Badmovies.org Forum

I'm sure these are not new titles to have been discussed on here before.  I'm just wondering if I am alone in considering "The Fog" to be a good movie.  Sure alot of the acting is cheesy and the ending somewhat comical, but it still kinda sends a shiver up my spine when I watch it.  No one I've asked even enjoyed sitting through it.  Perhaps I'm just an 80's kid. Anyone here like it?

As for "The Thing", one of J.C.'s best if not the best ever he directed.  I rent this at least once a year and love it everytime.

John Carpenter's The Fog is tolerable because of the effective score, some spooky work by photographer Dean Cundey, and its pretty diverse cast. The script, direction, and editing, however, are just astonishingly bad. Take Rob Bottin's Kayro-syrup gore and latex puppets out of John Carpenter's The Thing, and you have absolutely nothing of interest but some beautiful scenery (courtesy of Cundey again).

I still like John Carpenter's Dark Star, John Carpenter's Halloween , and John Carpenter's Starman,  but generally can't stand the rest of his work, even the popular cult stuff like John Carpenter's Escape From New York. (OK, I'll sit through John Carpenter's Escape From New York without b***hing too much. Maybe even John Carpenter's Big Trouble In Little China, if I'm feeling really good about life...)

When Carpenter is blessed with a good overall cast that has chemistry--Jamie Lee Curtis, Donald Pleasence, Jeff Bridges, Karen Allen, the guys from John Carpenter's Dark Star, Kurt Russell when he's kept on a tight leash--and a decent script with good characters and a novel concept, it all works. But he swipes waaaaay too material from other sources--and even himself--and when he isn't backed up by the cast, it all falls apart. (See the awesome spectacle of crap filmmaking that is John Carpenter's Escape From L.A., which had a lot of big names who were obviously there for the paychecks. Or John Carpenter's Village of the Damned and John Carpenter's In The Mouth of Madness and John Carpenter's Vampires, all of which had lots of one-shot wonders but very little talent. Or John Carpenter's Memoirs Of An Invisible Man with Chevy Chase and Darryl Hannah. (Gyaaaah.) Or John Carpenter's They Live, in which Roddy Piper walks through the middle of an incredibly violent police massacre with a vague look of...mild interest. Oh yeah, and the entire world is being subjugated by a big plastic-and-neon zap-gun standing completely unprotected--and without back-up--on the roof of a mid-sized building. Cough. Carpenter went straight to Hollywood Hell the minute the budgets rose above ten million.)

...or look at the upcoming John Carpenter's Ghosts of Mars. This is how the plot is described at the IMDb: yet another "mysterious" rebel-without-a-cause, with a name that's supposed to impress chicks but really only impresses fifteen-year-old boys, is being escorted by the authorities to an inescapable lock-up (John Carpenter's Assault On Precinct 13, John Carpenter's Escape From New York) when they are set upon by an army  (John Carpenter's Assault On Precinct 13,) of unstoppable killers (John Carpenter's Halloween) possessed by alien spirits (John Carpenter's Prince of Darkness) and have to band together, never sure if one of their own will turn on them (John Carpenter's The Thing).

...except this time, instead of Kurt Russell doing Clint Eastwood or John Wayne, or even the guy from John Carpenter's Assault On Precinct 13. It's one of those "Ice" bozos--Ice-T or Ice Cube or Vanilla Ice, I forget and who cares? It's been done. Um, repeatedly.

I'm sorry. Some folks are going to hate me for all this. But please understand: I just sat through John Carpenter's Escape From L.A. for the first time. It still hurts. It makes me long for John Carpenter's Brutal Beating &Torture followed by John Carpenter's Banishment From Hollywood, after which he might look forward to John Carpenter's Head Escaping From His Anus and some good films from him again.

(Take Tobe Hooper with you, John.)

Youch!  You're justified in all of your arguments, Squishy, but I thought we were supposed to like bad movies on this board.

Well, um, I...s**t...

I love The Fog, it's my personal favorite Carpenter movie because of the score and Dean Cundy's excellent camera work (probable reason why so much of early Carpenter works so well).  The beautiful and fog cloaked Northern California landscape helps a lot too (personal favorite moment, when the fog swoops in on Stevie Wayne's house).

I also love love loved The Thing and consider it Carpenter's biggest success, an article in Creative Screenwriting magazine called "In Defense of John Carpenter's The Thing" helped big time.  It pointed out all the indentity symbolism in the movie that I missed during the countless times I've watched it (forest for the trees and all that).

I also liked In the Mouth of Madness, so there, and the satirical elements in They Live.  Sam Neil's comedic psycho is the only reason to watch Memoirs of an Invisible Man.  My liking everything proceeding The Fog goes without saying.

I also like Vampires, especially the score.

Ghost of Mars looks like Carpenter's umpteenth take on Hawks's Rio Bravo (aka El Dorado aka Rio Lobo).  So what, big deal.  Don't want to see it then don't go.  I hate hearing snide ass comments during a movie the first time I see it anyway.

That is all, over and out.

Oops...looks like Squishy's off the medication agine. Stop mixing the Prozack with the Caffine! Pretty soon, you'll be hitting your head with a fungo bat. God, that hurts.......It also hurts that Squish has some good points, too.

Reminds me a comment made by John Irving in his novel A Widow for One Year...it went something like this...If critics pan your work for being thematically repetitive then it just meant that your own personal touches to the story didn't work for them.  If people like what you do, then they applaud your strong, personal vision.  If they don't then you're a hack that just repeats his or herself over and over.

When I get home, if I get the chance that is (I'm fighting a deadline and should be working on a short story) I'll dig out the exact quote.

I thought that the metaphor for communism/anti-capitalism/anti-corporatism (lenninist more then anything) was great in "They Live"....well great in the sense that it involved Roddy Pipper and whoever his buddy was in fight scene strait out of the WWF...I mean how often do you see clotheslines used in a fight (not the string for drying clothes, I am talking about the wrastlin' move).

Having trouble with the metaphor? Let me try and go through it...without being able to remember it.

rebels & roddy = vangard party

capitalism falling apart = a marxist prediction
the aliens (with some humans..) = bourgeoise (identifiable class)

the glasses = communist theory (that allows you to see the true nature of the capitalist world. IE once you put on the glasses see the aliens/bourgeoise and you can see all the subliminal messages and stuff hidden in the writting and such)

the satalite that sends the sleep message = false conciouness that blocks class (or human) conciousness

alien's plans = ecconomic imperialism (lenin went on about that crap)

the need for violence to overthrow the regieme = pure marxist revolutionary rhetoric

I am sure that I could go on,but I would have to see the movie again.

  Your one, brief post, Thumbs', has within it so many cool, topical offshoots that I was inspired to write the following nove...er, post. It's kinda long, hope you all find hanging with it worthwhile.

From one "80's kid" [And totally proud of it! I'd be the guy that, if I ever met John Cusak, would have him sign a copy of "Better Off Dead"! RICKY!] to another, the movie that falls into that "cheesy but eerie" catagory for me is "The Black Hole".
Despite it's underwhelming casting [Ernest Borgnine in a sci fi epic???] and annoyingly cute "gotta-top-Artoo-Detoo" robots, this movie somehow succeeds in delivering a genuinely grim tale that culminates in the single, most bizzare ending that I've ever seen. [An ending which wasn't in either the novelization or the comic book adaption, I might add.] And no reference to "The Black Hole" would be complete without specifically mentioning Maximillian....

Max' is, I think, still the most malevolent lookin' robot ever created for a movie. And the subtle hints that he might possibly be something more than a mere machine created by Dr. Reinhardt....an idea that is undeniably confirmed during the aforementioned, bizzare ending when Max' takes [Imprisons maybe?] the now dead Doc's soul within his own mechanical body, and is then shown standing, apendages raised triumphantly, in Hell....is just one of the elements that made "The Black Hole" strangly creepy.

Now, as for the John Carpenter movies.  His remake of  "The Thing", while being entertaining, I can take or leave as being a respectful "reimagining" of the original film. [I genuinely fear for "Planet of the Apes", great effects or not...] However, his nod to the creature escaping from what fans of the first would pick up on as being that crew was a nice touch.  

I've gotta say, however, that I disagree with ya, Squishmiester, about both "They Live" and "Escape From L.A.".  [But, then again, I just finished going off about "The Black Hole"??? Ooooooookay....]  As already pointed out by 'zilla C, the combination of "Rowdy" Roddy Piper in the lead role and fighting skull-faced alien baddies, with Carpenter's view on "Reaganomics" [Which is what I've often heard that the film actually was] makes it easily worthy of four slimies!.... Not to mention that it features one of the greatest lines, as well as THE greatest fight scene, in the history of cinema! [Btw, although the aliens' perception altering device was obviously unprotected and readily visable, the idea I got was that humanity was so blinded by then that the skull heads didn't consider its' protection or concealment to be a major concern.]

As for "Escape From L.A." my thoughts are that, since I actually saw the two "Escape" films in reverse order, instead of being a bad sequel it plays much more, intentionally or not, like a superior remake [if that's even possible with "B" flicks] of the first movie.  I could go off about how it's political/societal corruption observations, combined with the comic book visuals make this an interesting, thought provoking film....especially noting how the disallusioned "Snake" Plisskin essentially ends up forcing the human race as a whole to start over....and I would be correct in that....But a more honest assesment would be that it's just pure, anti big/one world government fantasy for my inner private citizen!...Oh yeah, and there are lots of explosions!

And on that note I have only this last thing to say:  "Go that way, really fast. If something gets in your way....turn."

I thought JCs The Thing was a dang fine sci-fi/horror movie. The Fog is certainly watchable, as is They Live. Assault is a re-working of Night Of The Living Dead, both Escape movies are dreadful, Prince Of Darkness is OK, Dark Star is hippy crap, and his recent output is distinctly average.

Regarding The Thing Hairzilla sez...
I can take or leave as being a respectful "reimagining" of the original film.

Chadzilla grumbles...
It was actually a lot more faithful to John W. Campbell's story "Who Goes There?" - which, for a time, was the actual title for the Carpenter version.  In fact entire scenes are lifted directly from the story (Blair's wig out scene as well as the blood test to see who is contaminated, among others).  The alien even resembles the source creature in that it was squat and had tentacles.  So as adaptations of Campbell's story go it is the better film, hands down.

That said, The Thing from Another World w/Kenneth Tobey rocks as well.  Made me jump and as some great banter between the characters.

Read my other post in hear for another take on "They Live" as a metaphor for communism...while I doubt this is the intention, I found it really amusing.

Note: A friend of mine (who is a commie/socialist, but I think he's ok anyway) convinced me to look at fight club as a metaphor for communism as well. It works, but like all metaphors imposed on a film....guh!

 Thanks for the heads up Chad', I stand, more respectfully of the remake, corrected! Having not read "Who Goes There", I was making my comparison solely based on the content of the original "The Thing". [Which is what most, casual viewers probably did, and still do, I imagine.]

In most cases, when a "classic" film is remade, and especially if I liked it, that's the point of view I'm coming from. The coolness of the first vs the "updates" made to the second - and how well those changes work. [Even if I'm unaware that those updates might actually bring the concept closer to the original idea of whatever source material it came from.]  

 And while I will say that, with regard to the original "Thing", it was a good decision to keep views of the creature limited to mostly quick, half lit shots, as he didn't look all that impressive, in the case of John Carpenter's version, as well as other modern remakes of classic monster films I've seen, I do believe that gore, while being able to give a scene some extra bite....sorry, couldn't resist....is too readily substituted for getting the audience involved with their imaginations by establishing a mood, in which case the original version of "The Thing" still outshines the remake.  Kudos to you, fellow monster maniac!

 Thanks for the heads up Chad', I stand, more respectfully of the John Carpenter remake, corrected! Having not read "Who Goes There", I was making my comparison solely based on the content of the original "The Thing From Another World". [Which is what most, casual viewers probably did, and still do, I imagine.]

In most cases, when a "classic" film is remade, and especially if I liked it, that's the point of view I'm coming from. The coolness of the first vs the "updates" made to the second - and how well those changes work. [Even if I'm unaware that those updates might actually bring the concept closer to the original idea of whatever source material it came from.]  

 And while I will say that, with regard to the original "Thing", it was a good decision to keep views of the creature limited to mostly quick, half lit shots, as he didn't look all that impressive, in the case of John Carpenter's version, as well as other modern remakes of classic monster films I've seen, I do believe that gore, while being able to give a scene some extra bite....sorry, couldn't resist....is too readily substituted for getting the audience involved with their imaginations by establishing a mood, in which case the original version of "The Thing" still outshines the remake.  Kudos to you, fellow monster maniac!

 Thanks for the heads up Chad', I stand, more respectfully of the John Carpenter remake, corrected! Having not read "Who Goes There", I was making my comparison solely based on the content of the original "The Thing From Another World". [Which is what most, casual viewers probably did, and still do, I imagine.]

In most cases, when a "classic" film is remade, and especially if I liked it, that's the point of view I'm coming from. The coolness of the first vs the "updates" made to the second - and how well those changes work. [Even if I'm unaware that those updates might actually bring the concept closer to the original idea of whatever source material it came from.]  

 And while I will say that, with regard to the original "Thing", it was a good decision to keep views of the creature limited to mostly quick, half lit shots, as he didn't look all that impressive, in the case of John Carpenter's version, as well as other modern remakes of classic monster films I've seen, I do believe that gore, while being able to give a scene some extra bite....sorry, couldn't resist....is too readily substituted for getting the audience involved with their imaginations by establishing a mood, in which case the original version of "The Thing" still outshines the remake.  Kudos to you, fellow monster maniac!

 As my "subject" says, I apologize for appearing to post the same thing three times. As I was trying to post the first time I kept getting a message saying that it timed out, and then I would be sent back to try again. I didn't know that it was posting another copy for each attempt I made. Can we delete two of 'em or something? Thanks.

I gotta disagree with you on the gore in Carpenter's THE THING, Hair.  Mostly I base this on the fact that the small scene I viewed as a child was absolutely terrifying.  This probably is the main reason I avoided watching THE THING until last year, even if it was subconscious.  I thought it was a quality movie, and I'd stand by it in an argument.  (Where I'd get in an argument outside this board, I don't know.)  Good version of the classic story involving people trapped in a confined area with someone on the inside betraying them.  RESERVOIR DOGS is the same.

I usually enjoy Carpenter's movies when they're played tongue in cheek.  THEY LIVE is a good example.  The fight in THEY LIVE is cinematic genius.  Yes their is a metaphor, but it's far too heavy handed to take seriously.  BIG TROUBLE IN LITTLE CHINA is pure popcorn.  It also has the only version of Rayden put to film I'll accept.  (You hear that Lambert?)

ESCAPE FROM L.A. is just a bad science fiction film.  I didn't enjoy it, but I won't hold that against it.

PRINCE OF DARKNESS is one of my favorite out-and-out horror movies.  I admire the fact that it actually delved into philosophical horror.  It may be flawed philosophy, but what other movies delve into quantum physics and religious theory?  It loses some points because its need for gore undermines it, and it's no longer pre-1999.

Well, whatever you think of John Carpenter and his very mixed bag, there's no denying that he is one of the more prolific movie makers in the genre world.

Must agree,Chadzilla. The JC version did the Campbell story justice, and in context, the gore was inevitable. Still, the downer ending, though realistic, was not my cup of tea. I mutch prefer the 50's thing. So many goodies there.

Mofo Rising wrote:
>
> ESCAPE FROM L.A. is just a bad science fiction film.
>
>I guess that I've come to the right place then, eh? 8)  
>
> PRINCE OF DARKNESS is one of my favorite out-and-out horror
> movies.  I admire the fact that it actually delved into
> philosophical horror.  It may be flawed philosophy, but what
> other movies delve into quantum physics and religious
> theory?  It loses some points because its need for gore
> undermines it, and it's no longer pre-1999.
>
>Just a quick comment/question here. If I'm understanding correctly, it sounds as though you're making a similiar point to the one I raised earlier -about the use of gore- with regard to this particular movie?
>
> Well, whatever you think of John Carpenter and his very mixed
> bag, there's no denying that he is one of the more prolific
> movie makers in the genre world.

I'll agree with you on that Mofo'. Whatever our opinions of his various projects, mine now being more broadened at the very least, I think we can safely say that the cinematic landscape [as well as late night cable tv] wouldn't be the same without him.....Now, if only "Savage" Steve Holland would reemerge!....And if anyone tells me that HE'S responsible for some recent, critically acclaimed film I think I'm gonna hurl!

[For those that don't know, "Savage" Steve was the writer/director responsible for two, eighties teen comedy, cult classics: BETTER OFF DEAD and ONE CRAZY SUMMER. The latter featuring a hysterical segment with "Bobcat" Goldthwaidt getting stuck in what surely must have been the monster suit used in Korea's illegitamate STAR GODZILLA.]

Man, I'm amazed that every reply to my post zero'ed in on my relatively brief comments about John Carpenter movies, when what I was really bracing myself for was an onslaught of laughter [...as well as possible exile from this phorum. See the risk I was willing to take for my appreciation of B' flicks?] at my more extensive thoughts about THE BLACK HOLE!  And on that note, it's time to move on to other things...

Oh yeah, I forgot about The Black Hole - hahahahahahahaha.

 Thanks Steve, I feel much better now. Rock on!

ONE CRAZY SUMMER is, in my opinion, one of the funniest movies ever made.  It's only really matched by GREMLINS 2 for sheer, off-the-wall inventiveness.  ("Were you that little fat boy?")

Unfortunately, Savage Steve has reemerged, of sorts.  He directed the recent Disney movie SAFETY PATROL.  I haven't seen it, but it stars Leslie Nielsen.  He's currently directing the TV series "Even Stevens" for Disney.  He was also behind the loathsome series "Shasta McNasty" that was on several years ago.

On the plus side, he was also behind the cartoon "Eek the Cat", which could be pretty funny.  Who else references "Lord of the Flies" in a kids cartoon?  ("Give us the glasses, Piggy!")

IMDb lists Holland's trademark as "frequently casts Curtis Armstrong".

(Please note: I'm not trying to start a fight here. I know a lot of people are very devoted to Carpenter--I used to be, too--and I like almost everybody involved in this thread and so I won't pursue my usual "no-you're-a-poo-poo-head" form of debate. I'm just venting.)

 I adore One Crazy Summer, and not just because that crazy bastard Bobcat Goldthwait played Godzilla...Better Off Dead is a hoot, too, and one of these days I'll have to try How I Got Into College. I missed most of Eek! The Cat, but I was amazed at what Sav' got away with, even on Fox.

High-concept horror is fine, but it's got to be more than backstory noise. And the characters have to be interesting. If I made a horror movie starring my toes that represented Communism, would it be a good movie? Would it help if I squirted ketchup on a toe every five to ten minutes like clockwork? Oh hell no. And the collection of scabby trolls and farts snarling at each other in John Carpenter's The Thing are about as interesting as my toes. (Also: when a character in a movie does something monumentally out-of-character stupid--so stupid it has to be there only because an actor insisted it be put in the script--the movie loses me. In John Carpenter's The Thing, that would be when Russell's character pours his drink into a computer system because he lost a game. Unfortunately, that's very early on. Is that supposed to be characterization? Did Russell think he was still playing Snake?)

Likewise, when all the history lectures and religious theories are snipped out of John Carpenter's Prince of Darkness, it's just another zombie movie. In fact, towards the end, it starts looking like John Carpenter's Assault On Precinct 13 without bang-bangs, which, as others have pointed out, looks like Night of the Living Dead. Except the "leader" in those movies isn't a blonde chick with severe acne gibbering and hooting like a chimpanzee at the sight of a makeup mirror. Eeeeeeeeeee! The terror! Guest-starring Alice Cooper for no reason whatsoever. Eeeeeeeeeee! The terror!

I'll shut up now.