I saw The Thing a few weeks ago, and my mildly positive reaction led my friend who suggested The Thing to urge me to see more, including Escape from New York, Escape from L.A., and They Live, and also to suggest that Big Trouble in Little China is a work of genius. I remember someone (Erik?) in another thread warning me against They Live, specifically. This friend also urged me to see In the Mouth of Madness. I've never even heard of this film. Is this all a practical joke? Which of the above films is the most watchable? Or the least unwatchable?

I consider them all B science fiction movies. They Live, Escape from NY, and Big Trouble are the best of the lot in my opinion. They Live at least explains the popularity of network TV.

My favorite thing about They Live is that it preserves a bit of L.A. history. Portions of it were filmed in Downtown L.A. on the land that now holds the partially-built and mothballed Belmont Learning Center, America's most expensive high school.

I enjoyed the first Escape movie and Big Trouble in Little China, but they are B movie fare. Unless you're a fan of over-the-top action flicks, I can't imagine you being all that happy with them.

Some of Escape from New York was filmed in St. Louis, btw. They needed something that looked like a crumbling New York ghetto and St. Louis had some neighborhoods that fit the bill!

I like They Live a lot. I was just saying I didn't think you'd like it if you didn't like the Thing, which I thought you didn't at the time even though I now know you had a mildly positive reaction to it. Though I still think They Live might try your patience. It's a goofy alien conspiracy movie made before alien conspiracies became the subtext,text, and metatext of everything including heartwarming long distance phone service commercials. It has the longest, most (intentionally) absurd fight scene ever filmed. Rowdy Roddy Piper is good in it and really likeable.

John Carpenter is an Awful Director. Big Trouble in Little China is good because he embraced his Awfulness. Nearly every other movie is bad because someone apparently told him he wasn't Awful and he believed that person. Mind you, I'm only talking everything except Escape from New York, in which he embraced his Awfulness too early to understand it for actual Awfulness. This didn't work for schlock like Dark Star and Assault on Precinct 17, or whatever they're called, because those movies came from a time before movies were good. The Thing is an exception to this, because it's not Awful for some odd reason. I blame Rob Bottin's effects and a generally tight script that even Carpenter couldn't fuck up.

Also, I should point out that I have no idea where Starman fits into all this, since it's a great movie. I'm guessing Carpenter's wife at the time, Adrienne Barbeau, must have directed it for him. Sadly, they split up and she hasn't directed anything since then.

-Tom

"John Carpenter is an Awful Director dot dot dot I like Starman."

Where does Halloween fit into your John Carpenter universe?

"John Carpenter is an Awful Director. Big Trouble in Little China is good because he embraced his Awfulness. Nearly every other movie is bad because someone apparently told him he wasn't Awful and he believed that person. Mind you, I'm only talking everything except Escape from New York, in which he embraced his Awfulness too early to understand it for actual Awfulness. This didn't work for schlock like Dark Star and Assault on Precinct 17, or whatever they're called, because those movies came from a time before movies were good. The Thing is an exception to this, because it's not Awful for some odd reason. I blame Rob Bottin's effects and a generally tight script that even Carpenter couldn't fuck up.

Also, I should point out that I have no idea where Starman fits into all this, since it's a great movie. I'm guessing Carpenter's wife at the time, Adrienne Barbeau, must have directed it for him. Sadly, they split up and she hasn't directed anything since then. "


Strangely, this post just makes me want to see Carpenter flicks. Do you actually dislike any of his films Tom?

And for my money: Halloween is his best work, followed by the Thing, with Escape from NY coming in third.

"And for my money: Halloween is his best work"

This is weird, because I was told Halloween was his worst film. I have a feeling that because I don't know about any of this I'm just being fed lies. I hope you can help me straighten this out, although the whole thing about B-movies sounds bad because I'm not good at liking those. Although I did like that Existenz movie by that guy who is like Carpenter -- I forget his name. Also Videodrome. How can you not like James Woods? That is not a real question.

What is Awful about John Carpenter? I think hes pretty good. Cuz hes cool. Anyway, I'd take a John Carpenter film over a Coen brothers film anyday ... and im serious about that. Talk about film school showoffs... the Coen brothers reek wannabe auteur. Though i would call them amateur.

The difference between the two is the Coen brothers want to show you how damn clever and smart they are... Carpenter just wants to entertain you, in his own way.

etc

---

Quote:

John Carpenter is an Awful Director.

---

You haven't seen any of his movies, Bruce? None of them?!

They Live is a great B movie. It has some outstanding one-liners, the longest fist fight in cinematic history, and a great explanation of our love of money.

Halloween is an excellent horror movie, although, for the full effect, you need to watch Halloween I & II back-to-back. Big Trouble is probably his best film with Escape From New York being a close second.

In the Mouth of Madness is an interesting horror film. It's not spectacular, but I enjoyed it and it does some cool things with the nature of reality, etc. It's definitely worth renting.

Films of his to avoid--Vampires, Escape From LA , John Carpenter's Body Bags.

--Billy

Vampires -- was that the one with James Woods? If so, yeah, that was bad.

Halloween was a terrifying movie when it was released, and a pretty significant achievement in independent film making (percentage-wise, it was the highest grossing film of its time, or some such). It scared the pants off of me as a pre-teen, and I still like watching it occasionally for that reason.

That said, it hasn't aged well. It was so influential that you've already seen a dozen inferior versions. Pretty much every slasher film was a remake of Halloween with a different mask and less sympathetic protagonists.

The one thing that Halloween is still good for is the music, which is minimal and eerie. And probably one big accident, judging by Carpenter's later musical endeavors (with the exception of Escape from NY). He did the music for some game. Sentinel Returns? Was that it?

John Carpenter fascinates me, if only because he has such a distinct style and that style is so bad. Escape from NY is pretty good, Halloween is great, and They Live is pretty funny. But none of them are very fun to watch if they aren't part of your youth. It's like trying to get someone to watch The Warriors - if they've never seen it before, it's just bad (although it is a better version of The Odyssey than O, Brother Where Art Thou?)

Also: In the Mouth of Madness is one of the worst films I've ever seen. It has one good scene, but the rest of it is pretentious and incomprehensible. It's the AI of horror films.

-Ron

"It's like trying to get someone to watch The Warriors - if they've never seen it before, it's just bad"

Oh my God. What... I... You... And I'm thinking other sputtering sentence fragments that I'm too shocked to write down. I hope you're talking about "Warriors" starring Gary Busey, which is right next to "The Warriors" at Blockbuster where you could easily rent it by accident. Otherwise, I really honestly have to wonder if you're going faggot on us. Discounting Star Wars, The Warriors is the Star Wars of *our* generation. If Chet's reading this: Chet, look what Ron said.

I *will* give you credit for coming up with the filmic axion: "The Warriors is a better version of X than Y", where X is anything and Y is anything else.

---

Quote:

Discounting Star Wars, The Warriors is the Star Wars of *our* generation.

---

"Warriors... Warriors, come out and playaaay..."

---

Quote:

Films of his to avoid--Vampires, Escape From LA , John Carpenter's Body Bags.

---

Ah, The Warriors. I half expect to see people running around dressed as clowns and baseball players whenever I'm in New York.

-Andrew, I hate James Woods

Walter Hill is another director I've always enjoyed... if you like The Warriors, rent Southern Comfort sometime (if you can find it). It's a trip through the Bayou by some National Guardsmen. Hill does a great job of taking you somewhere you've never been to. I also really enjoyed Trespass, another film he directed with a similar underlying theme (written by Bob Gale and Robert Zemeckis). That one's even set in Mark's hometown I believe.

--Dave

>I was told Halloween was his worst film

No, at the time it essentially created the "unstoppable" slasher killer horror genre, and it was a lot more subtle, and just generally more polished, than its "offspring", like the Friday the 13th movies. But there've just been so many inane slasher films since the original Halloween (including the other Halloweens), that the original movie seems like a cartoon now -- it hasn't aged well at all.

Carpenter's best movies, in my opinion, are Starman, the Thing and Christine. Escape from NY is also pretty entertaining, while Escape from LA is essentially a campier (but ironically, less fun) remake. A lot of people lionize Escape from NY and demonize Escape from LA, but the latter is almost a scene for scene remake of its predecessor. He actually likes to make deliberately campy movies, like Escape from LA and They Live, but I find the resulting lack of drama dull.

As Tom pointed out, Starman really is a bit of an anomoly -- it has a different style than his other films.

Stefan

"You haven't seen any of his movies, Bruce? None of them?!"

I thought not, but someone in this thread mentioned Prince of Darkness as being one of his films. Is that the one where the physicists prove using math that the big aquarium full of stuff sitting in a basement is actually Satan? And everyone gets stuck in the tachyon field? If so, I've seen that one. I believe this film was later remade as Event Horizon.

Yeah, that's Prince of Darkness in a nutshell. I believe it was also Donald Pleasance's last film.

(I could be wrong about that)

-Andrew

>Southern Comfort sometime (if you can find it). It's a trip through the Bayou by some National Guardsmen. Hill does a great job of taking you somewhere you've never been to.

...unless you've seen Deliverance, which came out earlier, is almost the exact same movie and is better.

Stefan

"...unless you've seen Deliverance, which came out earlier, is almost the exact same movie and is better."

If nothing else, I think the last twenty minutes of Southern Comfort manages to stand on its own. The panicked, paranoid viewpoint of the two leads is really well presented. Every possibly harmless thing the locals do is imbued with a sense of threat. Granted, Deliverance has that too, but that doesn't mitigate (for me, at least) the expertly crafted tension of Southern Comfort's final act.

Bub: "I believe it was also Donald Pleasance's last film. (I could be wrong about that)"

I suppose someone could just check the IMDB, but offhand, I can think of at least two films that he made after that: Halloween 6 and Woody Allen's Shadows and Fog. Didn't Prince of Darkness come out in the mid-80s? Donald Pleasence passed away in the mid-90s.

Erik: "Discounting Star Wars, The Warriors is the Star Wars of *our* generation."

Have you ever tried to watch The Warriors with someone who hasn't seen it? They won't like it. Uh, and for that matter, same goes for Star Wars. The Warriors has some great scenes: The Orphans being the best. The Lizzies also being the best. But it hasn't aged well. In a Roman Coliseum way, not a bad cheese way.

OK, I checked the IMDB. Pleasence made about two dozen movies after Prince of Darkness, including Halloweens 4-6 and House IV. So you were right after all, Bub.

-Ron

"Have you ever tried to watch The Warriors with someone who hasn't seen it? They won't like it."

Frankly, I think the problem is with your friends rather than The Warriors. Though I agree about Star Wars and the Orphans.

"Tom Chick, you're insane. "

Ah, he's just jealous that he wasn't married to Adrienne Barbeau in the 80's. So am I. So would you, if you ever saw "Swamp Thing" or "Cannonball Run." Mercy.

I'd avoid Body Bags, certainly. Some of his that I did enjoy: The Thing, Escape From New York, Starman, and, oddly, In the Mouth Of Madness. That last one is one of those "I seem to remember liking it, but don't think I'll ever, ever rent it again" movies.

Kurt Russell really fuels Escape from New York and Big Trouble in Little China. He's campy and over-the-top, but very appealing in those roles. I don't think the movies would have been nearly as good without him, which is to say they probably wouldn't have been good at all without him.

Yeah, none of the other characters in either of those movies had much character. Come to think of it, though, isn't that true of almost all John Carpenter movies? Isn't there usually one person that is nearly the entire focus of the movie, who doesn't have hardly a scene without his presence throughout? The only JC movie that seems to stand out as different to me was Prince of Darkness, with a more ensemble-type cast. He did a little of it in The Fog, too, I think. Maybe Children of the Damned, but I seem to remember that being Christopher Reeves's movie.

Carpenter doesn't seem too comfortable with following multiple interwoven storylines. His movies seem to be one storyline, minimal sub-plot, and a driving motion towards the end, with an inevitable inexplicable bit in the middle somewhere.

In the Mouth of Madness is sorta likable, I think, because it tries to be a "different sort of horror film." It's got some fun Lovecraftian stuff in it, and, of course good ole' David Warner (who is kinda wasted)...

Everyone I've met that liked it has been really into "eldritch horror", and we don't see that sort of thing in the scary movies anymore. This isn't necessarily a bad thing.

-Andrew "A victim of too many jaw-droppingly awful cinematic Lovecraft adaptations"

PS: Now someone might mention a fairly good adaptation of "The Case of Charles Dexter Ward" whose name eludes me at the moment. And they'd be right to do it.

I'll make this easy for you Bruce: You won't like any of Carpenter's other films.

I can see you liking The Thing somewhat, and I think you can even appreciate what's good about Starman. Escape from New York, although quite the fan favorite, is like Halloween and doesn't hold up that well over time either. Big Trouble in Little China was waaay ahead of its time and succeeds mightly as a fun and campy flick, while Escape from L.A. absolutely does *not* despite its effort to do so. All the rest are absolutely terrible (although I do have a fondness for They Live). In other words, don't bother. If your friend was trying to sell you on other Carpenter flicks, then he doesn't know you very well. As for me, I happen to know you plan to be World Dictator one day, so I have that going for me.

Why you enjoy David Cronenberg films is completely beyond me and doesn't make sense.

As for The Warriors, "Can you dig it? Caan youuu dig it????"

Jeez, what about the people under the stairs...no one has mentioned that yet. Maybe it's because it's one of the worst movie ever made!!! Ark...saw it right after seeing the Thing for the first time. Talk about two ends of the spectrum.

Btw, has anyone heard anything about Ghosts of Mars (or whatever)? Looks kind of cool maybe sneak in there above Vampires...

LOL, I'd completely forgotten about The People Under the Stairs. What a burning turd of crap that movie was.

Does anyone remember the movie The Evil? It's about some people who are renovating an old mansion and they discover the devil is trapped in the cellar. (And of course they free him.) I haven't seen it in years, but I remember that it scared the living crap out of me the first time I saw it.

--Billy

"PS: Now someone might mention a fairly good adaptation of "The Case of Charles Dexter Ward" whose name eludes me at the moment. And they'd be right to do it."

Dan O'Bannon's The Resurrected. Which understands Lovecraft's stories far better than anything Stuart Gordon has ever done.

-Tom

Heh, I knew that someone would be you Tom (we've discussed this one by email I think). Good catch, and quite right.

Stuart Gordon. Sheesh. Maker of Robotjox, Space Truckers, and... ok, I admit it. I just looked him up at the IMDB. THIS is scary: "Stuart Gordon: Cult filmmaker who first gained notoriety in his senior year at the University of Wisconsin for staging a nude, psychedelic version of "Peter Pan."

Interesting.
I did know that he was behind Re-Animator (pun not intended). I thought Re-Animator was good (mainly because of Jeffrey Combs), but it isn't at all faithful. HP's story is too slim to adapt to film anyway so he, rightfully, went to spirited camp.

I see Gordon made a film called "Dagon" in 2000. Did you see it Tom? That story is only 5 pages long! (and I think it's a poem if I recall correctly) I shudder to think of the men in fish suits he must've used.

-Andrew (former nude Tinkerbell)

"I see Gordon made a film called "Dagon" in 2000."

I believe he's still in Spain working on it. IIRC, the production has limped along and almost collapsed several times.

-Tom

(grabs three beer bottles)
"Warriors.. come out to pla-ay.."

Man, what an amazing movie that was. I remember stumbling across this film as a young adult and being completely blown away-- I'd never seen anything quite like it. Mythic, gritty, and utterly captivating.

There are a handful of other movies I saw as a wee lad that affected me this way-- Death Race 2000, Barbarella, Westworld..

There's a "long wait" for Warriors at netflix. Bah! I'll just buy the goddamn thing. Netflix needs more copies of certain movies (and no, not just the porn), and they also BADLY need an east coast distribution center.

There's a game inspired by Warriors--a early '90s shooter from Synergistic Software (published by Virgin). Good one, too.

I liked a couple of Carpenter movies.

The Thing (isn't something making a game of this?) was marvelous, though a little too story/scene-driven for my taste. It could have been 15 minutes longer--mainly to throw in some rising short hairs atmosphere.

As is, the movie pretty much moves along bam bam bam, and doesn't hold up as well as I'd like on repeated viewings.

The other is Prince of Darkness. A lot of it is fairly inane slasher/grossout stuff, but it has some uniquely scary moments (which I won't spoil by describing)--striking especially because they're not so much scary for what you see as what is implied.

Halloween isn't appreciated by young'uns simply because of all of the knockoffs it spawned. The film only shows 4 actual killings with little blood and nothing you could consider as "gore".
Anyone who grew up through the 80's is used to seeing at least a dozen killings with multiple garden tools and gallons of red dye/corn syrup.

I sometimes wish there'd never have been a Halloween 2 through 8. The end of the original -- Myers disappearing after Loomis shoots him,and no mention of the brother/sister thing with Laurie -- should have been the end of the story. Unfortunately, they waved a lot a green at Carpenter.

BTW, Halloween 6 was Donald Pleasance's last film. That was 1996, if I recall.

Carpenter hasn't done anything compelling in a while. Halloween, the Fog, the Thing, Big Trouble, Prince of Darkness, Escape from New York... those were the glory days. (Other than Halloween, all the films from that time opened with white credits in the same font style on a black background. See that and I you know it's good.)

"There's a game inspired by Warriors--a early '90s shooter from Synergistic Software (published by Virgin). Good one, too."

What? Jesus. What's it called?

Okay, I found it, I think.

New York Warriors, published in 1990. A copy must exist somewhere.

Yes, that's the one. Much easier to find on the Amiga, which version is purportedly a perfect conversion of the coin-op.

I love it when someone resurrects a thread dead for months. Especially when it reveals that Bruce Geryk was planning on spending part of the summer watching John Carpenter films. How'd that work out for you, Bruce?

'Rowdy Roddy Piper is good in it and really likeable.'

It's stuff like this that makes me think the whole John Carpenter thing is a Church of the Subgenius-style puton.