MovieChat Forums > Long Time Dead (2002) Discussion > Regarding other message: better then ame...

Regarding other message: better then american movies


I didn't other to comment on that because there were so many posts. But the post said 'brits can make better movies then americans'

Now... american comparend to brittan moves is just stupid. It doesn't depend on the nationality of the person. It comes down to "good director or bad director" not "american director to britan director" Personally, I heard this movie sucked which in 10 minutes it comes on and im going to watch it. but I still don't see how people can compair movies by countries

*~Tiff~*
*Future Movie Director, Camera Person, and Editor*

"Nice Plot, Poorly Shot" ~ by me

reply

[deleted]

Yes, you can't make blanket statements like "one country makes better movies than another". What are you going to say about British directors like Alfred Hitchcock who move to America?

A more interesting point is that different countries or areas sometimes have a distinctive style e.g. Alien 3 is unusual in that it combined both European and American styles of moviemaking.

reply

I was an American but moved to Britain. I agree, here in Britain, the films are better. Why? Many reasons:

1. British films generally use less gore and concentrate more on horror and plot. Gore is used when gore is needed.

2. The acting is a lot better.
3. Most of the films are serious. They are aimed at scaring the audience and getting them to think. They are NOT ads for abercrombie, American Eagle, rock bands, etc.
4. Very few teens to spoil the film (I'm practically a teen myself)

Besides, in case you haven't noticed, MORE Americans are coming HERE to direct due to the facilities we have.

Sorry to burst your bubble.

reply

Get over yourself.

reply

Generally speaking, I think american actors overact way too much. Not a lot of them are subtle in their acting. And it seems like most of the movies made in America are made just to make money. There are some great directors and some good actors, but they're mostly lost in a sea of mediocrity.

reply

"I was an American but moved to Britain. I agree, here in Britain, the films are better. Why? Many reasons:

1. British films generally use less gore and concentrate more on horror and plot. Gore is used when gore is needed.

2. The acting is a lot better.
3. Most of the films are serious. They are aimed at scaring the audience and getting them to think. They are NOT ads for abercrombie, American Eagle, rock bands, etc.
4. Very few teens to spoil the film (I'm practically a teen myself)

Besides, in case you haven't noticed, MORE Americans are coming HERE to direct due to the facilities we have.

Sorry to burst your bubble."


The entire above response is redolent with fail. And ignorance.

reply

Why is it ignorant, because you have difficulty in understanding it? Obviously you are showing your true age by attacking someone because of their post. So, how could you really understand what I had to say in the first place if you are too young to use a message board.

reply

I had no difficulty understanding your post. But, at least now, based on your response, I see why your initial points were so broadly drawn: you have no trouble taking a flaccid generalization and running with it.

British horror certainly has a rich history, so I've never felt the need to engage in grade-school "my dad would beat up your dad" type arguments with regards to my favorite type of film. The horror genre--much to the chagrin of English critics and film historians of the time--was THE backbone of that country's film industry through the 60's and 70's. Hammer, Tyburn, Amicus and others, while encountering varying degrees of success, all brought international money to England with their movies.

However, British Horror barely made it out of the seventies. Hammer, the most prolific and profitable studio that specialized in horror and science fiction--certainly did not. Once horror films found effective shocks in elaborate FX, in the wake of The Exorcist, the Brits couldn't keep up. It was all a matter of the lack of technicians and money: the British system just didn't have the fountain of cash that Hollywood did. The import export ratio flipped the other way: more money was to be made by taking in Western films than by producing on the homefront.

By the time the 80's arrived, the British Horror industry was dead. I'll have to check my sources to get the exact dates, but there was a period of about 5 or 7 years in the 80's to 90's where not a single British horror film was given a theatrical release.

I suppose I didn't really address any of your points, but I will say this: the Brits have produced a fair share of cinematic turds, probably on an equal ratio to their American counterparts.

As for the gore argument, it seems silly to believe anything but what is obvious: from the 60's and 70's on, British horror producers who were so inclined would have put as much blood and nudity as the censors would allow (which, given the restrictive environment, wasn't much). If that were not the case, then Norman J. Warren's Alien Prey(1978) would have had the same day-glo drops of Technicolor blood as The Horror of Dracula(1958), instead of reasonably graphic scenes of lesbians being bloodily devoured. The proverbial envelope is almost always pushed to pad the profit margin, and this is true for the British as well as the American industries.

.






reply

I agree, it's moronic to compare the films like that.

What people need to understand is that there are a lot of good American films and a lot of bad American films; the same goes for British films.

reply

Learn how to spell moron, and then I will understand what you are trying to say.

reply

I'm not American, so I can freely say that this film was crap and that there are many many better American horror flicks.

1. I have never seen such ugly actors in a movie. If your movie is not scary, you could at least have some hot chicks. The males looked even more terrible.

2. Not scary at all! Why? They made every scene pseudo dramatic/scary. Just by turning off the lights and playing eerie music doesn't make a place scary.

3. No special effects. Srsly, wtf? The whole movie was plain boring. All they do is speed up camera movement to make it look like demonic speed.

This was just bad.

reply

British-made films are different in style to American possibly because UK film makers understand subtlety of direction etc., and do not feel the need to spend millions producing glossy looking rubbish or over-the-top special effects laden 'gore fests'. As for the actors being ugly; they are well-established and trained ACTORS, not merely vacuous clothes-horses chosen for their looks.
Fear of the unknown or unseen is something most of us experience at some time in our lives and this seems to be generally better understood and portrayed by British and European trained directors than the Hollywood 'teen movie' makers.

Sorry but there it is; nothing personal and no offence intended.

reply