|
Title: Should I review DEAD ALIVE for TV or not? Post by: Chris K. on March 28, 2001, 09:35:30 PM As I mentioned before on a old post about film critics, I said that I do film reviews for community TV in my hometown of Bolingbrook, IL. Well, one day I was watching DEAD ALIVE (1992) and I had the urge to review this film for TV along with the Mel Brooks film HISTORY OF THE WORLD PART 1 (1981). But do you members of Badmovies.org feel that I should do it? And if you do feel that I should review DEAD ALIVE, tell me why I should. I need some specific reasons why I should.
As a fan of good films, if one of my friends asked me, "Hey Chris, would you like to watch TITANIC or DEAD ALIVE?" I would say, "Pop that DEAD ALIVE in that VCR!" And beleive me, I would do that. Questions or comments anyone? Title: Re: Should I review DEAD ALIVE for TV or not? Post by: Scott Davis on March 28, 2001, 10:11:41 PM If you do review it, you have to mention that it is the greatest romantic/comedy ever in the horror genre!
Title: Re: Should I review DEAD ALIVE for TV or not? Post by: Mofo Rising on March 29, 2001, 12:20:28 AM Who's your audience?
I'd say do it. But if you've been running reviews on mostly inoffensive films, then throwing DEAD ALIVE to the unsuspecting masses may cause a few heart attacks. Of course if you've been running horror reviews, by all means do DEAD ALIVE. Everybody needs to see it at least once in their lives. Do you do films clips? Maybe you should show the intro. Title: Don't you guys think BRAINDEAD is a much better title?? Post by: BadTaste_nz on March 29, 2001, 02:48:26 AM Braidead is such a better title than Dead-Alive, i mean, Dead-Alive? come on!
Title: Re: Don't you guys think BRAINDEAD is a much better title?? Post by: Thema on March 29, 2001, 06:39:37 AM I agree with BadTaste_nz the orginal Braindead is better
Title: It depends (and an Apology) Post by: Stefan Robak on March 29, 2001, 08:57:28 PM Well, it depends. Do you just review any movie, or mostly films just as they come out of the theater. If it's the latter you could pull an Siskel/Ebert/Roeper and have the movie as a video pick of the week. ut it's really up to you.
Also, I'm sorry for bringing up Freakazoid for no good reason in the Oscars post. I have a bad habit of not letting arguements go, despite the fact that I never expect that a person will change his mind. Kinda hypocritical of me. Sorry. Also: It's cool that your working on Community TV. I write reviews for my university newspaper. Title: Good question Stefan Robak Post by: Chris K. on March 29, 2001, 09:34:33 PM I usually review films that are playing in the theatre. And if I feel I have some extra time left, I just throw in some reviews of films that I saw on video or DVD. One time when I reviewed WHAT LIES BENEATH, I also decided to review Herschell Gordon Lewis' SOMETHING WEIRD (1967) and Mario Bava's BLACK SABBATH (1964) for the fact that all three films delt with the horror/suspense angle.
Also Stefan, I myself tried to do film reviews for the school newspaper a year ago. However, they really did not like my work and they pretty much kicked me out because they wanted me to write about Emmy nominations and I really do not believe in the Emmy awards. What also suprised me is that my teachers actually said that the film reviews that are done by the members of the paper are terrible due to the small information that they give. Talk about a strange twist. But reviewing films for TV is still a good start. As for the Freakazoid thing, that's okay. To be honest, I myself am hypocritical as well and I have that bad habit of not letting things go either so you are not alone. But the argument is all in the past and all is forgiven. Title: Also, to answer everybody else's questions... Post by: Chris K. on March 29, 2001, 09:45:53 PM I have done some horror film reviews, so I guess reviewing DEAD ALIVE would not cause heart attacks towards my audience. As for showing film clips, I really don't know about that. I don't think they will show any because it depends on who owns the rights to the film and can we ask for permission. But then again, this is community TV and I don't think Trimark Pictures, owner of DEAD ALIVE, will discover that we showed some clips illegaly. I guess the TV station does not want to take a heavy chance like that.
As for calling DEAD ALIVE by it's original title BRAINDEAD, I don't think I can really do that. The main reason is that if I reffer the film to it's original title then the audience will rent the wrong film because their is another movie under the title BRAINDEAD! And that will cause the audience some major confusion. Now if the film were released by Anchor Bay under the original title, then I would reffer to the film as BRAINDEAD. However, I will reffer to DEAD ALIVE originally being titled BRAINDEAD on my review for trivial information. I did it before when I reviewed Lucio Fulci's CITY OF THE LIVING DEAD (1980) and mentioned the film being released in the U.S. under the well known title THE GATES OF HELL. Anymore questions or comments? Title: other Braindead - Chris K Post by: BadTaste_nz on March 30, 2001, 06:13:06 AM are you talking about the one with Bill Pullman or Bill Paxton? something like that i've heard about
Title: Re: other Braindead Post by: Andrew on March 30, 2001, 08:53:41 PM Yes, that's the other "Braindead." It's a sort of weird movie, like "Being Bill Pullman" and they added in some icky stuff for effect.
Andrew Title: Re: other Braindead Post by: Mofo Rising on March 30, 2001, 09:31:38 PM I believe BRAINDEAD was based on a Richard Matheson story. You know, the guy who wrote most of the episodes of TWILIGHT ZONE. I thought it was pretty interesting, if failed in it's execution. Still, any movie that features exposed brains can't be all bad.
|