I bought a copy of "Invasion of The Blood Farmers"about 20 years ago. I have a strong stomach for Bad Cinema , but , it was'nt even as good as the name would suggest. So , I traded my copy in , after sitting through it twice. Today , I saw a "Big Box" copy for a dollar , with the movie poster artwork in color. I got weak. Maybe when I have insomnia , I'll watch it again....I don't remember there even being any farmers in the picture. Just like there's no Frankenstein monster in "Frankenstein's Bloody Terror" , but , that's about as close to Hammer as a non - British Horror film ever got. Amicus and Tigon had a lot more money to work with than Paul Naschy ever did , but , the feel and the atmosphere and the gratuitous BLOOD is a more loving tribute to the studio that opened the door for modern Horror , and was now being shown it , than it's two key competitors (tho' they did some great stuff , too.).

YOU KNOW WHAT , I NEVER HEARD ABOUT THAT ,BUT IT WOULD'NT SURPRISE ME. Mind you , when it came out , I did'nt know it was about Rock'n'Roll teens in , was it AUSTRALIA? And the villain is a Ted ....Well , a Holiday Camp Ted , like Oliver Reed in 'Tommy".... I also did'nt know it was freakin' hilarious. I thought it was another SLASHER FILM. I used to see it on VHS all the time , when I had no interest. It took a few years to find it , once I wanted a copy. But , I still have'nt watched my copy.
 
dave said:

Dead/Alive is the funniest horror movie I've seen. Found out there're 2 versions, a cleaned-up R-rated version, and the full uncensored version, which believe it or don't, is X-rated (at least in the States).

Dead/Alive is the funniest horror movie I've seen. Found out there're 2 versions, a cleaned-up R-rated version, and the full uncensored version, which believe it or don't, is X-rated (at least in the States).

Just watched bad taste- most excellent... I still love Dead Alive

I almost forgot about Cecil B. Demented. I liked that , too....I can't even remember if I saw "Serial Mom" all the way through .  But , Waters , for about 20 years  , has been making inroads to the mainstream , with varying degrees of success. Even "Hairspray" and "Cry Baby" only nominally reference the sleaze master of yore. I did'nt care , they're both funny as Hell. And , I don't even know that either did that much action at the box office , when they came out.
 
dave said:

Will do! I've loved everything I've seen by him so far, tho' I wasn't too crazy about Serial Mom. Cecil B. Demented made me laugh by poking fun at the indy film movement.

It IS The Wal - Mart effect......Almost nothing gets into American theatres (Again , barring Blink - and - you'll miss 'em "Limited Engagements".) anymore if it's not predesigned to be a fucking blockbuster . Then , when it's gone (Mercifully) , it's gone. The days of second run theatres , and a movie making back it's intial investment before it's grossed enough to feed , clothe and house the entire population of West Malaysia for an entire year , are over. There may be a second - run house here and there , where you can see a movie that came out last month for less than $10 , but they're going the way of the Drive- in , and that's a damn shame. 

I don't consider "Hollywood film" in the least bit a nebulous reference. Just because a film studio or director may be based in Los Angeles, for example, doesn't make the director or film a Hollywood production. It's a matter of contracts and production that make the definition clear. Example of a Hollywood production: MGM, Touchstone, Paramount, Warner Brothers, Walt Disney Studios, etc. I don't happen to think Lion's Gate or any of its subsidiaries (Trimark, Mandate, Artisan) an independent film company, though that's what they like to label themselves for whatever reason. It's the Wal-Mart effect. Everything that was once original gets bought out by the big Lion. Some of the production companies named above actually started in Canada. It really bothers me to see that in this country, which is exactly why the very clearly diminishing ACTUAL independent film maker (or actual independent production company) in the United States is growing ever rare. It's like every other product in this country. Anything that has been around for 100 years in this country will tend to have its tentacles everywhere.

If it looks or sounds intriguing I'll see it, big studio or not, Mega-plex or Aht-House theatre. It's just the content that I'm thinkin' of, myself.

John Battles said:

My personal definition of "Hollywood" does'nt exclude any American Directors that can get their movies screen in a first run , or less pretentious and/ or literally off the beaten path art house. Even "Art House" cinema has a different connotation than it used to.

Maybe I was generalizing putting directors like Jarmusch or Waters (Who , with the exception of "Dirty  Shame" , has been doing far more mainstream pictures in recent years , but, I liked most of them (Pecker, Serial Mom...) ) in the "Hollywood" bracket , but , to me , if it gets shown in a theatre I don't have to spend an hour ,  hour and a half,  getting to , it's probably still Hollywood on some level. 
 
Lutz Vipinderwoman said:

I'm not sure whether I'd categorize Jarmusch & Lynch as "Hollywood." Lynch yes, lately tho' less so, but Jarmusch and Waters? I don't consider them to be Hollywood directors. Well, in that case since I'm pretty sure Hesher (2010) was indie-film candy money via Hollywood production, it did make me laugh, but it annoyed me in it's Hollywood formulaic way of insulting the audience's intelligence by non-explanation, completely unlikely scenarios and the obvious bullshit pathos via a deficient means of trying to be funny at the same time. There are lots of Asian films that seem very over-the-top with the histrionics, but can still elicit emotion from the audience. That's good storytelling. Hollywood films have lost that ability long, long ago...all shock value and special effects start to wear as time goes by.

I actually have very low expectations where Hollywood films are concerned and generally tend to pass them, unless it's something playing at a 2nd-run movie theater. . .I saw Hobbit: The Unexpected Journey at such a theater. I was genuinely interested in it. It was a 169-minute video game/chase scene though; I know that war after war and only men (yes 1 female main character in the whole film) made it true to that part of the actual story, but it just seemed to me it was all the directors "going through the motions" and substance was lacking, though the cinematography was good (I say good, not excellent). I saw a bit about the making of this film previous to seeing it and it just looked like a whole bunch of people working on this film and rushing to meet a deadline. I don't see that as inspired film-making and the end product proves it.

I've heard non-Hollywood actors/actresses who come to work in Hollywood say they did one film and had to leave because the atmosphere was "toxic." I believe that. I also saw Mike Myers in an interview say that he did not want to do another Austin Powers film after the 2nd one and was followed, harassed and basically bullied (in full mafioso style) until he would finally put out the final Austin Powers film, Goldmember, (I did genuinely like all the Austin Powers films). If this is how the Hollywood producers treat actual talent, I don't want to support them. Of course, the documentary Girl 27 (2007) pretty much confirmed to me that Hollywood has always been a grand Cosa Nostra since day 1.

Will do! I've loved everything I've seen by him so far, tho' I wasn't too crazy about Serial Mom. Cecil B. Demented made me laugh by poking fun at the indy film movement.

My personal definition of "Hollywood" does'nt exclude any American Directors that can get their movies screen in a first run , or less pretentious and/ or literally off the beaten path art house. Even "Art House" cinema has a different connotation than it used to.

Maybe I was generalizing putting directors like Jarmusch or Waters (Who , with the exception of "Dirty  Shame" , has been doing far more mainstream pictures in recent years , but, I liked most of them (Pecker, Serial Mom...) ) in the "Hollywood" bracket , but , to me , if it gets shown in a theatre I don't have to spend an hour ,  hour and a half,  getting to , it's probably still Hollywood on some level. 
 
Lutz Vipinderwoman said:

I'm not sure whether I'd categorize Jarmusch & Lynch as "Hollywood." Lynch yes, lately tho' less so, but Jarmusch and Waters? I don't consider them to be Hollywood directors. Well, in that case since I'm pretty sure Hesher (2010) was indie-film candy money via Hollywood production, it did make me laugh, but it annoyed me in it's Hollywood formulaic way of insulting the audience's intelligence by non-explanation, completely unlikely scenarios and the obvious bullshit pathos via a deficient means of trying to be funny at the same time. There are lots of Asian films that seem very over-the-top with the histrionics, but can still elicit emotion from the audience. That's good storytelling. Hollywood films have lost that ability long, long ago...all shock value and special effects start to wear as time goes by.

I actually have very low expectations where Hollywood films are concerned and generally tend to pass them, unless it's something playing at a 2nd-run movie theater. . .I saw Hobbit: The Unexpected Journey at such a theater. I was genuinely interested in it. It was a 169-minute video game/chase scene though; I know that war after war and only men (yes 1 female main character in the whole film) made it true to that part of the actual story, but it just seemed to me it was all the directors "going through the motions" and substance was lacking, though the cinematography was good (I say good, not excellent). I saw a bit about the making of this film previous to seeing it and it just looked like a whole bunch of people working on this film and rushing to meet a deadline. I don't see that as inspired film-making and the end product proves it.

I've heard non-Hollywood actors/actresses who come to work in Hollywood say they did one film and had to leave because the atmosphere was "toxic." I believe that. I also saw Mike Myers in an interview say that he did not want to do another Austin Powers film after the 2nd one and was followed, harassed and basically bullied (in full mafioso style) until he would finally put out the final Austin Powers film, Goldmember, (I did genuinely like all the Austin Powers films). If this is how the Hollywood producers treat actual talent, I don't want to support them. Of course, the documentary Girl 27 (2007) pretty much confirmed to me that Hollywood has always been a grand Cosa Nostra since day 1.

right ! i WAS THINKING OF LYNCH , TOO. Did'nt mean to snub him....

See , there ya go. "Dirty Shame " , PLAYED THE FIRST RUN THEATRES , AND NO ONE HAS SEEN OR HEARD OF IT.....Here's some free advice for everybody - Buy or rent the UNCENSORED "DIRTY SHAME" (IT WAS ORIGINALLY RELEASED IN AN EDITED OR "Neutered " version , but people with sense demanded the durty version , which also has a documentary where Waters explains all the kinks mentioned in the film (Hey , I had'nt heard of some of them.), AND SOME THAT ARE'NT (The look on his face when he  tries to tell the camera that Dirty Sanchez and The Hot Karl never existed is priceless !).......
 
dave said:

Jarmusch did Night On Earth, and David Lynch did Mulholland Drive (which I've yet to see).

Yeah, and Waters is also a good example, tho' he wants to do a children's movie next! I'd say he's used himself up at that point! John Waters: Subversive Success

Haven't seen (or heard!) of Dirty Shame, but that sounds more up my alley.

All good examples, thanks for reminding me.

John Battles said:

I'm drawing a blank. Who did "Night on Earth" and/or "Mulholland Drive"? Like him , too.

But , JOHN WATERS STILL DOES A MOVIE EVERY 5 TO 10 YEARS. "DIRTY SHAME " WAS HILARIOUS , AND VIRTUALLY NO ONE I'VE SPOKEN TO HAS SEEN IT.

True. Good stuff is where you find it, but while these folks we've been talking about can move back and forth, I do think they are the exceptions. And I think Soderbergh may have made his last unusual film, most of the last few don't seem to be pushing the boundaries.

There's Sturgeon's Law: 98% of everything is crap. It's getting harder (it seems to me) to find more films that stand out from the pack.

Grazianohmygod said:

I think the Hollywood label is a bit hard to define.

A lot of the filmmakers mentioned in this thread have the unique distinction of being able to intermingle with the Hollywood sphere while still being labeled "independent." Lynch, Waters, Jarmusch, and Wes Anderson all remain somewhat separated from mainstream cinema, but that doesn't mean that a major studio won't produce or distribute one of their films.

Soderbergh is the one that operates most within the Hollywood tradition, but he still makes whatever he damn well pleases, whether it's a three hour movie about Che Guevera or the latest Ocean's 11 sequel.

I think a lot of good stuff has come out since the sixties. Some of it was produced by the Hollywood system, a lot of it was produced independently and then co-opted or distributed by Hollywood. Any time you're gonna talk about an artistic medium, you're going to find about 75% of it is garbage and 25% of it is worthwhile. The same goes for movies made before the 1960's. Lots of junk out there, but some wonderful stuff if you know where to find it.

Agreed. I prefer Asian films and the odd film from Europe. Even if it's a violent film (like Korean Park Chan-Wook's revenge trilogy Oldboy/Sympathy For Mr. Revenge/Lady Revenge) they can do a better job of every aspect: story-telling, cinematography, etc.

Hadn't heard of Girl 27, but I'm looking forward to seeing it, thanks.

I do like films that make me laugh, there just don't seem to be many of them. I thought Mystery Men, against all odds, was both clever and funny. Saw the first Austin Powers (and Wayne's World) and got a kick out of both.

Yes, I would agree that H'wood lost the ability to tell a story well long ago.

Lutz Vipinderwoman said:

I'm not sure whether I'd categorize Jarmusch & Lynch as "Hollywood." Lynch yes, lately tho' less so, but Jarmusch and Waters? I don't consider them to be Hollywood directors. Well, in that case since I'm pretty sure Hesher (2010) was indie-film candy money via Hollywood production, it did make me laugh, but it annoyed me in it's Hollywood formulaic way of insulting the audience's intelligence by non-explanation, completely unlikely scenarios and the obvious bullshit pathos via a deficient means of trying to be funny at the same time. There are lots of Asian films that seem very over-the-top with the histrionics, but can still elicit emotion from the audience. That's good storytelling. Hollywood films have lost that ability long, long ago...all shock value and special effects start to wear as time goes by.

I actually have very low expectations where Hollywood films are concerned and generally tend to pass them, unless it's something playing at a 2nd-run movie theater. . .I saw Hobbit: The Unexpected Journey at such a theater. I was genuinely interested in it. It was a 169-minute video game/chase scene though; I know that war after war and only men (yes 1 female main character in the whole film) made it true to that part of the actual story, but it just seemed to me it was all the directors "going through the motions" and substance was lacking, though the cinematography was good (I say good, not excellent). I saw a bit about the making of this film previous to seeing it and it just looked like a whole bunch of people working on this film and rushing to meet a deadline. I don't see that as inspired film-making and the end product proves it.

I've heard non-Hollywood actors/actresses who come to work in Hollywood say they did one film and had to leave because the atmosphere was "toxic." I believe that. I also saw Mike Myers in an interview say that he did not want to do another Austin Powers film after the 2nd one and was followed, harassed and basically bullied (in full mafioso style) until he would finally put out the final Austin Powers film, Goldmember, (I did genuinely like all the Austin Powers films). If this is how the Hollywood producers treat actual talent, I don't want to support them. Of course, the documentary Girl 27 (2007) pretty much confirmed to me that Hollywood has always been a grand Cosa Nostra since day 1.

I think the Hollywood label is a bit hard to define.

A lot of the filmmakers mentioned in this thread have the unique distinction of being able to intermingle with the Hollywood sphere while still being labeled "independent." Lynch, Waters, Jarmusch, and Wes Anderson all remain somewhat separated from mainstream cinema, but that doesn't mean that a major studio won't produce or distribute one of their films.

Soderbergh is the one that operates most within the Hollywood tradition, but he still makes whatever he damn well pleases, whether it's a three hour movie about Che Guevera or the latest Ocean's 11 sequel.

I think a lot of good stuff has come out since the sixties. Some of it was produced by the Hollywood system, a lot of it was produced independently and then co-opted or distributed by Hollywood. Any time you're gonna talk about an artistic medium, you're going to find about 75% of it is garbage and 25% of it is worthwhile. The same goes for movies made before the 1960's. Lots of junk out there, but some wonderful stuff if you know where to find it.

I'm not sure whether I'd categorize Jarmusch & Lynch as "Hollywood." Lynch yes, lately tho' less so, but Jarmusch and Waters? I don't consider them to be Hollywood directors. Well, in that case since I'm pretty sure Hesher (2010) was indie-film candy money via Hollywood production, it did make me laugh, but it annoyed me in it's Hollywood formulaic way of insulting the audience's intelligence by non-explanation, completely unlikely scenarios and the obvious bullshit pathos via a deficient means of trying to be funny at the same time. There are lots of Asian films that seem very over-the-top with the histrionics, but can still elicit emotion from the audience. That's good storytelling. Hollywood films have lost that ability long, long ago...all shock value and special effects start to wear as time goes by.

I actually have very low expectations where Hollywood films are concerned and generally tend to pass them, unless it's something playing at a 2nd-run movie theater. . .I saw Hobbit: The Unexpected Journey at such a theater. I was genuinely interested in it. It was a 169-minute video game/chase scene though; I know that war after war and only men (yes 1 female main character in the whole film) made it true to that part of the actual story, but it just seemed to me it was all the directors "going through the motions" and substance was lacking, though the cinematography was good (I say good, not excellent). I saw a bit about the making of this film previous to seeing it and it just looked like a whole bunch of people working on this film and rushing to meet a deadline. I don't see that as inspired film-making and the end product proves it.

I've heard non-Hollywood actors/actresses who come to work in Hollywood say they did one film and had to leave because the atmosphere was "toxic." I believe that. I also saw Mike Myers in an interview say that he did not want to do another Austin Powers film after the 2nd one and was followed, harassed and basically bullied (in full mafioso style) until he would finally put out the final Austin Powers film, Goldmember, (I did genuinely like all the Austin Powers films). If this is how the Hollywood producers treat actual talent, I don't want to support them. Of course, the documentary Girl 27 (2007) pretty much confirmed to me that Hollywood has always been a grand Cosa Nostra since day 1.

Jarmusch did Night On Earth, and David Lynch did Mulholland Drive (which I've yet to see).

Yeah, and Waters is also a good example, tho' he wants to do a children's movie next! I'd say he's used himself up at that point! John Waters: Subversive Success

Haven't seen (or heard!) of Dirty Shame, but that sounds more up my alley.

All good examples, thanks for reminding me.

John Battles said:

I'm drawing a blank. Who did "Night on Earth" and/or "Mulholland Drive"? Like him , too.

But , JOHN WATERS STILL DOES A MOVIE EVERY 5 TO 10 YEARS. "DIRTY SHAME " WAS HILARIOUS , AND VIRTUALLY NO ONE I'VE SPOKEN TO HAS SEEN IT.

"entertained and informed" , yes! I don't think it sounds pompous at all.

Tarantino did those 2 movies, which I think is great, who has 2 classic movies in him? Most directors don't. But I am tired of his "masturbatory violence schtick" (thank you, Twitter)...

John Battles said:

In very recent history , I have'nt trusted too many movies not made by Tim Burton , Jim Jarmusch , or Guy Madden (But he's Canadian.) and maybe a couple of others. Only Burton has produced any blockbusters of those few , and most people in this country still think Quentin Tarentino is "Cutting Edge". The headaches I got from most of his movies  was "Cutting edge". Yes , he has been instrumental in re- releasing the works of Jack Hill , though Johnny Legend got the short end of the stick in that deal , and , he did it , first .There are always exceptions, movies that get past the 120 million bums on seats a week filter, but , I don't go toteh movies that much , anymore , unless it's a revival screening of a real film , which may sound pompous, but , we're there to be entertained and informed , no?

I'm drawing a blank. Who did "Night on Earth" and/or "Mulholland Drive"? Like him , too.

But , JOHN WATERS STILL DOES A MOVIE EVERY 5 TO 10 YEARS. "DIRTY SHAME " WAS HILARIOUS , AND VIRTUALLY NO ONE I'VE SPOKEN TO HAS SEEN IT.

In very recent history , I have'nt trusted too many movies not made by Tim Burton , Jim Jarmusch , or Guy Madden (But he's Canadian.) and maybe a couple of others. Only Burton has produced any blockbusters of those few , and most people in this country still think Quentin Tarentino is "Cutting Edge". The headaches I got from most of his movies  was "Cutting edge". Yes , he has been instrumental in re- releasing the works of Jack Hill , though Johnny Legend got the short end of the stick in that deal , and , he did it , first .There are always exceptions, movies that get past the 120 million bums on seats a week filter, but , I don't go toteh movies that much , anymore , unless it's a revival screening of a real film , which may sound pompous, but , we're there to be entertained and informed , no?

Well said! They've even clamped down on giving loans to indy film-makers because it's money not going to some big-budget flick. How are those unique ideas going to propagate in the world if they can't get a loan for a lousy $250,000 or so?

Lutz Vipinderwoman said:

I was just thinking something along the same lines yesterday. Specifically, nothing that even comes close to a situational drama that also caters to the human intellect/emotions above high school age. "Junk-food movies" is all Hollywood's got. I've heard it rationalized that they cater to the PG-13 crowd because that's the only age group (teenagers) that actually go out to see movies anymore, and because the present-day Hollywood executives are only business people, not the ex-vaudeville show people that actually started Hollywood once upon a time. So since only business people are at the helm, it's all just a "business gamble" and not exploration into actually creating an art form via drama. That's why they only do what's already proven people will spend money on, i.e., X-men comics and Lord of the Rings. That, in my opinion is not even entrepreneurship in a business sense though, and not fine art through the medium of drama at all. Thank goodness we so much independently owned theater. Screw Hollywood!

Damn, already tripping myself up, haha!

I don't include crime movies from this time for the most part, but I forgot about Steven Soderbergh who seems to have stopped making killer movies, BUT, made some gorgeous movies from Sex, Lies, and Videotape to the beautiful The Limey, a 'crime' movie that makes you think, filmed in warm amber and cool blue. He also made the strange Schizopolis and the solid crime thrillers Out of Sight and Traffic.

I was just thinking something along the same lines yesterday. Specifically, nothing that even comes close to a situational drama that also caters to the human intellect/emotions above high school age. "Junk-food movies" is all Hollywood's got. I've heard it rationalized that they cater to the PG-13 crowd because that's the only age group (teenagers) that actually go out to see movies anymore, and because the present-day Hollywood executives are only business people, not the ex-vaudeville show people that actually started Hollywood once upon a time. So since only business people are at the helm, it's all just a "business gamble" and not exploration into actually creating an art form via drama. That's why they only do what's already proven people will spend money on, i.e., X-men comics and Lord of the Rings. That, in my opinion is not even entrepreneurship in a business sense though, and not fine art through the medium of drama at all. Thank goodness we so much independently owned theater. Screw Hollywood!

I just wanted to get some ideas and debate flowin'.

My take on this is mostly NO, nothing EXCEPT for some black comedies (Dr. Strangelove, The Loved One, Harold and Maude, Eating Raoul, Parents, Heathers) and a couple of quirky films (Rushmore and Ghost World).

I'm not counting junk-food movies, no matter how well done (X-Men, Lord of the Rings).

I just think Hollywood is in it for the bucks, not for the quality. It's a business, right, and they exist to make money (or to "put asses in seats" as I think Neal Stephenson wrote), so they aren't too concerned about being remembered 100 years hence for phenomenal films.

Not looking to make a flame war outta this, just looking for opinions.

Fuck, like we need any more tension with the Middle East....
 
dave said:

Hey Joey,

[slightly off-topic] Check this out-

Assange says the upcoming Dreamworks (Spielberg) film on Wikileaks is designed to fan the flames of a war against Iran bit.ly/WnHfSP

Any thoughts?

Terry Brooks of TB & the Strange, a very unreal psych rock band, wrote this book...a must:):)