In your opinion.Alien Redrum wrote:In your opinion.People with no artistic ambitions and no vision.
I would argue that Nispel has artistic ambition. His movies are very pretty and arty and, in the case of the TCM remake, even good.
You have TCM on a pedestal that's way to high. It's one thing to like a movie, but when you reach a point when you consider it seem to consider it flawless. It's not. It's not a perfect movie, and when you can't be objective enough to see that it has flaws, it's hard to take you seriously.
My two favorite movies of all time are Dawn of the Dead and Heat. I'd give them both 5 stars. But, shit, I can tell you what's wrong with them too.
TCM is really isn't what you make it out to be.
And I hope that doesn't come off snobby, because I admit you make a great argument. And you're right about me. I do think the film flawless. But it's like I suggested - the film weeds out viewers and proves which ones are too jaded to get into it and which ones don't need a ton more gore and a faster pace. It represents the absolute pinnacle of that era in horror. I don't know where it got its' artistic influences from. But it knew exactly what it wanted to be. Unlike what Walls and Spez are claiming - Hooper didn't just point the camera and shoot whatever! And there is actual political and social commentary in the film. When I need a perfect horror film, this one's got everything. And I don't need anyone else to agree with me. Either. I don't mind if someone thinks I'm light-weight or a pussy. In my opinion - true art lasts forever. Fads don't.
