MovieChat Forums > Horror Business (2007) Discussion > Didn't dig it...

Didn't dig it...

posted 17 years ago by seeno_evil63
10 replies | jump to latest

I watched Horror Business last night, and I gotta say that it was not as inspiring as I thought it would be. The filmmakers this man chose to follow were probably not the best people that young filmmakers should model themselves after. I am an aspiring filmmaker myself, and yes, I love horror movies and would like to make them myself one day, but I did not agree with a lot of what these people were saying. Frankly, I'm tired of independent filmmakers bashing Hollywood and saying that everything they turn out these days are crap. Obviously, first of all, this is their opinion and no one can rightly say what movies are "bad" or "good" because it's all subjective to the person watching it, but I don't know that you can say that all Hollywood movies suck. I don't think they do. Box office numbers can't tell you everything, but Hollywood movies are successful and those are the films that people go to see. It sucks sometimes, but money runs the business. I think a lot of independent films are great, but a lot of them are crap, too. If you don't have the talent, the right SFX, or good actors, your movie is not going to be as good as others. It all has to work together. What bugs me even more about the filmmakers portrayed in this documentary, especially the guy with the long black hair and glasses, is that they say that they will make whatever they want and they don't care what everyone else thinks. I don't think that that is smart filmmaking, or responsible filmmaking. You SHOULD want others to see your film and yes, hopefully like it, but you should also want them to have some sort of connection with it and want to know how it made them feel, or think. I don't think that films should be made just for the person making them. They exist for others to see and feel and maybe even be inspired by them. These filmmakers didn't inspire me. And from the small clips that I saw of their movies in this documentary, they didn't look like very well-made films to me. The techinal aspect was crap and the actors were cheesy. The only good filmmaker I saw in the whole bunch was the guy with the animated films - they actually looked pretty good. So in short, I found this documentary to be very uninspiring and not as good a teaching tool for budding filmmakers as the reviews made it out to be.

[–] dancziraky 17 years ago

Gotta agree with you. I found the film very tedious and padded. I mean, that montage of drive-in movie snack bar ads lasted forever! The filmmakers profiled seemed far too laid back and full of themselves. I never really saw their passion for what they were doing. Maybe "Son of Horror Business" will be a bit more polished?

[–] DoorToDoorManiac 17 years ago

haven't seen the film yet, but I thought I'd throw my two cents in regardless, because you bring up some interesting points.
I agree with the majority of your post until you wrote "they say that they will make whatever they want and they don't care what everyone else thinks"
This is where our opinions differ. An artists should be free of constraints when practicing their craft.
From my point of view, the majority of the western population is content with seeing the exact same story and formulas rehashed for decades. So how is cinema supposed to reach something better if the film makers are too concerned with what the audience or studio wants? There is very little creativity left when it comes to todays cinema, at least for Hollywood.
A little scenario:
Scriptwriter: Hey i've got a fresh idea for a new type of film that's never been done before.
Studio exec:sounds interesting...who is the target demographic?
Scriptwriter: Well there isn't really, because nothing like this has been done before.
Studio Exec: hmm, no target demographic, an original story idea, sounds kind of risky... could we maybe change these elements so we can reach a wider audience?
Scriptwriter: I just want to tell a story, I'm not concerned with the audience at the moment because I know that it will eventually find it's own audience to appreciate it.
Studio Exec: sorry pal, too much of a risk for our company.

I just can't help wondering about all the films that would not be here today, had the artists been too worried about what everyone else thinks of their art.
And I'm not saying that film's should be made only for the artist, but how is a film maker supposed to input their emotions and ideas into their art when concerned about what everyone else might want to see?

[–] dstancey 16 years ago

"An artists should be free of constraints when practicing their craft."

Not necessarily. An artist shouldn't be censored per se... but much art is built from constraints. From the hollywood example when on Jaws the shark wouldn't work (the constraint is probably part of what made the film far more interesting than Jarrasic park or War of the Worlds when the same filmmaker had far fewer constraints). Starving artist is a phrase for a reason. Struggle. Sacrifice. Constraints are build in all over the place. If you don't want the subject matter constraint you're bound to have a financial one. That's all the above poster was REALLY saying - whether he meant it as open as that. Most filmmakers want an audience to connect - but not all... plenty of films are made to turn audiences off.

I actually quite like Mark Borchardt and Dave Stagnari. I don't think their pursuit of self expression is anti-establishment so much as it is an artists search for a voice. I also liked Coven okay and Zombie Honeymoon. Ron Atkins on the other hand is someone who can rub people the wrong way easily - as he seems to struggle with himself less and tends to appear more about shock and pissing people off (when in reality he might simply feed other who wish to piss people off rather than actually pissing people off - as only horror genre audience know he exists). Ron has his fanbase, though. I've not seen his films - and sometimes the end product surprises you. So I'll reserve judgement on him as a filmmaker.

I will agree that the film seemed padded and thin and stale, however. It didn't inspire me, as the original poster pointed out. And it didn't really even illustrate the struggle to make a film, or what the biz is like, really. It's more a mash-up of half-interesting behind the scenes footage than a real documentary. In fact - the behind the scenes on Zombie Honeymoon alone is more insightful and entertaining AND inspiring than this movie.

It's not bad - just flat.

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] constant_hype 16 years ago

I agree, the only guy that talked with any sort of devotion to the genre was the man who made Catharsis. The other guys looked and sounded like they were straight out of Trailer Park Boys and Korn videos. I can't stand listening to someone who just swears for the sake of swearing with chip on their shoulder because they're ugly.

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] constant_hype 16 years ago

Yah that guy was a total dick.

[–] berniegrim 16 years ago

I just finished watching Horror Business and I agree with pretty much what everyone here has said. Perhaps the wrong "filmmakers" were featured.

And yes that guy yelling at the BK employee was hilarious and sad. I hope it was set up, but it wouldn't surprise me if it wasn't.

[–] smerd_70 13 years ago

That was that Ron Atkins, he seemed like a little prick in all his interviews. He probably felt tough sitting safely in his car, and also knowing he had a camera on him.

I collect dead pigeons then I press them between the pages of a book.

[–] stan7 9 years ago

I thought this film was a waste of time. As for Ron Atkins, he came off as the biggest douchebag who ever lived.