The Mighty HDC Battle Royale IV

[Zero]

Originally Posted by Weapon X

I have a bad feeling about this...:(

Oh - so you picked Dude, Where's My Car as well!!

[ImmortalSlasher]

No results yet. I guess you guys did write essays.

[IT the Traveler]

The second Judge's scores and verdicts have come in. Let's see the Results.

[IT the Traveler]

BATTLE ROYALE IV - RESULTS OF THE FINAL CHALLENGE

Welcome Weapon X and Zero, to your 15TH & FINAL Battle Royale Results Meeting.

The Challenge was :-

If you had to choose *ONE* film from the 2000s (the year 2000 - now) as a true modern classic in the veins of the mighty horror classics from the late 60s, 70s & early 80s, which one would it be and why?

The first entry came from WEAPON X.

My choice would be the explosive double feature, Grindhouse (2007).

Now why would I choose a film that tanked at the BO and came under criticism from genre fans of being too long and slow?

Simply because, films from that golden era of horror moviemaking (late 60s, 70s and early 80s) represented freedom - freedom from the bondage of conventional, repetitive cinema dictated by studios and churned out by loyal studio honchos year in and year out. Although studios such as Hammer in the UK had already set the independent trend about 10 years ago than those times, but Hollywood got it's young, independent and film-loving horror film makers/fans from the time Night of the Living Dead released. A young George A. Romero lead the pack with his minimalistic budget, superbly innovative film which showed a lot of societal trends of those times in his film. Symbolism was very much present throughout NotLD, and was it's single biggest draw.

The Grindhouse movement of the 70s emerged from the shadows of such films as NotLD, The Exorcist, Jaws, etc., which were made by major studios but their driving force were fierce, young filmmakers who dared to go beyond conventional norms with their independent thinking and beyond-conventional execution, which established horror as a strong genre in it's own right. Independent filmmakers with modest budgets came out to make films in the way they pleased, and although they were raw in their execution and editing, appealed to a section of the audiences who frequented the smaller, dirty, smelly theaters who played them with their damaged, used projectors and scratchy prints.

Grindhouse is a tribute to that era of independence in the horror genre. It has everything which viewers of those times used to sit and watch in their down-trodden, cheap films - nudity, sex, extreme violence, weird and bizarre ideas, complete campy entertainment at it's cheapest best, which existed beyond the boundaries of traditional society of those times. Although the 2007 film was made on a much, much bigger budget than those films from the 70s, the makers ensured that the audiences had a complete Grindhouse-esque experience by inserting a whole bunch of fake trailers, the infamous "missing-reel", cheap-looking production values, and outlandish costumes/characters with eye-rolling names - Cherry Darling, El Wray, Muldoon, Hague, Stuntman Mike, Jungle Julia, etc. etc. To their credit, most of the fake trailers turned out to be exceptional - Werewolf Women of the SS and Thanksgiving being the best of the lot. This was supposed to be an event, creating the magic of an era long gone by. That's why the makers had rightly highlighted Grindhouse as "an experience, a sleaze-filled saga of an exploitative double feature."

The two features themselves, Robert Rodriguez's Planet Terror and Quentin Tarantino's Death Proof, are near-perfect examples of the 70's Grindhouse cinema, although being contrasting examples of each other. Rodriguez's Planet Terror defies any sort of explanation by having a female lead with a machine gun for a leg. Sample this - Biochemical weapon infects a town – turning its citizens into flesh-eating zombies – and it can only be saved by a vigilante Go-Go poledancer. It is a series of relentless action sequences which border on being absurd, yuckily gorific and maniacal which make it a sheer delight to watch. In a moment of perfect timing when the two leads are ready to scorch the screen with their burning hot sexual chemistry, the infamous "missing reel" is inserted, as if the reel itself has been completely worn out by being played over and over again in those nights of the 70s by horny projectionists and audiences alike. Planet Terror is a perfect example of a raw film project affected by outlandish ideas galore, yet somehow manages to bring it all together nicely and actually clicks!

The second feature, Tarantino's Death Proof, starts off really slowly. And this is where the whole "event" gets affected. After the superbly pacy Planet Terror with it's waves of explosive violence, Death Proof breaks the pace and brings in a bit of monotonous slowness to the proceedings. By the time Stuntman Mike arrives on the scene to take over from Planet Terror's mad dashes, the momentum of the "event" has been dashed. Tarantino is guilty of bringing in seriousness to a plate which had, till then, been a long sequence of outlandish, screaming delights onscreen. Still, Mike injects his own version of maniacal madness by introducing his weapon of killing, his "death proof" car.

We are then treated to two wonderful scenes which should be etched in movie-making history in their own rights - an explosive car smash which results in a jaw-dropping multiple death scene, and an adrenaline-pumping car chase sequence which reminds us of films such as Vanishing Point, Death Race, et al, from the exploitative era. Sadly, it does come after long drawn-out sequences of unnecessary dialogue and characters interaction which do take out a bit from the final punch which Grindhouse tries to deliver in it's final 20-odd minutes.

What the makers could have improved on, is to shorten Tarantino's Death Proof and have it played first before Planet Terror, and in that way the rush of the car chase sequences of Death Proof could have become brilliant harbingers of the madcap, out-of-control energetic glee to arrive in Planet Terror. But ultimately, Death Proof's shortcomings are trivial, because Grindhouse works as it was intended to! It is an excellent homage to that cheapie era of the 70s, which produced trashy cinema with it's own huge cult followings, and out of those are films which we have recognised as genre giants today. What it does, is create that ultimate experience, that incredible ride which each grindhouse feature of the 70s/80s delivered. Watching it in the theaters creates that perfect atmosphere which every grindhouse era film has successfully done - create an atmosphere for it's audience. A true classic in every right, Grindhouse deserves a spot beside the genre-storming classics of the late 60s, 70s and early 80s which carved their own paths to glory in their eras.

Cheers!

Judge #1's verdict -

I give this a 37. The analysis of the film is apt, but in the end, the film itself is meant as an homage to a bygone era, and has not had a great effect on the genre.

Small advantage for this entrant.

Judge #2's verdict -

I see the Challenge as having two parts:
Select a movie from the 2000's that is a "Modern Classic"
This movie must be in the vein of the mighty horror classics from the late 60s, 70s & early 80s

So, in grading this challenge, I looked at both of those elements in my assessment and gave them 25 points a piece.

I don't believe that this contestant truly made an argument that Grindhouse is a Modern Classic in the vein of being culturally and cinematically important. In fact, he conceded that it wasn't particularly popular. I believe that there is a difference between what is considered a "Cult Classic" and a "Modern Classic" and Grindhouse falls into the former category. The contestant nods that it is an homage, but I believe that this film is only a "classic" to the genre fan, not a "Modern Classic" that can span across audiences. Grindhouse is too esoteric to be considered a "Modern Classic." The "Classic" that the entrant describes is more through the fan's perspective; this movie is "classic" because it reflects what Grindhouse movies used to be, not because it's necessarily enduring piece of modern cinema. Points were given, however, to the argument of the independent movie being the birth of to the sub-genre of Grindhouse (interesting comment about Classics like Exorcist and Jaws being the inadvertant birther of Grindhouse since this genre was to defy the popular films). I like this ascertion: "Grindhouse is a tribute to that era of independence in the horror genre," which illustrates the importance of Grindhouse, however.

---10 Points

That being said, this contestant was clearly had the latter half of the challenge in mind, "in the vein of of the mighty horror classics from the late 60s, 70s & early 80s," being that Grindhouse films were certainly a cult sub-genre during that period, but in terms of "Classics" during that period, Grindhouse doesn't come to mind (what comes to mind - Late 60's: Night of the Living Dead, Rosemary's Baby, 70's: The Exorcist, Jaws, Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Carrie, Omen, Halloween and Early 80's: The Shining, The Thing, Evil Dead I and II, Nightmare on Elm Street). We're truly looking at an argument for a Cult Classic of Cult Classics, not what I would consider a "Modern Classic." However, I appreciate the mind to the challenge at hand, which did include addressing movies of that time period.

---15 Points


Total = 25 Points

Small Reward

Weapon X, in accordance with the Judge's and their scores, you received 37 + 25 = 62 points.

Both Judges have recommended small rewards for you, so you are hereby asked to choose TWO boxes out of FOUR placed in front of you, marked A, B, C & D.

Please send your PM accordingly.

[IT the Traveler]

The second entry came from ZERO.

Horror remains remarkably popular. In spite of short lulls in which unimaginative retreads of popular films dominate the genre (the endless sequels, remakes, rip-offs), it seems that every few years a new vision of horror emerges to reinvigorate interest in the genre.

While several important films have debuted in the past twelve years, I choose James Wan’s 2004 film Saw as my nominee for a classic. In supporting this choice, I will begin by defining what I think makes a film a “classic,” and then suggest the ways Saw meets this definition.

To begin, there are literally thousands of horror films that have been produced. While we all have our particular tastes and favorites within the genre, I think for a film to be regarded as a classic, it must demonstrate substantial cultural and cinematic influence. Thought of in this way, “classic” films are those which reach out beyond the hard-core horror fans and impact the wider culture. The horror fan-base may know that Bob Clark’s Black Christmas predated John Carpenter’s Halloween but for the wider population, it is Carpenter’s film that perfected the slasher genre. In part because of this wider popularity, “classic” films have a substantial influence on the genre itself. Take, for example, the great-grandfather of the genre, Dracula (1931). While a bit of an improbable hit – the film is, after all, a bit stagy and at times even awkward – if it were not for the phenomenal success of Dracula, there would not have been Frankenstein or Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1931) or, likely, any of the other films of that first golden age of the “Universal monsters.” The same could be said about Romero’s Night of the Living Dead which, while not the first ‘gore-fest’ film (predated, for example, by Herschell Gordon Lewis), clearly introduced a new era of horror films that opened the door for the films of the 1970s like Last House on the Left, Texas Chainsaw Massacre and It’s Alive.

So, to make my argument, I need to demonstrate that Saw had both cultural and cinematic influence.

The argument for Saw’s cultural impact can begin by observing the amazing box office success. The film was made for about $1.2 million and in its initial release grossed $55million in the US and a worldwide total of more than $102 million. Box office alone, of course, does not prove cultural influence but it does suggest that a wider audience (not just horror fans) were being lured into the theater because somehow Saw was offering something different.

It is worth speculating about why Saw felt meaningful to audiences in 2004. In his recent book Dark Dreams 2.0: A Psychological History of the Modern Horror Film, Charles Derry calls Saw “the first genuinely post-9/11 horror film.” (311) This seems right to me. Released just three years after the cultural trauma of 9/11, Saw seems to deal with issues that connected to the wider post-9/11 world. Things were perceived as grittier, the world more dangerous, the option to remain noble less viable. Post-9/11, Americans were faced with a seemingly more violent and brutal world and with the simple question – “How far will you go to survive?” Would we wage war in foreign countries, detain prisoners without trials, would we torture others, kill innocents? This was not, of course, the first time Americans (and by proxy the world) was faced with such a choice but the spectacle of 9/11 made the confrontation more direct and unavoidable.

In its own way, Saw poses the viewer with the same question – how far would we go to survive? Reversing the typical ‘stalk-and-slash’ horror formula that had remained popular since the 1970s, Saw begins with our hero trapped. The struggle is not to avoid the killer but to survive the terror that has already arrived – another way in which the film connected to 9/11. Now, to be clear, I am not suggesting that James Wan said, “hey, I’ll make a 9/11 film” or that audiences sat in the theater and said, “hey, that’s just like American in a post-9/11 world!” But, just as audiences in the midst of Vietnam and the Civil Rights era saw something in Romero’s Night of the Living Dead that seemed somehow ‘real’ and ‘meaningful,’ so too did audiences viewing Saw. And in this way, Saw rose above just being a horror film (even a popular horror film) to becoming an important cultural moment for its generation.

The other way to measure its importance is to consider the impact Saw had on the genre. While Saw clearly borrows from earlier films – notably the inclusion of several giallo elements – its success gave rise to “torture porn” in the early 2000s. Saw spawned its own set of sequels (the quality of which should not diminish the importance of the first film) but also numerous American films (Hostel, Turistas, Captivity) and opened the door for increasingly violent, gore-filled foreign films like Wolf Creek, Martyrs, and The Human Centipede.

At this point, the torture-porn era seems to have waned and the haunted house has returned as the focal point of contemporary horror (Paranormal Activity, Insidious, etc.) but there can be little doubt that much of the horror released in the first several years of the 21st Century was deeply influenced by James Wan’s Saw. For this reason, I will argue that it will long be understood as a classic of our era.

Judge #1's verdict -

Though I personally don't care for the film, this entrant made a convincing case for considering it a modern classic. Both cultural significance and effect on the genre are well stated. Took off a single point for ignoring the popularity of silent horror films such as Phantom of the Opera or Hunchback of Notre Dame as early icons of horror.

49 points.

Large reward.

Judge #2's verdict -

I see the Challenge as having two parts:
Select a movie from the 2000's that is a "Modern Classic"
This movie must be in the vein of the mighty horror classics from the late 60s, 70s & early 80s

So, in grading this challenge, I looked at both of those elements in my assessment and gave them 25 points a piece.

I completely agree with his definition of the word "Classic;" that the movie must "demonstrate substantial cultural and cinematic influence" (not to mention have staying power) and I believe that he argued well that Saw had substantial cultural and cinematic impact. I also thought that the comparison between Halloween and Black Christmas in this vein was very astute (demonstrating that Halloween is the "Classic" in that it bridges the gap between the horror fan and the general audience. I thought that the connection to 9/11 was poignant and interesting.

---25 Points

He loses some points as I think that, while he hits "Modern Classic" on the head, he misses the latter half of the challenge which is "in the veins of the mighty horror classics from the late 60s, 70s & early 80s." I think that an argument could be made that Saw does fit into this vein in that one could argue that it created a new exploitation sub-genre (though "torture porn" was coined for Hostel in particular, I agree with the candidate that Saw was its earlier and just as popular predecessor), but the contestant doesn't get there directly. There are astude allusions to influencial films within that time period (Halloween, Night of the Living Dead), so he gets some points for that. I also like the parallel between the cultural significance of NOTLD and Saw.

---15 Points


Total = 40 Points

Big Reward

Zero, in accordance with the Judge's verdicts and their scores, you have received 49 + 40 = 89 points.

Both Judges have recommended huge rewards for you, so you are hereby asked to choose FOUR doors out of FIVE which are in front of you, marked 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5.

Please send your PM accordingly.

[Straker]

Good job guys, thought you both did great.... Although I think we all know the 'correct' answer was Pan's Labyrinth!! :p

[IT the Traveler]

Choices have been made. I will temporarily enable ___V___ to describe them, and the ensuing Final Hunt.

[_____V_____]

Thank you, my Lord.

Zero, Weapon X...let's see what you chose for yourselves!

[_____V_____]

THE FIFTH AND FINAL BATTLE ROYALE IV REWARD CHAMBER TRIP

I extend a warm welcome to both Zero & Weapon X inside the BR Reward Chamber one final time.


Let's proceed to your choices and winnings...


ZERO chose doors 1, 2, 4 and 5.

Behind Door #1 = The SKULLSTORM spell!

Behind Door #2 = 50 Health Packs!!

Behind Door #4 = The BFG 9000!!!

Behind Door #5 = The IMMOBILIZER spell!!!!


Congrats.


The one you didn't choose...

Behind Door #3 = ALL of WEAPON X's stripped weapons!




WEAPON X chose boxes A & D.

Inside Box A = ALL of ZERO's stripped weapons!

Inside Box D = The PLASMA CANNON!!


Congrats.


The ones you didn't choose...


Inside Box B = The MINDSHATTER Spell!

Inside Box C = 40 HEALTH PACKS!!

Too bad.





The Skullstorm = Sends a set of 3 extremely destructive exploding skulls at your opponent, causing damage worth 30 HPs. Can be used THREE times.




The Mindshatter* = Concentrates all the psychic, body and spiritual energy of your brain into one, super-intense beam of destruction, causing damage worth 40 HPs. Holder is left drained and exhausted, so it can be used only ONCE.




The Immobilizer = Temporarily disables your opponent and makes him completely vulnerable, taking away 10 HPs. Can be used TWICE.




The BFG 9000 = Releases a giant ball of intense green plasma, the radiation of which causes damage worth 50 HPs! Can be used ONCE.



(*= A spell not chosen by Weapon X)

[ImmortalSlasher]

V -

Was there a movie in particular that the judges were looking for in the final challenge? I would like to know as for the life of me I can't think of a classic during that time period.

Good answers guys. Essays indeed. Maybe I would have picked Cabin in the Woods. Which I still haven't put up a review yet. But I don't like it as much as most. It's kind of a love/hate horror movie commentary. Perhaps The Ring? No clue, I need to look at my horror movies to own list.