Archive for the Friday Night Knife Fights Category

« Older Entries

Friday Night Knife Fights: AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON VS. THE HOWLING (Conclusion)

Posted in 1980s Horror, 2012, Classic Films, Friday Night Knife Fights, Werewolf Movies, Werewolves with tags , , , , , on January 27, 2012 by knifefighter

FRIDAY NIGHT KNIFE FIGHTS:  THE HOWLING (1981) vs. AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON (1981)
PART 3 (Conclusion)
With Michael Arruda, L.L. Soares, Mark Onspaugh and Nick Cato

MICHAEL ARRUDA:  Welcome back everyone to the third and final installment of our HOWLING vs. AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON debate.  For the past two Fridays, our panel of Cinema Knife Fighters has been trying to determine which one of these werewolf classics is the better movie.  I’m joined, as always, by L.L. Soares; and L.L., our bout between these two films has become somewhat lopsided, as AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF won the past couple of rounds and now leads THE HOWLING by a score of four rounds to one.

L.L. SOARES:  I’m not surprised.  While I like both movies a lot, I think we’re going to find that AMERICAN WEREWOLF is the better movie of the two.

MARK ONSPAUGH:  Don’t count your werewolves before they transform!  THE HOWLING is every bit as good as AMERICAN WEREWOLF and then some, and if you guys would listen to me, you’d understand why.

LS:  Be quiet, you!  We haven’t even introduced you yet!

MA:  That’s right.  L.L. and I are joined once again by Mark Onspaugh and Nick Cato.  Thanks, guys, for being here on three successive Fridays.  Having fun?

MO:  Definitely.

NICK CATO:  Always a pleasure to talk about these movies.  And it’s a cheap date.

LS:  What?  No flowers?  No beer?

MO:  It’s been awesome, except my movie THE HOWLING hasn’t been doing that well in our debate.

MA:  That’s okay.  There’s still plenty of time left.  On that note, let’s get back to the business at hand.  It’s our final segment tonight, so before we go home this evening, one of these two movies will emerge as the winner.

On to Round 6.

The question is:  Which film is scarier?  Nick, let’s start off with you.

NC:  I found THE HOWLING much scarier than AMERICAN WEREWOLF.

MO:  Way to go, Nick!

NC:  But then again AMERICAN WEREWOLF was a dark comedy of sorts, so I’m not sure how scary it was trying to be.  But THE HOWLING is scarier.

LS:  I didn’t really find either movie all that scary, but I guess THE HOWLING is the more visceral story. There’s a clear-cut representation of good and evil. In AMERICAN WEREWOLF, that line is more blurred, and the movie also balances out horror and humor extremely well.

I think THE HOWLING is more scary in a “meat and potatoes” way. AMERICAN WEREWOLF, however, is more satisfying over all, in my opinion. But I give this one to THE HOWLING.

MA: I’m with you in that I honestly don’t find either film all that scary, and to me, that’s a weakness of both movies. I’d call it a draw, here.

MO:  THE HOWLING is definitely scarier.  Even if some of the characters weren’t werewolves, they’re not people you’d want to be stranded in the woods with.

MA:  That’s true.

Well, believe it or not, THE HOWLING won this Round as all three of you cited it as being the scarier film, and I called it a draw.  Round 6 goes to THE HOWLING.

MO:  Aaaawwwoooo!!!  THE HOWLING is coming back!

MA: Yep, it has closed the gap somewhat, but AMERICAN WEREWOLF still leads 4-2.

On to Round 7.

Which film, if any, belongs in the same conversation as older classics like THE WOLF MAN (1941) and Hammer’s THE CURSE OF THE WEREWOLF (1961)?

LS:  Well, I think AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON definitely belongs in the same class as the older classics. It’s one of the best werewolf movies ever made. Even superior to something like CURSE OF THE WEREWOLF (1962).

MA:  Whoa! Hold onto your wolfsbane!

Better than CURSE OF THE WEREWOLF?  I don’t think so.

Oliver Reed in CURSE OF THE WEREWOLF (1961), a great werewolf movie, but it really has nothing to do with this debate.

LS:  Who asked you? And since when is CURSE OF THE WEREWOLF such a cinematic titan?

MA:  Well, when ranking werewolf movies, I think it’s topped only by THE WOLF MAN.

LS:  That’s the problem  – you’re thinking again. As usual, you’re wrong.  I like CURSE OF THE WEREWOLF, but both of the movies we’re discussing tonight are just as good, if not better.

MA:  I disagree, but that being said, since AMERICAN WEREWOLF is a contemporary, updated tale with a devilish sense of humor, it is the more entertaining movie of the two, but I like the werewolf make-up on Oliver Reed so much more than the werewolf in AMERICAN WEREWOLF.  It’s just the better werewolf movie.

LS:  AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON blows CURSE OF THE WEREWOLF out of the water.  Besides, what do you know?  Has HAMMER FILMS ever made anything you didn’t like?

MA:  I’m sure I could come up with one if I thought about it long enough.

MO: Hey guys, isn’t this a battle between AMERICAN WEREWOLF and THE HOWLING? 

LS: Yeah, since when did this turn into a debate about CURSE OF THE WEREWOLF?? If you want me to tear apart what’s wrong with CURSE, just say the word, because it’s far from a perfect movie.

MA: That’ll be a debate for another night.  Okay, let’s get back on topic.

LS (to MO):  You really like THE HOWLING, don’t you?

MO: Yes!

LS: And I have to say, I don’t want to completely bash THE HOWLING. The truth is, I like it a lot, too. While I think AMERICAN WEREWOLF is better, I think THE HOWLING is still a classic of the werewolf genre and belongs in the same group with THE WOLF MAN, too, especially if Arruda is including CURSE OF THE WEREWOLF in that group. So I would say that both THE HOWLING and AMERICAN WEREWOLF fit the bill as genre classics.

YAAARGH!


MA:  Well, regarding the two movies we’re discussing today, I strongly prefer AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF.   However, I’m not sure I’d include it in the same conversation with THE WOLF MAN or CURSE OF THE WEREWOLF, which are my two favorite werewolf movies.

And I feel the same way about THE HOWLING.

The main reason?  The weakest links of both these movies are the werewolves in them.  Without decent werewolves in either movie, I can’t consider either one as a classic werewolf movie.  I think AMERICAN WEREWOLF is a notch below THE WOLF MAN and THE CURSE OF THE WEREWOLF, and THE HOWLING is several notches below.

So, my answer is neither.

MO:  I completely disagree with you.

Both films pioneered makeup effects, and both have a tragic protagonist.  If you are having a conversation about important werewolf movies (as opposed to the dozens – it seems – HOWLING sequels or VAN HELSING) then you need to include both of these.

MA:  I think our answers just cancelled each other out.

MO: You’re killing me, man!

NC:  I’d include both, too.

MA:  Well, I say neither, and the three of you say both. So Round 7 goes to both movies.

LS: Give them each a point!

MA: Okay, so now AMERICAN WEREWOLF leads THE HOWLING 5 to 3.

It’s time for the Final Round, when we ask: All things considered, which one is the better movie?

Now, remember, just like in real boxing, even though one fighter may be ahead on points, he can still be knocked out in the final round.  So, there’s still hope for THE HOWLING.

MO: And how would that work exactly?

MA:  In this round, we’re picking which one is the better movie, and so if we all picked THE HOWLING, that would be considered a knock-out.  Mark, why don’t you get this final round started?

MO:  Except for Baker’s awesome transformation, the make-up on the victims (including a terrific decapitation) and Griffin Dunne’s hilarious portrayal of undead best friend Jack, I have to give it to THE HOWLING.  If the final werewolf in AMERICAN WEREWOLF had been better with more screen time—.  Naw, I’m still going with THE HOWLING.

NC:  Despite being a fan of horror comedies, I think THE HOWLING is the better werewolf film, as AMERICAN WEREWOLF is slowed down by a couple of non-wolf side-plots. So, like Mark here, I’m also picking THE HOWLING.

LS:  I think AMERICAN WEREWOLF is the better movie, hands down. But THE HOWLING has a lot going for it, too. I think the two films make a great double-feature.

MA:  No surprise here, I’m going with AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON.  It has the better script, the more memorable characters, and I like its story much better than the one told in THE HOWLING.  Both movies attempt to update the werewolf story to modern times, and both succeed, although AMERICAN WEREWOLF succeeds more.
Had AMERICAN WEREWOLF been able to include a scary, ferocious, and realistic looking werewolf in its movie, it would be one of my all-time favorite werewolf films.  I love everything about it except for the actual werewolf.

LS: Yeah, I gotta agree that the final werewolf is a letdown.

MA: So, our Final Round is a draw, as Mark and Nick chose THE HOWLING, while L.L. and I chose AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON. So each one gets another point.

That means that our final tally is AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON -  6  and THE HOWLING – 4.

Which means the winner of tonight’s FRIDAY NIGHT KNIFE FIGHT is AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON.

AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON wins! Hurray!

LS:  As it should be.  It’s the better movie.

MO:  Nope.  It’s THE HOWLING, but I’ll concede that AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF OF LONDON is very good, and I can see why you guys chose it.  You’re just wrong.  (laughs).

MA:  Well, before we come to blows here, it’s time to say so long, because we’re out of time.  So for the final time tonight, thanks guys!

NC:  You’re welcome.

MO:  Any time.

LS:  Any place!  Especially if it has a bar!

MA:  I’m Michael Arruda, and on behalf of L.L. Soares, Mark Onspaugh, Nick Cato and myself, thank you all for joining us, and we look forward to seeing you next time on FRIDAY NIGHT KNIFE FIGHTS!

Good night everybody!

—END—

© Copyright 2012 by Michael Arruda, L.L. Soares, Mark Onspaugh and Nick Cato

Leave A Comment »

Friday Night Knife Fights – THE HOWLING VS. AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON – Part 2

Posted in 1980s Horror, 2012, Animals Attack, Classic Films, Friday Night Knife Fights, Horror, Werewolves with tags , , , , , on January 20, 2012 by knifefighter

FRIDAY NIGHT KNIFE FIGHTS:  THE HOWLING (1981) vs. AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON (1981)
PART 2 (of 3)
With Michael Arruda, L.L. Soares, Mark Onspaugh, and Nick Cato

From THE HOWLING

MICHAEL ARRUDA:  Welcome back, everyone.

Tonight it’s PART 2 of FRIDAY NIGHT KNIFE FIGHTS:  THE HOWLING (1981) vs. AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON (1981), where our panel of CINEMA KNIFE FIGHTERS attempt to decide which of these two werewolf classics is the better movie.

Once again, L.L. Soares and I are joined by Nick Cato and Mark Onspaugh. Thanks again, guys, for being here.

MARK ONSPAUGH:  No problem.

NICK CATO:  As long as I don’t have to howl at the moon anymore.

MO:  Not into howling at the moon?

NC:  No.

L.L. SOARES:  What’s the matter with you, Nick?  Not into howling at the moon?  What kind of a werewolf fan are you?

NC:  Sane.

MA: Okay, after two rounds in PART 1, both these films were tied one round apiece. Ready, guys?  It’s time for Round 3.

Which film has the better cast of characters?

LS:  I think Dee Wallace is pretty good in THE HOWLING, and she has some interesting supporting actors like Patrick Macnee (Steed from the classic AVENGERS TV show from 1961 – 1969), character actor Slim Pickens as the sheriff, and even old-time horror icon John Carradine as a strange old man. The rest of the supporting cast is pretty good, too.

I also like that there are a lot of fun cameos in the film, including director Roger Corman as a man waiting to use a telephone booth, Corman regular Dick Miller as a bookstore owner, Forrest J. Ackerman as a bookstore customer, and even screenwriter John Sayles as a coroner.

But there are some weaker characters, too. Don McLeod as T.C. is just such a stereotypical creepy character that he doesn’t seem believable at all. And Elizabeth Brooks, as the seductive Marsha Quist, certainly looks the part, but isn’t a very good actress in this movie (it is her film debut, however, to be fair).

Don McLeod as T.C. Quisp in THE HOWLING.

That said, the acting in AMERICAN WEREWOLF is just that much better. David Naughton is terrific as the lead, David Kessler. Griffin Dunne steals every scene he’s in as David’s buddy Jack Goodman (even after he’s dead) and provides a lot of humor in the story, and I have to admit to having a crush on Jenny Agutter as Nurse Alex Price back when I saw this in the movie theater as a kid.

MA:  Me, too. And I relived that crush all over again when I rewatched this one.

MO (howls):  Aaaawwoooo!!!

LS:  The acting chops are just a different level in this movie, while THE HOWLING seems more like a B-movie you’d see at the drive-in (although better than average for those kinds of flicks).

It’s also funny to note that there’s a scene in THE HOWLING where Dee Wallace’s character is trapped in a car while werewolves slam into the doors and try to get in. This mirrors another movie she would star in two years later, CUJO (1983), where her character was in much the same situation.

MA:  So, are you saying that you like the cast in THE HOWLING better, but you prefer the acting in AMERICAN WEREWOLF?

LS:  Actually, no. I like the cast of THE HOWLING, but the cast of AMERICAN WEREWOLF is superior in just about every way.

MA:  Nick, how about you?  What do you think of the casts?

NC:  I’m with L.L. on this one. AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON has the more interesting cast, especially the dead friend, Jack.

MO:  You guys are both wrong.

While I think David Naughton, Griffin Dunne and Jenny Agutter were all good in AMERICAN WEREWOLF, how can you compare them to a movie with Patrick MacNee, Slim Pickens and John Carradine? And Bob Picardo is amazing as “Happy Face” serial killer Eddie; as are awesome “bad girl” Elisabeth Brooks as Marsha and Don McLeod as redneck psycho T.C.

I love the whole dynamic of werewolves who are joyously evil vs. scared victims, some of whom come to embrace their bestial nature, and the pompous psychotherapist (MacNee) who recommends the worst course of therapy imaginable…  I go with THE HOWLING.

MA:  I dunno, Mark. I think I’m siding with L.L. and Nick.

MO:  The horror of it all!

LS:  When you’re right, you’re right!

MA:  I’ve always liked the characters in AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF better. David Naughton is OK as David Kessler, the werewolf.

L.L, you said you thought Naughton was excellent as David, but I’ve always found him running hot and cold in this movie.

LS:  What do you know!

MA:  I like it when he’s being goofy, but other than the transformation scene, he doesn’t have the angst and pain of a guy who’s now a murderous beast.

But I agree with you that Griffin Dunne steals the show as David’s undead friend Jack. And I also really like Jenny Agutter as David’s love interest, Nurse Alex Price, and John Woodvine is also memorable as Dr. Hirsch. They all deliver solid performances.

Griffin Dunne as Jack Goodman in AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON provides comic relief, even after he's dead.

Interestingly, David Schofield, who plays a dart player in a key scene in the movie, was also in the recent remake of THE WOLFMAN (2010) as a police constable.

I agree that THE HOWLING has a more impressive cast, with Patrick Macnee, Kevin McCarthy, John Carradine, and Dee Wallace in the starring role, but I’ve never warmed up to the characters. As such, I prefer the cast in AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF OF LONDON.

Since L.L., Nick, and myself all chose the cast of AMERICAN WEREWOLF, Round 3 goes to AMERICAN WEREWOLF, giving it a 2-1 edge over THE HOWLING.

Next up, it’s Round 4, and the question is, which film’s director does a better job, Joe Dante on THE HOWLING, or John Landis on AMERICAN WERWOLF?

MO:  It’s interesting, both directors are known for their senses of humor – and Dante peppers his film with werewolf references and even a cartoon Big Bad Wolf.

MA:  You’re right, but I think the humor works better in AMERICAN WEREWOLF than it does in THE HOWLING.

MO: Funny you should say that because I actually see AMERICAN WEREWOLF as a tragedy.

MA: It is a tragedy. It just has a lot of funny parts in it.

MO:  And I see THE HOWLING more as a “monster picture.”

Both are entertaining, but I find THE HOWLING darker and scarier – and that’s often what I look for. So, I go with Dante and THE HOWLING.

LS:  Like I said before, Dante gives us an above average drive-in movie. But John Landis gives us something more, with more believable characters and just a higher standard of writing and directing. While I like what Dante did on THE HOWLING, I don’t think you can compare it to AMERICAN WEREWOLF in the directing category. Landis was at the top of his game.

David Naughton in a dream sequence from AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON.

MA:  I agree.

MO:  What am I going to do with you two guys?

MA:  I definitely prefer Landis’s work on AMERICAN WEREWOLF. He created the more memorable transformation scene, and the opening bit when David and Jack are attacked on the moors is probably the most suspenseful scene in the movie, and far more suspenseful than anything in THE HOWLING.

I also thought Landis was far more successful pulling off the comic relief, as there are many humorous moments in AMERICAN WEREWOLF.

All in all, I’m going with Landis.

MO:  Nick, help me out here, dude.

NC:  I wish I could, but when it comes to these two directors and their work on these two movies, I don’t have a clear preference. I’m calling it a draw.

MA:  All right, Round 4 goes to AMERICAN WEREWOLF, giving it a 3-1 lead over THE HOWLING. It’s starting to pull away.

Round 5. Which movie has the better screenplay?

I’ll go first.

Hands down, AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF. No contest. It’s a very creative screenplay, and includes off-the-wall humor and some memorable scenes with Griffin Dunne as a walking dead man.

I did like how THE HOWLING included in-joke character names, like Dr. George Waggner (the name of the man who directed THE WOLF MAN (1941), Terry Fisher and Fred Francis [two of Hammer Film’s more famous directors. Fisher directed Hammer’s THE CURSE OF THE WEREWOLF (1962)], and Erle Kenton (who directed HOUSE OF FRANKENSTEIN (1944) and HOUSE OF DRACULA (1945).

In terms of story and characters, though, I prefer AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF to THE HOWLING.

LS:  Funny enough, I just read the original novel of THE HOWLING before watching the movie again recently – it’s by Gary Brandner – and I was surprised how much the movie changed the story. Not all of the changes make sense – since there are very strong motivations in the novel that are not as clear-cut in the film. I’m surprised by this, because the script was written by John Sayles (along with Terence H. Winkless), and Sayles has a reputation for being an above-average screenwriter—and has had an accomplished career since as a director—even for a movie like this. I actually wish it had stuck more to the original story.

The main changes are the fact that Karen White is a news anchor and a local celebrity (in the book, she was just an average woman), and that the “retreat” she goes to after an attempted rape is some kind of group therapy getaway (in the book, it was a small town that the Whites go to recover from Karen’s actual rape – no attempted in the book). It just seemed that the characters were stronger in the novel. While I don’t hate all the changes the movie made, I just think it’s a so-so script, when it could have been a really good one.

In comparison, John Landis’s script for AMERICAN WEREWOLF is smarter, his characters are more fleshed out, and the motivations are more believable. So AMERICAN WEREWOLF wins the screenplay competition hands down.

MA:  Well, Mark, here we go again. Are you going to side with THE HOWLING on this one?

MO:  Actually, I have to admit the writing is a bit better on AMERICAN WEREWOLF.

NC:  Yes, AMERICAN WEREWOLF has an excellent screenplay.

MA:  Round 5:  AMERICAN WEREWOLF. It’s now up 4-1 over THE HOWLING.

And believe it or not, that’s all the time we have here tonight.

MO:  Already?  Man, that went by fast.

LS:  And see, Nick, you didn’t even have to howl!

NC:  I’ll let you guys do the howling.

MA:  Join us again next Friday night for the third and final installment of our HOWLING vs. AMERICAN WEREWOLF bout. Will AMERICAN WEREWOLF continue to beat up on THE HOWLING?  Or will THE HOWLING come from behind and win with a knock-out?

Tune in next Friday night to find out.

Good night everybody!

—END Part 2—

© Copyright 2011 by Michael Arruda, L.L. Soares, Mark Onspaugh and Nick Cato

1 Comment »

Friday Night Knife Fights: THE HOWLING VS. AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON – PART 1

Posted in 1980s Horror, 2012, Cult Movies, Friday Night Knife Fights, Special Effects, Werewolf Movies with tags , , , , , , , on January 13, 2012 by knifefighter

FRIDAY NIGHT KNIFE FIGHTS: THE HOWLING (1981) vs. AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON (1981)
PART 1 (of 3)
With Michael Arruda, L.L. Soares, Mark Onspaugh and Nick Cato

MICHAEL ARRUDA: Welcome everybody to another edition of FRIDAY NIGHT KNIFE FIGHTS, that column where we pit two titans of terror against each other, whether it be movies or directors or whichever, and we see which one comes out the victor.

L.L. SOARES: Or in layman’s terms, we let them kick the crap out of each other and see which one wins!

MA: Something like that. Anyway, tonight L.L. and I are joined by Nick Cato and Mark Onspaugh. Thanks, guys, for joining us.

NICK CATO: You’re welcome. I’m looking forward to this.

MARK ONSPAUGH: Likewise. I had so much fun the last time, I couldn’t wait for the next one.

LS (to Nick): It’s about time you showed up for one of these. What took you so long?

NC: What took me so long? I dunno. Maybe it had something to do with your welcoming personality.

MA: Tonight on FRIDAY NIGHT KNIFE FIGHTS we look at two werewolf classics from the 1980s, two movies that were released the same year in fact: THE HOWLING (1981) vs. AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON (1981).

Our panel of Cinema Knife Fighters will attempt through a series of questions to determine which one of these hirsute tails—er, tales—is the better film. We’ll be bringing you this debate in three installments, with tonight being PART 1, and PARTS 2 and 3 to follow on successive Friday nights.

Before we get to this evening’s questions, I just have to offer a disclaimer.

LS: What? That you have no taste and no idea what you’re talking about?

MA: No.

That I’ve always preferred AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON to THE HOWLING. I saw both these movies when they first came out in 1981. I loved AMERICAN WEREWOLF immediately, but I left THE HOWLING unimpressed.

In an attempt to avoid unfairly tilting our results in AMERICAN WEREWOLF’S favor, I re-watched both these movies recently, in the hope that I might gain a fresh perspective. As always, I’ve tried my best to keep an open mind.

LS: You have a mind?

MA: I have a mind to take that fire axe hanging on the wall backstage and plunge it into your head.

LS: How violent of you. How can you live with yourself?

MA: Easy. I work with you.

LS: By the way, that sure was some incredible disclaimer. I sure am glad you got that out of the way.

MA: Anyway, moving right along. Tonight we begin our bout with the question, which of these two movies has the better werewolf, or in THE HOWLING’s case, werewolves?

Mark, since this duel was actually your idea— and thank you once again for the suggestion— we’ll start with you.

MO: You’re welcome.

THE HOWLING, hands (paws?) down.

I really hated the final werewolf in AMERICAN WEREWOLF, especially since its form and coloration seemed to bear no relation to the brilliant transformation scene earlier. It also moved so poorly that I wasn’t able to suspend my disbelief. I found THE HOWLING werewolves to be effective and scary… except for the final transformation of Dee Wallace – ugh.

MA: You mean you didn’t like her cute little puppy dog nose?

MO: No!

MA: I’ve always thought she looked like a Muppet. You know, like Rowlf’s girlfriend.

LS: Who the hell is Rowlf?

But getting back to your question. While I think the transformation scene in AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON (1981) is superior, I wasn’t all that impressed with the end result. It looked like a big bear or something.

MA: Agreed.

LS: That was my one letdown with AMERICAN WEREWOLF.

The werewolves in THE HOWLING (also 1981) actually look cooler, because they’re more a cross between wolves and humans, but they’re iffy. Sometimes they look really cool, and other times they look fake as hell, depending on the shot. It’s inconsistent.

A cool-looking werewolf from THE HOWLING.

And I’m still not sure what I think of the big ears on the HOWLING werewolves. They add to their unique look, but they also look a little silly. But if I had to make a decision, I think the HOWLING werewolves look a little bit better.

NC: I would agree with you.

I’ve always thought the ‘wolves in THE HOWLING were scarier, especially in the sequence where the woman witnesses a transformation in that small room…the beast’s size shot from such a close range gave me the creeps.

MA: I definitely agree with you about that scene. That’s probably my favorite scene in the movie. It gives me the creeps, too.

But as far as choosing which one has the better werewolf, to be honest, I don’t like either werewolf.

To me, that’s always been the weakest part of AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON, a movie I like a lot, that its werewolf looks fake and unconvincing. The werewolves in THE HOWLING aren’t much better, but after seeing these two movies again back to back, I have to give the slightest of edges to THE HOWLING. They were slightly more menacing looking than the creature in AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF, who looks almost “cute.”

The "bear-like" werewolf from AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON.

Okay, so even though I didn’t like either werewolf all that much, the three of you went with the creatures in THE HOWLING, so Round 1 goes to THE HOWLING.

On to Round 2.

A staple of the werewolf movie is the transformation scene. Which of these two hirsute classics sports the better transformation scene?

I’ll go first this time around and answer my own question.

No contest here. The transformation scene in AMERICAN WEREWOLF is much better than anything seen in THE HOWLING. It’s become a classic of the genre, and there’s a reason why—no, not because Rick Baker/John Landis re-created nearly the exact same scene for Michael Jackson’s THRILLER music video—but because it’s a terrific sequence!

LS: You had to bring up THRILLER? Ugh.

MA: For its time, the special effects were better than anything I had ever seen. Make-up that actually moved, ears and snouts that grew, that was pretty amazing stuff! Plus, David Naughton looks like he’s experiencing the kind of pain you’d expect if your body was contorting into the shape and appearance of a werewolf; the kind of pain Lon Chaney Jr. only hinted at.

The transformations in THE HOWLING don’t come close to what we see in this scene in AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF.

NC: Agreed.

AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON has the better—and all-time BEST—transformation scene, which of course won the first Oscar for horror film special effects.

MO: I don’t know. Both are amazing, and you have that martial arts trope of the student going against his old master.

MA: You mean Rob Bottin in THE HOWLING going up against Rick Baker in AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF?

MO: Yep. Bottin vs. Baker.

LS: Hey, there’s a future FRIDAY NIGHT KNIFE FIGHT!

MO: Yeah, that would be a good one.

And both scenes display practical effects, which (when done right) kick the ass of CGI. However, the style and intent of the scenes are so different.

Bottin had total control of the lighting of his scene, while Landis wanted Baker to do something in a high level of light. Bottin’s scene with Picardo is meant to be scary and evil, while Baker’s scene is largely a nightmare being endured (alone) by Naughton.

Landis forbade Baker from giving his protégé (Bottin) any advice, so Baker could only hint at how to solve certain problems. Bottin relies a lot on bladder effects, whereas Baker had pioneered “change-o heads”, where foam and latex forms of Naughton’s face could be mechanically altered (stretched) to produce actual real-time transformations. Unfortunately, the rhythm of Baker’s scene is off, because Landis insisted the head/face change last, in defiance of logic.

David Naughton's transformation begins in AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON.

As for my choice? I think the main transformation scene in THE HOWLING is scarier, but the scene in AMERICAN WEREWOLF made my jaw drop, awestruck. Even when I knew how it was done (I saw Baker demonstrate the heads to an EFX makeup class), it didn’t lose any power… Just a masterpiece. AMERICAN WEREWOLF wins it.

MA: So you saw Baker demonstrate the heads in an EFX make-up class? That must have been awesome!

MO: It was.

LS: I’m going to help AMERICAN WEREWOLF land another punch because I also think the transformation scene in AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON is pretty incredible. Rick Baker and his team give us perhaps the best transformation scene ever, from the sprouting of each hair, to the rising of the spine, to the telescoping of the snout.

The funny thing is, THE HOWLING is no slouch, either, and if THE HOWLING had been the only werewolf movie to come out 1981, it would have been hailed as an effects breakthrough. Unfortunately, AMERICAN WEREWOLF is just that much better, and overshadows it.

I also think there are a few shots in the transformation scene in THE HOWLING that look kinda goofy – like you can tell it’s a rubber mask – while the transformation scene in AMERICAN WEREWOLF is longer, more detailed, and more impressive. Also, THE HOWLING relies a bit too much on inflated condoms under the latex skin—the “bladder effects” Mark was talking about. It looks like everyone who becomes a werewolf has the mumps for a few minutes.

Eddie Quisp (Robert Picardo) begins his change in THE HOWLING.

MA: Inflated condoms? Maybe that’s why Dee Wallace looks so bright and happy in that final transformation scene!

LS: My last comparison is in the circumstances of the big transformation scenes. In AMERICAN WEREWOLF, David is alone in an apartment when it happens, and therefore there’s no one to interrupt or run away screaming. The scene can continue unhindered and give us a thing of beauty.

In THE HOWLING, the big transformation involves the psychopathic Eddie Quisp (Robert Picardo), and he stands there, going through this lengthy transformation as Dee Wallace cowers before him. She just stays there and waits for the entire metamorphosis to finish—instead of trying to run away while he’s occupied with his changes. I guess you could say she was frozen in fear, but it just seemed incredibly silly to me that she gives him time to undergo a complete change without trying to save herself.

NC: She was like the rest of the audience, too busy pissing her pants to move!

MA: We all picked AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON as having the best transformation scene, so Round 2 goes to AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF. After two rounds, we’re dead even, which is better of course than being even dead.

Believe it or not, that’s all the time we have for tonight. It looks like we’ve got a good one going here, folks, so join us next Friday night for PART 2 of FRIDAY NIGHT KNIFE FIGHTS: THE HOWLING (1981) vs. AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON (1981).

It’s sure to be a howl.

(Michael Arruda, Nick Cato, Mark Onspaugh, and L.L. Soares all howl at the stage lights.)

—END Part 1—

© Copyright 2011 by Michael Arruda, L.L. Soares, Mark Onspaugh and Nick Cato

2 Comments »

Friday Night Knife Fights: ALIEN (1979) vs. THE THING (1982) – PART 3

Posted in 2011, 80s Horror, Aliens, Classic Films, Friday Night Knife Fights, LL Soares Reviews, Mark Onspaugh Columns, Michael Arruda Reviews with tags , , , , , , , on November 25, 2011 by knifefighter

FRIDAY NIGHT KNIFE FIGHTS: ALIEN VS. THE THING
PART 3
Featuring Michael Arruda, L.L. Soares and Mark Onspaugh

MICHAEL ARRUDA: Welcome back everyone to FRIDAY NIGHT KNIFE FIGHTS: ALIEN (1979) VS. THE THING (1982). Tonight’s the moment we’ve all been waiting for, the third and final installment of this epic bout, where our panel decides once and for all which one of these two horror/science fiction classics is the better movie.

L.L. is here, as is Mark Onspaugh. Okay, guys, let’s get to it. There’s been an interesting trend in Parts 1 and 2. Three of the first four rounds have gone to ALIEN, and I find this interesting because all three of us said at the outset that we loved both these films an awful lot and admitted that choosing one over the other would be incredibly difficult, but here we are with ALIEN leading THE THING three rounds to one. Maybe these films aren’t as close as we originally thought.

L.L. SOARES: It’s not over yet. Besides, regardless of what happens, it’s not going to change my opinion of these films. They both rock.

MARK ONSPAUGH: They’re two classics of the genre, and whichever one comes out on top is not going to diminish the status of the “loser.”

MA: Mark, I saw you busily scribbling notes before the cameras started to roll. You’re coming in ready to play hardball.

MO: Actually, I’ve been having so much fun that I decided to jot down some ideas for some future FRIDAY NIGHT KNIFE FIGHTS.

MA: Really? Like what?

MO: Well, how about AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON (1981) vs. THE HOWLING (1981)?

LS: Excellent.

MA: You heard it here first, folks, a preview for a future FRIDAY NIGHT KNIFE FIGHTS. We might just have to do that one next. However, we have to finish this one first, so here we go.

A "face hugger" from ALIEN

Which movie has the better screenplay, ALIEN or THE THING? Mark?

MO: I love both movies, and both are tight with satisfying endings…- THE THING is certainly like a wild ride and has more laughs, but ALIEN presented something really new and different – a creature that would be copied ad nauseum in bad “direct-to-video” creature features… So much is there, and yet not everything is revealed… I have to go with ALIEN.

MA: Another tough one. But I have to go with ALIEN too. Mark, while you credited both stories as being tight, I find ALIEN’s story tighter and grittier. Both have memorable characters, but ALIEN has a tighter story than THE THING, which leaves things unexplained and wide open.

There’s a lot more about the actual Thing monster left unsaid that I want to know about than there is left unsaid about Alien. Plus, I’ve never been a fan of the ending to THE THING. It’s way too wide open for my tastes. I enjoyed the conclusive ending to ALIEN much better.

LS: I almost want to say that the scripts are equally good. But if I have to choose one as having the better story, THE THING is a bit more complex, mainly due to the nature of the monster. The story of ALIEN is actually much simpler, although very effective. THE THING wins by a hair, here.

MA: Unfortunately, you’re in the minority, as Mark and I went with ALIEN.

LS: What do you guys know?

THE THING replicates a dog.

MA: And so after five rounds, ALIEN takes a commanding lead, 4-1.

Next question. Which film has a better cast of characters?

LS: Both movies have terrific ensemble casts. But I have to give my vote to the cast of ALIEN. It’s just a personal preference thing, but seriously, they’re pretty equal.

MA: Must be the strong women thing for you. Actually, there aren’t any women in THE THING.

For me this is yet another tough one. I love the characters in both movies. THE THING’s characters are definitely quirkier and perhaps more likeable, but if we’re talking cast, you can’t beat the ensemble of actors in ALIEN – Sigourney Weaver, Tom Skerritt, Ian Holm, Harry Dean Stanton, Yaphet Kotto, Veronica Cartright, and of course John Hurt.

So, LL, I’m with you. Edge – ALIEN. Mark?

MO: Both movies have great, memorable characters, and they are easily distinguished… But ALIEN just has some amazing performers in Sigourney Weaver, Ian Holm, John Hurt, Harry Dean Stanton, Yaphet Kotto, Tom Skerritt and Veronica Cartwright… I know you just mentioned them, but they’re worth mentioning again. With sharp writing and actors like that, I have to go with ALIEN.

MA: So, we all agree that ALIEN has the better cast of characters. After six rounds, ALIEN is kicking some serious butt, leading THE THING, 5-1.

Now, let me explain here, that, as in boxing, a fighter leading the match by points can still lose the fight by being knocked out in the final round. So, even though THE THING is getting an alien beating tonight, it can still win.

The final question:Which one is the better movie, ALIEN or THE THING?

MO: Again, I love both, and even though my answers are weighted for ALIEN, I would have to put it in context… If I want to have fun and yell at the screen with my friends, it’s THE THING. If I want something scary and different, it’s ALIEN.

MA: So, you’re kinda saying it’s a draw?

MO: I’m saying in terms of the questions I answered tonight, I answered in favor of ALIEN, but putting it into context, they’re both excellent.

MA: Sounds like a draw. LL?

LS: I never really compared these two movies before, and it’s funny how much both of them are big favorites of mine. The two movies would make for a great double feature. I have a slight preference for ALIEN, only because I saw it at just the right time, as a kid, for it to leave a bigger impression on me. But THE THING is pretty much an equally strong film.

MA: You’re calling it a draw too? Jeesh!

Well, I won’t call it a draw. I’m going with ALIEN as the better movie. Again, like you guys, I love both these movies, but I’m going with ALIEN because it has the better monster, the better direction, the better screenplay, and the better cast.

So, it looks like there won’t be a dramatic knock-out for THE THING after all.

This has got to be one of the closest FRIDAY NIGHT KNIFE FIGHTS we’ve done yet, but based upon the answers to our first six questions, ALIEN held the advantage, 5-1 over THE THING, and then based upon our final question, which one would we pick as the better movie, you guys called it a draw, and I went with ALIEN, and so, the results seem clear. By the ever slightest of margins, ALIEN wins out over THE THING in this hard-fought bout.

ALIEN wins by a nose.

LS: I still say they’re pretty even. None of these questions were particularly easy to answer.

MO: And, as I said, it depends on which frame of mind you’re in.

MA: But the numbers don’t lie, and tonight they’re in favor of ALIEN.

Well, folks, that’s all the time we have for tonight. I’m Michael Arruda, and on behalf of L.L. Soares, Mark Onspaugh, and myself, thanks for being with us, and we look forward to seeing you next time. This has been FRIDAY NIGHT KNIFE FIGHTS. Good night everybody!

—END—

© Copyright 2011 by Michael Arruda, L.L. Soares and Mark Onspaugh

Leave A Comment »

Friday Night Knife Fights: ALIEN VS. THE THING – PART 2

Posted in 1980s Horror, 2011, Aliens, Classic Films, Friday Night Knife Fights, John Carpenter Films, Science Fiction with tags , , , , , , on November 18, 2011 by knifefighter

FRIDAY NIGHT KNIFE FIGHTS:  ALIEN VS. THE THING
PART 2
Featuring Michael Arruda, L.L. Soares, and “special guest star” Mark Onspaugh

MICHAEL ARRUDA:  Welcome back to FRIDAY NIGHT KNIFE FIGHTS:  ALIEN (1979) VS. THE THING (1982).  Tonight it’s Part 2, as L.L. SOARES, MARK ONSPAUGH, and myself continue our panel discussion over which of these two horror science fiction classics is the better movie.

Ready for Part 2, guys?

MARK ONSPAUGH:  Bring it on!

L.L. SOARES:  Let me just down this beer first  (guzzles from a giant can of FOSTERS).

MA:  Hope that doesn’t cloud your judgment.

LS:  Don’t worry.  When it comes to talking about movies, I can do it in my sleep.

MA:  Which you’ve done on some occasions.

LS:  Yeah, and I still make more sense than you do. (laughs).

MO:  Uh oh.  Here we go again.

MA: There’s never a cream pie around when you need one.

MO:  Would you like me to get one?

MA:  Maybe later. Moving right along, let’s get back to our discussion.

Watch out! THE THING is coming to get you!

In Part 1, both Rounds went to ALIEN, and so ALIEN leads THE THING 2-0.  On to Question 3.

Which film has the better special effects?

I’ll answer this one first.  Hands down, I like the special effects in THE THING better.  I thought the gross-out effects in this movie were ahead of their time. And better yet, they still hold up today.

On the other hand, while I love the look of the Alien, we don’t see him a whole lot.  Now, I’m not faulting the fact that we don’t see him a lot, because this actually works to the movie’s advantage, but when we do see him, it’s quick and fleeting, and visually not all that impressive.  It’s still scary, but in terms of special effects, it doesn’t pack the same punch as the effects in THE THING.

For me it’s a no brainer.  The special effects in THE THING are better.

A dead unearthly astronaut on an alien ship in ALIEN

MO:  I disagree.  I don’t find the special effects in ALIEN disappointing at all.  Both films have awesome effects, in a time when rubber and paint still ruled… But THE THING takes place in Quonset huts—while ALIEN gives us a battered ship, an alien planet, an alien ship… and a decapitated android…. I have to give the nod to ALIEN when it comes to special effects.

LS:  You seem to have forgotten all that, Michael.

MA:  No, I haven’t forgotten.  I love the look of the Nostromo, the alien planet, the abandoned alien ship, the different stages of the alien, all that’s cool.  But in terms of pure impact, the way the special effects were used in THE THING, they were unforgettable.  To me, the best part of THE THING were its special effects, its creature effects in particular.  I can’t say that about ALIEN.

LS:  They both have great effects for their time, and if you watch them now, both films have scenes where the effects are pretty strong, and other scenes that look dated and even silly now.

MA:  Really?  I think they hold up rather well.

LS:  That’s because you look dated and silly, too.

MA (suddenly wearing a 1970s leisure suit):  What do you mean?

LS:  Overall, though, I’d have to go with THE THING, just because the monster is constantly changing. It’s just more of a field day for the effects people.

MA:  Yep, that’s what I’m talking about.  The special effects in THE THING are a more integral part of the movie than they are in ALIEN.

Round 3 goes to THE THING, which means THE THING finally scores a point and gets on the board, cutting into ALIEN’s lead. After three rounds, ALIEN holds a 2-1 advantage.

Next question.  Which film’s director does a better job, John Carpenter or Ridley Scott?

LS:  I’m a big Carpenter fan, especially THE THING, which is probably my favorite of his movies, up there with the original HALLOWEEN (1978). But ALIEN gets the edge here for me. I’d have to say Scott does a slightly better job at generating real scares.

MA:  I agree with you here.  Ridley Scott creates some genuinely creepy scenes.  He pulls out all stops in terms of creative direction.  ALIEN is full of suspense.  Strangely, Carpenter, who made a cinematic masterpiece of suspense with HALLOWEEN, seems to have forgotten all that with THE THING, which really isn’t suspense-driven.  It’s a showcase for gross-out effects, and while this certainly works for me, it’s a far cry from Carpenter’s work on HALLOWEEN.

LS:  Come on!  Carpenter’s work on THE THING is great!  It’s every bit as good as his work on HALLOWEEN, maybe better!

MA:  I disagree.  I think his work on HALLOWEEN is more impressive, but that’s neither here nor there.  We both agree that Ridley Scott does a better job at the helm of ALIEN.

MO:  Both directors give us fleshed-out worlds, paranoia, claustrophobia and disturbing imagery… But I found ALIEN scary whereas THE THING was more thrilling… Based on being scared, I go with Ridley.

MA:  Looks like ALIEN is going for the clean sweep with this question because I’m going with Ridley Scott too.

LS:  Didn’t you already say that?

MA:  Well, I said it in response to your answer, but I haven’t given my answer yet.

LS:  I think we’re in for some repetition.

MO:  As long as it’s about ALIEN and THE THING, I don’t mind.  I could talk about these movies all night.

MA:  Like you LL, I’m also a huge fan of John Carpenter, but I still have to go with Ridley Scott.  The strength of ALIEN is the suspense it generates, and ALIEN is so chockfull of suspense it’s downright uncomfortable at times.  The scene where Tom Skerritt (Dallas) travels through the air ducts searching for the Alien armed with a flame thrower is a classic nail biter.

I’ve always felt Carpenter’s direction in THE THING was not as inspired as his direction of HALLOWEEN or even THE FOG (1980).  There’s a strange use of fades in THE THING that’s very noticeable.  I’m sure he did this for a reason, but to me it’s very awkward.

Looks like Round 4 goes to ALIEN, and so folks, after four rounds, ALIEN has a commanding lead, 3-1.

And that’s all the time we have for tonight.  Join us next Friday for the third and final installment of FRIDAY NIGHT KNIFE FIGHTS:  ALIEN VS. THE THING, when we’ll decide once and for all which one of these two horror classics is the superior film, and with ALIEN sitting comfortably in the lead, it remains to be seen if THE THING will be able to mount a comeback.

LS:  I wouldn’t count THE THING out yet.

MA: Thanks, Mark, for joining us again.  We’ll be looking forward to finishing this up with you next week.

MO:  Likewise.  Thanks, guys, it’s been awesome!

LS (to audience):  And thank you for joining us.  We’ll see you next Friday for the exciting conclusion to ALIEN vs. THE THING.

MA:  Good night everybody.

—END of PART 2—

© Copyright 2011 by Michael Arruda, L.L. Soares and Mark Onspaugh

1 Comment »

Friday Night Knife Fights Presents: ALIEN VS. THE THING (PART 1 OF 3)

Posted in 2011, Aliens, Classic Films, Friday Night Knife Fights, LL Soares Reviews, Mark Onspaugh Columns, Michael Arruda Reviews, Monsters, Scares!, Science Fiction with tags , , , , , on November 11, 2011 by knifefighter

FRIDAY NIGHT KNIFE FIGHTS: ALIEN VS. THE THING
PART 1 (OF 3)
Featuring Michael Arruda, L.L. Soares, and special guest, Mark Onspaugh

MICHAEL ARRUDA: Welcome to another edition of FRIDAY NIGHT KNIFE FIGHTS. I’m Michael Arruda, and as always, I’m joined by L.L. SOARES. In addition to LL, we have as our guest tonight on FRIDAY NIGHT KNIFE FIGHTS, the very talented MARK ONSPAUGH. Welcome, gentlemen.

L.L. SOARES: Gentlemen? Who walked in?

MARK ONSPAUGH: Happy to be here. I can’t wait to talk about two of my favorite movies.

MA: That’s right. We’ve got a great FRIDAY NIGHT KNIFE FIGHTS for you this evening. It’s ALIEN (1979) vs. THE THING (1982). You heard me correctly. Tonight these two horror classics go head to head, and it will be up to our panel of experts to decide which one of the two is the better movie. It should be quite the bout.

It’ll take us three segments to get through this debate. Part 1 is tonight, and we’ll have Parts 2 and 3 for you over the next two Friday nights.

Let’s get this party started.

Mark, we’ll start with you. Which is the better monster, the Alien or the Thing?

MO: Tricky one.

MA: I think we’re going to be saying that a lot tonight.

LS: I know. I had the hardest time with this one. It was much harder than I expected.

MA: Both these films are terrific, and so it’s tough to compare them. Okay, Mark, give it your best shot. Which one is the better monster?

MO: While I love the design of the Alien (especially the final form) over that of the tentacled, mandibled Thing, an intelligent Thing is the perfect invader, hiding in plain sight and able to kill in a lot of ways—the Alien may be fast, but it can’t walk down a city street or sit in a diner without being noticed. I go with The Thing for invasion, the Alien for design.

MA: So, in terms of which one is the better monster, you’re calling it a draw?

MO: Something like that.

MA: Well, I won’t call it a draw. While I love both these monsters, I think Alien is the better monster, because it’s the coolest of the two. I definitely agree with Mark. Its design is out of this world!

LS: Of course it is, you knucklehead. It’s an alien!

MA: Ha, ha! I think Alien’s design is superior to that of the Thing. We also see more of the Alien. We hardly see The Thing at all, as it spends its time inside the bodies of humans, hiding out like a scared alien baby. Alien isn’t scared at all. It’s a big bad-assed monster that bleeds acid. Alien is an amazing creation, one of the most memorable ever to appear in a horror or science fiction movie.

And while I agree with Mark that an intelligent Thing is the perfect invader, I don’t really get the impression in THE THING that the creature is all that intelligent. I know he’s supposed to be. I mean, he builds a ship and all, but I don’t think his cunning is on display all that well in THE THING. I think that’s one of the flaws of THE THING, that the monster isn’t as well defined as it should have been.

On the other hand, there’s little doubt in ALIEN about the Alien’s purpose. It breeds and it kills, period.

So, in terms of which one has the better monster, I’m going with ALIEN.

LS: Yeah, my first reaction is to say ALIEN too, because H.R. Giger’s design for the monster is pretty amazing. When the movie first came out, audiences had never seen anything like it before. And it’s been copied a lot since. It really is an iconic monster.

But so is Carpenter’s version of THE THING. While the ALIEN monster looks cooler, and has different stages of development (all of which are dangerous and scary in their own way), the Thing can imitate any life form and attack when you least expect it.

They are both pretty formidable. I give a slight edge to ALIEN, but THE THING comes very close.

MO: I just thought of something else. The Alien needs a queen to reproduce, but the Thing seems asexual and any part can become a new creature—a definite advantage for an invader, especially if all “things” are part of a hive mind…

MA: It sounds like you’re giving the edge to The Thing?

MO: Yep.

MA: All right. Even so, Round 1 goes to ALIEN, since both LL and I gave the edge to the acid-blooded creature.

Next question. Which is the better hero, Kurt Russell or Sigourney Weaver? Russell of course was in THE THING, and Weaver was in ALIEN.

LS: They’re both great in their roles in these movies, but I’d have to give a slight edge to Sigourney Weaver. Personally, I just prefer strong women, and Weaver’s Ripley is one of the strongest in cinema history.

Sigourney Weaver as Ellen Ripley in Ridley Scott's ALIEN (1979).

MA: No argument there. She pretty much dominates the entire ALIEN series, especially when you get to ALIEN 3 (1992) and ALIEN RESURRECTION (1997), two of the lesser sequels. She’s the best part of those movies.

LS: But Kurt Russell is pretty terrific in THE THING as well. I’d say they both turn in great performances.

Kurt Russell as R.J. MacReady in John Carpenter's THE THING (1982).

MO: Kurt Russell is a total bad-ass, and many of us have been watching him in movies since he was a kid—it’s like seeing a good friend become a superhero (not that I have).

(MA & LS exchange glances.)

MA: I could see you becoming a super villain.

LS: I could see you becoming soup. Trapped in a giant pot surrounded by cannibals.

MA: You think of the most pleasant things!

LS: Don’t I?

MO: You two never stop fighting, do you?

MA: I don’t think our readers want to see us get along.

LS: Where would the fun be in that?

MO: Anyway, if you two are done, I’ll continue.

As bad-ass as Russell is, Sigourney’s Ripley goes from scientist to action hero without ever losing her femininity – I don’t think her final scene in her underwear is so much about titillation as it is about being vulnerable—and she still kicks ass! Ripley paved the way for characters like Sarah Connor and Buffy the Vampire Slayer. I pick Sigourney.

MA: Tough one, very tough. Like you two, I should go with Sigourney Weaver for all the reasons you guys put forth, but I really like Kurt Russell in THE THING. He is such a total bad-ass. As much as I like Sigourney Weaver in ALIEN, I just have more fun watching Russell in THE THING, so I have to go with Russell as the better hero. However, I’m in the minority here as you two picked Weaver.

Round 2 also goes to ALIEN.

And that’s all the time we have tonight folks. After two rounds, ALIEN has the early lead. Tune in next Friday night for Part 2 of FRIDAY NIGHT KNIFE FIGHTS: ALIEN VS. THE THING to see if THE THING can catch up.

Thanks guys for joining me tonight.

MO: No problem. I’ll be eagerly awaiting the next segment.

LS: Me, too. (to audience) And thank all of you for joining us. We’ll see you next Friday for Part 2.

MA: This has been FRIDAY NIGHT KNIFE FIGHTS. Good night everybody!

—THE END…. FOR NOW!—

This edition of FRIDAY NIGHT KNIFE FIGHTS is © Copyright 2011 by Michael Arruda, L.L. Soares and Mark Onspaugh

Leave A Comment »

Friday Night Knife Fights: MARVEL VS. DC: THE MOVIE EDITION (Part 2 of 2)

Posted in 2011, Action Movies, Comic Book Movies, DC Comics, Friday Night Knife Fights, Marvel Comics, Mutants!, Superheroes with tags , , , , , , , , , , , on July 15, 2011 by knifefighter

FRIDAY NIGHT KNIFE FIGHTS:  DC vs. MARVEL: THE MOVIE EDITION
(Conclusion)
With Michael Arruda & L.L. Soares

 

MICHAEL ARRUDA:  Welcome back to FRIDAY NIGHT KNIFE FIGHTS.  Tonight it’s Part 2 of our bout between DC and Marvel.

L.L. SOARES:  That’s right, it’s DC vs. MARVEL: THE MOVIE EDITION, where we decide which comic company has fared better on the big screen.

MA:  And now, since we answered all the introductory questions in Part 1, without any further hesitation, it’s time for the moment of truth.  Who has fared best in the movies, DC or MARVEL?

LS:  DC movies have always had the bigger budgets and the higher profiles. The Christopher Reeve SUPERMAN movies were blockbusters, as were the Tim Burton BATMAN movies. I’ve always wished that more DC characters were given a shot at the movies, especially Wonder Woman, but over the years the main thrust has always been Batman and Superman. A lot of people must think those are the only two characters DC has.

MA (laughing):  You mean there are more?

LS:  So it was a pleasant surprise to see a GREEN LANTERN movie come out – even if it was a letdown.


Marvel has had a much more checkered history with movies. A lot of people’s first exposure to Marvel heroes was through clunky cartoons in the 60s (little more than comic book panels moving slightly), then on to better SPIDER-MAN and FANTASTIC FOUR cartoons (which were still rather primitive compared to a Saturday morning staple everyone watched as kids back then, like SUPER FRIENDS (1973-1986).

MA:  I remember liking those old SPIDER-MAN and FANTASTIC FOUR cartoons.  I never liked the SUPER FRIENDS though.

LS:  You didn’t like the SUPER FRIENDS?  How un-American of you!

MA:  I don’t know. They were all too— friendly.

LS:  Even much earlier on, DC had the majestic SUPERMAN cartoons that Fleischer Studios did in the 1940s.

MA:  I love the Fleischer SUPERMAN cartoons!

LS:  Yeah, they had some beautiful animation.

(And, for other early representations, I won’t even go into the early movie serials from the 40s and 50s that featured DC’s Superman and Batman. And yes, even Marvel’s CAPTAIN AMERICA, before there was a Marvel!)

Marvel also had a few live-action television shows in the 70s, the most well-known being THE INCREDIBLE HULK (1978-1982) with Bill Bixby and SPIDER-MAN (1977-1979) with Nicholas Hammond. The Hulk show was pretty much a remix of the David Janssen 1950s show THE FUGITIVE with a big green guy who popped up when David Banner (they even changed the character’s name from the alliterative “Bruce Banner”!) got mad.

There were also some Marvel-related movies in the 70s and 80s, like the goofy CAPTAIN AMERICA TV movies with Reb Brown: CAPTAIN AMERICA (1979) and CAPTAIN AMERICA II:  DEATH TOO SOON (1979), (and don’t forget Matt Salinger in yet another movie—in 1990—called CAPTAIN AMERICA!) and Dolph Lungren’s lame attempt to play THE PUNISHER (1989). But almost everything Marvel did up to this point was low-budget, as opposed to the big, flashy movies based on DC characters.

The first three X-MEN movies (and Sam Raimi’s SPIDER-MAN movies) were a departure from that. They had bigger budgets and were much more high-profile projects. The fact that they were also big hits meant that Marvel was ready to join the big leagues. Suddenly, Marvel characters started to get the same respect as DC’s biggest characters.  The success of IRON MAN, a lesser known hero (to the mainstream – he’s been around in comics since the early 60s), was another big boost. Right now, I’d say the two companies have about equal clout in Hollywood, which is a big change from the 1980s.

MA:  I give the edge to Marvel.

While my favorite superhero movie of all time is THE DARK KNIGHT (2008), a DC comic movie, I’m still going with MARVEL as the one that’s faring better, and that’s because their recent run, beginning with X-MEN in 2000 and SPIDER-MAN in 2002, has been nothing short of incredible.  Even the films I haven’t loved, I’ve enjoyed.

Look at this list of movies:  X-MEN (2000), SPIDER-MAN (2002), X-2 (2003), SPIDER-MAN 2 (2004), FANTASTIC FOUR (2005), X-MEN: THE LAST STAND (2006), SPIDER-MAN 3 (2007), FANTASTIC FOUR: RISE OF THE SILVER SURFER (2007), IRON MAN (2008), THE INCREDIBLE HULK (2008), X-MEN ORIGINS: WOLVERINE (2009), IRON MAN 2 (2010), THOR (2011), X-MEN: FIRST CLASS (2011), and CAPTAIN AMERICA: THE FIRST AVENGER (2011), and this list doesn’t include the BLADE movies or the PUNISHER movies.

The folks churning out the Marvel Comics movies have been on an incredible run, and it’s not over yet.  The march continues towards the AVENGERS movie in 2012, and who knows where it will go from there.

And the key to these movies is quality.  These films are all high quality movies.  They look good, they have talented directors at the helm, they have strong acting, and my favorite part— the writing in these films as a whole is pretty decent.

This Marvel run reminds me a lot of what Hammer Films did with vampire movies in the late 1960s/early 70s, when they were churning out vampire films left and right, and most of them were pretty darned good!

The difference is these Marvel folks are operating with a bigger budget than Hammer ever had, so they’re able to pour a heck of a lot of money into these superhero movies, and it shows.  Of course, big budgets alone do not good movies make, so the Marvel people deserve a lot of credit for the quality of these movies.  Sure, the money helps, but without the talent of everyone involved, these movies wouldn’t be as good.

One day people will look back and marvel (heh heh) at this Marvel run.  It’s truly something special.

Ls: You’re right – as far as sheer volume – Marvel’s run has been pretty amazing. Unlike DC, who seem to focus on two or three characters on film, Marvel has been ”spreading the love,” getting as many of their heroes onscreen as possible. And that means more variety and more chances that you’ll find a hero you like.

It’s like Marvel is making up for lost time. For so long, they haven’t had the chance to get their characters into movies – or if so, they were low-budget flicks. Now that they had some big successes, it has opened the door for lots of blockbusters. And you’re right about the high quality. Marvel is very conscious of its brand name and its characters are perceived, and is very protective about what they’re putting out lately (especially now that there is a company called “Marvel Studios”).

That said, Superman and Batman remain the two most famous superheroes of all time and they are well-known throughout the world. But Marvel shows no intention of slowing down and are trying to make their characters as iconic and universal as DC’s.

MA: DC’s recent run hasn’t come close to Marvel’s.  Their recent run began with BATMAN BEGINS (2005), and was followed by SUPERMAN RETURNS (2005) which I didn’t like all that much, and continued with THE DARK KNIGHT (2008), WATCHMEN (2009), JONAH HEX (2010), and GREEN LANTERN (2011).  Not bad, but it doesn’t measure up to the quantity and quality of the Marvel movies.

And the earlier DC movies, BATMAN (1989), BATMAN RETURNS (1992), BATMAN FOREVER (1995), and BATMAN AND ROBIN (1997), and SUPERMAN (1978), SUPERMAN II (1980), SUPERMAN III (1983), and SUPERMAN IV (1987) were a mixed bag.  I strongly liked the first two movies in both the Batman and Superman series, and strongly disliked the last two movies in each of the original eries.  Of course, you can go back to the Adam West/Burt Ward movie BATMAN (1966) which is still a hoot today and remains one of my favorite movies.

LS: Great TV show too!

MA: Awesome TV show!

LS: I didn’t mind the old  ADVENTURES of SUPERMAN (1952 – 1958) TV show, starring George Reeves, either. It was goofy in its own way, too. But not half as much fun as the Adam West BATMAN show.

All in all, it’s a pretty close race, because the best of the DC movies match up pretty well with the best of the MARVEL movies, but I give a slight edge to MARVEL, because the quality and quantity of their movies since 2000 has been consistently impressive.

So, in conclusion, you called it a draw between the two, and I gave Marvel a slight edge, and so by the thinnest of margins, Marvel Movies win out over DC movies.

LS: On second, thought, I think you make a good argument for the sheer volume of quality Marvel movies. I think they’ve pulled out ahead as well. So it’s not that narrow a margin.

MA: There you have it. Marvel wins this month’s FRIDAY NIGHT KNIFE FIGHTS!

That about wraps things up for us here.  Good night, everybody!

—END—

© Copyright 2011 by Michael Arruda and L.L. Soares

1 Comment »

Friday Night Knife Fights Presents: MARVEL VS. DC – THE MOVIE EDITION

Posted in 2011, DC Comics, Friday Night Knife Fights, Marvel Comics, Superheroes with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on July 8, 2011 by knifefighter

FRIDAY NIGHT KNIFE FIGHTS
DC vs. MARVEL: THE MOVIE EDITION (Part 1 of 2)
With Michael Arruda & L.L. Soares

MICHAEL ARRUDA: Welcome to another edition of Friday Night Knife Fights. We have a terrific bout in store for you tonight, as it’s DC vs. MARVEL: THE MOVIE EDITION. I’m joined tonight, as always, by L.L. Soares. L.L, you ready?

(L.L. SOARES, wearing boxing gloves, delivers a right hook to MA’s chin, knocking him off his feet.)

LS: Yep.

MA (getting back on his feet and dusting himself off): Nice punch. Anyway, it’s DC and Marvel that will be battling, not us.

LS: Too bad.

MA: With the explosion of superhero movies that have burst onto the scene in recent years, it’s time to decide which comic company is faring better on film, DC or Marvel? This debate will concentrate solely on the movies based on DC and Marvel comics, rather than the comics themselves. That’s a debate for a different day.

So, let’s get this rumble rolling. What’s the best movie version of a DC comic? You can choose more than one favorite if you’d like.

LS: Best DC Movie? Probably the Christopher Nolan Batman movies, BATMAN BEGINS (2005) and THE DARK KNIGHT (2008). They’re not perfect, but they have a level of intelligence and moodiness to them that really work. I also really liked 1980′s SUPERMAN II, for reasons I’ll discuss later in this installment.

I really liked WATCHMEN (2009), based on the DC miniseries by Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons, too. I’m a big Alan Moore fan, and the movie pales next to its source material, but strictly as a movie, it was actually really good. I also liked the adaptation of another Alan Moore series, V FOR VENDETTA (2006).

MA: I agree with your choices, except for V FOR VENDETTA, which I wasn’t crazy about.

LS: Well whoop-de-doo.

MA: For me, THE DARK KNIGHT (2008) is by far the best movie version of a DC comic. But I also like BATMAN BEGINS (2005), BATMAN (1989), BATMAN RETURNS (1992), BATMAN (1966), SUPERMAN II (1980), SUPERMAN (1978), and WATCHMEN (2009).

LS: I’m not a big Superman fan, but I am a big fan of SUPERMAN II (1980), mainly for the performance of Terrence Stamp as General Zod. The one thing I always thought was baffling about the Superman movies is that Lex Luthor is the villain in EVERY SINGLE MOVIE. Even the latest one had Kevin Spacey playing the role instead of good ol’ Gene Hackman, but once again, the bad guy was Lex.

MA: I’ve never understood this either.

LS: Superman has all kinds of other villains they could use. But in SUPERMAN II, while Lex is in it, the real baddies are the three criminals from the “Phantom Zone,” who come to earth to fight Superman. And General Zod is the best of the three. Stamp is just terrific in the role, and his quote “Kneel Before Zod!” is actually a cool catch-phrase.

MA: I agree. I like Stamp as General Zod, too, and SUPERMAN II is also my favorite Christopher Reeve Superman film, and a big reason it’s my favorite are the villains.

There are a lot of Batman movies on my list, but interestingly enough, neither Christian Bale (Batman in THE DARK KNIGHT and BATMAN BEGINS) nor Michael Keaton (Batman in BATMAN [1989] and BATMAN RETURNS) impressed me all that much as Batman. Adam West did his campy thing in the 1966 version, and strangely enough, even though West’s performance, as it was in the 1960s TV series, is high camp, I’d have to say he remains my favorite Batman. Keaton’s overshadowed by Jack Nicholson’s Joker in his first movie, and then by Michelle Pfeiffer’s Catwoman in his second, while Bale is simply serviceable in the role of the caped crusader. Of course, THE DARK KNIGHT is owned by Heath Ledger’s performance as the Joker, though the film is so good there’s much more to like than just Ledger.

LS: I think that in the movies, almost anyone can play Batman. Once he dons that costume, Bruce Wayne’s alter ego is kind of one-dimensional. That’s why I don’t think any actors have really stood out as Batman so far. The costume is more iconic and effective than the person inside it, if that makes sense. I don’t even think Bruce Wayne is all that interesting either. The Batman movies seem much more interesting for the villains than the hero. Batman always had great bad guys. At least the movies have exploited his “rogues gallery” more than the Superman movies have.

MA: And while Christopher Reeve was constantly knocked for his lack of acting ability way back when, before his personal tragedy which eventually claimed his life, I have to say that as the years have passed, looking back, Reeve is the definitive Superman, though I really do enjoy George Reeves’ TV Superman from the 1950s as well, but I think Christopher Reeve’s comic timing as Clarke Kent lifts him above his TV counterpart.

Reeve’s performance as the Man of Steel in both those Superman movies is a large reason why I like them so much.

LS: Oh, I always liked Reeve. Maybe he wasn’t the best actor in the first one, but even then he’s not that bad, and as the series went on, he really became the best Superman. The funny thing is, I thought Brandon Roush was really good as Superman in the SUPERMAN RETURNS (2006), and was a good choice to take over the role, and yet, because the movie was considered a disappointment at the box-office, he won’t get another shot at playing the character.

MA: I didn’t really like SUPERMAN RETURNS, but it wasn’t Roush’s fault. You’re right. He made an excellent Superman. One of the reasons I didn’t like it was because Lex Luthor was the villain again!

LS: There’s something else that’s interesting about Batman and Superman in the movies. On the surface, Superman is a story about outer space and Batman is a story about inner space. What do I mean by that? Well, Superman is from another planet, so he is literally from outer space. And he seems more “external” for lack of a better word. His dominant power is probably his super strength – and he’s constantly using it to perform amazing feats. Batman epitomizes “inner space” – the workings of the mind. His origin is steeped in psychology. Bruce Wayne often invents new weapons and outsmarts bad guys using his brain. Most of his villains are clinically insane. Everything about him points toward the brain. And yet, in the movies, Superman – the alien – seems more relatable and human, while Batman is more distant and untouchable.

MA: I would agree with that assessment, but we’re supposed to be debating Marvel vs. DC, not Batman vs. Superman.

LS: Sorry about that. It was just something that came to mind when comparing the movies.

MA: Moving on to Marvel, what’s the best movie version(s) of a MARVEL comic?

I’ll go first this time.

I would go with IRON MAN (2008) as the best Marvel version. I thought Robert Downey Jr. carried that movie on his back with a first rate performance, and having Jeff Bridges in the role of the villain didn’t hurt! IRON MAN was a well-made movie that satisfied from start to finish. It was a film with a definite edge and attitude. It’s also a lot of fun.

Other Marvel notables include: SPIDER-MAN (2002), SPIDER-MAN 2 (2004), THE INCREDIBLE HULK (2008), X-MEN: FIRST CLASS (2011)

I also liked X-MEN ORIGINS: WOLVERINE (2009) a lot.

LS: My picks for the Best Marvel Movie include the first two X-MEN movies (2000 and 2003), which are very good, as is the first IRON MAN.

I’m not a big Spider-Man fan. The character is even more whiny and angst-ridden in the movies than he was in the comics! But I do think the second SPIDER-MAN movie (2004) is the best of that bunch, and that’s totally because of Alfred Molina as Doctor Octopus!

But my favorite Marvel movie  is PUNISHER: WAR ZONE (2008).

MA: Yeah, I liked PUNISHER: WAR ZONE, but I wouldn’t list it as my favorite.

LS: I just think it’s so over-the-top, so violent, that I don’t think Marvel will ever let one their characters get that “out of control” again on film. I like the pure chaos of it.

Since the first X-MEN film, Marvel movies have maintained a certain level of quality which is much different from decades ago, when Marvel-related movies were mostly low-budget and cheesy.

MA: Yes, I remember those days, when we only saw Marvel in low-budget TV movies. I guess there was the INCREDIBLE HULK TV show (1978-82), but I never liked it very much.

Okay, let’s switch to the worst movies. What’s your pick for the worst DC movie?

LS: It’s easy! It’s a tie between BATMAN AND ROBIN (1997) and BATMAN FOREVER (1995), the two Joel Schumacher Batman movies. I think he was trying to go for the campy feel of the Adam West 60s TV show, but they completely miss the mark, and are abysmally bad.

MA: You got that right. They’re awful. But I actually don’t hate BATMAN AND ROBIN as much as I do BATMAN FOREVER, mostly because in BATMAN FOREVER I didn’t enjoy either Tommy Lee Jones as Two-Face or Jim Carrey as the Riddler, while in BATMAN AND ROBIN I actually didn’t mind Arnold Schwarzenegger as Mr. Freeze.

My picks for the worst DC movies are BATMAN FOREVER (1995), SUPERMAN III (1983), SUPERMAN IV: THE QUEST FOR PEACE (1987), and SUPERGIRL (1984). My least favorite is a tie between BATMAN FOREVER & SUPERMAN III. At least Supergirl was cute!

Okay, now we’re moving on to the worst MARVEL movies, and I’ll answer my own question.

I’ve got two, DAREDEVIL (2003) and HULK (2003). Both of these movies were dreadful.

LS: The third SPIDER-MAN movie (2007) is beyond bad, and it’s a complete waste of Venom, who easily could have been spun off into his own movie if done right – he’s a great character. But the movie just squandered him. The film versions of DAREDEVIL and ELEKTRA (2005) are also incredibly bad, to the point of being difficult to watch.

MA: Yeah, I forgot to include SPIDER-MAN 3 on my list, although I liked it better than DAREDEVIL and HULK.

LS: I might be one of the few people on the planet who actually liked the first HULK movie. I’m such a huge fan of the character, that I found various aspects of the movie to be very interesting, and I liked Eric Bana as Bruce Banner a lot. I just think director Ang Lee over-thought the whole thing and tried to make too much of a meaningful “art film” (for lack of a better phrase) out of something that wasn’t as lofty as Lee’s intentions. Don’t get me wrong, there’s nothing wrong with being ambitious and trying to do something that blows us away, but Ang Lee’s HULK movie fails in the long run. But I liked Bana, I like the way the Hulk looked in the movie and how he fought the military (and those goofy giant dogs).

While the second HULK movie was more satisfying in some ways, because it was more in tune with the comics (he fights a villain from the comics, The Abomination – even if they changed him almost beyond recognition–and things were primed for the coming of another villain, The Leader), it also seemed more by-the-numbers. It was more the kind of movie that comics fans would expect. Ang Lee tried too hard, and the second Hulk movie was too safe, although I did like Edward Norton as Banner. The best HULK movie lies somewhere between the two – something more ambitious than the second one, but not as dense and sometimes impenetrable as the first one.

MA: All right, then.

That about wraps things up for Part 1. Be sure to join us next Friday for Part 2 when L.L. and I will decide, who has fared best in the movies, DC or MARVEL? The second part should be quite the knock-out.

LS: I’ll say. (Punches MA in the face again, once more knocking him to the ground.) Gotta love it. This has been FRIDAY NIGHT KNIFE FIGHTS. We’ll see you next week for Part 2.

(MA gets back up, and he’s now dressed like a boxer. His face bloodied and bruised, he staggers aimlessly in background.)

MA (doing his best Stallone voice.): Adrian! Adrian!

—END—

© Copyright 2011 by Michael Arruda and L.L. Soares

4 Comments »

Friday Night Knife Fights: TWILIGHT vs. SAW vs. SCREAM – Part 2

Posted in 2011, Friday Night Knife Fights, Garbage, Psycho killer, Sequels, Slasher Movies, Vampires, Werewolves with tags , , , , , , , on May 27, 2011 by knifefighter

FRIDAY NIGHT KNIFE FIGHTS- Free-for-all Cage Match
TWILIGHT vs. SAW vs. SCREAM:   Which one of the three is the WORST series? Part 2 (Conclusion)
By Michael Arruda and L.L.  Soares

 …..Previously, on FRIDAY NIGHT KNIFE FIGHTS:

 (the camera buzzes as the film rewinds, then starts again)

MICHAEL ARRUDA:  Moving onto our next question, if you were allowed to improve one of these franchises, which one would you like to improve, and just how would you improve it?

L.L. SOARES:  The way to improve these movies is to simply stop making them.

(A gargantuan cheer erupts from the audience, and suddenly LS is receiving a standing ovation.  Even MA stands to give him a hand.)

MA:  I couldn’t have said it better myself.

LS:  I know.

(film fades to black)

And now the conclusion to FRIDAY NIGHT KNIFE FIGHTS:

(The camera starts again. The audience’s ovation finally dies down)

MA:  Welcome back to FRIDAY NIGHT KNIFE FIGHTS.  L.L. and I are continuing our discussion of TWILIGHT vs. SAW vs. SCREAM, attempting to determine which one of the three is the worst series overall.

Now, LL, you were just saying that the best way to improve these movies would be to simply stop making them.

LS:  Why continue making crap?  End these things and put us out of our misery.

At least the SAW franchise claims to have done this. A new SAW movie always came out around Halloween time for years, but that’s gladly over with. Instead, we’ll get a new PARANORMAL ACTIVITY movie every October.

How about something new and different, instead of retreads?

MA:  Unfortunately, that’s the Hollywood formula.  As long as the retreads keep making money, Hollywood will keep churning them out.

I definitely agree with you on this point, that the best way to improve these franchises is to stop making them. However, if I had to choose one I’d want to improve, I’d choose SCREAM.  I’m not interested in touching either TWILIGHT or SAW.

To improve the SCREAM movies I would tweak the SCREAM formula by having the hip in-the-know-about-horror movies banter spoken only by characters whose lives aren’t in danger.  As soon as these characters are threatened by the masked menace, I’d have them react realistically, meaning they’d be scared to death, and they certainly wouldn’t be making wisecracks about horror movies.  That’s how it is now, and it kills any authenticity these stories might otherwise have.

And that’s all I have to say on the subject.  I’m not really all that interested in improving these series.  I’d prefer they’d just go away.


We’re getting closer to our goal of choosing the worst of the three.  Of the three series, which one has been the most painful to sit through?

I’ll go first this time and answer my own question, and I’m going to cheat a little bit here, as I’m choosing two.  See, for me it’s a tie between TWILIGHT and SAW.

By far, TWILIGHT has been the most boring series to sit through.  Never in my life have I experienced boredom at the movie like this.  It’s awful!  I would pay someone to stop making these films, they’re so dreadfully slow and painful.

But as horribly boring as TWILIGHT has been, SAW has been just as painful, but for different reasons.  For me, it comes down to the subject matter of these movies.  I just don’t enjoy horror tales built around torture.  Seeing people suffer agonizing tortures just because, and the films really don’t justify Jigsaw’s actions, is not my thing.  How can you justify Jigsaw’s actions anyway?  Even if he had just cause, what he does is indefensible.   Jigsaw and his antics are about as fun as the flu, and as realistic as DYLAN DOG.

LS: See, this is where I have a problem with your argument, because, as far as I know, you haven’t seen that many of the SAW movies. I know I’ve had to review them alone for years. I’m guessing you only saw one or two of them. So it’s not really fair that you judge all of them if you haven’t seen them. On the other hand, I’ve had to sit through all of the movies we’re talking about.

MA:  Not fair?  What, are we on the playground?  You’re right.  I haven’t seen as many of the SAW movies as you have, but I’ve seen enough.  Are you telling me that in the later films things get better?

LS:  I’m saying that Jigsaw does have a justification for his actions—however lame—and that is he’s trying to put bad people in a life-and-death situation in order to wake them up and make them change their lives.

MA:  What a thoughtful guy!  And I already knew this, as this plot point was in the films I saw.

LS:  I admit, this gets tired fast, but it is how he justifies his actions. I don’t think it’s any more stupid than every character in a SCREAM movie suddenly being an expert movie critic or Taylor Lautner taking off his shirt every five minutes in the TWILIGHT movies.

To be honest, the SAW movies just don’t bother me as much as the other two series do. I find the movies brainless, but entertaining. And they don’t repulse me like the SCREAM or the TWILIGHT movies do. The SAW movies may not be great, but I don’t mind them that much.

MA: At least SCREAM, for all its faults, has a set of recurring characters I enjoy watching, and the first movie had a good sense of humor and some decent thrills.  I can’t find anything redeeming about TWILIGHT or SAW.

LS: Who needs “redeeming?” I just want to be entertained. The SAW movies are the only ones that even come close to doing this. So they’re the lesser of three evils. And while you enjoy watching the recurring characters in the SCREAM movies, I despise them all and wish they’d just die already. So not everyone shares your affection for those dumb-ass characters.

As for me, I’d say the worst of the bunch is a draw too, but between two different movies.

The SCREAM movies because they irritate the hell out of me, and the TWILIGHT movies because it’s torture trying to stay awake while watching them.

MA:  And now for the big question, the final question of the night, when we decide the winner— or loser— of tonight’s competition:  which one of the three- TWILIGHT, SAW, or SCREAM— is the worst series?

LS:  The worst of the three is a tie between the SCREAM movies and the TWILIGHT movies.

MA:  There seems to be a lot of ties tonight.

LS:  They are bad in different ways. The SCREAM movies feature annoying, self-aware dialogue that doesn’t sound natural and thinks it is much cleverer than it is. Also, with each sequel they become more and more like the lame sequels they make fun of.

MA:  True.

LS:  The TWILIGHT movies, in comparison, don’t even try to be scary, because they’re not horror movies at all. They’re romance films playing dress up. And they’re abysmally boring.

MA:  Also true.

Okay, my turn to pick the worst.

I’m going to go with the SAW movies as the worst of the three because they have so little to offer.  Mindless violence, gruesome pointless tortures, and no story or decent characters whatsoever, the SAW films rely solely on the gross-out for their horror points, and this just doesn’t cut it—heh, heh— for me.

As much as I abhor the TWILIGHT movies, they don’t turn me off like the SAW movies.  They just put me to sleep.

With SCREAM – I actually like the characters, and the story in the first one was a good one.  Even though they’ve gone downhill since the first movie, the SCREAM films are still not as twisted and sick as SAW or as boring and dull as TWILIGHT.

So, my pick as the worst of the three is SAW.

It looks like then, since I picked SAW, and you picked both TWILIGHT and SCREAM, that we have a three way tie.

LS:  Let’s be honest here. They all suck.

MA:  I guess that’s apropos, that they each received a vote for The Worst Series.

With just the two of us here tonight, it would have been difficult to pick just one worst series anyway, unless that rarity of rarities occurred, and you and I agreed, and we both chose the same movie.  Maybe we’ll do this again sometime with some guest panelists.

LS:  I hope not.  I really don’t want to talk about these movies again anytime soon.

MA:  I agree with you there.  Still, there may have to be a rematch at some point.

So, hopefully nobody out there is disappointed, but tonight’s results reveal a stalemate.  Which one is the worst series?  It’s a draw, as TWILIGHT, SAW, and SCREAM all received one vote, meaning, they’re all horrible!

There are no winners here tonight, only losers.

LS: I guess I need to get off the stage then.

MA:  My prayers have finally been answered.

Well that wraps things up from here.  This has been FRIDAY NIGHT KNIFE FIGHTS.  I’m Michael Arruda, and on behalf of L.L. Soares and myself, thanks for joining us tonight.  Good night, everybody!

—-END—

2 Comments »

Friday Night Knife Fights: TWILIGHT vs. SAW vs. SCREAM! – Part 1

Posted in 2011, Friday Night Knife Fights, Garbage, Horror, Psychos, Sequels, Serial Killer flicks, Slasher Movies, Vampires, Wes Craven Movies with tags , , , , , , , , on May 20, 2011 by knifefighter

FRIDAY NIGHT KNIFE FIGHTS- Free-for-all Cage Match
TWILIGHT vs. SAW vs. SCREAM:   Which one of the three is the WORST series?
By Michael Arruda and L.L.  Soares

(BELL RINGS)

MICHAEL ARRUDA:  Welcome to another edition of FRIDAY NIGHT KNIFE FIGHTS.  Tonight we have a special Free-for-all Cage Match.

L.L. SOARES:  You mean we get to be in a cage, and I get to clobber you to a pulp?

MA:  No, it means rather than having two subjects battling it out, tonight we have three.  TWILIGHT vs. SAW vs. SCREAM:  Which one of the three is the WORST series?

LS:  Damn!

MA: What? You don’t like this topic?

LS:  No.  I just wanted to bash your brains in.

MA:  Oh well.   You’ll just have to settle for trying to do it in the figurative sense, although be prepared to have your figurative brains spread all over this arena.  (smiles)

LS:  This means war.

MA:  Then, let’s have at it.  TWILIGHT vs. SAW vs. SCREAM.   Which one of these series is the absolute worst?

(LS hands MA a club, and he’s holding a large pick-axe.)

MA:  What are we doing with these?

LS:  I just have to do this to get this out of my system.  Feel free to join me.  (Dumps a heap of film canisters at their feet, and he begins to smash them to smithereens with his pick-axe.)

MA:  Are those what I think they are?

LS:  Yep.  TWILIGHT, SCREAM, and SAW.

MA:  I think I will join you.  (They smash the film canisters into tiny bits and pieces.)  That felt good.

LS:  Too bad we have to talk about these clunkers now.  Can’t we just tell people the films stink and go home?

MA: No, we have a bout to decide.  We have to determine which one of these three series is the worst.  To that end, here’s the first question for tonight.

Which one of these series is doing more harm to the horror film industry right now?

LS:  All three franchises are guilty of putting out crappy product that makes the genre looks lame. But I don’t think the SCREAM movies are important enough to have much bearing anymore, and the SAW movies are supposedly finished.

MA:  I hope so!

LS:  The TWILIGHT movies don’t really count, because they have their own niche audience that has nothing to do with horror fans.

MA:  You can say that again.  I always thought TWILIGHT fans were young teenage girls, but at least in my neck of the woods—.

LS:  And you mean that literally, because you do live in the woods!

MA:  I don’t live in the woods!  Sure, I live in a rural community, but it’s not the woods!  Anyway, as I was saying, when I’ve seen these movies, the theaters have been packed with adult women, many of them middle-aged, and—even stranger— adult couples, as if these movies are good date movies.  Very strange that the teen girls have been outnumbered.

I don’t think any of these movies are truly doing harm to the horror film industry, either.  I don’t give these films that much credit or power.

I think SAW gives horror a bad name because it’s the kind of movie that people who aren’t horror fans point to when they complain about all that’s wrong with horror, and in this case, I’d have to agree with them.  I know a lot of horror people who also think the SAW movies are pretty bad.

TWILIGHT,  I think , is mostly laughable. The true fans like these movies because they love the books, but the rest of us see them for what they are: pretty boring love stories masquerading as vampire tales.  They are the most boring films I’ve seen in many years.

I know in the past you’ve pointed to SCREAM as a franchise that has hurt horror, saying that SCREAM led to a bunch of weak horror movies that had teens for characters and were played for laughs, and you’re not the only person I’ve heard say this.  I just don’t think SCREAM was ever that influential, and as far as having teens for characters, horror movies have had teens as main characters going back to films like HALLOWEEN (1978) and way, way back to the 1950s with films like I WAS A TEENAGE WEREWOLF (1957) and I WAS A TEENAGE FRANKENSTEIN (1957).

But you’re right about there not being a whole lot of good horror movies during SCREAM’s heyday, but I think this is more a coincidence than a result of SCREAM’s influence.

LS: Well, I guess you’re entitled to your opinion. Even if it’s wrong.

MA:  So, of these three series, which one do you think is the best?

LS:  SAW is better than the other two because at least it tries to be interesting in creating different, elaborate ways to kill people.

MA:  And I completely disagree!

LS:  So what? You already had your say.

That said, the SAW movies are repetitious and predictable as well. Even though Jigsaw is dead, his disciples keep things going (and with flashbacks, it’s like Jigsaw never left). So it’s pretty much the same thing every movie. Basically, the SAW movies are just as bad in their own way— except they don’t annoy me as much as the SCREAM or the TWILIGHT movies.

MA:  If I had to pick one I think is better than the others, I’d go with SCREAM.

(LS screams)

MA:  SCREAM is better than the other two because I liked the first SCREAM movie better than any of the movies in the other two series.  I actually liked the first SCREAM a lot.  I thought it was clever, funny, and scary.  The series just gradually went downhill from there

I didn’t like any of the SAW movies, and it goes without saying, I didn’t like any of the TWILIGHT movies either.

Moving onto our next question, if you were allowed to improve one of these franchise, which one would you like to improve, and just how would you improve it?

LS:  The way to improve these movies is to simply stop making them.

(A gargantuan cheer erupts from the audience, and suddenly LS is receiving a standing ovation.  Even MA stands to give him a hand.)

MA:  I couldn’t have said it better myself.

LS: Thank you, thank you.

(Audience continues to cheer as camera pans away.)

-–END PART 1—-

COMING NEXT FRIDAY NIGHT:  THE CONCLUSION OF FRIDAY NIGHT KNIFE FIGHTS- Free-for-all Cage Match
TWILIGHT vs. SAW vs. SCREAM:   Which one of the three is the WORST series?

1 Comment »

« Older Entries
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 28 other followers