MovieChat Forums > They Live (1988) Discussion > 7.1?? What a load of cr@p!!

7.1?? What a load of cr@p!!

posted 13 years ago by DawsonRoseDawson
66 replies | jump to latest

That said I totally love the concept.. I just think that so much more could have been done with this film given the ideas it covers..
The music.. Argh! at the half way mark I was actually getting frustrated, the fight scene, yes, great metaphor for how difficult it can be to make narrow minded people see what you want them to see but still..
Wouldn't you have legged it with the whole box of sunnies so that you could actually back up things you were trying to tell people?! And him climbing into the rubbish truck that just so happened to be doing it's rounds as he went back to find the glasses, then there being only one pair easily available from a whole box full!
The police beating people over the head with their truncheons when they raided the homeless ground.. The force they were using would have surely taken the recipients out with one blow.. Which made the truncheons look rubber to me..
The fight with the police in the side road but still totally in view of the busy traffic.. Again, surely would have attracted SOME attention?!
The trained forces/sniper types who continuously miss-fired but the civilians with guns got perfect shots every time..
So much wrong with this film in my opinion..
But like I said.. brilliant concept, some of the stuff I read about was briefly mentioned or portrayed, I think so much more could have been done with this material..
Bring on a re make!

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Mr-Fusion 13 years ago

To me the anti-capitalist political metaphor was overwhelming. I think that's why it suffered at the box office. It's one thing to be sly about it. It's another to use it as a sledgehammer.

A reason for its performance at the box office is one thing (given the climate at the time). But sledgehammer?

What does that make Dawn of the Dead? A wrecking ball?

-----
It puts the Tweetmail in the basket, or it gets the hose again!

[–] DawsonRoseDawson 13 years ago

I just thought that the way the film was made, given the majorly interesting subject it covers, manipulation of perception, the moon matrix, signals suppressing higher vibrational levels of consciousness, control over the masses etc.. Could have been so so so! much better.. It was almost like a scared and corny attempt to express controversial viewpoints!
The acting didn't help much either..

[–] dbrockskk1 9 years ago

dont tell me let me guess! You really like Titanic!

suzycreamcheese RIP Heath Ledger 1979-2008

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] HippieDrillSealOfApproval 8 years ago

I'd say the "messages" in Dawn of the Dead are a lot more subtle and clever than They Live.

What are words for when no one listens anymore

[–] grandascent 13 years ago

Agreed that the movie falls short of the great concept it holds. But that's because Carpenter made this on an extremely short budget.

Everything as to how people reacted seemed fairly sound but it was simply the actions as you say, that were exaggerated. Yeah Roddy Piper and Kieth David seem to be taking out armed security guards like nothing. But heck they made this movie in the 80s. It was fairly standard back then, for the heroes to have amazing aiming skills. It's amusing to say the least so I don't really have to much of a problem with it. Predominantly because this movie is pretty much a political satire.

You say that he should just be peddling these sunnies and yet he quickly becomes a wanted man and Kieth David seems to be the only one he can trust.

You seem to have a problem with the garbage truck just happen to arrive and yet that's bad luck. Improbable as it may be, it isn't impossible. As is Nada finding the box of glasses which is his turn of good luck.

I say this movie should have a way higher rating. I don't see any reason why a movie such as this shouldn't be rated higher than stinkers such as Avatar or the 2009 Star Trek movie.

[–] oldmotem 13 years ago

Many Carpenter movies are Indie and look like it. But that's also some of the best part of them. This is one such. It doesn't have to be a T2 blockbuster to be great.

Similarly...D9 vs. Avatar. Big difference in the budget, but D9 is amazing.
AVATAR had better be amazing because it was made with more money than even Derek Jeter makes in a month.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] denise1234 10 years ago

oldmotem^

"Many Carpenter movies are Indie and look like it. But that's also some of the best part of them. This is one such. It doesn't have to be a T2 blockbuster to be great."

Agreed!

I adore good lower-budget indie films.

'They Live' is a classic.

I think too many folks can be 'one-note' in their appraisals of films, especially of the sci-fi or horror genre, and have been hoodwinked into believing that such films always have to be blockbuster, crazed popcorn-munching fare, with the newest/brightest/most ostentatious special effects ever and having to have had a gazillion dollar budget.

Kind of reminds me of one of themes of 'They Live' ;)

"I will not go gently onto a shelf, degutted, to become a non-book." ~ Bradbury

[–] ccr1633 13 years ago

The tragic failure of The Thing to turn a profit meant that Carpenter was forced to work with limited budgets the rest of his career. It's too bad all the idiots of 1982 flocked to ET and effectively ruined JC's career. Imagine what he would've done with They Live or Prince of Darkness on a big fat budget. Ahhh...life is cruel.

[–] Mr-Fusion 13 years ago

It's too bad all the idiots of 1982 flocked to ET and effectively ruined JC's career.

Well let's be honest, the failure of The Thing at the box office didn't ruin Carpenter's career. It's not like any major studio wouldn't touch him after '82 - he still went on to do Starman.

1982 paid off for Spielberg like '77 did for Lucas: timing may have had a big part of E.T.'s success.

-----
It gets up and kills! The people it kills get up and kill!

[–] ccr1633 13 years ago

Jack-Howitzer wrote:
"Well let's be honest, the failure of The Thing at the box office didn't ruin Carpenter's career. It's not like any major studio wouldn't touch him after '82 - he still went on to do Starman."
------------------------------------------------

Absolutely right. My hyperbole is misleading. Since the topic was, in part, the cheap feel of They Live, I just wanted to point out that The Thing was the first and last time that the studios trusted Carpenter with a large budget. I think it's a tragedy that he didn't have the resources to realize his visions in full with films subsequent to The Thing. Who knows, The Thing might have been his crowning achievement even if it had been a box office success, but I really wish I could have seen how They Live, Vampires, and Prince of Darkness would've turned out if JC had full control and a big budget. Even more than They Live, I feel that Vampires suffers substantially from that on-the-cheap feel.

[–] Mr-Fusion 13 years ago

Ah, I see what you mean.

-----
It gets up and kills! The people it kills get up and kill!

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ccr1633 13 years ago

I was one of the idiots who flocked to ET in 1982, by the way. But I saw ET only once and The Thing 3 times, though I had to sneak in to The Thing twice, being way underage. Maybe this is why it was such a flop. All the kids who *really* wanted to see it had to sneak in, thence depressing the box office numbers. Unfortunately, this is probably why we see so many garbage PG-13 flicks these days.

[–] SeanJoyce 13 years ago

Carpenter had demonstrated his fecund ability at churning out excellent movies on shoestring budgets since his first film, so lack of funds was never a problem.

The true tragedy of Carpenter's career was that he let poor box office and scathing reviews erode his iconoclastic nature. The dismal performances of stuff like The Thing and Big Trouble in Little China, two films rebuked in their era which have been vindicated by the passage of time, eventually got to him. He's gone on record essentially saying that he lost his balls, his sense of daring. He curtailed his imagination and inventiveness, and embarked on a static career mostly characterized by consciousness.

We still got the occasional great, idiosyncratic film like They Live, but they became few and far between.

It's why most diehard Carpenter enthusiasts appreciate The Ghosts of Mars...it harkened back to his glory days, when he fulfilled his personal visions regardless of what everybody else thought.

"...if that was off, I'd be whoopin' your ass up and down this street." ~ an irate Tarantino

[–] lathe-of-heaven 11 years ago

Sorry, I immediately terminate anyone who uses the word 'Fecund'...

Immediately...

I have over 4000 films, many of them very rare and OOP. I LOVE to trade. PLEASE ASK!

[–] avortac 10 years ago

"Sorry, I immediately terminate anyone who uses the word 'Fecund'..."

Just out of curiosity, why?

It's a perfectly valid, english word. I didn't check, but I presume it was even spelled correctly. So why would you make an arbitrary choice like that? Aren't people allowed to use the full english vocabulary and toy around with words, to clarify and perfect their communications, instead of being limited to a small amount of thug-accepted, misspelled words and bad grammar?

Are you accusing someone of being a snob here, just because they use a word that you didn't know existed? I think that kind of attitude is narrowing your world too much.

I could understand that kind of position if someone used a word that expresses stupidity and limited mind, but when it's just a valid, correctly spelled english word, I really can't understand your attitude. Shouldn't those with a small vocabulary WELCOME a chance to expand it?

[–] lathe-of-heaven 10 years ago

Heh, you know, at first I was just gonna (I KNOW, not a real word, sorry...) be a smart@ss and try to find an emoticon of me hanging myself. But, your post is so nice and logical and not really snotty in any way, so I just HAD to acknowledge that I do appreciate the way you put it

For what it's worth, I have the exact same reaction when someone uses the word, 'Albeit'... However, I believe in that case the death that ensues entails very slow dismemberment first...

Cheers!

I have over 6000 films now, many of them very rare and OOP. I LOVE to trade. PLEASE ASK!

[–] jtf1986 12 years ago

How is ET a rip off of Close Encounters of the Third Kind? We barely see the aliens in Close Encounters, much less get to know one. Carpenters Starman is more of an ET ripoff with a couple of damned adults running around in it than ET is a ripoff of Close Encounters.
Even the Cover of Starman looks almost like a rip-off of E.T. You have Jeff Bridges doing a Spielbergian point at the sky, and then a ball of light on the aliens's and human's touching hands.

[–] brendanfoy 12 years ago

Carpenter actually gave up working with Hollywood studios after the failure of Big Trouble in Little China, he was upset with the mishandling of that film and the reception it received. It is a fantastic film and he definitely fell off after that.

They Live is a fun movie, but his anti Consumerism, anti Reagan era message also seems like venting frustration with Hollywood after the failure of Big Trouble in Little China. So what is he mad about, that not enough people paid for his product? I love Carpenter films, I love his creativity, but the guy has a serious stick up his ass when it comes to other people's success. They Live comes across as a long rant instead of a movie at times, but the charm of Roddy Piper and Keith David saves it.

[–] blaqueknight2000 12 years ago

Yeah, because mass consumerism, greed and debt is working so well for us.
You REALLY didn't get the movie, did you?

[–] brendanfoy 12 years ago

I get the movie just fine. The movie says nothing about debt, Carpenter was just turned off by what he deemed to be excess during the Reagan years. I suppose he preferred the scarcity and shared sacrifice of the Carter years.

I fully agree with the anti-corporatist message of the film, and I hear him go off about this often in interviews, but I never hear an anti-statist rant from him. As I said, he just comes across as bitter in the film and in interviews.

I think people should absolutely save more and this consumerist economy has been out of control, but that's part of being a truly free economy.

[–] ccr1633 12 years ago

brendanfoy wrote:
"I think people should absolutely save more and this consumerist economy has been out of control, but that's part of being a truly free economy."
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Rubbish. Major banks dishonestly manipulate LIBOR rates to their advantage. Congressman get rich trading on inside information owing to their government committee work. John Paulson creates ticking time bomb credit derivatives for Goldman-Sachs, knowing they're garbage that will be sold to Goldman clients as hot investments, and then profits immensely by shorting those very same falsely advertised derivatives. AIG gets bailed out to the tune of nearly a hundred billion dollars of taxpayer money, but the offending executives get to keep their millions. The entire government, the SEC, and the Federal Reserve are basically under the thumb of a very small club of investment bankers.

Please tell us again with a straight face that this is a free economy. It's rigged buddy. John Nada believed in America too, right up to the point where America shot him in the face.

[–] brendanfoy 11 years ago

I don't disagree with you when it comes to corporatism and cronyism, but it is still a free market by definition as opposed to a planned economy. I'm talking text book definition here and not ignoring the the constant undermining of the market by big government and big banks. My point is that whenever I hear Carpenter whine about it, he singles out the Reagan years which leads me to suspect he comes at it from a strictly partisan standpoint. We've had two rounds of quantitative easing under Bernanke and Obama, a third isn't out of the question which will devalue our dollars even more, but where is Carpenter's rage today? Still with the 1980s!

[–] vestdennis 8 years ago

breandafoy- I get where you're coming. I get sick of hearing the 80s referred to as the 'decade of greed' or 'excess'. This could be said moreso of the Clinton 90s, what with the tech bubble, overpriced stocks of every new internet company that came along. I remember laughing at how overvalued AOL was, compared to any real value it was creating. And yet everyone from the news media to investors were jumping on the bandwagon. Today AOL is a joke, with most people under 30 not even knowing what the hell it was/is.

My point being this, times of great economic expansion will have some losers (I mean in an economic manner). That is even more the case today. We hear about reduced unemployment and yet record numbers are underemployed and on Food Stamps.

[–] Tess-tastic 13 years ago

The tragic failure of The Thing to turn a profit meant that Carpenter was forced to work with limited budgets the rest of his career. It's too bad all the idiots of 1982 flocked to ET and effectively ruined JC's career.

Surely the two audiences are vastly different? Calling the people who went to watch ET "idiots" is a bit harsh, as I don't think all that many them would be old enough to go to watch The Thing. Personally, I love both films.

[–] nissebror 13 years ago

I'm not sure what's considered a big budget these days but I'm sure at least some of these would be considered big spenditures back then. Here's a complete list of approximate budgets for movies Carpenter made after The Thing (I've also included The Thing). All the info is from IMDb.

The Thing (1982): 15 million
Christine (1983): 9.7 million
Starman (1984): 24 million
Big Trouble In Little China (1986): 25 million
Prince of Darkness (1987): 3 million
They Live (1988): 4 million
Memoirs of An Invisible Man (1992): 40 million
In The Mouths of Madness (1994): 14 million
Village of the Damned (1995): 22 million
Escape From LA (1996): 50 million
Vampires (1998): 20 million
Ghosts of Mars (2001): 28 million
The Ward (2011): 10 million

So with some exceptions, the majority of the movies he's made after The Thing has had a bigger budget than The Thing so it's not true that the studios never trusted him with money again. And one other thing The Thing made almost 20 million at the box office, so it surpassed it's budget. Lastly, Halloween was made with a budget of around 320.000 dollars and Assault On Precint 13 had a budget of 150.000 dollars so it's wrong to assume They Live would be better with a bigger budget!

[–] funkyfry 13 years ago

There was an article in Starlog with an interview with Carpenter around the time when he signed the 3 picture deal with Alive Films (I think he only ended up doing 2 of them), where he explained his motives for going back to small budget film-making at that time in his career when he actually did have the ability to become attached to large budget films. I recommend people seriously interested in this subject track it down.

Did I not love him, Cooch? MY OWN FLESH I DIDN'T LOVE BETTER!!! But he had to say 'Nooooooooo'

[–] Mr-Fusion 13 years ago

I recommend people seriously interested in this subject track it down.

It's a great article. I doubt the thread still exists, but I do remember typing it up and posting it for the board (say, three years ago).

-----
We gotta go to the crappy town where I'm a hero!

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Minus_The_Beer 13 years ago

I actually think the IMDB rating for They Live is one of the few fair ratings on the site. Granted, I gave it an 8, but putting fandom aside, a 7/10 is about right.

Please don't hit my "reply" button unless you're replying to me. Thank you, come again.

[–] afrotiffy 13 years ago

The premise of the movie didn't grab me, but I got it and watched it based on the rating. I'm pretty easy on movies, too, and while I come to the IMDB boards to discuss movies, not to bash them, I do have to say I feel rather cheated by this movie's 7.1.

Premise schmemise, the rating should reflect the movie itself, not what it *could* have been, and in my estimation, it has way too many lows for a 7. The 10 minute fight scene (in lieu of either character trying to communicate with words because DEALING OUT PAIN IS HOW MEN COMMUNICATE! ) just completely lost me, and several scenes of the most ridiculous dialogue/actions kept me from ever coming back. A 5 would be generous, but 7? No way.

[–] darkstorm97 13 years ago

Who said this was the last time hollyweird trusted Carpenter with a big budget. Escape From LA cost more than 50 million to make.

Come with me if you want to live.

[–] przemek-m 13 years ago

This is the best movie with a wrestler playing a main role.

Polska rules !!!

[–] motleycruefan 13 years ago

All of your issues with the movie can be countered with one reply - "It was made in the 80's". I too was getting bugged the the one sided shooting, but then reminded my self that thats how movies were made in the 80's - hereos dont miss.

---------
"Youth is wasted on the young" George Shaw

[–] WarpedRecord 13 years ago

This does fall a couple points short of the mark. My main problem with it was some scenes distraction from the main narrative – particularly the fight over the glasses. Roddy Piper did a decent job in the lead, but this film just seems to wander aimlessly at times. It's still entertaining, though. 7/10 stars from me.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] WarpedRecord 12 years ago

As for the "Taxi Driver" rating, it's one of the handful of films I gave a 10 to. I think it's one of the best films of the '70s, with a hero/villain in Travis Bickle that is compelling and unforgettable – a very creepy guy who's impossible to forget and continues to hold relevance. I love John Carpenter as well, but I could only muster 7/10 for this film because it just didn't grab me as much as his others.

Oh well, to each his or her own.

[–] Strazdamonas 13 years ago

i think the polcie attacking homeless was very powerful as in "noone cares" so they could do anything they want, they were hiplnotized.

--------------
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for enough good men to do nothing.

[–] ubcool 12 years ago

strange mix of a movie that didnt quite work.

[–] Kuato_and_George 12 years ago

Hell yeah a 7.1, this is a classic sxi fi flick that's an homage to old B-movies. Paranoia, comspiracy theories, with some humore, and a kick-ass fight? Gold, if you ask me.

My movie review site: http://www.hesaidshesaidreviewsite.com/