he editing of Blade Runner is a complicated and sometimes messy subject, a film that never could fully be executed to the director’s original vision but one that Scott stubbornly refused to let die. It has been a slow process of over twenty years but finally a true version of the film has emerged. But let’s start at the beginning.
For those who have seen Romero’s films, worn out their old tapes of Evil Dead, have enjoyed the splatter and superficial enjoyment of Fulci’s films and find they have gotten tired of the same predictable formulas and poor filmmaking skills of most of their imitators—there are a handful of films that, while not classics on the level of Dawn of the Dead or 28 Days Later, may be clever enough to convince you that there is life left in the genre yet
When we last left off in Part I Steven Spielberg had just released the special edition of Close Encounters of the Third Kind, turning heads as a film was re-issued in a version marketed for its differences and "improvements" upon the initial release...
Once upon a time, such a thing known as a director’s cut was an object seldom seen, a rarity that was a cause for celebration and invited the curiosity of cinephiles the world over. But how did the notion of “director’s cuts” begin? In this first of two parts, we’ll be examining the earliest examples of such a concept.
While the film manages some impressive action and has enough character development to sustain a viewing, one can't help but feel a little overwhelmed by the action, by the superfluous explosions, and by the expected Michael Bay pomposity. The film tacks on a message about "the good in humanity" but it feels empty and insincere. There is a deeper element to the film that is lacking—and one that, ironically, was present in the original film.
It seems hard to imagine that the studio's would make such a radically different movie after the first two in most of the franchises above were successful and stayed true to the same vision. Why change the path of Spidey 3 when it was working fine? Why add more villains? Why add more secondary characters? Why change Peter Parker in such a radical way?
I am no fan of the torture porn industry that has blossomed since the first "Saw" movie premiered (and yes, I do realize that there were many graphic torture porn movies prior to that, but not by major studios). In general, the makers of these shitty movies mistake torture and graphic violence for horror, which in my mind is much more potent.
(article originally published at The Rec) It's difficult to wake up every day to write about the goings on in Hollywood. Unless my topic is…
Was 2006 a good year for movies? I don't think so. Sure most of the big budget wide release pictures were perfectly fine, but they…
Sam Raimi’s return to horror DRAG ME TO HELL opens in May. He will then make SPIDER-MAN 4 with Tobey Maguire and Kirsten Dunst, for release in May 2011. Those wanting him to make EVIL DEAD 4, a new adaptation of THE SHADOW and many more exciting projects, will have to wait.