Yuzna = hack?

I dont think so but his last few movies have not been very good IMO. I love his stuff from the 80s and 90s though.

Any director who can come up with a movie like Society, the last 25 minutes of which (the shunt sequence!) I think has never been equalled for sheer special-effect ingenuity, is NOT a hack. (I DO wonder what happened to Screaming Mad George who created the sequence, though. I thought that would have set him up for life in Hollywood, instead of which he seems to have vanished!)

Haven't seen Rottweiler, seen most of his other recent ones and I just think he's doing the best he can on even less money than usual. If EVER a director needs to be given a break, it's Yuzna. I'd love to see what he does with a franchise movie, like one in the 'Nightmare on Elm Street' reboot series or maybe a new 'Leprechaun'. His BEST work isn't serious horror, it's horror-making-fun-of-itself. Something with a little more to it than just blood'n'gore, Society, for instance, was really social satire with aliens in. 'Dentist' was obviously the idea from 'Little Shop of Horrors' taken to extremes. Mind you, though, I've been under a couple of dentists who I'm sure have seen that movie...

The guy does wonders on no money, even though he's an oddball prima-donna himself from what I've heard. I wonder what he'd come up with if someone flipped him a few million to play with. I think, whatever it is, it would be a classic.

Don't write him off. He's a BIG RESULT waiting to happen.


ulrichburke

He has long been the unwanted, self-appointed pretender to Frank Henenlotter's crown -namely combining sexual fetishes (and a self-appointed "look, I'm avant garde!" approach) with the horror/makeup effects genre. But what is the point? Henenlotter's latest film, Bad Biology, is as pretentious as Society or Yuzna at his peak, and was very disappointing. Carpenter and Cronenberg (latter could teach Brian and Frank a thing or two) have proven their mettle, not only creating some classic films but also escaping from the genre.

My analogy for Yuzna and Henenlotter would be the highly personal non-genre filmmakers, notably Henry Jaglom and Jim Jarmusch, who manage to find funding (though it gets harder and harder for them) to continue on their merry way, oblivious of what the audience wants to see. They are like novelists, but instead of working with the printed word are toiling in a rather expensive medium.

This type of filmmaking is basically navel-gazing, falling in love with one's own greatness. I respect it, but demand results, rather than diminishing returns.

To digress, you know you're living in a decadent period of filmmaking when every director - you name your favorites - is showing signs of deteriorating rather than improving. And all the great films, and I don't mean flavor of the month stuff, are in the past.

"Three quarters of what is said here can be completely discounted as the raving of imbeciles" - Donald Wolfit in Blood of the Vampire (1958)

[deleted]