Archive for Friday Night Knife Fights

« Older Entries

Friday Night Knife Fights Presents: SHAUN OF THE DEAD vs. ZOMBIELAND – Part 3 (of 3)

Posted in 2013, Friday Night Knife Fights, Horror-Comedies, Zombie Movies, Zombies with tags , , on April 26, 2013 by knifefighter

FRIDAY NIGHT KNIFE FIGHTS:  SHAUN OF THE DEAD (2004) vs. ZOMBIELAND (2009)
PART 3 (of 3)
With Michael Arruda, L. L. Soares, Daniel Keohane, Paul McMahon, Sheri Sebastian-Gabriel, and Colleen Wanglund

2013-03-13-shaun_of_the_dead_ver2

MICHAEL ARRUDA:  Welcome back to Friday Night Knife Fights.  Tonight it’s Part 3 of our battle of the zombie comedies, SHAUN OF THE DEAD vs. ZOMBIELAND.

So far, SHAUN OF THE DEAD has opened up a very wide lead, as it’s ahead of ZOMBIELAND by a score of 4 rounds to 1.

PAUL MCMAHON:  As it should be.  SHAUN OF THE DEAD is a much better movie than ZOMBIELAND.

ARRUDA:  Says you.  But that’s what we’re here to decide.

Once again, L.L. Soares and I are joined by Dan Keohane, ZOMBIELAND hater Paul McMahon, Sheri Sebastian-Gabriel, and Colleen Wanglund.  Thank you all for joining us tonight.  We’ve got a great panel, and tonight’s the night that we conclude the debate.  Even though SHAUN OF THE DEAD has a comfortable lead, there’s still time for ZOMBIELAND to make a comeback.

Okay, it’s on to Round 6.  

Which movie has the better screenplay?  Rhett Reese & Paul Wernick for ZOMBIELAND, or Simon Pegg & Edgar Wright for SHAUN OF THE DEAD?

SHERI SEBASTIAN-GABRIEL: ZOMBIELAND has a better screenplay, I would say.

The plot is less predictable than that of SHAUN OF THE DEAD. As I mentioned, I like SHAUN, but ZOMBIELAND is written better and executed more effectively.

The ending of SHAUN seemed a little odd. Life kind of goes back to normal. It doesn’t really ring true. At the end of ZOMBIELAND, the characters are changed, but there’s no illusion that things go back to “normal.”

MCMAHON:  This is so obviously SHAUN OF THE DEAD.

If you take the zombies away, Shaun was the story of a man whose life was crumbling under his own complacency. He embarked on a journey to win back his girl, distance himself from his mooch of a best friend, make amends with his mom and stepdad and generally “sort his life out.” The zombies made the film awesome, but they weren’t the main focus.

ARRUDA:  Come on!  Do you really think without zombies SHAUN OF THE DEAD would stand as having a decent story?  I don’t think so.  Take away the zombies and you’re left with a bunch of losers fighting over pub food.

MCMAHON:  It’s a better story than ZOMBIELAND.

In ZOMBIELAND, you had one putz following the standard zombie movie plot by searching for his family, you had two brainless putzettes who believed zombies wouldn’t enter amusement parks, and then you had the biggest putz of all on a nationwide hunt for Twinkies snack cakes. Take the zombies out and you’ve got squat.

ARRUDA:  I wouldn’t want to take the zombies out of either movie, actually.  But I think the characters in ZOMBIELAND are just as satisfying as the characters in SHAUN, perhaps more so since they’re so over the top.

MCMAHON:  Nah.  SHAUN OF THE DEAD by a landslide.

ARRUDA:  Well, I think both screenplays work.  Both are hilariously funny, and both manage to be excellent zombie movies to boot. 

How to choose?  While this one may seem too close to call at first, after thinking about it— now don’t fall out of your chair, Paul— but I give the edge to Simon Pegg & Edgar Wright for SHAUN OF THE DEAD.  Their screenplay works from beginning to end. 

MCMAHON:  I told you.

ARRUDA:  While I enjoy Reese and Wernick’s ZOMBIELAND screenplay, their story runs out of steam somewhat as the movie approaches its final act at the amusement park.  And the Bill Murray scenes, while funny the first time, didn’t hold up as well upon further viewing.

L.L. SOARES:  I think both scripts are good. But I think SHAUN is a little smarter.

ARRUDA:  SHAUN OF THE DEAD wins Round 6.  Our updated score is SHAUN 5, ZOMBIELAND 1.

It’s time now for the seventh and final round.

And since ZOMBIELAND is so far behind, the only way now that it could win this contest would be by a knockout.  A knockout occurs when one movie sweeps the round, meaning all the panel members vote for the same movie.  Something tells me, though (looks at Paul McMahon) that that’s not going to happen today.

Bienvenidos_a_Zombieland-565000159-large-e1339351714563

Anyway, on to Round 7.  Which one is the better movie?

COLLEEN WANGLUND:  They may both be horror comedies, but the movies are very different from one another. 

I did like ZOMBIELAND, overall, enjoying immensely the title sequence using Metallica’s “For Whom the Bell Tolls.”

I thoroughly enjoyed both movies and would watch either one again.  The acting and directing were superb in both.  I will give SHAUN OF THE DEAD a slight edge here, however because the characters just feel more real to me.  I do appreciate the fact that it doesn’t go full-on apocalypse, so it’s a bit different than most zombie films. 

So my pick for which one of the two is the better film goes to SHAUN OF THE DEAD.

DAN KEOHANE:  SHAUN OF THE DEAD is a quieter, more subtle film that builds the laugh, and tension, as it goes along, and breaks as many of the zombie “rules” as it celebrates. It’s a British film, so the humor and social references are, well, British. If you’ve never been able to get into their sense of humor, you’d probably say ZOMBIELAND was better, especially as an American film – jumps right into the action, with in your face jokes and humor (and American cultural references – “Twinkies” versus “crisps” for example).

I love British humor as much as American. So my pick would probably depend on my mood at the time.  Yes, this is a long-winded, borderline pompous way of saying, “Neither, they’re just as funny in their own way.”

My final pick:  I call it a draw.  It’s a tie.

SEBASTIAN-GABRIEL:  I think ZOMBIELAND is an overall better film. The plot works better for me.

SHAUN OF THE DEAD suffers, I think, because the first half of the film is largely expositional. Sure, in ZOMBIELAND, we have “the Rules,” which are expositional, but it’s done in such a funny way that we hardly notice.

SOARES: Yeah, “the Rules” were clever.

SEBASTIAN-GABRIEL: In ZOMBIELAND, we don’t know much about the characters, and we learn about them as they learn about each other. The problem with SHAUN OF THE DEAD is that by the end we can kind of figure out what’s going to happen because it’s all been set up for us.

My choice for the better film is ZOMBIELAND.

ARRUDA:  This one is a very difficult question to answer.  I tend to prefer ZOMBIELAND because I prefer its in-your-face zombie style to the more reserved British humor of SHAUN OF THE DEAD, but does that make it a better movie?

I’m not sure.

I think the acting in both movies is equally as good, although I prefer the cast in ZOMBIELAND, so I give a slight acting edge to ZOMBIELAND.  Both directors do phenomenal jobs, but I think Ruben Fleischer is a bit more creative with his style, so again I give the edge to ZOMBIELAND.  I give a slight writing edge to SHAUN, but again the scripts are both terrific.

Based on this model, ZOMBIELAND wins two of the three rounds, so heck, I’m going with ZOMBIELAND.  I choose ZOMBIELAND as the better movie.

MCMAHON (to Michael and Sheri):  Poor misguided souls, the both of you.

Do I have to say this yet again?

SHAUN OF THE DEAD. I’ve seen it twelve times at least.

ARRUDA:  I’m so very happy for you.  What do you want? A medal?

SOARES:  Hey, don’t be rude to our guests!  That’s my department! 

MCMAHON:  In all the time since I watched ZOMBIELAND, I have not once wanted to go back and see it again. The only reason I did was to refresh my memory of it for these answers. I’m still underwhelmed. Without George A. Romero, SHAUN OF THE DEAD wouldn’t exist. Without SHAUN OF THE DEAD, ZOMBIELAND wouldn’t exist. Winner: SHAUN OF THE DEAD.

Can you tell I hated ZOMBIELAND?

SEBASTIAN-GABRIEL:  I’m beginning to see that, yes.

WANGLUND:  You’ve made it loud and clear.

KEOHANE:  And yet there’s still a modicum of obscurity, a morsel of doubt.  I’m not sure.

MCMAHON:  Very funny.

SOARES:  So it’s my turn, huh? What’s the best movie? Well, that’s very subjective, isn’t it? I would say, from a quality standpoint, SHAUN OF THE DEAD has the edge. But as to “What movie did I enjoy more?” Which movie do I personally like better, that’s more neck and neck.

I guess a good yardstick is which one would you watch again, and my answer this time around is neither. I like both of these movies, but I don’t love them. If I was channel surfing and found one of them, I might watch it, but I wouldn’t consciously sit down and watch one of them from start to finish again. I’m just not that big a fan of most zombie movies.

If I was going to rewatch any zombie flick, it would be either one of Romero’s classics or an especially good episode of THE WALKING DEAD. That’s about it.

So that means I’m the tie-breaker here. Colleen and Paul went with SHAUN. While Michael and Sheri went with ZOMBIELAND. And while I am sort on the fence, I refuse to take the easy way out like Keohane did and call it a tie.

I would say that, as far as pure enjoyment, and both of these films are meant to be entertaining above all else, I would have to go with ZOMBIELAND.

ARRUDA: Oh my God, I think it’s an upset! That means three votes ZOMBIELAND,  two votes SHAUN OF THE DEAD and one tie for Round 7 – which is the Knockout Round.

MCMAHON (to SOARES): I don’t believe you just did that, you bastard.

SOARES: Blame Keohane. He couldn’t make up his mind.

****

ARRUDA (reads the rule book): Errr.. not so fast. I just read the rules. The final knock-out round has to be unanimous. So ZOMBIELAND didn’t win after all.

SOARES: Dammit! I thought it was just whatever won the final round wins by TKO. That’s a stupid rule! If one movie is ahead all the way through, the chances of everyone unanimously agreeing to the other movie in the final round is pretty much impossible.

(Takes rule book from ARRUDA and rips out that page)

ARRUDA: Actually, you’re right, that probably is never going to happen. I guess it is a stupid rule. But, we can’t just change the rules at the last minute.

So here’s the solution. From this point on, the Knockout Round does not have to be unanimous. If a movie is ahead, but the other one wins the final round, then it wins by TKO, unanimous or not. That will make things more interesting.

But for this contest, we really should stick with the original rules.

MCMAHON (jumping up and down): So that means….SHAUN OF THE DEAD WINS!

ARRUDA: It sure looks that way.

MCMAHON: Yay! Now I don’t have to hang myself.

ARRUDA: Which movie is the zombie comedy champion of the world?  Well, tonight, it’s SHAUN OF THE DEAD!

On behalf of L.L. Soares, Dan Keohane, Paul McMahon, Sheri Sebastian-Gabriel, Colleen Wanglund, I’m Michael Arruda saying so long and thanks for joining us on Friday Night Knife Fights.  We’ll see you again next time.

(In the background, PAUL MCMAHON is chasing L.L. SOARES around with an axe)

MCMAHON: How dare you scare the bejeesus out of me like that!

ARRUDA: Good night everybody!

-END-

© Copyright 2013 by Michael Arruda, L.L. Soares, Daniel G. Keohane, Paul McMahon, Sheri-Sebastian-Gabriel and Colleen Wanglund

Leave A Comment »

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

2 Comments »

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 »

Friday Night Knife Fights – 2D Vs. 3D – Conclusion

Posted in 2011, 3-D, Deformed Freaks!, Gimmicks with tags , , , , on April 8, 2011 by knifefighter

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

MA:  Welcome back to the third and final segment  of our Great 3D Debate. Once again L.L. and I are joined by Dan Keohane.

(Dan is seen making a cigarette disappear up his nose.)

LS:  I love that trick!

(Dan pulls it out of his ear.)

MA:  We’re discussing 3D movies vs. 2D movies, and so far, 2D movies have had the upper hand in this duel.  We all love 3D effects, but we seem to be in agreement that on their own, they don’t make a movie better, and nowadays with all these new 3D movies, it costs more to buy a ticket.

LS: Scam!

MA:  And that’s exactly the topic we’re leading off with tonight:  the extra cost of the 3D ticket, which begs the question, are these new 3D movies worth the extra ticket prices the theaters charge?  Or is it a scam by the film companies and theaters?

LS:  I sound like a broken record, but except for AVATAR, 3D movies are not worth the extra ticket price at all. It really does feel like a scam. Plus you still have to wear annoying glasses – they’re just sturdier now. I find it ludicrous, by the way, that you have to pay extra for those glasses and then afterwards the theaters ask you to donate them back so they can be recycled. How about refunding my $5 surcharge if I return the glasses?

MA:  Good point.

I don’t think the new 3D movies are worth the extra ticket prices either.

Is it a scam?  I don’t know.  I’d like to think it’s not a scam, but the more I think about it, the more upset I become.  Why?  I can understand a film like AVATAR which spent so much money on top-of-the-line best-of-the-best 3D effects, but the rest of these movies?  The effects aren’t as good, supposedly because they weren’t as expensive, yet they charge the same extra fee.  What’s up with that?  I smell a rat, and it doesn’t smell good!

If 3D movies cost the same as 2D movies, I’d be all for them because the effects are fun and sometimes they do add something to the movie, but factor in the extra cost, and that takes the fun away.  In other words, if you’re going to charge me extra because of 3D effects, then those effects had better be damn good and the main reason I’m seeing this movie!

What’s next?  Pay more for certain directors?  Actors?  Steven Spielberg directed this movie, so it costs $3.00 more.  What’s that?  This movie stars BOTH Robert DeNiro and Al Pacino?  $3.00 co-actor fee.

I don’t like the 3D fee.  Sure, the argument is that the equipment needed at the theater to show these films in 3D costs more, but that argument only goes so far.  Gas prices keep going up, so it costs me more each week to drive to the theater, so we’re in the same boat.  I don’t get to request lower ticket prices because it costs more to drive there.  I just suck it up.  The theaters should too.

LS:  Michael —since you and I rarely have access to preview screenings for films—we just about always have to pay for movie tickets out of our own pockets. Sometimes, I bitch about this. But truth is, it keeps us honest. If I go see a movie for free and it has gimmicky 3D effects, I’ll be more forgiving. But if I just paid $15 for a movie where the 3D effects add nothing, I am going to be pissed off. Just like our readers.

DK:  Now here’s an idea—.

MA:  Are you through doing magic tricks?

DK:  Maybe.  Actually, it’s the only one I know, so I have no choice (laughs).  What was I saying?

LS (to MA):  Stop interrupting our guest!  You’re the host.  You’re not supposed to be rude.  This isn’t Fox News!

MA:  I wasn’t being rude.  I just wanted to find out if he was going to do something else, like pull a rabbit out of his jacket.

DK:  No, no rabbits.

MA:  You were saying something about an idea.

DK:  Yes— if Hollywood is going to insist on using this new toy of theirs… how about trying out this conversion (from 2D to 3D) trick on some classic sci-fi movies, or classic movies which have enough effects that would lend themselves to the effect. 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY (1968) in 3D? That would be very cool. STAR WARS (been redone so often no year fits anymore, lol) in 3D? Oh yea. BREAKFAST AT TIFFANY’S (1961)? Probably not.

MA:  I’d like to see the 1953 version of WAR OF THE WORLDS in 3D.  That’d be cool.

Well, gentlemen,—.

LS:  Who walked in?

MA: Ha, ha!  We’ve reached the moment our readers have been waiting for.  It’s time to make our decision, to declare a winner of this bout.  3D vs. 2D.  Are 3D movies the future of motion pictures, and do we want to see more of them?

Or, have we had enough of 3D already and want to go back to just 2D movies, saving 3D for once in a blue moon?

So, what will it be?  3D, or 2D?  Dan?

DK:  When the 3D floodwaters have settled, we’ll be left with a select few movies in 3D which should be in 3D, and the rest will come back to roost in 2D, simply because people will stop paying for it, and the extra cost to produce/convert these movies will become unprofitable. Hopefully more theaters will convert to digital “projection”, and when that happens, 2D will be even more brilliant to watch. That is, if the movie itself is brilliant. Don’t forget, you still need to make a good movie. That’s what will bring people in to the theaters. If they want 3D, they’ll have plenty of it when they walk outside into the real world.  So, it’s 2D for me.

LS:  A 3D movie once in a while would be just fine. Something like the next PIRAHNA movie.

MA:  Or better yet, something else.  The world doesn’t need another PIRANHA 3D movie.

LS:  Well, it’s going to get it because they’re already working on the sequel!

MA:  I know, I know.  You don’t have to remind me.

LS:  A horror flick once in a while, and some cartoons, but not all of them. Once in a blue moon is perfect. But this push to try to make every single movie that comes out a 3D extravaganza is just a con game to separate us from our money for shoddy merchandise.

Part of the problem is, too, that they’re coming out with 3D televisions now, and they have to create content to make the more expensive TVs worth buying. This is probably a big part of the push to make more movies in 3D. But once again, it’s just another way to take our hard-earned money. I don’t care about 3D movies, and I don’t care about 3D TV. I refuse to get sucked in by these things. I wish they would just go away. Once in a while is fine. But 3D 24/7—every time we go to the movies or turn on a television set—is overkill.

Look, what makes for a great movie is the story, the acting, the direction. Without these things, no gimmick in the world is going to improve your work. Unless you wield billions of dollars l don’t think it’s worth it.  2D, damn it!

MA:  Since I loved AVATAR so much, I really wanted 3D to be the future of motion pictures, but as long as they’re charging extra for it, I’m not into it.  Get rid of the extra charge, and I’m all in.

As is stands now, we have to pay extra for 3D, so as long as this stands, I’m against it.  It’s 2D movies for me!

Well, there you have it!  It’s unanimous!  2D movies win out.  I mean, we all love 3D, but it costs more to see them, and really doesn’t add a whole lot to the quality of the movie.  Thanks, guys for chiming in on this.

DK:  No problem.  I just remembered another trick I know how to do.  Do you guys mind if I try something new?

LS:  Go for it.  We’ve seen your other trick so many times, it’d be good to see something new.

MA:  Go right ahead.

DK:  I’m not sure if this will work.  It’s been a while.   I’ll say the magic words and snap my fingers— (utters what seems to be a foreign language and snaps his fingers— in a poof of smoke, MA & LS suddenly disappear.)  Hmm.  That wasn’t supposed to happen.    Guys?  You still here somewhere?  This has never happened before.  I’m sure they’ll be back in time for their next column— won’ t they?

This has been FRIDAY NIGHT KNIFE FIGHTS—-good night everybody!

—-END—

Leave A Comment »

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 – 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 »

« Older Entries
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 82 other followers