Archive for the Friday Night Knife Fights Category

Newer Entries »

Friday Night Knife Fights – Round 2 – 2D VS. 3D MOVIES

Posted in 2011, 3-D, Friday Night Knife Fights with tags , , , , on April 1, 2011 by knifefighter

FRIDAY NIGHT KNIFE FIGHTS:  3D MOVIES VS. 2D MOVIES – Part 2
With Michael Arruda, L.L. Soares, and Dan Keohane

MA:  Welcome to Part 2 of FRIDAY NIGHT KNIFE FIGHTS.  Tonight, L.L. and I are once again joined by Dan Keohane, and we’re continuing our discussion of 3D MOVIES vs. 2D MOVIES, or as we’ve been calling it, the great 3D debate.

Dan, thanks again for joining us.

DK:  No problem.

LS:  It took you long enough.  I was wondering when you were going to show up for one of these panels.

DK:  I was waiting for the right topic to come along.

MA:  So, last time, we were talking about AVATAR (2009) and we all agreed that of the recent 3D movies, AVATAR had the best 3D effects.

The 3D in AVATAR was so good, as I watched the movie, I definitely thought “This is how I want to see all movies, in 3D.”  Which brings me to my next question, and the answer is probably AVATAR, but I’ll ask the question anyway:  does anyone have a favorite recent 3D movie?  And was it your favorite because of the 3D effects?

I’ll start us off by answering my own question.

For me, my favorite is AVATAR, and it’s my favorite by far.  I’d never seen anything like it on the big screen before.  Depth, clarity, it was the next best thing to virtual reality.  I felt in such close proximity with the characters that I felt I could reach out and touch them.

But, as much as I liked it, without the 3D effects, it wouldn’t have been as good a movie.  I mean, the story it tells is average at best, and it certainly isn’t original.  So, yeah, without the 3D effects, it wouldn’t have been anywhere near as good.

LS:  Yeah, AVATAR is obviously the best of the bunch.

DK:  Great movie.

LS:  It succeeded beyond its wildest dreams. Usually, 3D effects are just tacked on, and the story is the main thing (you hope). In AVATAR’s case, the story was kind of weak and I think that without its visual splendor, AVATAR would have actually been a worse movie. It’s one of the rare cases of a gimmick IMPROVING  a movie.

MA:  I agree.

LS:  It’s the benchmark against which all future 3D movies will be compared. But it’s not a fair playing field. Few filmmakers will get the budget and the technical experts James Cameron has access to. So it’s a waste of time in most cases.

DK:  AVATAR is a clear case where the 3D is so integral to the film that watching it in that way is a must. Not too many films have been this way.  In fact, AVATAR is the only example I can think of right now—that was truly filmed in 3D and was a great movie.

LS:  As for other 3D movies I liked, the best ones have been those that don’t take themselves too seriously and use 3D in fun ways. Like PIRANHA 3D (2010), which I thought was a boatload of fun, using 3D for both the monster fish and nude women swimming underwater. The 3D remake of MY BLOODY VALENTINE (2009) wasn’t too bad, either. Then you have something like RESIDENT EVIL: AFTERLIFE (2010), which is such a simplistic plot – the plot was never the point anyway – that 3D just helps a movie like that become more like the live-action video game it wants to be.

DK:  The recent SANCTUM (2011) was also filmed in 3D, but the story itself, though not bad, wasn’t worth the premium we paid for the tickets.

I was happy that the producers of the final HARRY POTTER film, Part 1 at least, decided going 3D was just dumb. The plot, the story, was too important to somehow work in a yo-yo flying towards the screen to justify viewers hacking up a few extra bucks. Besides, everyone was going to pay to see the film, why make it any more expensive? Of course, PART 2 is going to be in 3D supposedly. That’s too bad.

MA:  Speaking of bad, how about the worst 3D movie you’ve seen recently?

DK:  If you remember my THE LAST AIRBENDER (2010) review, the 3D looked good in parts, but overall it didn’t help the movie, and I’d heard that the 2D version had much clearer, brighter imaging. The 3D seemed to actually darken the movie.

LS:  The worst examples of 3D movies are the ones where the technology has been added after the fact. Movies like CLASH OF THE TITANS (2010). It results in a muddy, crappy looking 3D that doesn’t really work (except for one or two scenes then made specifically for 3D).

Another example of this is maybe the worst of the bunch, Wes Craven’s MY SOUL TO TAKE (2010). Which I didn’t realize was in 3D until AFTER I LEFT THE THEATER. It added absolutely nothing to the movie. And it just pissed me off to know I’d just spent $15 on a complete turd of a film.

MA:  MY SOUL TO TAKE was so bad I’d forgotten it was in 3D!

For me, CLASH OF THE TITANS (2010) probably had the worst 3D effects.  They were the most underwhelming, that’s for sure.  Truth is, as most of the world knows by now, it was shot as a 2D movie, and the 3D effects were added later, and it shows.

So, would any of these 3D movies have been just as good in 2D?  Would any have been better in 2D?

LS:  Just about every 3D movie would be just as good – if not better – in 2D, except for AVATAR. Unless 3D is part of the movie’s DNA from beginning to end, it’s just a dumb gimmick. And a way to rob us out of more money for ticket prices!

As far back as HOUSE OF WAX (1953), if you cut out the scenes that were specifically made for 3D, it would not affect the movie at all.

DK:  2D movies are just as good. Like I said, unless the effects are so integral to the film that it would be less without it, almost every case I’ve seen could have stayed 2D with no issues. I mean, making THE KING’S SPEECH (2010) as 3D wouldn’t have made it any more brilliant. In fact it would have been stupid.

One exception, on a purely marketing basis: kids movies, especially CG-animated films, would do well as 3D for some time, mostly BECAUSE it’s a gimmicky fad, and children love gimmicky fads. Besides, CG-animated films look GREAT in 3D by virtue of how they’re “filmed.” it

MA:  I would agree.  I thought TOY STORY 3D (2010) looked terrific.

DK:  The question is, which force is stronger, children’s insistence on seeing the next great 3D animated film, or parents’ reluctance to pay the price for tickets? I’m a parent, so I can tell you the answer. I’m not paying.

MA:  I agree with both you guys, that these movies would have been just as good in 2D as they were in 3D, with the exception of AVATAR.  In the case of CLASH OF THE TITANS, which was not that good of a movie to begin with, the lack of unimpressive 3D effects would actually have made the film better, so there’s a movie that probably would have been better in 2D.

All right, that about wraps things up for Part 2.  Once more, it looks like 2D is faring better than 3D.  We’ll conclude this debate next Friday, and see if perhaps 3D can make a comeback, but the way things are going, I wouldn’t hold my breath.

DK:  3D is just too expensive, and it doesn’t make a movie better.

LS:  It’s a scam and a rip-off!

MA:  Like I said, it’s not looking too good for 3D.  That’s it for this week’s FRIDAY NIGHT KNIFE FIGHTS.  See you next Friday.  Good night everybody!

—END PART 2

Leave A Comment »

FRIDAY NIGHT KNIFE FIGHTS – Round 1 – 3D vs. 2D Movies

Posted in 2011, 3-D, Friday Night Knife Fights, Gimmicks with tags , , , , , , on March 25, 2011 by knifefighter

FRIDAY NIGHT KNIFE FIGHTS:  3D MOVIES VS. 2D MOVIES – Round 1
Featuring: Michael Arruda, L.L. Soares, and Dan Keohane

Filmmakers have been experimenting with 3D for decades.

MICHAEL ARRUDA: Welcome everyone to FRIDAY NIGHT KNIFE FIGHTS. Tonight, L.L. Soares and I are joined by Dan Keohane.  Dan, thanks for coming.

DAN KEOHANE: Wanna watch me make a cigarette disappear up my nose?

MA:  Er—maybe after the show.  For those of you out there who don’t know, that’s one of Dan’s talents.  He’s a pro when it comes to sleight of hand.

L.L. SOARES: I want to see Dan’s cigarette trick!

MA:  We will, after the show, but right now we’ve got a fight to get to.

LS:  You’re no fun.

MA:  And proud of it!

Anyway, tonight on FRIDAY NIGHT KNIFE FIGHTS, we’ll be having the great 3D debate.  That’s right, it’s 3D MOVIES  vs. 2D MOVIES.  Where do you weigh in on the recent onslaught of 3D movies?  Do you love ‘em, or do you hate ‘em?

Dan, we’ll start with you.  Are these new 3D movies the best things you’ve ever seen?  Are they the future of motion pictures?

DK:  The future?

No, not really, not if we still have to wear glasses and pay extra money to see the films, because if this were the case, then I wouldn’t want every movie to be filmed in 3-D. We’re only beginning to see digital movies shown in theaters anyway, and once they’re all digital then the picture quality on the big screen will be so much clearer.

Besides, I seriously don’t want to be putting on those clunky glasses every time I sit down in the movie theater. They make my eyes water.

MA:  I don’t like the glasses either.

If these movies all looked like AVATAR (2009), then I’d actually argue that they would  be the future of motion pictures, but they don’t all look like AVATAR.  I’m assuming it’s too expensive for these other 3D movies to have the kind of effects that AVATAR sported.

The 3D effects in AVATAR were the best I’d ever seen.   They totally blew me away!  Problem is, no movie after AVATAR has even come close. TOY STORY 3D came closest, but that one was all animated.

LS:  Throughout its history, beginning in the 1950s with movies like HOUSE OF WAX (1953), up until now, 3D has been a gimmick to bring audiences into the theaters. With the advent of television, the movies lost a chunk of their audience and had to find a way to get people paying for movie tickets again. 3D was one of the biggest gimmicks, created just for this reason.

MA:  Thanks for the history lesson!  Should we take notes?

LS:  I’ll give you notes!  (Throws a notebook at him, and it flies past MA towards audience in perfect 3D fashion.)

DK:  Anyone want to see me jam a Q-tip into one ear and pull it out the other?

MA:  I haven’t seen you do that one.  Is it in 3D?

LS:  Pay attention you two!

While 3D could be fun, most filmmakers who used it had little imagination and the majority of films just had objects coming at you, like the paddleball in HOUSE OF WAX. It really added nothing to the story, and you had to wear annoying glasses. Once in a while it was fun to don the red and green lenses to see a 3D movie, but it was nothing anyone wanted to do on a regular basis. This, combined with the fact that nobody really knew what to do with the technology, led to its demise. 3D has resurfaced several times since; it seems to return every other decade or so.

Don your glasses. It's the notorious "paddle ball" sequence from HOUSE OF WAX (1953)

MA:  I remember a few 3D films popping up in the early 1980s, and at the same time several UHF stations— remember those?—- started the gimmick of showing 3D movies on TV, and you had to get your glasses at your local supermarket or convenience store, or something or other, but neither of these 3D experiences caught on.  It was nothing like it is now.  Of course, the technology and quality are better today.

LS:  With AVATAR (2009), James Cameron proved he was one of the few filmmakers who had enough imagination (and money) to use 3D to its fullest potential, creating a whole 3D world to play around in. And that movie’s success has led to the latest round of 3D movies.

MA:  Would you like to see all movies eventually shot in 3D?

LS:  Nah!

Aside from a rare instance, like AVATAR, I don’t see any reason for movies to be continued to be made in 3D. Occasionally, a movie uses it in an interesting way, like CORALINE (2009), where the 3D was very subtle and just added great depth to everything – throughout the movie. But in most cases it just comes to the forefront for a few “gotcha” scenes and then fades back into the background. And don’t even get me started on movies that were not meant to be 3D, which have the effect added afterwards, and which look just plain awful.

MA:  We’ll talk about that in a little bit.

LS:  I am not a fan of 3D and I am looking forward to its next demise.

MA:  I’m not a fan either, although if they all looked like AVATAR, then I might feel differently.  Moving right along, is this just a fad?  Will 3D movies disappear again, or are they here to stay this time?

DK:  It’s definitely a fad.  Companies are filming, or converting, movies in 3D because people are willing still to pay the extra money for them, but 3D is not making the movies better. That’s still a requirement, regardless of how it’s shown on the screen. Thing is, people are going to stop paying the premium for this.

LS:  We’ve been watching 2D movies for almost a century now. It’s been just fine. 3D is just a distraction. Unless every single movie that comes out has the budget and technical know-how to use to it well, like AVATAR, then its’ a waste of time, and a useless fad.

MA:  I agree.

Okay, folks, we’re out of time.  Looks like Round 1 goes to 2D movies.  Tune in next Friday night to see if 3D movies fare any better, as we continue the great 3D debate with Round 2 of FRIDAY NIGHT KNIFE FIGHTS!

See you then!  Good night, everybody!

—END—

Leave A Comment »

FRIDAY NIGHT KNIFE FIGHTS – Part 3 – Who Was the Best Dracula?

Posted in 2011, Cinema Knife Fights, Classic Films, Dracula, Friday Night Knife Fights, Hammer Films, Universal Horror Films, Vampire Movies with tags , , , , , , , , on February 25, 2011 by knifefighter

FRIDAY NIGHT KNIFE FIGHTS:  BELA LUGOSI vs. CHRISTOPHER LEE
WHO IS THE ULTIMATE MOVIE DRACULA?
With MICHAEL ARRUDA & L.L. SOARES

PART 3 (CONCLUSION)

(The Scene: Back at the Cinema Knife Fight studio.  MICHAEL ARRUDA & L.L. SOARES are seated across from each other on stools.  Behind them are movie stills featuring Bela Lugosi and Christopher Lee as DRACULA, as well as photos of Count Chocula and The Count from SESAME STREET.)

MA:  Welcome back to Friday Night Knife Fights.  Tonight, L.L. and I will conclude our discussion of Bela Lugosi vs. Christopher Lee and decide which one is the ultimate movie Dracula.  Lugosi came out on top after our Round 1 discussion two weeks ago, and Lee won the second round last week, so tonight’s third and final round will decide the victor.

Time for the final question.  It’s actually several questions.

LS:  Make up your mind.

MA:  I can’t.  Anyway, here we go.  Which one is more iconic?  In other words, when people think of Dracula today, who do they picture: Lugosi or Lee?  And who do you think modern audiences prefer?

LS:  I really don’t know who people today picture when they think of Dracula. It may even be neither Lugosi or Lee, since there have been other versions since then, like Gary Oldman in Francis Ford Coppola’s take on the material: BRAM STOKER’S DRACULA (1992).

Gary Oldman caught in the act, in Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992)

MA:  Come on!  You can’t seriously believe that anyone today would actually picture Gary Oldman as Dracula!  The guy looked like John Lennon!

LS:  Who knows what people think? What am I, a psychic? I only know what I think!

MA: I don’t think Lugosi and Lee have much competition, unless you include Count Chocula and The Count from SESAME STREET.

LS: So that’s why those photos are up. I just figured you had the mind of a child. Who knew you were going to make a point.

MA: Well, certainly not you, since you don’t know what other people are thinking!

LS:   And you do, I suppose?

MA:  I have a pretty good idea what you’re thinking right now, and I can’t say it out loud.

Anyway, people certainly aren’t going to picture Frank Langella, who played the role in the weak 1979 film version.  Who else as Dracula could they possibly imagine?

LS: Robert Pattinson as Edward Cullen in the TWILIGHT movies? He’s not Dracula, but he’s certainly just as popular a vampire these days. (groans). And if he ever played Dracula, then I’m sure, for a whole generation, he’d be the definitive one. Imagine that, and be truly horrified.

But for me, Lugosi will always be my first choice. He may not have had a lot of roles that were as good as the original DRACULA (1931), but that is his shining moment, and the movie, as atmospheric and almost surreal as it is, will always be the real deal to me.

MA:  I would have to agree with you and say that Lugosi is more iconic, at least here in the United States, and that when people today think of Dracula, they most likely think of Lugosi.

The great LUGOSI, from Universal Studio's DRACULA (1931)

LS: And how do you know this? Did you take a survey?

MA:  I’m speaking in terms of Lugosi and Lee here.  If you ask someone to impersonate Dracula, chances are they’re going to do the Lugosi voice.  They’re not going to speak in a British accent like Christopher Lee.  That’s what I mean when I say that when people today think of Dracula, they most likely think of Lugosi.

It’s largely due in part to the influence of Universal Pictures.  They constantly re-package their old black and white monster movies, along with their merchandise, so that the images of the Universal monsters never seem to be out of the modern-day collective consciousness.  I think when people think of Dracula, they think of Lugosi, complete with his trademark accent.  I don’t think people today picture Christopher Lee, even though he starred in those seven Hammer DRACULA movies.

But even without Universal’s marketing department, I think people would still picture Lugosi as Dracula, which shows the power of Lugosi’s legacy.  Even after all these years, he remains in most people’s minds the definitive Dracula.

LS: I bet you there’s a whole generation who has no idea what we’re talking about, and they haven’t heard of Lugosi or Lee.

MA:  That’s why you and I write about these guys, so this doesn’t happen, so people don’t forget.  That’s why we need readers, readers, and more readers, so out there in horror movie land, if you like reading Cinema Knife Fight and this spin-off, Friday Night Knife Fights, tell your friends!  Okay, enough with the self-promotion.  Where was I?

Oh yeah.  I don’t know who modern audiences prefer.  At one time, I would have easily picked Lee as the fan favorite, but today I’m not so sure.

Christopher Lee, the star of seven DRACULA films from Hammer Films.

LS: Now you say you don’t know who modern audiences prefer? Make up your mind!!

MA: What?  Before, I said people think of Lugosi when they think of Dracula.  Now, I’ve moved on to the next question, which is, which actor do we think modern audiences prefer?  Having trouble keeping up or something?

LS:  I’m having trouble keeping up with the number of times you change your mind!

MA:  Whatever.

I have a story to share on this subject.  Several years ago, when I was teaching a movie class to eighth graders, at Halloween time I showed my classes both DRACULA and HORROR OF DRACULA (1958).  In the follow-up essays, I expected students to overwhelmingly pick HORROR OF DRACULA as their favorite film, but I was surprised that this wasn’t the case.  The majority of students went with the Lugosi version, citing Lugosi’s performance as the major reason why they liked it better.  And I think it was because Lugosi played Dracula the way the students expected Dracula to be played.

LS (snoring): Zzzzzzzzz

MA: Wake up! We’re having a debate here.

LS: Huh? Your “stories” always bore the hell out of me.

MA: I’m sorry.  I forgot you have the attention span of a gnat.

All right, we’ve reached the moment of truth.  Time for us to decide:  which one is the ultimate movie Dracula: Bela Lugosi or Christopher Lee?

LS:  I hesitantly choose Lugosi. Not because I don’t feel he’s the ultimate movie Dracula—because I do— but because Lee is no slouch either. I really like Lee’s take on the character and in many ways it’s just as satisfying as Lugosi’s. But for me, Lugosi is the more iconic figure: the first (at least after the silent age) and the best.

MA:  I feel your pain. I went back and forth so many times with this, it almost made me dizzy.

So, who’s my pick for the ultimate movie Dracula, Bela Lugosi or Christopher Lee?  This is such a difficult choice for me to make, and I’ve gone right down to the wire with my final decision.

LS:  Just spit it out already!

MA:  Okay, okay.

Without further hesitation, here it is:

As much as I like Christopher Lee as Dracula—and even though I think he is far scarier as Dracula—when it comes to the complete package, I can’t deny that Bela Lugosi is the ultimate movie Dracula.  For the most part, this opinion is based on the strength of Lugosi’s initial performance in DRACULA.  From the way he speaks, to his mannerisms, to his commanding presence, Lugosi is Dracula.

LS: Hell, Lugosi was even buried wearing one of the capes he wore in DRACULA. That’s dedication to a role.

MA: I love Lee as Dracula, but there’s no comparison to moments where Lugosi utters such lines as, “Listen to them, the children of the night, what music they make.”  “To die, to be really dead, that must be glorious.”  “There are far worse things, Miss Mina, awaiting man, than death.”

Bela Lugosi is the ultimate movie Dracula.

So, there you have it.  The decision is unanimous, but boy was it close!

LS: (laughs) Yeah, I’m sure everyone was sitting on the edges of their seats.

MA: That was quite the bout.  I need a drink of water.

LS:  I need a drink of blood!

MA:  Well, don’t look at me.

LS (groans):  I’ll settle for a beer.

MA:  That sounds better.  Anyway, it’s been fun.

LS: Yes it has.

MA (addresses audience) :  Thanks for joining us tonight.  We had a good time, and we hope you did too.

LS:  And don’t forget to join us every weekday for new content about your favorite movies, new and old, right here at CinemaKnifeFight.com!

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

—-END—

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

Leave A Comment »

FRIDAY NIGHT KNIFE FIGHTS – ROUND 2 Who Was the Best Movie Dracula?

Posted in 2011, Dracula, Friday Night Knife Fights, Hammer Films, Horror, Vampire Movies with tags , , , , , , , , on February 18, 2011 by knifefighter

FRIDAY NIGHT KNIFE FIGHTS:  BELA LUGOSI vs. CHRISTOPHER LEE
WHO IS THE ULTIMATE MOVIE DRACULA?
With MICHAEL ARRUDA & L.L. SOARES
PART 2

(The Scene: The Cinema Knife Fight studio.  MICHAEL ARRUDA & L.L. SOARES are seated across from each other on stools.  Behind them are movie stills featuring Bela Lugosi and Christopher Lee as Dracula, as well as photos of Count Chocula and The Count from Sesame Street.)

MA:  Welcome back to Friday Night Knife Fights, as L.L. and I continue our discussion of which actor, Bela Lugosi or Christopher Lee, was the ultimate movie Dracula.  So far, we looked at their initial film performances as Dracula.  I thought Lugosi was slightly better than Lee.

LS:  And I thought the same thing, though as I said last time, it was a tough decision because Lee’s no slouch, and both of their initial performances were terrific.

MA:  Okay, time for the next question.

Of the two, who fared best in the sequels?  I’ll get us started by answering my own question.

I would have to say that Lee fared better in the sequels, if only because he actually appeared in sequels.  Lugosi only played Dracula in the movies twice, and the second time was in the comedy ABBOTT AND COSTELLO MEET FRANKENSTEIN (1948).  He played a vampire in MARK OF THE VAMPIRE (1935) and RETURN OF THE VAMPIRE (1944), and while his performances in all of these movies were topnotch, I still give the edge to Lee, since he was actually playing Dracula in his movies.

Plus, thanks to Hammer Films’ interest in the character— and Hammer was interested in Dracula because the Christopher Lee Dracula movies consistently made the most money for the studio—Lee got to play Dracula in six sequels after HORROR OF DRACULA (1958).

Though it’s not a sequel, Lee also played Dracula in the non-Hammer movie COUNT DRACULA (1970), directed by Jess Franco, as well.

So, by sheer numbers alone, I give the edge to Lee.

Christopher Lee portrayed Dracula as a more animalistic, savage creature.

LS:  Unlike the Frankenstein monster and Mummy franchises (and later the Wolfman), Universal didn’t make any more Dracula movies (they did however, make a sequel to the original Dracula in 1936, called DRACULA’S DAUGHTER, but Lugosi is nowhere to be found except in a brief scene at the beginning, where his daughter burns his corpse).

MA:  Don’t forget SON OF DRACULA (1943) starring Lon Chaney Jr. as Count Alucard….

LS: Yeah, that’s a funny one. Count “Alucard.” It’s Dracula spelled backwards. What a clever ruse (laughs)

MA: And of course there was both HOUSE OF FRANKENSTEIN (1944) and HOUSE OF DRACULA (1945), in which John Carradine played Dracula, so Universal did in fact make more Dracula movies.

LS:  You’re right about SON OF DRACULA. It’s like Lon Chaney Jr. played every monster in the Universal cannon to see which ones he could turn into a franchise (the answers: Larry Talbot and Kharis the Mummy). As for the HOUSE movies, I always considered them almost a subgenre in themselves, since they were more concerned in packing in as many monsters as they could, rather than focusing on just one.

Besides, we’re talking about Lugosi here, and they didn’t make any more Dracula movies starring Bela, except as you said, ABBOTT AND COSTELLO MEET FRANKENSTEIN, and with the exception of DRACULA’S DAUGHTER, none of these other Universal Dracula movies were direct sequels to the Lugosi original.

So, the only other time Lugosi was able to play his most famous role again was in ABBOTT AND COSTELLO MEET FRANKENSTEIN, which is partly why that comedy is such a revered classic.

Lugosi’s other vampire roles tended to be disappointing. MARK OF THE VAMPIRE (a remake of Lon Chaney Sr.’s silent classic LONDON AFTER MIDNIGHT from 1927) is okay, but in the end the vampires are really actors in disguise, which is always a big letdown.

MA:  It’s a REALLY big letdown.  I don’t like that part of MARK OF THE VAMPIRE at all.  It nearly ruins the movie.

Bela Lugosi portrayed Dracula on stage, as well as playing the role in the 1931 film version.

LS: Let’s face it. It’s not a great movie.

MA: Lugosi’s not in MARK OF THE VAMPIRE all that much, but when he’s in it, he’s good.  His performance here actually reminds me a little bit of Christopher Lee, since Lugosi doesn’t talk much in this one and actually gets to run around a bit, appear menacingly outside windows, and generally look scary.  But Lee does “scary” better.

LS: RETURN OF THE VAMPIRE (1944) is better, and features a werewolf in it, too, but never again did Lugosi reach the greatness he achieved in the original DRACULA, mostly because the scripts in his other movies just aren’t up to par.

MA:  Yeah, I agree, although I like RETURN OF THE VAMPIRE a lot.  Lugosi speaks lots of dialogue in this one, and he’s close to his earlier form as DRACULA, though not quite.

LS: You can’t really compare the two films. The original DRACULA was a work of art. RETURN OF THE VAMPIRE was a fun B-movie. It’s like comparing apples to oranges. Lugosi is okay in RETURN, but it’s nowhere close to his performance in the original DRACULA.

MA:  I don’t know about that.  I think Lugosi is almost if not just as good in RETURN OF THE VAMPIRE as he is in DRACULA, but you’re right about not being able to compare the two movies.  DRACULA is a much better movie than RETURN OF THE VAMPIRE, but I really enjoy Lugosi in both of them.

LS:  As for Lee, his Dracula sequels are much more satisfying. They’re not all great, but at least they have a level of quality that Lugosi’s other vampire roles did not.  So, I go with Lee in terms of who fared better in the sequels.

MA:  We’re in agreement then.  Must be a full moon or something.  Moving right along.

Next question:  who’s scarier as Dracula?  Lugosi or Lee?

LS:  Since Lee played Dracula as a much more menacing, animalistic creature, I think his version is scarier, hands down. Although Lugosi was really good at showing the duality of his character, at times charming and, at other times, almost as menacing as Lee.

MA:  I’ve always thought that Lee was way scarier than Lugosi as Dracula, but I don’t think the margin is quite as wide as I used to believe.

Lee, with his athleticism and quick cat-like movements, made for a very violent and brutal Dracula.

Lugosi, on the other hand, possessed none of the action-oriented characteristics which Lee so masterfully displayed.  Lugosi brought his Dracula to life strictly through the strength of his acting, and the fear instilled by his Dracula is much more subtle and hypnotic.

We fear Lugosi’s Dracula will cast a spell on us, put us in a trance to do his bidding, or hypnotize us into inaction while he creeps up to our bed and drinks our blood.  We fear Lee’s Dracula will leap over a table, grab us by the arm, pin us down and bite us violently on the neck, blood dripping to the floor as he drinks his fill.

They’re both scary, and while neither Lee nor Lugosi ever gave me nightmares as Dracula, if I had to pick one, I’d go with Lee.  His in-your-face style is scarier.

Okay, of the two’s various portrayals of vampires, which one has delivered the weakest performance?  And why?

LS: After the triumph of DRACULA (a role he first performed on stage), Lugosi’s career gradually went downhill. There are a few highlights, like the first two movies he made where he “teamed up” with Boris Karloff – THE BLACK CAT (1934) and THE RAVEN (1935).

MA:  I love THE BLACK CAT and THE RAVEN.

LS:  But by the late 1930s and the 40s, his career was in a bad way.

MA:  What?  You didn’t like PLAN 9 FROM OUTER SPACE? (laughs).

LS:  The scripts just weren’t very good, horror was slowly dying out as a popular genre due to the real horrors of WWII, (although horror would be revived in the 1950s by Hammer Studios, ironically enough). It also didn’t help that Lugosi had a thick accent that made it difficult for him to avoid being typecast as foreign villains. The opportunities just weren’t there for him to have a more respectable acting career.

Lee, despite a few weak scripts, was able to maintain the quality of his vampire performances throughout his run as Dracula, and was always very effective in the role. I think he had a better time of it playing the character.

MA:  When I asked the question, I was only thinking of their performances as Dracula, or as a vampire.  I know Lugosi made a lot of notoriously awful movies, but in terms of vampire performances, do you still think Lugosi delivered the weaker performance?

LS: My answer covered all his movies, even his vampire ones. Besides, we already talked about his other vampire movies in depth. Do we really need to talk about them again?

MA: I’m just saying I asked about his vampire performances, that’s all.  Okay, good enough.  My turn to answer.

Lugosi only played Dracula once more in the movies, and to his credit, his performance as the Count in the comedy ABBOTT AND COSTELLO MEET FRANKENSTEIN doesn’t miss a beat.  He plays it straight, letting Bud Abbott and Lou Costello get the laughs.  And as we already discussed, he also delivers a fine performance in RETURN OF THE VAMPIRE and MARK OF THE VAMPIRE.

The odds are against Lee, since he played Dracula more—seven times for Hammer Films!  I don’t think Lee ever gave a weak performance as Dracula, but there were moments where he wasn’t as effective.

For example, in DRACULA-PRINCE OF DARKNESS (1966), a film I happen to like, I’ve always found Lee’s performance here a bit off, compared to his other Dracula portrayals.  His Dracula seems uncharacteristically weaker here.  One scene in particular, where Dracula battles the hero Charles in Castle Dracula, and Charles forms a cross with swords to fend off Dracula, Dracula’s response is very un-Lee like.  He jumps away in fright.

It’s also the only Hammer Dracula where Lee doesn’t speak any lines, so this doesn’t help his case.

Lee’s performance in SCARS OF DRACULA (1970) is also different, although I don’t think I’d go so far as to categorize it as weak, but it does take some getting used to.   Gone is the leaping and running around, as in this film, you never see Dracula enter or exit a room.  He’s simply there one moment, gone the next, or a character’s alone in a room, and suddenly Dracula is there with him.  I didn’t like this at first, but this and other parts of Lee’s performance have grown on me over the years.  He also is extremely violent in SCARS (which is why it’s called SCARS OF DRACULA, I guess) as he whips, burns, and stabs his victims.  Like I said, it’s not really a weaker performance, but it takes some getting used to.

LS: I love SCARS OF DRACULA. It’s one of my favorites of the series.

MA: You can make the case that his performances in the last two films in the series, DRACULA A.D. 1972 and THE SATANIC RITES OF DRACULA (1973) aren’t so hot, but these two films which take place in the 1970s have more problems than Christopher Lee.  Still, in DRACULA AD 1972, he seems out of place and doesn’t seem to know what to do with himself.  Plus Lee’s performance here is hammier than usual.  He’s almost a caricature of himself.

LS: He’s supposed to seem out of place in DRACULA A.D. 1972. He is an ancient aristocrat who suddenly finds himself in the world of 1972, complete with drug-taking hippies! Talk about culture shock!

MA: So, as to which one of the two delivered the weakest performance, I’d go with Lee for these moments, in DRACULA – PRINCE OF DARKNESS, and DRACULA A.D. 1972 especially.

LS: I don’t think that’s fair. I like both of those.

MA: Well, it looks as if Round 2 of our Friday Night Knife Fight has gone to Christopher Lee, and since last week’s Round 1 went to Bela Lugosi, it looks like it will come down to our final segment before we have a winner.

So don’t forget to join us next Friday for the final segment of this month’s Friday Night Knife Fight where we’ll decide once and for all which one of these two actors is the ultimate movie DRACULA.  See you then!

—END PART 2—

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


Leave A Comment »

FRIDAY NIGHT KNIFE FIGHTS – February 2011 – PART 1

Posted in 2011, Classic Films, Dracula, Friday Night Knife Fights, Hammer Films, Vampires with tags , , , , , , , on February 11, 2011 by knifefighter

FRIDAY NIGHT KNIFE FIGHTS: BELA LUGOSI vs. CHRISTOPHER LEE
WHO IS THE ULTIMATE MOVIE DRACULA?
(With MICHAEL ARRUDA & L.L. SOARES)

***PART 1***

(The Scene: The CINEMA KNIFE FIGHT studio. MICHAEL ARRUDA & L.L. SOARES are seated across from each other on stools. Behind them are movie stills featuring Bela Lugosi and Christopher Lee as Dracula, as well as photos of Count Chocula and The Count from SESAME STREET.)

MA: Welcome to FRIDAY NIGHT KNIFE FIGHTS, brought to you by CinemaKnifeFight.com, your home for the best movie criticism on the planet. If you disagree with this assertion, you show us someone better, and we’ll promptly throw a pie in their face.

Tonight on FRIDAY NIGHT KNIFE FIGHTS, L.L. and I will be discussing BELA LUGOSI vs. CHRISTOPHER LEE to determine which one of these classic actors is the ultimate movie DRACULA?

I have to say at the outset that this is going to be tough. I grew up a Christopher Lee fan. In fact, Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee are the reasons I got into horror in the first place. For the first 20 years of my life, this question would have been a no-brainer. Lee would have won easily. I preferred Lee to Lugosi any day of the week. But things change.

LS: Quit whining and let’s get started!

MA: I wasn’t whining. I was just explaining that this decision is going to be tough.

LS: I wouldn’t have it any other way.

MA: Me, neither.

LS: By the way, where’s the rest of the Cinema Knife Fight staff? I thought we’d get a few other writers to join in this debate with us. Did the topic scare them off?

MA: I don’t know. Maybe it was all the snow outside. It’s hard to get here when there’s a blizzard going on outside.

LS: We’re here.

MA: Yes, but we’re nuts! Anyway, are you ready for the big bout?

LS: Bring it on!

MA: First question: whose initial film performance as Dracula is better: Lugosi in DRACULA (1931) or Lee in HORROR OF DRACULA (1958)?

LS: That’s hard to say—

MA: Ah ha! I told you this was going to be hard!

LS: Quiet! It’s hard to say because I think they’re both terrific. I think on some level, Lugosi will always be the first one to come to my mind when someone says “Dracula.” This is partly because his 1931 DRACULA was the first version of the story I ever saw, but also because I think he did an amazing job with the character, enough so that it’s left a strong imprint on me.

But the reason why Lee’s performance in HORROR OF DRACULA is so great is because he does not try to imitate Lugosi’s performance at all. It would have been easy to do a variation on Lugosi’s original, but Lee’s Dracula is a completely different animal.

MA: That’s a really good point.

LS: Where Lugosi was kind of a classy foreign aristocrat with a dark/violent side when provoked, Lee’s is much more animalistic. Lee’s Dracula is not interested in seducing his victims or fooling them – he simply takes what nourishment he needs like a wild beast. He rarely speaks in his films and is more a force of nature than anything resembling a human being.

MA: I agree.

As for myself and what I think about them, having watched both DRACULA and HORROR OF DRACULA many, MANY times, I’d have to say that it’s simply not a clear-cut answer. Lugosi and Lee both deliver different performances.

Lugosi enjoys lots of screen time in DRACULA, and he speaks lots of dialogue, which would make sense since the 1931 version of DRACULA was based on the stage play by Hamilton Deane and John Balderston, which of course was based on the Bram Stoker novel. Lugosi pretty much dominates DRACULA, which is no surprise, because he’s in the movie a lot. He out-acts everyone in the movie, with the possible exception of Dwight Frye as Renfield. Of course, Edward Van Sloan as Van Helsing is no slouch, either.

But when Lugosi is not on screen, DRACULA sags. There are lots of slow dull scenes when the other characters are on screen without Lugosi.

By contrast, this is where Christopher Lee excels in HORROR OF DRACULA. Believe it or not, Lee is only on screen in HORROR OF DRACULA for like some ridiculously short amount of time—like nine minutes! Seriously! But you would never know it, because it seems like he’s in it much more, because his performance, as brief as it is, is so shockingly powerful he scares the crap out of you, and even when he’s not on camera, you’re still constantly thinking about him, fearing that he’s going to jump out from the shadows with a loud hiss, his fangs bared, dripping with blood.

HORROR OF DRACULA opens with such a bang, the film’s first 20 minutes are as scary as any other film of its type, probably scarier, resulting in a shocked audience that just can’t get comfortable anymore. Back in 1958, these first 20 minutes probably pushed the envelope further than any other horror movie before it.

And all of this takes place before the film’s best actor even makes his appearance, Peter Cushing as Dr. Van Helsing, who arrives just in time to restore order, and over the next hour gives the audience hope that Dracula won’t attack and kill everyone in his path.

Lee’s performance is so powerful, so resonating, that it remains with you even when he’s not on screen, and when these other scenes feature an actor as talented and dominating as Peter Cushing, and yet you’re still thinking of Lee, that’s saying something.

Taken as a whole, I think Lugosi’s performance as DRACULA is the more definitive portrayal. Yet, Lee creates such a shocking character in such a brief amount of time, it’s almost unbelievable. Both performances dominate, but in different ways.

LS: I think another aspect that is relevant here is atmosphere. Both versions of DRACULA are heavy on the atmosphere and tone, but the original Lugosi version is so atmospheric, the look of the movie is almost one of the characters all by itself. I think that actually compliments Lugosi’s performance.

MA: I agree.

Back to the point I was making about how they both dominate, but in different ways. Lugosi crafts the near-perfect iconic vampire in his portrayal of Dracula, while Lee goes for the throat, if you will, giving his vampire an animal athleticism and overt sexuality that are completely absent in Lugosi’s performance. If this were a boxing match, Lugosi would be the superior boxer, displaying great skill in the ring, dominating the bout throughout, clearly winning on points, while Lee would hang back, losing style points, waiting for his chance to deliver with lightning-like quickness a fierce knock-out blow.

So, who would win?

It’s a tough call. I guess it depends on how you define “best performance.” Lugosi delivers the more complete performance, creating the definitive Count Dracula, while Lee makes the most of his brief screen time, creating one lasting scary image after another. Both performances remain with you long after you’ve seen them.

But if I had to pick, I’d go with Bela Lugosi, since he gives such a complete performance.

How about you? If you had to pick one, which one would you pick as having given the best initial film performance as Dracula?

LS: I agree. I’d go with Lugosi.

MA: So, Round 1 goes to Bela. Join us next Friday for Part 2 of this three part bout, as we continue our discussion on who is the ultimate movie Dracula, Bela Lugosi or Christopher Lee.

—-END PART 1-—

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

Leave A Comment »

Friday Night Knife Fights – December 2010 – Part 2

Posted in 2010, Friday Night Knife Fights, M. Night Shyamalan Movies, Wes Craven Movies with tags , , , , , , on December 31, 2010 by knifefighter

FRIDAY NIGHT KNIFE FIGHTS: DECEMBER 2010
PART 2
With Michael Arruda, L.L. Soares, and Colleen Wanglund

This month’s debate:
WES CRAVEN VS. M. NIGHT SHYAMALAN: WHO’S THE WORSE DIRECTOR?

MICHAEL ARRUDA: Welcome back to FRIDAY NIGHT KNIFE FIGHTS.

Last Friday, LL, Colleen Wanglund, and I were discussing WES CRAVEN vs. M. NIGHT SHYAMALAN, and we were attempting to answer the question, which of these two directors is in the worst slump?  Tonight we conclude the debate.

Of the two, which one do you want to see get back fastest to making good horror movies again?  And if you were this person’s agent, what advice would you give him to help resurrect his career?

COLLEEN WANGLUND: I’d really like to see Wes Craven right the wrongs he’s done, because, again, he’s made some really great movies and still has the potential to get back to making good movies.

The advice I’d give him is to stop taking scripts for crap like CURSED (2005) and MY SOUL TO TAKE (2010) and to STOP WITH THE SEQUELS ALREADY!!  Maybe if Wes went independent he’d do a better job.

LL SOARES: I think I consider them both lost causes at this point. If I was Craven’s agent, the first thing I’d tell him is to stop working with people like Kevin Williamson. Williams might have given Craven some hits, but he’s also been responsible for some of his worst films. Secondly, to get back to his roots and try to recapture the edge of his early work. Seeing how many of his early films have been remade lately, there’s definitely a market for more edgy horror.

As for Shyamalan, I’d tell him to hire a decent writer and stick to just directing. His scripts have been getting increasingly awful over time. And annoyingly preachy. No one likes to be preached to (the movie DEVIL (2010), which he only wrote the script for, was guilty of this as well). Since writing seems to be Shyamalan’s Achilles’ heel, it seems rather silly that he’s started a project called THE NIGHT CHRONICLES where other directors direct scripts he’s written. Hopefully the poor reception DEVIL received will kill the project before it continues.

MA:  I want to see Shyamalan get back to making good horror movies again, since I liked his work better in the first place.  If he could make other movies with the precision and care he seemed to show when he made THE SIXTH SENSE (1999), he’d be enjoying a helluva career right now.  Just because THE SIXTH SENSE had a knockout twist ending, he seemed to believe that was why the film was good, and suddenly all his movies had to have twist endings.  The problem is, THE SIXTH SENSE’s twist ending belonged in that movie.  It was an integral part of the story.  It wasn’t tacked on as an afterthought in the mistaken belief that “my movies need twist endings.”

If he were making quality horror movies, the horror genre would be stronger for it.

If I were his agent, what advice would I give him?

There would be three things.  First, like I just said, I’d advise him to ditch the twist endings.  That’s not why THE SIXTH SENSE was such a good movie.  It was such a good movie because he did such a good job with the entire package.

I agree with LL that Shyamalan shouldn’t write his own movies, that he’s a much better director than a writer.  So, that would be my second piece of advice.  Let someone else write the screenplay.

And my third piece of advice would be to get off his high horse and get out of the limelight for a while.  He should stop advertising his movies with his name in front of the title, as in “M Night Shyamalan’s DEVIL” or whatever.  It’s too presumptuous.  It’s so bad movie audiences are laughing at his name.

Instead, he should just direct his movies to the best of his ability— and don’t hype that it’s HIS movie—and then, if it does well, people will give him credit.  Right now, the last thing he needs is movie audiences knowing in advance that he’s behind the camera.  This information might actually keep people away from the theater.  Ultimately, if the movie is good, people are going to like it regardless of who made it, so if he makes a good movie, it’s not like people aren’t going to like it because he made it.

Moving on to our next question, right now, which one of the two is doing more damage to the horror industry?

LS:  Craven is doing another SCREAM movie soon. So I’d say him.

MA:  You really give SCREAM (1996) too much credit.  Come on, it didn’t ruin horror.  That being said, the world doesn’t need another SCREAM movie.

LS:  The first SCREAM movie thought it was so damn clever by pointing out all the clichés of the genre (which everyone who’s a fan of horror ALREADY KNEW).  SCREAM made horror a joke. Ironically, one of the movies that let people take horror seriously again was Shyamalan’s SIXTH SENSE.

MA:  I don’t understand why you say that, why you think SCREAM made horror a joke.  It was a horror movie with a sense of humor.  What’s the difference between SCREAM and ZOMBIELAND (2009)?  Did ZOMBIELAND make horror a joke?

LS:  You don’t understand my comment. ZOMBIELAND was a horror film with a sense of humor, and it worked. There’s nothing wrong with humor in a horror movie. SCREAM pretty much ridiculed the horror genre – the laugh was on us. The way to make better horror films is not to make the genre a laughing stock – but rather to stop making crap and make good movies. Which is why THE SIXTH SENSE was one of the films that lifted horror out of the funk that it settled into post-SCREAM.

The SCREAM movies also started a trend where almost every horror movie for a few years had to star kids (who looked like models) and no adults, which was abysmal. Shymalan never hurt the genre as a whole. He just made a lot of stinky movies.

CW:  The most damage?  It’s hard to say.  Shyamalan is still wet behind the ears and should maybe actually WATCH some horror movies to get a better understanding of the genre.  He seems to have at least made an attempt to make suspenseful films, but they fall apart with some really bad endings.

Wes Craven has been around longer and did at one time know what he was doing.  You know, maybe Craven is doing more damage because he’s helping Hollywood to churn out the lousy cookie-cutter crap they call horror movies.

MA:  I don’t think either one is damaging the horror industry.  I don’t give either one of these guys that much power.  The industry is full of talented people working in it right now.

That being said, I think Shyamalan’s movies get more press, but he’s starting to become a joke these days, so if he keeps this up, eventually people are just going to quit watching his films.  It’s not like people go to the movies these days to see one of his movies expecting it’s going to be a classic.  People know now that the guy’s not producing quality stuff.

I don’t think Wes Craven is even in the mix anymore.  Among today’s moviegoers, I don’t hear his name mentioned at all.

LS: Oh yeah? If the new SCREAM sequel is a big hit, that will change.

MA: These guys are both in slumps, but I don’t think they’re hurting the industry.

Alright folks, it’s decision time.  Time to pick a winner.  WES CRAVEN vs. M. NIGHT SHYAMALAN –which of these two directors wins today’s booby prize for worst director?

CW:  I give the booby prize to Wes Craven because he really has fallen farther from grace in the last two decades.  I think he’s gotten lazy and very sloppy.

MA:  I’d have to go with Shyamalan.  It’s almost as if his troubles are in his head, as if he’s lost his way.  He reminds me of a baseball player who’s a lifetime .300 hitter but is stuck in an awful hitting slump and can’t bat .200 to save his life.  His mechanics are all there, but he can’t buy a hit.  He just has to stick with it and work through it.

I think with time, Shyamalan will come around and make good quality movies again.

I think Craven is just old.  No, seriously, based upon his recent movies, I’d have to guess that he doesn’t even care anymore.  His films look like they were made by someone just going through the motions.

LS:  I’d say it’s a tie. They both are pretty awful at this point in their careers. And I dread seeing either of their movies. I wish they’d both go away.

MA:  A tie?  Interesting.

That gives us one vote for each, plus a tie, which puts us at 1 ½ for Craven and 1 ½ for Shyamalan.  Fittingly enough, tonight’s bout ends in a draw.  Both these guys are in a funk, and it seems these days neither one can make a good movie to save his life.

Therefore, tonight we award two booby prizes to both these directors.

On that note, go out and see a movie directed by someone else!

Well, folks, that all we have time for tonight.

LS:  Thanks, Colleen, for joining us.

CW:  It was a pleasure, guys.

MA:  This has been the last FRIDAY NIGHT KNIFE FIGHTS for 2010. Good night everybody!

—END—

1 Comment »

Friday Night Knife Fights: WES CRAVEN vs. M. NIGHT SHYAMALAN

Posted in 2010, 70s Horror, Aliens, Friday Night Knife Fights, Horror, M. Night Shyamalan Movies, Wes Craven Movies with tags , , , , , , , , on December 24, 2010 by knifefighter

FRIDAY NIGHT KNIFE FIGHTS
With Michael Arruda, L.L. Soares, and Colleen Wanglund

WES CRAVEN VS. M. NIGHT SHYAMALAN – Part 1

****

MICHAEL ARRUDA: Welcome to this month’s FRIDAY NIGHT KNIFE FIGHTS. Tonight, LL and I are joined by the Geisha of Gore herself, Colleen Wanglund. Welcome, Colleen.

COLLEEN WANGLUND: Happy to be here.

MA:  And how are you doing tonight, LL?

L.L. SOARES: I’ve been better. I mean, we’re going to be talking about Wes Craven and M. Night Shyamalan tonight. How good can I be?

MA:  That’s right, tonight on FRIDAY NIGHT KNIFE FIGHTS it’s WES CRAVEN vs. M. NIGHT SHYAMALAN. We’ll be answering the question, which of these two directors is in the worst slump right now?  Let’s get started. First of all, do you agree that these two directors are in a slump?

CW:  Absolutely!

Both of these directors are in a huge slump. Wes Craven actually used to make really good movies….back in the 70s and 80s. And M. Night Shyamalan was touted as a potential movie-making genius with so much promise.

MA:  How quickly fates change!

LS:  Both directors have had periods in their careers where they were doing some terrific work. Neither has done anything of value for at least the last ten years. So yeah, they are definitely in a slump. They’re both awful examples of horror directors.

MA:  I agree. I don’t see how anyone can argue otherwise, unless of course you’re a die-hard fan of Shyamalan and think all his movies have been great. I’m sure Dan Keohane would argue this if he were here.

LS:  You hear that Dan?  You’d better be here next time!

MA:  Nothing like pressuring the guy!

LS:  He can handle it. I thought he’d jump at the chance to defend his hero, M. Night. I’m surprised he didn’t show up for this one.

MA:  Maybe he was afraid he’d be outnumbered.

CW:  Which he would have been.

MA:  Okay, so, who has fallen further from grace?  In other words, which one was making movies at a higher level when he lost his way and got his head stuck in a toilet?

LS:    I guess I’d have to go with Wes Craven, because his early films were fantastic. I think LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT (1972) and THE HILLS HAVE EYES (1977) were like these iconic, influential classics. Even people who don’t like them have to admit how they left indelible marks on the genre.

MA:  I don’t like those movies, and I don’t have to admit that they were influential. I think they’re minor movies. They didn’t do anything to shape the horror industry, except maybe give people the false perception that horror movies are mindless violent trash, which is not a good thing. I don’t want people thinking horror movies are mindless violent trash.

LS:  As usual, you have no idea what you’re talking about. You claim to be a horror guy, but you’re such a wimp you can’t appreciate anything with any kind of real edge to it.

MA:  THE EXORCIST (1973), HALLOWEEN (1978), ALIEN (1979)–these movies don’t have an edge?  They do, plus guess what?  They actually were made well!

CW:  Sorry, but I have to agree with LL here. LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT (1972) and THE HILLS HAVE EYES are horror classics. I also loved SWAMP THING (1982), THE SERPENT AND THE RAINBOW (1988) and A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET (1984).

LS: SERPENT AND THE RAINBOW is actually really good. It might be the last good movie Craven has made.

CW: I think Craven started to lose his way with the ELM STREET sequels. If there’s one thing I hate more than a remake, it’s a sequel. Although there was also the absolutely awful THE PEOPLE UNDER THE STAIRS (1991).

LS: Oh God, you’re right. THE PEOPLE UNDER THE STAIRS is horrendous!

But, as for Craven’s career, you could tell as soon as he started getting big he really wanted to have a commercial/mainstream career, and he abandoned his more edgy sensibilities early on.

MA:  I didn’t like any of these movies, except for the first A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET. The last movie that Craven made that I liked was SCREAM (1996).

LS:  Yet another example of your lack of taste. SCREAM was crap.

MA:  I have to cut you off here, because we have to move on to Shyamalan.

LS:  Fine.  I’ll come back to SCREAM later, because I’ve got more to say about this smug little piece of —.

MA:  I’m sure you do.  Anyway, moving on to Shyamalan, the last movie that he made that I liked was SIGNS (2002), so in my book Craven’s been in the longer slump.

LS: You must be sniffing glue again. SIGNS was horrible. It’s illogical, badly written, and not scary. It’s a movie about aliens so stupid they invade Earth – a planet that’s like 80% water – and guess what their only weakness is? Yep. Water! I think these must be the stupidest aliens in film history. Since we’re mostly water, too, what the hell were they planning to do with us once they took over? Dumb, dumb, dumb.

MA: Yes, but it works!  It is scary, and I totally bought into the emotional plight of Mel Gibson’s character.  That being said, you’re dead on about the aliens.

Still, I enjoyed SIGNS and THE SIXTH SENSE (1999) better than anything Craven has ever made. I guess I’m not much of a Craven fan.

So, in my estimation, Shyamalan has fallen further from grace since THE SIXTH SENSE is a classic of the genre, and SIGNS, while flawed, captivated me much more than anything in Craven’s canon of work.

LS:  I thought Shyamalan’s best films were THE SIXTH SENSE and UNBREAKABLE (2000). I really liked both of them. However, I don’t think either one was as important as Craven’s early films. So I say Craven has fallen further.

CW:  It’s tough to answer this one. Shyamalan made one great movie in THE SIXTH SENSE and seemed to fall off from there. It was as if he believed the hype, that he probably couldn’t make a bad movie (but keep in mind his idol is Stephen Spielberg who is another iffy one for me).

So, I don’t know which one has fallen further. They both have fallen pretty far.

LS: I think that Craven has made better films than Shymalan. But Craven’s worst films are also worse than Shymalan’s worst.

MA:  Hold that thought, because that’s my next question.  Which of the two has made the worst movies of late?  Whose recent movies have you disliked more?

CW:  Of late?

In my opinion, Shyamalan hasn’t made a good movie since THE SIXTH SENSE (1999). And Craven hasn’t made a good movie since THE EIGHTIES!  I thought he was starting to mend his ways with SCREAM (1996) but then he just HAD to go and do sequels again.

MA:  So, you liked SCREAM?

CW:  Yeah, I liked the first one.

MA:  At least I’m not the only one here who liked that movie.

LS: I think you’re both high!

CW:  I have to say I probably dislike Wes Craven’s movies more because he’s been making movies longer and really should know better.

LS:  I think they’ve both been pretty awful. They both had career highs and they both have wallowed in the sewer for awhile now.

MA:  Wes Craven’s MY SOUL TO TAKE (2010) and CURSED (2005) were horrible. In fact, a friend of mine actually walked out of MY SOUL TO TAKE.

LS: I wish that friend was me. I had to sit through the whole thing and review it. Talk about torture porn! It was TORTURE sitting through that movie!

MA: Shyamalan’s recent movies haven’t been any better. Consider DEVIL (2010)— I know he only wrote this one, but I still count it as one of his movies—, THE HAPPENING (2008) , and the worst of the worst:  THE VILLAGE (2004).

LS: THE VILLAGE is a work of genius compared to THE HAPPENING and SIGNS. At least it started out really good.

MA: It may have started out well, but where it went afterwards was abysmal.

THE VILLAGE actually annoyed the hell out of me. I was really into it and really enjoying it, and then Shyamalan goes and ruins it with an idiotic revelation half way through the film which absolutely killed any and all suspense the movie had taken so much care to build up. So, I was already outraged long before the film’s ridiculous unnecessary twist ending.

LS: Frankly, the fact that THE VILLAGE annoyed you so much makes me like it more than I originally did. If it irritated you that much, it can’t be all bad.

MA: I think you secretly wrote the screenplay.

Whose recent movies have I disliked more?  Hands down, Shyamalan’s.

—-END PART 1—

(TO BE CONCLUDED NEXT FRIDAY)

Leave A Comment »

FRIDAY NIGHT KNIFE FIGHTS!

Posted in 2010, Craig Shaw Gardner, Friday Night Knife Fights, Grindhouse, Guillermo Del Toro, Indie Horror, Robert Rodriguez with tags , , , , , on November 26, 2010 by knifefighter

FRIDAY NIGHT KNIFE FIGHTS
(NOVEMBER BATTLE – CONCLUSION)
With Michael Arruda, L.L. Soares, and Craig Shaw Gardner

(The Scene:  a boxing ring, with spotlights on Michael Arruda, L.L. Soares, and Craig Shaw Gardner, sitting on stools inside the ring.)

MA:  Welcome back to FRIDAY NIGHT KNIFE FIGHTS. Tonight we’re continuing our brawl—er, discussion—of Robert Rodriguez vs. Guillermo Del Toro, in order to judge ultimately which one of the two is the better director?

I’m joined once again by L.L. Soares and Craig Shaw Gardner.  Gentlemen, thanks again for joining me.

CSG:  Happy to be here.

LS:  Screw the niceties.  Just get on with the questions.  I’m sure there’s a movie playing somewhere we have to review.

MA:  No doubt there is.  Anyway, LL, since you’re so full of—energy— tonight, we’ll start with you.  Of the two directors, Robert Rodriguez and Guillermo Del Toro, which one means more or has done more for the horror genre?

LS:  They have both done a lot for the horror genre—.

MA:  Cop out.

LS:  Will you let me finish?

MA:  Sure.  Go ahead.

LS:  As I was saying, they both have done a lot for the horror genre, although I feel Del Toro has a much stronger resume in the genre. Where Rodriguez has also made action films and family films, Del Toro’s output has been almost exclusively focused on horror, or at least dark fantasy.

MA:  Okay, it’s Craig’s turn.  Craig, how about you?  Who has done more for the genre, Del Toro or Rodriguez?

CSG:  Well, Del Toro has given us stuff like THE DEVIL’S BACKBONE (2001) and PAN’S LABYRINTH (2006), movies that engage the mind as much as any horror/fantastic films made today.

LS: I love them both! Great movies.

CSG: Both directors play fast and loose with horror conventions, but Rodriguez’s stuff seems to have less staying power.  So, I’d have to go with Del Toro.

MA:  I don’t know.   Rodriguez’s stuff has stayed with me.

However, because he’s has created such detailed and elaborate worlds of darkness in his movies, I’d have to say Del Toro has done more for the genre.  Rodriguez probably means more to the action/pulp genre than to horror.  I still prefer Rodriguez’ movies though.

And on that note, has either one of these two directors made a movie or movies that you’ve disliked?

I’ll answer my own question first and say no, neither one has made a movie that I’ve seen that I’ve disliked.  I’m not a big fan of PAN’S LABYRINTH, but I wouldn’t say I disliked it.  And I’ve liked everything I’ve seen directed by Rodriguez, even his SPY KIDS movies.

LS:  They have both made movies I have disliked. I was not a big fan of Del Toro’s MIMIC. While it had some interesting ideas, I didn’t care for it.

MA:  I liked MIMIC.  I thought it had its moments.

LS:  And something like BLADE II from 2002 (which was maybe the best installment in that series), though based on a comic book, is much inferior to his HELLBOY films, which are also based on comics.

As for Rodriguez, I am not a fan of the SPY KIDS movies. But then again, I am not the intended audience for them.

MA:  But without the SPY KIDS movies, there wouldn’t have been an Uncle Machete!

LS:  And I thought his MARIACHI films were uneven. Even his straight-out horror film FROM DUSK TIL DAWN—while there are some things I like a lot about it—is pretty much a mixed bag.  Overall, I think Del Toro has the stronger filmography.

MA:  So, Craig, which one has made a movie you’ve disliked?

CSG:  Both. And they were both sequels.  ONCE UPON A TIME IN MEXICO (2003) and HELLBOY 2 (2008) were, each in their own way, terribly confused, and big letdowns compared to the earlier films.

MA:  Time for our next question.  Which one would you want directing your own screenplay?  Craig?

CSG:  It would depend on the nature of the screenplay.  Haunted, spooky, reflective stuff would go with Del Toro.  Balls-to-the-wall action, and we’re going with Rodriguez.

MA:  Yeah, I would agree with that.

As for myself, I’d want Rodriguez directing my screenplay because I would most likely be writing something highly energetic with a pulp feel, as opposed to something more cerebral set in a fantasy world.  Rodriguez would be a better fit for me.

LS: Actually the best fit for you would be Hanna-Barbera.

MA:  Try Looney Tunes.  But cartoons aren’t on the ticket tonight.

LS:  If one of them were to direct a screenplay by me, I would definitely prefer it be Del Toro. While working with Rodriguez seems like it would be a lot of fun, and I agree he’s excellent when it comes to rapid-fire action, I just think Del Toro is a much more gifted director.

MA:  Okay.  That brings us to the final bell, the big question of the night.  The bout is over.  Robert Rodriguez or Guillermo Del Toro?  Who’s your pick for the best director?  Craig?

CSG:  First, I will admit to skipping a couple of Rodriguez films (some of his lesser, later, kid’s films.)

MA:  It’s okay. I haven’t seen all his films either.

CSG:  I would go see anything Del Toro was involved in (including stuff he produces), so I guess he’s my favorite of the two.  So I guess I’d have to go with Del Toro.

That said, I have no interest in reading the vampire book series he’s co-writing.  We all have our limits.

MA:  Absolutely!  I just read the book jacket of the latest book in that series the other day at my local library, and I left it on the shelf.

LS: Yeah, I’m not that interested in checking them out, either. Although, if he made films of the books, I’d go see them.

MA: My answer to the question, which one’s the better director, I’m sure both of you have already figured out.

For me, the best director is Robert Rodriguez over Guillermo Del Toro, hands down!

LS:  As usual, you have no idea what you’re talking about.  While they’re both talented, I’d go with Del Toro over Rodriguez any day.

MA:  So, there you have it folks, two votes for Del Toro, and one vote for Rodriguez.  So, on this particular night, Del Toro is the winner of the FRIDAY NIGHT KNIFE FIGHTS.

LS (shakes CSG’s hand): Thanks for proving I’m right. This guy never learns.

MA:  What a kiss up!

Anyway, on behalf of L.L. Soares, Craig Shaw Gardner and myself, we’d like to thank you for joining us tonight.  We’ll see you next month with another exciting bout between two horror icons.

LS:  And who knows which members from our illustrious staff will be here then to take part in the bloodshed.  Tune in to find out!

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

—END—

© Copyright 2010 by Michael Arruda,  L.L. Soares and Craig Shaw Gardner

2 Comments »

FRIDAY NIGHT KNIFE FIGHTS – PART 1

Posted in 2010, Art Movies, Friday Night Knife Fights, Grindhouse, Guillermo Del Toro, Robert Rodriguez with tags , , , , , , , , on November 19, 2010 by knifefighter

FRIDAY NIGHT KNIFE FIGHTS
Featuring: Michael Arruda, L.L. Soares and Craig Shaw Gardner

(A spotlight in a dark room suddenly illuminates MICHAEL ARRUDA)

MA: We’re kicking off a new column here at CINEMA KNIFE FIGHT.

Welcome to FRIDAY NIGHT KNIFE FIGHTS, the column where titans of terror square off in duels to the death (well, figuratively speaking, anyway), and it’s up to our illustrious panel of writers to determine the victor.

Tonight it’s ROBERT RODRIGUEZ VS. GUILLERMO DEL TORO, two of the most talented film directors working today. Which one of these talents is the better director?

I’m Michael Arruda, and joining me tonight to determine the answer to this question is my fellow knife fighter, L.L. Soares, and New York Time Bestselling author Craig Shaw Gardner. (As he introduces them, spotlights illuminate them as well, showing all three of them are sitting inside a boxing ring.)

Okay, here we go.

ROBERT RODRIGUEZ VS. GUILLERMO DEL TORO – who is the better director?

Craig, we’ll start with you. Of these two directors, whose style do you prefer?

CSG: It depends on the project. Rodriguez is better at straight ahead action. Del Toro is better at mood. If forced up against the wall, I’d pick Del Toro.

MA: Well, fortunately, we won’t be forcing you up against a wall on this issue.

CSG: That’s good.

LS: Although this is Cinema Knife Fight, so you never know!

MA: That’s true. LL, how about you? Whose style do you prefer?

LS: I’ve been following both Robert Rodriguez’s and Guillermo Del Toro’s careers since their first films…so….

MA: Really? So, you should have a lot to offer tonight on these two guys.

LS: …..Yeah, sure, if you let me talk. Besides, I have to make up for your shortcomings.

MA: I’ve seen a decent number of films by these guys. Don’t you be concerning yourself with me.

LS: I’m not planning to.

Anyway, in Rodriguez’s case, his first film was the much-lauded EL MARIACHI (1992), which received a lot of attention because it was made on an unbelievably small budget (rumored to be just $7,000). The movie, about a musician who is mistaken for a hit man, was a hit on the indie circuit and got Rodriguez’s career rolling. For Del Toro, his first feature film CRONOS (1993) was a unique take on the vampire yarn, concerning an old watchmaker and his granddaughter, and a strange clockwork device that turns people into vampires. This movie also received much attention during its release, mostly in  art-house theaters, marking Del Toro as an up-and-coming director to watch.

Rodriguez’s films are much more grounded in a grindhouse aesthetic (which makes sense, since he directed one of the two films that made up the “cinema experiment” called GRINDHOUSE in 2007, along with Quentin Tarantino) and this is evident in his Mariachi trilogy (EL MARIACHI, DESPERADO (1995) and 2003’s ONCE UPON A TIME IN MEXICO), as well as films such as PLANET TERROR (his half of GRINDHOUSE ), FROM DUSK TIL DAWN (1996), SIN CITY (from 2005, which he co-directed with comic book legend Frank Miller), and of course, his latest film MACHETE (2010). Rodriguez also has a strong base in family fare, having made the very successful SPY KIDS films (the first one was in 2001).

Del Toro’s work has had more of an  art-house sensibility, with a bigger emphasis on imagery, atmosphere and style. Since his early days, Del Toro has been splitting his time between Hollywood (movies like MIMIC (1997), and the successful HELLBOY films – from 2004 and 2008) and Mexico (more artistic Spanish-language films like THE DEVIL’S BACKBONE (2001) and PAN’S LABYRINTH (2006), both of which are excellent).

Del Toro is interested in other mediums as well, and has even written a series of novels (THE STRAIN series) with crime novelist Chuck Hogan.

Del Toro’s more literary background is also evident in the choice for his next film, a adaptation of H.P. Lovecraft’s AT THE MOUNTAINS OF MADNESS, which he has been trying to get green lit for several years now.

MA: So, whose style do you prefer?

LS: I’d have to go with Del Toro, too.

MA: In true Cinema Knife Fight fashion, I prefer Rodriguez’ style over De Toro’s, because I tend to enjoy his highly charged, energetic movies.

I enjoy movies with a high-octane pace, and Rodriguez’s films tend to fly at high speeds. Also, for me, a film with an edge is more compelling than say a film with great visual detail. Rodriguez’ movies tend to have more bite. I also prefer a movie with a strong story over one with a strong visual style. I think the stories Rodriguez has chosen to film—or at least the ones I’ve seen—have been stronger than the stories Del Toro has chosen. Again, from the ones I’ve seen.

LS: I disagree. Del Toro is as strong a storyteller as he is a visual artist. While I enjoy Rodriguez’s work a lot, I think his stories are more superficial than the more mythic quality found in Del Toro’s work, for the most part.

MA: If you say so, but I enjoyed the stories in movies like MACHETE and FROM DUSK TILL DAWN much more than the stories told in either of the HELLBOY movies, for example.

And while Del Toro is a master of creating strong visuals in his movies, Rodriguez is no slouch either. A film like SIN CITY is full of powerful visuals.

LS: Well, a big reason SIN CITY has such powerful visuals is because it is taken directly from Frank Miller’s graphic novels. It’s Miller’s vision, filtered through Rodriguez. But I have to admit, Rodriguez does a great job of helping Miller bring his artwork to life. Even though the movie is “co-directed” by Miller, I tend to think Rodriguez did most of the directing here –only because the movie maintains his kinetic style of movie-making throughout. So, as far as SIN CITY goes, you’re right. I think it’s easily Rodriguez’s most impressive project.

MA: Moving along, of the two, whose movies do you prefer? Craig?

CSG: Didn’t I just answer this question?

LS: He tends to repeat himself.

MA: It’s the middle school teacher in me. I actually asked whose style do you prefer before, and now I’m asking whose films do you prefer, but I’ll admit, they’re similar questions.

CSG: Whose movies do I prefer? Del Toro’s, probably, just because he’s better at bringing in the right collaborators for his individual projects.

LS: I like them both and think they are both bringing a lot to the current world of cinema, however, if I had to choose, I prefer the films of Guillermo Del Toro. I think that, of the two, Del Toro is much more of an artist, who knows how to use the medium of film to its best effect. Even his Hollywood films (especially the HELLBOY series) have vivid visuals and strong characterization, two things I look for in movies.

MA: See, I’m less interested in visuals, and I’m more into a good story.

LS: We’ve been over this already. Del Toro is more than just visuals, he’s all about story, too. Besides, how can you dismiss strong visuals, when film is a visual medium?

MA: I guess it’s just the writer in me.

LS: That’s a cop-out.

MA: No it isn’t. I write stories, and I enjoy stories, and while I enjoy the different ways directors tell their stories in their movies, if a film’s strength is its visuals and not its story, nine times out of ten I’m not going to like it as much. Obviously you feel that Del Toro is a very good storyteller. Fine. But I think Rodriguez is better at it.

As such, I prefer Robert Rodriguez’ movies over De Toro’s.

I loved MACHETE (2010), as the action was so over-the-top I couldn’t help but get drawn into its story. I also really enjoyed FROM DUSK TILL DAWN (1996), though admittedly, it does go downhill as it gets deeper into its vampire plot. It becomes almost silly. It’s a much edgier film early on when it deals with its straight action plot.

I liked SIN CITY (2005) a lot, and I even enjoyed THE FACULTY (1998).

With Del Toro, I liked the HELLBOY (2004 & 2008) movies a lot, but mostly because I enjoy the character of Hellboy. I enjoy the character much more than the actual movies. And while most people loved PAN’S LABRYNTH (2006), I wasn’t all that excited about it. I can’t deny its strong visual style, but its story I found too depressing for me to enjoy.

LS: That’s because you’re a wuss who can’t appreciate the power of darker storylines. “Oh, it’s too depressing for me.” That’s hardly a legitimate criticism! And PAN’S LABYRINTH has a stronger story to it than anything Rodriguez has made.

MA: And you’re a grump who can’t stand the fact that people disagree with your opinions. What do you mean it’s hardly a legitimate criticism? PAN’S LABYRINTH has a depressing story, and as such, it’s not for everyone’s tastes.

LS: You’re a horror writer. If anyone should be able to appreciate a dark storyline, it should be you. Weren’t you the one who said you liked movies with an edge? I guess as long as it’s a nice, safe edge that isn’t too dark, then you’re fine with it.

MA: I wouldn’t describe MACHETE or FROM DUSK TILL DAWN as nice and safe.

Hey, if you think PAN has a stronger story than Rodriguez’ movies, that’s your opinion and you’re entitled to it. But in my opinion, PAN’S LABRYNTH’s story is nothing to brag about.

And you’re calling me a wuss? You’re the one who raved over that art-house wannabe movie MONSTERS and thought it was compelling! That movie was so much about nothing I think Jerry Seinfeld co-wrote it!

LS: Yeah, well, I stand by my positive review of MONSTERS. You were wrong about that movie, and you’re wrong in this argument as well.

MA (mockingly): All bow down to the all-knowing god of film criticism! Wrong? How judgmental of you! Try a different opinion, bud!

(CSG watches them with a smirk on his face)

—TO BE CONTINUED —

To find out who we ultimately choose as the best director between ROBERT RODRIGUEZ VS. GUILLERMO DEL TORO, tune in next Friday for Part 2 of FRIDAY NIGHT KNIFE FIGHTS.

© Copyright 2010 by Michael Arruda, L.L. Soares and Craig Shaw Gardner

1 Comment »

FRIDAY NIGHT KNIFE FIGHTS ARE COMING!

Posted in 2010, Friday Night Knife Fights with tags on November 18, 2010 by knifefighter

Check out our latest experiment.

Tune in tomorrow for FRIDAY NIGHT KNIFE FIGHTS, a lively new column where our panel of writers won’t be wearing their kid gloves.  Check it out.  First installment arriving 11/19/10.

Leave A Comment »

Newer Entries »
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 40 other followers