Siskel said this was NOT campy?
1984 must have been a very different time.
shareSiskel was an awful critic. The guy did not even like Field of Dreams and rarely gave a thumbs up to a movie.
share'Siskel was an awful critic.'
So is Ebert.
I don't think it's campy at all. It's an excellent movie, and it has an atmosphere of dread, no real humor in it.
shareI enjoyed it as an average run of the mill slasher film. The idea that it was controversial had compelled me to watch it. It did in fact have some "original" killings in it, mostly the antler scene. The action scenes were good, as well as the climax. SNDN 2 is enjoyable just because its so bad its hilarious. However, the remaining three films are atrocious and god awful. Part 3 holds only an OUNCE of enjoyment if any, and part 4 and 5 are just plain painful to watch, for me.
shareexactly I agree with you. it's one of the most harrowing and disturbing films I've ever tolerated. I mean I was petrified and disturbed to a level and deepness that was so overpowering that I had to make myself finish it. it has such a strong atmosphere of dread and it is a completely straight faced slasher film and that's one of the things which is so great about it. it takes all the material so seriously, completely seriously. if it was not done in a serious way it wouldn't be disturbing.
sharei've never understood people saying this is a comedy or a dark comedy. i mean i don't think anyone, even a twisted, jaded, cynical, dark humored person could find this a comedy or funny. the most horrible things happen in this film and they don't make those things funny in this film. and the tone and atmosphere almost always of dread like you said and this film feels so dark and cold and stark.
shareit takes all the material so seriously, completely seriously. if it was not done in a serious way it wouldn't be disturbing.
I liked Gene, especially when he'd make Roger mad and get the vein in his forehead throbbing.
hkfilmnews.blogspot.com
porfle.blogspot.com
Well to be fair, "Field of Dreams" is an awfully corny movie that tries to manipulate the emotions..nobody would call that film a masterpiece..
"IMdB; where 14 year olds can act like jaded 40 year old critics...'
Well to be fair, "Field of Dreams" is an awfully corny movie that tries to manipulate the emotions..nobody would call that film a masterpiece..
Exactly; "Nobody." Anyone who takes the Academy seriously must have difficulty thinking for themselves. They are also quite gullible to believe that the Academy's decisions are not based on profit and Hollywood politics. It is all a big joke in fact.
#hands up don't loot
Exactly; "Nobody." Anyone who takes the Academy seriously must have difficulty thinking for themselves. They are also quite gullible to believe that the Academy's decisions are not based on profit and Hollywood politics. It is all a big joke in fact.
Your signature reads "that's my corn out there! You guys are guests in my corn!" And you are are calling ME 'backwoods?' Okay. And when i said "nobody" I meant "nobody with any respectable level of intelligence..
have a drink twat-
Helmut Berger, "Mad Dog Killer"
Your signature reads "that's my corn out there! You guys are guests in my corn!" And you are are calling ME 'backwoods?' Okay. And when i said "nobody" I meant "nobody with any respectable level of intelligence..lol. My signature is a quote from the movie you clearly haven't seen: Field of Dreams. It figures you haven't seen it. Credibility terminated.
"Field of Dreams?" Am I supposed to be impressed that you have seen a Hollywood mainstream blockbuster like that? If you are impressed by that artless drivel than you are easily impressed. Now if you had quoted a line from Tarkovsky or Kurasawa or Bertolucci, that would mean something. but you are obviously just another uncultured American slob with low standards. YOUR credibility cannot be terminated, as it never existed to begin with. Now grab your self a bucket of chicken and turn on that football game.
have a drink twat-
Helmut Berger, "Mad Dog Killer"
Am I supposed to be impressed that you have seen a Hollywood mainstream blockbuster like that?
Silent Night is not camp, its CRAP. Thats why I like it. Its just awful.
shareI think he meant it was bad, not in a campy way, just bad.
Javier Bardem and Heath Ledger have renewed my faith in Movie Villians
Siskel was the definition of uptight, snotty critic. He really only did give thumbs up to movies that cried Oscar bait. Very, very rarely did he give a thumbs up to a good old fashioned popcorn movie. I hated him with a passion.
He did surprise me a few times giving a good review to Carnasaur and Robocop. He must have gotten laid those couple of times.
Ha ha, yeah hopefully he did cuz he was an uuuugly mutha fugga
shareYou hate a guy because he does not like the same flicks as you? Lame.
RIP Gene.
@T-eschberger
No,he wasn't. Both he and Ebert had pretty good taste in films, grew up watching their show, and even though I didn't always agree with some of their choices, but it's clear that both of them, especially Ebert, loved movies (plus Ebert was an excellent writer, something I don't think he was always given credit for.) And neither one of them were what I call "snotty or uptight" in the least. I found out about a lot of unknown foreign and indie movies I probably never would have heard of---and this was a couple of decades before anyone could just go online and instantly click onto a movie review written by anyone. Back then, one had to read the newspaper, or any of the various movie magazines (like the late lamented Premiere or Movietone, or whatever that one was called--loved both of them) to find out anything about that movie you saw a review of that wasn't getting any promotion and not playing at a theatre anywhere near you.
And actually, I remember Ebert giving a thumbs up to the cult teen flick BETTER OFF DEAD, and both he and Siskel cracked up at the spoof of their show in the comedy flick HOLLYWOOD SHUFFLE. So they were definitely not these hoity-toity critics who thought the mere existence and enjoyment of a good old popcorn film was totally beneath their refined tastes. Plus they even dedicated a whole show to horror films they liked and felt were underrated, such as THE HONEYMOON KILLERS and SISTERS (they just didn't like slasher flicks,though.) Hopefully, that show might be on the Tube somewhere (the other one where they had a debate on why they hated slasher flicks was on there,and still worth watching,too.)
Siskel was the definition of uptight, snotty critic. He really only did give thumbs up to movies that cried Oscar bait.
I found it somewhat campy, though most 80s slashers are.
When a film has such a morbid and sick feel like this one, it becomes more difficult to call it 'camp.' It had it's campy moments, but many scenes, like the graphic shootings and the rape and murder of the woman, committed in front of her 8 year old son..just cannot be considered campy..
"IMdB; where 14 year olds can act like jaded 40 year old critics...'
Siskel was only a terrible critic when it came to the horror genre. Outside of horror, he was fairly good, but gawd he was awful at reviewing anything horror. He spoiled the ending of Friday the 13th for everyone like an a hole, then tried to give out Palmer's address just because she was in the film (I mean really?), and he gave thumbs down to Silence of the Lambs, Aliens, and The Terminator.
shareYeah, he was an real idiot when it came to that genre.
shareand he gave thumbs down to Silence of the Lambs, Aliens, and The Terminator.
Siskel was only a terrible critic when it came to the horror genre. Outside of horror, he was fairly good, but gawd he was awful at reviewing anything horror. He spoiled the ending of Friday the 13th for everyone like an a hole, then tried to give out Palmer's address just because she was in the film (I mean really?), and he gave thumbs down to Silence of the Lambs, Aliens, and The Terminator.
siskel and ebert are both frauds who never made a damn movie in their life yet think they are qualified to judge them and tell us to watch or not. why would anyone even care what they think? what matters is what i think
Ebert did write the script to Beyond the Valley of the Dolls which is chalk full of camp, but features a violent climax featuring, in my opinion, one of the most realistic practical gore effects I have ever seen (The Budd Dwyer suicide footage comes to mind).
How did I find out I didn't pass my piss test?
When they said "Urine big trouble".
oh cool. still, his reviews were useless
shareNo even in 1984 this was campy. If anyone wants to see a straight up horror film please support our upcoming horror film Kill Santa Kill at www.supportourmovie.com It is a mix of SNDN and the Tales from the Crypt episode All through the Night.
shareyou are wrong. silent night, deadly night is so morbid and sickly violent and has such a sense of dread running almost all the way through it that calling it campy is wrong.
shareThe movie isn't that campy really. It actually takes it self quite seriously most of the time. Any over-the-top or overwrought moments weren't a result of an intended campy tone... it was just bad filmmaking.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WVauip2djLw