Silent Night Deadly Night (30th Anniversary Edition) - September 16, 2014

[Lyle_JP]

If you want to understand Roger Ebert's "taste" in movies, just watch Russ Meyer's "Beyond the Valley of the Dolls", which Ebert wrote.

I had a hard time taking any of his reviews seriously after seeing that film.

He also tried to sic the general public on Betsy Palmer for having dared star in Friday the 13th. At times the man was simply contemptible.

[AlexIlDottore]

Originally Posted by Lyle_JP

If you want to understand Roger Ebert's "taste" in movies, just watch Russ Meyer's "Beyond the Valley of the Dolls", which Ebert wrote.

I had a hard time taking any of his reviews seriously after seeing that film.

That film's a masterpiece. I want a blu.

[Lyle_JP]

Originally Posted by AlexIlDottore

That film's a masterpiece. I want a blu.

If that film has any merit at all, the credit goes entirely to Russ Meyer.

[AlexIlDottore]

Originally Posted by Lyle_JP

If that film has any merit at all, the credit goes entirely to Russ Meyer.

But you just said that Ebert "wrote" it

[mayorofsmpleton]

Originally Posted by JimSmith

Critics, like ebert or siskel are way too politically motivated! They kept saying, especially ebert and siskel, that slasher movies were anti-woman and that the filmmaker's were making these films as a response to the women's movement which is a bit extreme and downright silly! They said on an episode of their show back in 1980 that the movie when a stranger calls was anti-woman, now how in the hell did they come to that conclusion?! A little too much education perhaps?! Those siskel and ebert clowns sounded like they had vaginas for christ sakes, they just went a little too far with the feminism. I don't care how educated ebert or siskel was they were dipsticks and if I seen these two out on the street I would think that they were two goofy lookin clowns!

To be fair many of them do come off that way and in the 1980s it wasn't much of a stretch to think that way. Just because a woman saves the day doesn't erase they are films that mostly feature big breasted women being victimized. The one surviving often the 'virgin.' While this is largely due to lame attempts by filmmakers to copy Halloween (Carpenter even said Laurie wasn't intended to be virginal so much as more 'aware' of her surrounding and sensitive to what happens around her) by casting a pretty virgin to fight the monster the rest of the knockoffs of the era were pretty much dumb women being stalked and killed.

That said he gave the original Last House on the Left 3.5 stars when most critics savagely ripped it apart. He saw something more there. Wasn't much in agreement with Siskels opinion very often though. He seemed more politically motivated than Ebert.

[Lyle_JP]

Originally Posted by AlexIlDottore

But you just said that Ebert "wrote" it

Yes. And the writing in the film is utterly laughable. And I don't mean some of it, I mean every ridiculous word. But Russ Meyer had a way of film-making that is strangely appealing. He probably did more setups per scene than just about any low-budget film-maker, and his editing techniques were legendary.

And he liked really big b00bs.

[AlexIlDottore]

Originally Posted by Lyle_JP

Yes. And the writing in the film is utterly laughable. And I don't mean some of it, I mean every ridiculous word. But Russ Meyer had a way of film-making that is strangely appealing. He probably did more setups per scene than just about any low-budget film-maker, and his editing techniques were legendary.

And he liked really big b00bs.

I fully rate Meyer as well, but for me, the team work made for a magically funked up movie.

[AlexIlDottore]

Originally Posted by Lyle_JP

And he liked really big b00bs.

I wonder why Meyer never worked with Chesty Morgan ?

Maybe it's because she's such a jaw dropping terrible actress ?

[sarah_wentworth]

Originally Posted by AlexIlDottore

It is a real job.

You don't need to have made a movie to be able to say it's bad or not (acting, story dialogue etc etc).

I don't know why they should have produced/directed a blockbuster, but you should note that Ebert co-wrote (with Russ Meyer), one of Meyer's best flicks: Beyond the Valley of the Dolls. IMO, it's one of the best end of sixties/debut seventies trash epics ever made. Seriously.

well i would take medical classes for ten years and perform some surgeries before i would feel qualified to criticize a brain surgeon on his surgery techniques. just because i watch surgeries being performed doesn't mean i know anything about them.

its okay to come on here and say you like or hate movies. but to do it for the New York Times or on tv just because you conned people into thinking you know something about movies they don't or that you have the final word on how good a movie is, is wrong.

[sarah_wentworth]

Originally Posted by mayorofsmpleton

You do realize most critics have actually studied films and know more than the average Joe about film, film theory, symbolism, the technical side of the craft, etc? Right?
You aren't supposed to change viewing habits by what a critic says. Think about it. If I were a critic I would say SNDN is total sleazy trash. An uninspired bit of garbage that lacks just about any quality and feels like one step above an 80s porn in almost every aspect.

Having said that, the movie is amazingly fun to watch. Probably because I like bad films sometimes. Anybody swayed to not watch this kind of movie by a review was never going to see it anyway.

Ebert has praised many genre films over his career. It just typically was saved for the ones that were actually good films. I felt his 1 star review for I Know What You Did Last Summer was harsh but I agreed with most of his summation of that film so it is hard to complain. I may enjoy it but I can't say that I disagreed with anything he said there.

And The Usual Suspects wasn't that great. Stop whining that Ebert didn't like it. The 'twist' was not particularly mind bending or clever. Saw that from miles away.

Also the film SNDN was pulled by the studio. Any negative publicity likely HELPED the movie be a success on home video, which is how movies like this showed their legs in the 80s. See THE STEPFATHER, CRITTERS, SLUMBER PARTY MASSACRE, ETC. They've all but proven that negative publicity has no effect on this kind of media. It can only boost awareness of the film to the audience that was already poised to embrace it.

yeah a critic tells us a bunch of stuff about a movie anyone can spend 5 minutes on wikipedia researching. how wonderful. that's actually useful cause it saves me 5 minutes.

a review is just an opinion of a movie. ebert's opinion is no more important than anyone elses. but most of the public is easily influenced so when ebert says a movie is good you can bet producers show his 4 out of 4 star rating on the advertising or dvd box. why? because people think if ebert likes it it must be good.

anyway, like i've said before i really don't need someone to tell me whether or not a movie is good, i'm an adult and can figure it out myself.

as for ebert, he proved his opinion is useless when he gave Cop and a half (3 stars), and Reservoir Dogs, Clockwork Orange, Unforgiven, Gladiator, The Usual Suspects 2.5 stars or less.

i'll bet you're still waiting for the Cop and a half sequel to come out because ebert loved the first one so much

[sarah_wentworth]

Originally Posted by Lyle_JP

If you want to understand Roger Ebert's "taste" in movies, just watch Russ Meyer's "Beyond the Valley of the Dolls", which Ebert wrote.

I had a hard time taking any of his reviews seriously after seeing that film.

He also tried to sic the general public on Betsy Palmer for having dared star in Friday the 13th. At times the man was simply contemptible.

i agree lol

[RRL]

Originally Posted by sarah_wentworth

yeah a critic tells us a bunch of stuff about a movie anyone can spend 5 minutes on wikipedia researching. how wonderful. that's actually useful cause it saves me 5 minutes.

a review is just an opinion of a movie. ebert's opinion is no more important than anyone elses. but most of the public is easily influenced so when ebert says a movie is good you can bet producers show his 4 out of 4 star rating on the advertising or dvd box. why? because people think if ebert likes it it must be good.

anyway, like i've said before i really don't need someone to tell me whether or not a movie is good, i'm an adult and can figure it out myself.

as for ebert, he proved his opinion is useless when he gave Cop and a half (3 stars), and Reservoir Dogs, Clockwork Orange, Unforgiven, Gladiator, The Usual Suspects 2.5 stars or less.

i'll bet you're still waiting for the Cop and a half sequel to come out because ebert loved the first one so much

That's the most important thing. If you can't watch a movie for yourself and determine if you like it, then you can't think for yourself. I never understood how Siskel and Ebert's word was so golden in the 80s. It never made sense to me then and decades later it still doesn't.

[mayorofsmpleton]

Originally Posted by sarah_wentworth

well i would take medical classes for ten years and perform some surgeries before i would feel qualified to criticize a brain surgeon on his surgery techniques. just because i watch surgeries being performed doesn't mean i know anything about them.

A Doctor needs a medical license to practice medicine. Film-makers do not require a license to make films. People do not need credentials to comment on art (which you are doing yourself) but should one wish to do it professionally they'd probably have to get some schooling before any publication would hire them. Regardless brain surgery and film-making aren't in the same realm. One is art/self-expression in the form of entertainment and the other is saving lives. Are you really trying to compare the two?

its okay to come on here and say you like or hate movies. but to do it for the New York Times or on tv just because you conned people into thinking you know something about movies they don't or that you have the final word on how good a movie is, is wrong.

Starvation is wrong. The death of innocent people is wrong. Senseless violence is wrong. Film critics doing their job's is not wrong. Not to get overly philosophical but if your words impact even one person from renting or viewing a film how is that any different than what a critic does? Is it because he's paid to write reviews? Ebert knew more about movies from one single year than you know about the entire history of film. He didn't "con" anyone into thinking he knows more about films than them. For 99% of the people reading his reviews he DOES know more.

yeah a critic tells us a bunch of stuff about a movie anyone can spend 5 minutes on wikipedia researching. how wonderful. that's actually useful cause it saves me 5 minutes.

So critic reviews are useful now? Confusing... I thought they were a waste?

I'm sure all the film studies courses and time he spent studying film and film theory couldn't possibly give him any more insight into film or art than a google search or wikipedia result would. The fact remains neither has anything to do with the other so your argument makes very little sense.

a review is just an opinion of a movie. ebert's opinion is no more important than anyone elses. but most of the public is easily influenced so when ebert says a movie is good you can bet producers show his 4 out of 4 star rating on the advertising or dvd box. why? because people think if ebert likes it it must be good.

Again, so because he's paid to write reviews and they're featured on a DVD box -- possibly swaying the opinion of someone who can't make up their own mind (translation = sheep?) -- he's doing something wrong? I again will challenge you to question if you've ever said to someone "do NOT see this film. It is terrible." The mere difference is more people care what Ebert's opinion on movies is than yours. Again, because he's actually knowledgeable about film in ways you're incapable of being.

anyway, like i've said before i really don't need someone to tell me whether or not a movie is good, i'm an adult and can figure it out myself.

You could have fooled me.

as for ebert, he proved his opinion is useless when he gave Cop and a half (3 stars), and Reservoir Dogs, Clockwork Orange, Unforgiven, Gladiator, The Usual Suspects 2.5 stars or less.

So you dislike Cop and a half. You're telling people not to see it? BLASPHEMY! That's not right! Oh right, only the word of critics has any bearing on public opinion of films. If only the critics hadn't slammed Silent Night, Deadly Night in 1984 -- then the general public would have embraced the film for the masterpiece that it is...

Also, The Usual Suspects is overrated.

i'll bet you're still waiting for the Cop and a half sequel to come out because ebert loved the first one so much

I actually looked up his review just because you said this. He sums up the film quite well -- and it isn't the type of film I'd want to see. Which is why I like reading his reviews. "There isn't much that's original in "Cop and a Half," but there's a lot that's entertaining, and there's a winning performance by a young man with a big name, Norman D. Golden II, who plays little Devon Butler, a kid who dreams of someday wearing the shield." Doesn't sound like it would interest me but I guess I'm not one of the sheeple you're worried he will influence...

So to clarify -- it's okay to review films -- but only if you do it from a non-professional standpoint and don't "con" people into thinking you actually know anything about film... because to influence people to not watch a film or to seek one out (only in mass numbers, small influences are okay...) is "wrong." Does that sum it up?

For the record you should thank Ebert for directing any attention at all to Silent Night, Deadly Night. It's a preposterous film (which I LOVE very much. Absolutely hilariously bad and a movie I view EVERY SINGLE CHRISTMAS). However, we all know that even bad publicity is good publicity. The film would be a forgotten piece of celluloid were it not for all the media criticism of it. It became a legit video nasty in the mid-1980s and a sure-fire VHS rental smash. There's a reason they managed to get 4 sequels out of it. These types of films did particularly well on video.

And most slasher films ARE terrible. Does it mean I do not enjoy watching them? Certainly not -- but they're hardly high-brow or artistic... and often when they are the critics DO take notice (see HALLOWEEN, SCREAM, Wes Craven's New Nightmare, etc.) at the attempts of the film-makers to defy expectations of the genre and do something different with a format that is often "generic masked killer stalks nubile teenagers leaving one left to defeat the killer. bad acting, bad cinematography, bad sets, bad costumes, bad just about everything."

Once again, it doesn't mean these films are not worth watching. They're just not often competently made. One really doesn't view The Slumber Party Massacre, for example, mistaking it for anything other than borderline exploitation. Yet even in that film there's a sick sense of black humor that gives the film an edge over most of the slasher films that came out that year. Given that the women who made the film did it with nearly NO budget is all the more reason to pat them on the back and respect the film for what it is... but what on earth would you give it? Four stars? It's trash. Entertaining trash -- but still trash. Slasher films are like the McDonald's of the film world. Tasty as Hell but not particularly filling or nutritious. For every Halloween there are fifty pieces of junk. The ironic thing is that it's not the horror genre only that suffers from this -- it's just a genre that often requires very little money so many aspiring film-makers try their hand at it. It's a cheap way to bust through into the industry. The sad fact is that most who play in the genre know very little about the craft when they make the film. AGAIN, which is why Halloween is particularly commendable. It was done with almost no money by kids in their 20's who had aspirations of greater. They chose a genre to dabble in, on the cheap, and made an A picture. Kudos to them.

Silent Night, Deadly Night is one of MANY knockoffs that unsuccessfully tries to rip off an overused formula. It's entertaining qualities come from just how glaringly terrible it is. The acting -- the "script" -- the production values. It's just awful. I'd consider it "awfully entertaining," however.

There's no doubt I'll be picking up this Blu-ray when it's released. I'd never recommend it to anyone who isn't a fan of this type of film, however. The fact remains that not a single critic who may have bashed it did a disservice to the film's box office numbers. It isn't a film that's going to entertain anyone outside of a very small fan-base who like these sleazy little slasher flicks. I can just see a slasher fan and his friend at the video store now --- "Oh, how about this one!?" *holds up SNDN VHS box* -- "No way man... I read a review that said it was terrible. Bad acting -- just the worst... here, let's go with "Chainsaw Hookers Take California" -- now that sounds legit!" "You're right. Who wants to see a slasher film about a traumatized kid who dresses like Santa and goes on a killing spree if the acting and production values are bad?"

[Arlington]

Originally Posted by mayorofsmpleton

Also, The Usual Suspects is overrated.

This. I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks that

[AlexIlDottore]

Originally Posted by sarah_wentworth

well i would take medical classes for ten years and perform some surgeries before i would feel qualified to criticize a brain surgeon on his surgery techniques. just because i watch surgeries being performed doesn't mean i know anything about them.

its okay to come on here and say you like or hate movies. but to do it for the New York Times or on tv just because you conned people into thinking you know something about movies they don't or that you have the final word on how good a movie is, is wrong.

You've used this analogy before when talking about film reviewers and it's juvenile and ridiculous. I'll repeat what I said before : In today's overly politically correct times, you don't need to walk a mile in somebody's shoes to have the right to judge them.

I already posted these for you (in another thread), and you laughed and said you'd check them out, but quick question ? Are you able to tell if the following are "bad movies" or not. If you can't, there's a serious problem somewhere :

The Official BIRDEMIC: SHOCK AND TERROR Theatrical Trailer - YouTube

OFFICIAL Birdemic 2: The Resurrection Theatrical Trailer - YouTube

People who do review movies do tend to know about movies

[AlexIlDottore]

Originally Posted by sarah_wentworth

yeah a critic tells us a bunch of stuff about a movie anyone can spend 5 minutes on wikipedia researching. how wonderful. that's actually useful cause it saves me 5 minutes.

a review is just an opinion of a movie. ebert's opinion is no more important than anyone elses. but most of the public is easily influenced so when ebert says a movie is good you can bet producers show his 4 out of 4 star rating on the advertising or dvd box. why? because people think if ebert likes it it must be good.

anyway, like i've said before i really don't need someone to tell me whether or not a movie is good, i'm an adult and can figure it out myself.

as for ebert, he proved his opinion is useless when he gave Cop and a half (3 stars), and Reservoir Dogs, Clockwork Orange, Unforgiven, Gladiator, The Usual Suspects 2.5 stars or less.

i'll bet you're still waiting for the Cop and a half sequel to come out because ebert loved the first one so much

The self contradiction in this post is hilarious.

[lolwut]

Originally Posted by sarah_wentworth

all those guys did was show people that can't get a real job how you can make a quick buck telling people what movies are good and bad. two guys who criticize the hell out of a movie yet where are all the block buster movies they've produced or directed?

anyone with a cell phone camera and keyboard can be a movie critic. youtube is full of these idiots

They're film critics. It's their job. They're not directors or producers. That's not their job. Are you serious? Their opinions are way more valuable and important than yours.

[sarah_wentworth]

Originally Posted by Lyle_JP

If you want to understand Roger Ebert's "taste" in movies, just watch Russ Meyer's "Beyond the Valley of the Dolls", which Ebert wrote.

I had a hard time taking any of his reviews seriously after seeing that film.

He also tried to sic the general public on Betsy Palmer for having dared star in Friday the 13th. At times the man was simply contemptible.

he did that to Betsy Palmer? what a dochebag

[sarah_wentworth]

Originally Posted by RRL

That's the most important thing. If you can't watch a movie for yourself and determine if you like it, then you can't think for yourself. I never understood how Siskel and Ebert's word was so golden in the 80s. It never made sense to me then and decades later it still doesn't.

people just see them on tv and think they must know everything about movies, even if we'll like it or not. i can't believe they made a living out of it.

[MTRodaba2468]

Originally Posted by sarah_wentworth

people just see them on tv and think they must know everything about movies, even if we'll like it or not. i can't believe they made a living out of it.

Critics aren't paid to tell you whether you will or won't like a movie. They are paid to write or speak about their opinion on a film, and what led them to that opinion, so that you, the potential viewer, can make an informed decision on whether it's worth spending the money or time on a potential film. You can disagree with Ebert's star ratings all you like, but by actually reading his reviews, you can see exactly why he came to his conclusions. I liked The Usual Suspects, but his complaints on the film were perfectly valid points.

And for the record, critics do watch a lot of films; they don't all get to just pick and choose which ones they watch. The more films you watch, the more knowledge about films you gain. Since critics usually watch more films than the average folk, it stands to reason that they have more knowledge about them.