I love that movie and it was awesome. I think they did Alien once. I wish they did this more often.
I saw Psycho my senior year of high school at a screening with a live orchestra. It's the reason I'm studying film in college.
"Man of Steel" was awesome.
Come at me bitches!
You may think so. I do not. Have a nice day and be safe.
Come on! We're supposed to fight. It's required.
Would it help if I said "Prometheus" sucked?
U guys seriously need to check out Nightcrawler, it's what happens when a psycho who is equal parts Patrick Bateman and Ryan Gosling's The Driver(no kidding) decide to pick up a camcorder and become a journalist.
This is going to be a very weird sounding comment but....
Man I wish Brad's mom was here, but Dave is not a bad replacement.
Other than that I really appreciated the ending wandering this time cause yeah other than the end of year lists we tend to get very visceral reactions (Angry Jake being the most obvious benefit of such) to these movies. Then again you and the others rarely seem to 180 so much as say well it wasn't THAT bad.
Ah, love Psycho. It's my second favorite Hitchcock movie, after "Rear Window". But, that's because I've only seen 2 Hitchcock movies.
As for the remake, I hate Vince Vaughn as a screen presence. So I'll probably hate this movie, too. Anthony Perkins is too great an actor.
I got to see Psycho for the first time in a theatre a couple of weeks ago. I'm really thankful the school I'm at shows these old movies so I can get this experience. It also helped that it was a double feature with Evil Dead II.
You know, I'd like to see you guys go to a re-release of a movie you hate.
My ideal cinema re-release? Once Upon A Time In The West or The Good, The Bad and The Ugly. Even watching them at home on the small thing, the size of those movies is something to behold. Such scale. Hopefully, I'll get my wish one of these days.
That should read "on the small screen".
The small thing is safely tucked away in my pants.
I knew you were going to say Doom Generation!
Brad, why do you hate that movie so much? When will you do a snob episode on it? :D
The Doom Generation is like the "Spring Breakers" of 1995. Except while Spring Breakers has a sizable fanbase and some good merits, most people hate the Doo-Doo Generation. Check out Ralph Oancitizen's review of it.
Or check out a video review from someone who isn't a piece of shit.
I wonder how much better the Transformers movies would have been if they had killed of Shia leBoeuf's character 40 minutes into the first movie.
Yeah, cause he's the only reason those movies sucked.
You're not allowed to talk anymore!
Did you just get the McRib? It's been out in Western Illinois/Eastern Iowa for like a month.
I agree, Pumpkinhead totally holds up. And you know what else holds up?? Pumpkinhead II the FMV game :DD