Onions, Wolves, and Wikis
There are several reasons why The Onion is America's Finest News Source.
(Keep in mind, about half of those links are taken from last week's issue. Those motherfuckers do this stuff every week. I love them.)
--------------------------
My house in Mississauga has TMN OnDemand, a digital cable service that offers a selection of movies, most of which are on that edge of new between going to video and getting onto regular cable. This is, contrary to popular belief and all logic, not at all a good thing for me. Allow me to elaborate.
There's this thing that happens in my mind, when I've a buffet of essentially free things waiting for me. The TMNOD selection's decent for being functionally costless - there are a variety of genres, most of the movies have left theatres within the last six months, and those that they offer from the more distant past are generally solid pieces for whatever they're trying to be (an example - right now I could watch War of the Worlds, Junebug, The 40-Year-Old Virgin, Corpse Bride, and Four Brothers, plus about a dozen others). There are, of course, the exceptions, the bad, pseudo-popular movies that flesh out the menu, like burgers at Red Lobster.
Now, if I'm going into a theatre, or even a video store, I'll strive to find something that I'll like, something dimensional or entertaining. This has mostly to do with the fact that I am spending money. I am making a tiny investment into entertaining myself, and I want to make sure that I'm going to yield a return. You could call me a conservative entertainment broker, but then we'd have to watch this whole analogy rapidly fall apart, and I'd probably just look at you funny, because that's kind of a dumb thing to call me.
But when I'm not putting anything into it but time, I will watch the most inane, forgettable crap without an ounce of guilt.
With TMNOD as my terrible vehicle, and among other things, I've watched Assault on Precinct 13, Bad Boys 2, Vlad, My Little Eye (which I was convinced was called I Spy for a second, and found the strangest and most terrifying IMDB entry of all time), and now, Cry_Wolf.
Cry_Wolf is another in the endless march of slasher flicks that do absolutely nothing new in an unbalanced way, centred on a gimmick to sell itself to a teen audience in a burst of a one-weekend box office gross that yields a profit for the studio, like a teenaged boy having really inadequate sex for the first time.
Its performances are dreadful (which you'd expect from such a hackneyed script), the direction is uninspired, and the plot does absolutely nothing new - it runs like a terrible version of Scream mixed with an extremely watered-down The Usual Suspects.
Which is exactly what I should have expected. It's what I did expect, in fact. The reason it gets my back up is that the slasher genre gets this shit done to it every time. It had a run of successes back in the eighties, made a ton of money, and then everyone in the goddamn world decided that, unlike every other genre of film, they didn't need to do anything new with it, just spit out the same stories told in the same way to the same people, over and over and over again. Occasionally, the bull-headed passion of the B-movie sect shines through, but generally we're getting mid-budget garbage.
I mean, there's even a grain of potential in Cry_Wolf. You can see someone, somewhere, behind the scenes, grasping desperately at threads of ideas and themes that, were they woven together and presented with confidence and vision, could have been a really great film. But instead we get the ghosts of that, we get the impression that someone was thinking, but that impression is ulimately drown in the lights.
Sometimes, something like The Descent happens, and you think, maybe there's hope. And then you realise that, while people are figuring out the other sub-genres of horror (the suspense-thriller, the psychological), none of them even seem to care about the slasher.
Hopefully, Tarantino gets it right with his half of Grind House, but, then, he usually gets it right. Hopefully, people will learn.
--------------------------
One last thing: I'm sure many of you have realised this by now, but Wikipedia is the ultimate time killer. I've wasted countless hours on the bloody thing - particularly in its untold pages on comics and graphic novels - but there's the constant, nagging consideration of veracity and reputability behind it all. When you've got a pseudo-scholarly work cobbled together by what is the Internet equivalent of a rambunctious mob, what have you really got?
The indefatigably wonderful Mr. Gaiman linked a couple of articles about the thing on his journal recently that I think you should read. One is from the New Yorker, and is remarkably informative, balanced, and decidedly long.
The other is from The Onion.
Good night.
(Keep in mind, about half of those links are taken from last week's issue. Those motherfuckers do this stuff every week. I love them.)
--------------------------
My house in Mississauga has TMN OnDemand, a digital cable service that offers a selection of movies, most of which are on that edge of new between going to video and getting onto regular cable. This is, contrary to popular belief and all logic, not at all a good thing for me. Allow me to elaborate.
There's this thing that happens in my mind, when I've a buffet of essentially free things waiting for me. The TMNOD selection's decent for being functionally costless - there are a variety of genres, most of the movies have left theatres within the last six months, and those that they offer from the more distant past are generally solid pieces for whatever they're trying to be (an example - right now I could watch War of the Worlds, Junebug, The 40-Year-Old Virgin, Corpse Bride, and Four Brothers, plus about a dozen others). There are, of course, the exceptions, the bad, pseudo-popular movies that flesh out the menu, like burgers at Red Lobster.
Now, if I'm going into a theatre, or even a video store, I'll strive to find something that I'll like, something dimensional or entertaining. This has mostly to do with the fact that I am spending money. I am making a tiny investment into entertaining myself, and I want to make sure that I'm going to yield a return. You could call me a conservative entertainment broker, but then we'd have to watch this whole analogy rapidly fall apart, and I'd probably just look at you funny, because that's kind of a dumb thing to call me.
But when I'm not putting anything into it but time, I will watch the most inane, forgettable crap without an ounce of guilt.
With TMNOD as my terrible vehicle, and among other things, I've watched Assault on Precinct 13, Bad Boys 2, Vlad, My Little Eye (which I was convinced was called I Spy for a second, and found the strangest and most terrifying IMDB entry of all time), and now, Cry_Wolf.
Cry_Wolf is another in the endless march of slasher flicks that do absolutely nothing new in an unbalanced way, centred on a gimmick to sell itself to a teen audience in a burst of a one-weekend box office gross that yields a profit for the studio, like a teenaged boy having really inadequate sex for the first time.
Its performances are dreadful (which you'd expect from such a hackneyed script), the direction is uninspired, and the plot does absolutely nothing new - it runs like a terrible version of Scream mixed with an extremely watered-down The Usual Suspects.
Which is exactly what I should have expected. It's what I did expect, in fact. The reason it gets my back up is that the slasher genre gets this shit done to it every time. It had a run of successes back in the eighties, made a ton of money, and then everyone in the goddamn world decided that, unlike every other genre of film, they didn't need to do anything new with it, just spit out the same stories told in the same way to the same people, over and over and over again. Occasionally, the bull-headed passion of the B-movie sect shines through, but generally we're getting mid-budget garbage.
I mean, there's even a grain of potential in Cry_Wolf. You can see someone, somewhere, behind the scenes, grasping desperately at threads of ideas and themes that, were they woven together and presented with confidence and vision, could have been a really great film. But instead we get the ghosts of that, we get the impression that someone was thinking, but that impression is ulimately drown in the lights.
Sometimes, something like The Descent happens, and you think, maybe there's hope. And then you realise that, while people are figuring out the other sub-genres of horror (the suspense-thriller, the psychological), none of them even seem to care about the slasher.
Hopefully, Tarantino gets it right with his half of Grind House, but, then, he usually gets it right. Hopefully, people will learn.
--------------------------
One last thing: I'm sure many of you have realised this by now, but Wikipedia is the ultimate time killer. I've wasted countless hours on the bloody thing - particularly in its untold pages on comics and graphic novels - but there's the constant, nagging consideration of veracity and reputability behind it all. When you've got a pseudo-scholarly work cobbled together by what is the Internet equivalent of a rambunctious mob, what have you really got?
The indefatigably wonderful Mr. Gaiman linked a couple of articles about the thing on his journal recently that I think you should read. One is from the New Yorker, and is remarkably informative, balanced, and decidedly long.
The other is from The Onion.
Good night.