Page 3 of 7
Posted: Tue Sep 01, 2009 9:51 pm
by The Aylmer
Lynch and Greene joked that they had masturbated into the Empire popcorn. But it was Ridley, bounding on stage in his panama hat, proclaiming the birth of a new genre of horror that pissed on horror, the preceding 4 days and every film that over the last 50 years we hold dear
By crikey that whole rant was well argued. I liked the film overall (miles better than Angel Heart which I've always felt sucked big time) but after reading the above I'm tempted to go let the directors tyres down on his car now!
Posted: Tue Sep 01, 2009 9:52 pm
by streetrw
Yes, but Ridley isn't a genre director, he doesn't know what he's talking about. It's when you get Paul WS Anderson, who does make genre movies, standing on the Prince Charles stage going on about Resident Evil reinventing the zombie movie from those tired old Romero cliches, that such comments matter. (And The Passion Of Darkly Noon was overly arty twaddle.)
Anyway - Heartless really isn't all that great. I'm sorry, but it just isn't. There's some very nice stuff in it, I certainly identified with the main character, (but only up until the point where he made the deal) and it's very good at creating the mood, but in the end it doesn't really work. And that's a shame.
Posted: Tue Sep 01, 2009 10:03 pm
by Tommy-Boy
dnky666 wrote:Ridley has not invented a new genre of horror but has with that comment shown his contempt for horror as a genre. I'm assuming that he based his (obviously) encyclopedic knowledge of the current state of the genre on the adverts he sees for films such as Final Destination 3 on the TV. He appears to think that the genre has never addressed social commentary (What about Night of the living dead? The People under the stairs? Or even Drag me to hell?). He appears to believe that we are all stupid and aren't aware of Marlowe or the Faust myth. Heck, he doesn't even think that we watched Dallas and will fall for the "it was all a dream" finale.
If he has invented a genre then it is Upper Middle Class Chav Panic horror. Basically, take the world that you see from the window of your cab as you speed to some arty soiree. Throw in an Evening Standard headline or 2. Make everybody in it a grotesque cipher. The immigrant whore, the 2 characters caught up or previously involved in gang violence. Heck, even the owner of the local shop will sell you guns. Even the main character's own brother buggers off to Paris rather than stay, despite being only to well aware of his brother's fragile state of mind. In fact the only redeeming character in the whole piece is the Timothy Spall character. Over 40? Likes to take arty black and white photo's and waffle on about love? I wonder who he's based on? The artist (or should I say Director) as savior perchance?
Everything about this film is cynical. Brand Ridley so beloved by "luvvies" and serious critics takes on a genre much maligned and misunderstood after years in the wilderness. Casts Timothy Spall as a draw for the Ken Loach brigade, casts Noel "the acceptable face of yoof culture" Clarke as a draw for the kids and for the Daily Mail readers demonises, quite literally, hoodies. As for the demons themselves it's nice to see that the effects unit of Primeval aren't short of work since its cancellation.
At least he did address one charge leveled at horror films. Not for Ridley, the slaughter of large breasted pretty girls by our murderous protagonist. No, he'd much rather be killing a gay man and a black guy. Progress, is a beautiful thing.
Of course the film will be lauded. Ridley is one of those people who in the eyes of the so called proper critics can do no wrong. So, it is only a matter of time before we have an Observer Review article proclaiming that Ridley has indeed saved horror from itself and the sad thing is we have no-one to blame but ourselves. The greatest Faustian pact struck was allowing Ridley and his band of overdressed luvvies/c-list celebrities to piggyback on the back of the festival.
In his review of Antichrist, Alan slates Von Trier et al about the elitist attitude shown towards our genre and quite rightly so. This film, although better than Antichrist, is no different.
Lynch and Greene joked that they had masturbated into the Empire popcorn. But it was Ridley, bounding on stage in his panama hat, proclaiming the birth of a new genre of horror that pissed on horror, the preceding 4 days and every film that over the last 50 years we hold dear.
I am at this moment giving you a standing ovation for this extremely well argued post
Posted: Tue Sep 01, 2009 10:22 pm
by Satans Puppy
Tommy-Boy wrote:dnky666 wrote:Ridley has not invented a new genre of horror but has with that comment shown his contempt for horror as a genre. I'm assuming that he based his (obviously) encyclopedic knowledge of the current state of the genre on the adverts he sees for films such as Final Destination 3 on the TV. He appears to think that the genre has never addressed social commentary (What about Night of the living dead? The People under the stairs? Or even Drag me to hell?). He appears to believe that we are all stupid and aren't aware of Marlowe or the Faust myth. Heck, he doesn't even think that we watched Dallas and will fall for the "it was all a dream" finale.
If he has invented a genre then it is Upper Middle Class Chav Panic horror. Basically, take the world that you see from the window of your cab as you speed to some arty soiree. Throw in an Evening Standard headline or 2. Make everybody in it a grotesque cipher. The immigrant whore, the 2 characters caught up or previously involved in gang violence. Heck, even the owner of the local shop will sell you guns. Even the main character's own brother buggers off to Paris rather than stay, despite being only to well aware of his brother's fragile state of mind. In fact the only redeeming character in the whole piece is the Timothy Spall character. Over 40? Likes to take arty black and white photo's and waffle on about love? I wonder who he's based on? The artist (or should I say Director) as savior perchance?
Everything about this film is cynical. Brand Ridley so beloved by "luvvies" and serious critics takes on a genre much maligned and misunderstood after years in the wilderness. Casts Timothy Spall as a draw for the Ken Loach brigade, casts Noel "the acceptable face of yoof culture" Clarke as a draw for the kids and for the Daily Mail readers demonises, quite literally, hoodies. As for the demons themselves it's nice to see that the effects unit of Primeval aren't short of work since its cancellation.
At least he did address one charge leveled at horror films. Not for Ridley, the slaughter of large breasted pretty girls by our murderous protagonist. No, he'd much rather be killing a gay man and a black guy. Progress, is a beautiful thing.
Of course the film will be lauded. Ridley is one of those people who in the eyes of the so called proper critics can do no wrong. So, it is only a matter of time before we have an Observer Review article proclaiming that Ridley has indeed saved horror from itself and the sad thing is we have no-one to blame but ourselves. The greatest Faustian pact struck was allowing Ridley and his band of overdressed luvvies/c-list celebrities to piggyback on the back of the festival.
In his review of Antichrist, Alan slates Von Trier et al about the elitist attitude shown towards our genre and quite rightly so. This film, although better than Antichrist, is no different.
Lynch and Greene joked that they had masturbated into the Empire popcorn. But it was Ridley, bounding on stage in his panama hat, proclaiming the birth of a new genre of horror that pissed on horror, the preceding 4 days and every film that over the last 50 years we hold dear.
I am at this moment giving you a standing ovation for this extremely well argued post
So I wasn't the only one a little miffed with the comment?
To be honest I liked Heartless but it's a little but away with itself and it's own horror hype. It was predictably mediocre, if that's a new age of horror... bring back the remake trend lol
It was enjoyable but... meh, there were many more enjoyable films that came before and after it at the festival.
Posted: Tue Sep 01, 2009 10:28 pm
by streetrw
Well, it's a bit like when they said All The Boys Love Mandy Lane was a reinvention of the slasher movie. It wasn't a reinvention of the slasher movie. It was just a slasher movie.
Posted: Tue Sep 01, 2009 10:39 pm
by Satans Puppy
streetrw wrote:Well, it's a bit like when they said All The Boys Love Mandy Lane was a reinvention of the slasher movie. It wasn't a reinvention of the slasher movie. It was just a slasher movie.
how disappointed was I when I saw the ending coming the moment that film started
Posted: Tue Sep 01, 2009 10:50 pm
by dnky666
Tommy-Boy wrote:I am at this moment giving you a standing ovation for this extremely well argued post
Cheers.
I managed over the course of my journey home to get in quite a lather. That whole issue of non-genre types thinking that the horror genre needs saving, is shallow or somehow "beneath" them and an easy option really gets my goat.
Ironically the parts of the film that work the best in my opinion are the low brow horror moments. The bathroom jump scare almost sent me through the roof and I thought the heart cutting scene was well handled and suitably gory.
But otherwise it was hopelessly outclassed by Dread and The Horseman to name but 2. And as for the much vaunted brilliance of Ridley in providing us with haunting images, he didn't provide anything visually that could compete with Hierro. The opening scene in particular was amazing. The former had it's own problems (bit of a shaggy dog story) but looked awesome.
Posted: Tue Sep 01, 2009 11:29 pm
by pauluspink
I recorded the live performances from Jim Sturgess and I can upload the MP3 if you want a copy of it. Not sure whether it's ok to post here. I also managed to record David Hess's performance of Vagabond too.
Posted: Wed Sep 02, 2009 12:09 am
by GeorgeCaplin
HEARTLESS
commerical suicide - before showing the film send on the producer who is on an emotional trip... speaking as if he'd made it to give his own personal review of 'redefing the horror film' to a bunch of die-hard horror fans. Madness.
I personally enjoyed the film enough but it was nothing new and defining, bedazzled meets open your eyes?! ;P
I did enjoy the music, David Jylan's stuff always floats my boat, the actors were good, the film was well made, but it seemed to need to try and confuse the audience to make it seem a more intellent film... if you get my drift.
Posted: Wed Sep 02, 2009 9:55 am
by Stark
I liked it, despite the flaws.
Some genuinely thrilling moments (the bathroom door scare was the scare of the festival for me and the burning of his mother was pretty bleak), but I have no idea why anyone would think this was inventing a new genre of horror... it really wasn't anything new.
Pretty and with some great performances, I felt it could have benefitted from a little more moral ambiguity and an ending that wasn't quite so expected. Wasn't expecting anything from this so I was quite happy with what I got...
Posted: Wed Sep 02, 2009 10:13 am
by steve806
I had to leave straight after this film so didnt see the Q+A.
I left thinking I had seen a great modern horror film - not a reinvention or a new genre, just a well constructed horror film. I think some other have already said it but it put me in mind of a Clive barker idea.
There were two quite magnificent jumps, some great acting, a nice balance between horror and humour, a gritty realistic setting and a good use of current fears to ground the film in reality and an obvious but well staged ending (as a father of a 3 year old boy it got to me).
However, I think I would have been as mad as dkny666 if I had stayed and heard Philip Ridleys comments.
Whats most maddening about that sort of comment for me is that the director implies horror films are not worthy of his time and effort and clearly beneath him. He is clearly wrong as often horror films can be the most ferciously intelligent film making around.
it is the implication that he has come to show us how it should be done that is most gauling.
In a way I am glad that I had to leave because:
1. Hearing his comments would have ruined my memory of a very good film.
2. I would have had to stand up and challenge him - seriously, its why I never attend the Q+A's, I have always been too forthright for my own good.
Anyway, thought yours was a great post dkny666 but I would still defend the quality of the movie.
Posted: Wed Sep 02, 2009 10:37 am
by Darkly Noon
My heart sank when Ridley said those things as well - however I'm completely sure he was being disingenuous. He has a bit of an odd sense of humour sometimes (as evidenced by the film!), but rest assured guys, he's not under any illusions about the sort of film he's made, and is a huge horror fan in everyday life.
Posted: Wed Sep 02, 2009 10:54 am
by Porkboy
I think dkny666 hit the nail on the head with that review.
The annoying thing, for me, was that I think I would have enjoyed the film a lot more if it had just been a straightforward Faustian tale of soul-selling and the consequences of that. The film did look great and had a unique feel to it. But they gave us a twist that was simply not as clever as they thought it was (not to mention predictable), it had a completely sappy ending in which the contrived feel of it removed the emotional punch they were obviously trying to manipulate out of the audience, and Heartless also introduced us to one of the most unbelievable characters of the whole festival (the rent boy).
As for this being a genre-defining film... In the words of John Landis: "Fuck them!"
Posted: Wed Sep 02, 2009 11:11 am
by goregoregirl
I'm glad I didn't stay for the Q&A at the end too, like I mentioned previously I enjoyed the film, it was okay and the acting especially was great. But I hate all that pretentious luvvie crap, they were acting like they'd just created a palm d'or winning masterpiece.
heartless
Posted: Wed Sep 02, 2009 12:36 pm
by kaiju
I liked the film, although i think everyone in the rom knew it was all in his head. Which is a shame because i found the ida that these hooded creatures were on the streets burning people more disturbing an idea.
But the kitchen jump was the best of the fest. and it was very atmospheric.