PDA

View Full Version : R rated movies for the 1970's



Dremora
August 21st, 2008, 09:25 PM
I was really bored this morning and so I watched "Alien: Director's Cut", I remember my mom saying how gruesome and terrible it was when my dad and uncle went to see it in 1977.

I thought it was pretty bad, not as in horrific, but as in bad acting, bad plot, no suspense, and overall it probably would have been rated PG-13 today (if it wasn't for the language).

I actually found myself sitting back laughing at the horrible special effects and the "Alien" just sitting in the corner flailing it's arms instead of popping out and ripping them to shreds, because of the animatronics they had back then instead of CGI.

That scene where Ash (the robot) attacked Ripley and they were bashing him with the fire extinguisher, I was cracking up.

I think people must have been pretty soft back then.

LaRoza
August 21st, 2008, 09:26 PM
Alien is not an action movie, so if you were expecting blood and gore, that is not what you were going to get ;)

Also, you should look up "suspension of disbelief".

The Matrix was thought to be good, yet has the horrible flaw of violating essential laws of science, namely, the second law of thermodynamics (their way of getting energy would work at all, which was the entire basis for the movie) yet you don't see people mocking it do you?

SunnyRabbiera
August 21st, 2008, 09:28 PM
Huh?
Alien is a classic
Better then all this CGI crap of today.

Dremora
August 21st, 2008, 09:30 PM
Alien is not an action movie, so if you were expecting blood and gore, that is not what you were going to get ;)

Aliens (sequel) was probably the only time I ever really got into the Alien movies, they were packing some firepower, and the aliens actually did stuff, I believe the movie also alludes to the futility of the Vietnam War, in that their platoon is organized about how US army tactics around that time called for.

Alien Vs. Predator has made for some good video games, but only passable movies.

Overall though, the Alien is not well geared for survival, eventually it will kill all it's hosts and then be unable to propagate further.

LaRoza
August 21st, 2008, 09:35 PM
I thought it was pretty bad, not as in horrific, but as in bad acting, bad plot, no suspense, and overall it probably would have been rated PG-13 today (if it wasn't for the language).


PG-13 didn't exist back then. So your choices are PG or R, which is it?

SpaceMaster
August 21st, 2008, 09:35 PM
Not all 70's horrors have bad effects, though. Just the ones that tried to go in over their heads.

Amityville Horror (1979), for example, has very reasonable effects. Sure, the sound could have used a gentler touch (you can hear static in the background as the words "Get out" are magnified far too much), but the visuals are very reasonable. In fact, I found it more enjoyable and scarier than the 2005 remake.

SunnyRabbiera
August 21st, 2008, 09:37 PM
Well Alien and Aliens support two different mindsets.
The original alien was more to the classic era of horror, and almost has a Hitchcock tone to it... Keeping the creature in the shadows and not in your face all the time, Hitchcock knows about this stuff quite well... by keeping the monster hidden you build suspense.

Aliens was more for the action movie lover, even though just as good as the original in my mind it had a more direct approach to the genre.

Read up on Hitchcock though, its not about the explosion... its the anticipation of it :D

Dremora
August 21st, 2008, 09:44 PM
Yes, I like Hitchcock from what I've seen, it's been a long time though and most of it was sanitized with 1960's(?) television in mind, I think it was called "Alfred Hitchcock Presents" and he would have a couple of short stories.

I also saw Psycho III I believe, but thats been a few years too.

I really need to watch some of this stuff.

samwyse
August 21st, 2008, 09:50 PM
I read you should watch the theatrical cut, because it keeps the alien hidden for the most part. I've only seen the original so I don't know how dodgy the re-added scenes are.

SunnyRabbiera
August 21st, 2008, 09:51 PM
Yes, I like Hitchcock from what I've seen, it's been a long time though and most of it was sanitized with 1960's(?) television in mind, I think it was called "Alfred Hitchcock Presents" and he would have a couple of short stories.

I also saw Psycho III I believe, but thats been a few years too.

I really need to watch some of this stuff.

Psycho III was a sequel to a Hichcock film, not a real one...
See the original if you can stand black and white.

Dan_Dranath999
August 21st, 2008, 10:13 PM
I remember going to the movies with my father, to see Aliens [2] when i was a boy. Some years later, i got to see the first:

Your reasons to laugh at Alien, are the same for me to love the movie.

1.- No CGI crap: Sometimes i feel like i'm watching a video game, or a music video, instead of a movie. CGI becomes contamination rather than a supporting tool for TELLING A STORY (i believe good Digital effects are the ones that makes you forget they are DIGITAL EFFECTS)

2.- The movie takes it's time to get you into the story. I saw Aliens Vs Predator 2 about 3 weeks ago. It was horrible: Bad acting. Worse script. Most aliens were CGI and you could tell easily. Easy cheesy scares. "non-stoping action" ┐This people know something about narrative rythm? underdeveloped Van Damme-style characters... i mean, the principle is still the same of the original movies -running away from the monsters- But ┐How can i believe a young woman can see her husband slaughtered and become a tough-as-hell-helicopter-flying-bug-killing-amazon, in 5 minutes and without crying or something? (took Ripley the first 2 movies to achieve that)

3.- Show the monster all the time, and it will get bored. We are supossed to fear the unknown.

LaRoza
August 21st, 2008, 11:44 PM
1.- No CGI crap: Sometimes i feel like i'm watching a video game, or a music video, instead of a movie. CGI becomes contamination rather than a supporting tool for TELLING A STORY (i believe good Digital effects are the ones that makes you forget they are DIGITAL EFFECTS)

+1



2.- The movie takes it's time to get you into the story. I saw Aliens Vs Predator 2 about 3 weeks ago. It was horrible: Bad acting. Worse script. Most aliens were CGI and you could tell easily. Easy cheesy scares. "non-stoping action" ┐This people know something about narrative rythm? underdeveloped Van Damme-style characters... i mean, the principle is still the same of the original movies -running away from the monsters- But ┐How can i believe a young woman can see her husband slaughtered and become a tough-as-hell-helicopter-flying-bug-killing-amazon, in 5 minutes and without crying or something? (took Ripley the first 2 movies to achieve that)

And at the end, stranded in the middle of the Antarctic.



3.- Show the monster all the time, and it will get bored. We are supossed to fear the unknown.
I agree. The first movie had a great approach (similiar to Predator). If you see the "monster" it becomes another character, not a monster. The alien effects in the later movies were good, but the alien was just another creature by then.

Dan_Dranath999
August 22nd, 2008, 12:17 AM
I agree. The first movie had a great approach (similiar to Predator). If you see the "monster" it becomes another character, not a monster. The alien effects in the later movies were good, but the alien was just another creature by then.

Exactly! Predator is an excellent example of this: Most of the time, it's like a Vietnam-War movie, but it SLOWLY introduces a supernatural/external element to the story. You don't see soldiers fighting the predator until half an hour after the beginning, but there's a lot going on anyway. And you actually SEE the creature at 3/4 of the movie. It takes it's time to get to the climax (dramatic structure: introduction, conflict development, climax, resolution)
Not like most new movies today, trying to give you 120 minutes of pure climax in 1 plain narrative line, that can't be done!

Look for Gwoemul aka The Host, from south korean Joon-ho Bong. It's a monster movie, but it's story tell us more complex things than just "kill the creature!" -altough a lot of people felt dissapointed because "the monster didn't show up most of the time"-

Dremora
August 22nd, 2008, 12:24 AM
Meh, I'm just watching the free movies on Comcast's video on demand thing.

Most of them are pretty bad, very few would I ever actually want to watch again.

I've been watching the History Channel most of the day, as I really like documentaries and "how things work" type deals, but right now they're doing something on the Marines V-22 Osprey aircraft (it's a 25 year ongoing failure that the government won't let go of), and it's quite obvious they're taking every opportunity to make the government look good here.

Anyway, I might head back and watch Aliens.

Edit: I actually have a bootleg VHS tape I picked up about 12 years ago I think, called Aliens: European Edition, I wonder what difference that is vs. Special Edition...

Dremora
August 22nd, 2008, 12:42 AM
Oh, just remembered, fans of Red Dwarf will notice that Captain Hollister is the commanding officer of the colony on LV-426 :popcorn:

yabbadabbadont
August 22nd, 2008, 12:48 AM
When my dad and I saw Alien when it came out, the thing that really stood out was that it was the first major film to show a working spaceship and crew the way that they most likely would really be. Not all shiny and military precision. It's basically a tramp steamer in space, complete with implied labor/management disputes and people who had no appropriate training trying to cope with the unexpected.

Dremora
August 22nd, 2008, 01:02 AM
The thing that bothered me, was that the captain of that ship would have had full access to that hidden order to Ash.

Why would he overlook the fact that they were sending classified orders directly to his subordinate?

In Aliens, Ripley keeps working for the company that tried to murder her in the first movie and even goes back to LV-426 to face more of those things, in spite of that?

Anyway, the Xenomorphs are kind of interesting, but their method of reproduction ensures a dead end for their species as soon as they run out of hosts, I think that in trying to make the story more horrific with this plot element, they really made it less believable, because a species like that would die on it's own eventually anyway.

In Alien Resurrection, they tried to smooth over this, by genetically engineering a queen Xenomorph with a human reproductive system.

All throughout, the "company" is trying to turn this thing into a weapons program, but they could never use it against, say, Earth.....because now you have a monster that can further it's own species.

LaRoza
August 22nd, 2008, 01:06 AM
Oh, just remembered, fans of Red Dwarf will notice that Captain Hollister is the commanding officer of the colony on LV-426 :popcorn:

Really? I love Red Dward (have it on DVD's). I'll have to check out Alien (whichever it is on)



All throughout, the "company" is trying to turn this thing into a weapons program, but they could never use it against, say, Earth.....because now you have a monster that can further it's own species.

Just like the Forerunners. We all know how that turned out...

The Great Journey awaits no one...

Glucklich
August 22nd, 2008, 01:18 AM
The Matrix was thought to be good, yet has the horrible flaw of violating essential laws of science, namely, the second law of thermodynamics (their way of getting energy would work at all, which was the entire basis for the movie) yet you don't see people mocking it do you?

Wait a minute, wait a minute. You are saying that it is impossible for the machines to generate power from the human body? Could you explain me why? Please, keep in mind that I have no scientific knowledge at all.

LaRoza
August 22nd, 2008, 01:28 AM
Wait a minute, wait a minute. You are saying that it is impossible for the machines to generate power from the human body? Could you explain me why? Please, keep in mind that I have no scientific knowledge at all.

No, I am saying they are giving more energy to the humans than the humans can give back. The energy to keep the humans alive is greater than what they can possibly give back.

Live generates engergy, sure. You could use live as a power plant http://www.ehow.com/how_18637_make-potato-clock.html

But they are raising life to use as fuel, is a waste.

Found this: http://www.hackles.org/cgi-bin/archives.pl?request=316

http://www.hackles.org/strips/cartoon316.png

Dan_Dranath999
August 22nd, 2008, 01:53 AM
The thing that bothered me, was that the captain of that ship would have had full access to that hidden order to Ash.

Why would he overlook the fact that they were sending classified orders directly to his subordinate?

Well, the captain is hired to do his job, but being a human, he can be bought into sacrificing the crew over the COMPANY'S FINANCIAL INTERESTS (like bringing back the alien alive, even if that means human deaths) but also he can be a good guy, and not giving into unethical orders.

So, putting myself in the place of a EVIL CORPORATION, i rather give questionable orders to a machine, than to a regular civilian. (specially if the orders imply killing other civilians)

seems pretty logical to me.


In Aliens, Ripley keeps working for the company that tried to murder her in the first movie and even goes back to LV-426 to face more of those things, in spite of that?

-She has been in hypersleep for 57 years.
-She has been sued by the company Weyland-Yutani, for destroying the Nostromo.
-She becomes jobless.
-She's traumatized.
-Her daughter is dead (passed away from old age)

But:
-She's offered being reinstated as a warrant officer, if she goes back to LV-426.
-She has an opportunity to get revenge.
-She has an opportunity to overcome her fears (shock treatment)
-She has nothing else to lose.


Anyway, the Xenomorphs are kind of interesting, but their method of reproduction ensures a dead end for their species as soon as they run out of hosts, I think that in trying to make the story more horrific with this plot element, they really made it less believable, because a species like that would die on it's own eventually anyway.

In Alien Resurrection, they tried to smooth over this, by genetically engineering a queen Xenomorph with a human reproductive system.

All throughout, the "company" is trying to turn this thing into a weapons program, but they could never use it against, say, Earth.....because now you have a monster that can further it's own species.

You are thinking in an earth-like enviroment:

1.- We don't know the natural hosts for the aliens in their home planet. Maybe they don't die after releasing a baby alien. (Their home planet is not LV-426, the eggs are inside a space ship crash -other kind of aliens-)

2.- There's an extraterrestrial mummified corpse inside the ship, but there are plenty fresh eggs. So that makes us think, that Aliens can hibernate through decades or centuries (some microorganism can do that for real), or the eggs are like seed, and can live in a latent state.
Until, new hosts come near.

Glucklich
August 22nd, 2008, 01:56 AM
Then "the humans last resort, the destruction of the sky" would really result on the destruction of both species? Since, correct me if I'm wrong, life on Earth is not sustainable without the Sun either.
Anyway, I really enjoyed the film and the Anime prequel. Despite the scientific inaccuracy of the story, I think it is still enjoyable at other levels.
Thank you sharing your scientific knowledge.

LaRoza
August 22nd, 2008, 02:45 AM
Then "the humans last resort, the destruction of the sky" would really result on the destruction of both species? Since, correct me if I'm wrong, life on Earth is not sustainable without the Sun either.
Technically, if one found another source of energy, one could survive, however, the population would be greatly reduced.



Thank you sharing your scientific knowledge.

Way to ruin a movie right :-) I can also pick apart any movie with firearms in them (Matrix fails that miserably also) and involving anything with computers (Independence Day...)

Dremora
August 22nd, 2008, 02:49 AM
Technically, if one found another source of energy, one could survive, however, the population would be greatly reduced.



Way to ruin a movie right :-) I can also pick apart any movie with firearms in them (Matrix fails that miserably also) and involving anything with computers (Independence Day...)

The aliens are here to destroy us, and they're Mac-compatible! :lolflag:

Little piece of trivia, the Powerbook model in Independence day was recalled due to having a defective battery that was prone to bursting into flames. :popcorn:

LaRoza
August 22nd, 2008, 03:00 AM
Little piece of trivia, the Powerbook model in Independence day was recalled due to having a defective battery that was prone to bursting into flames. :popcorn:

Just as well. If it truly was so compatible with alien technology, they could have just plugged it in and foregone the nuclear bomb.

Dremora
August 22nd, 2008, 03:05 AM
Just as well. If it truly was so compatible with alien technology, they could have just plugged it in and foregone the nuclear bomb.

Apple hardware has always been pretty shaky.

The virus he uploaded that screwed up their computer was probably Mac OS 8 :lolflag:

Glucklich
August 22nd, 2008, 03:09 AM
Way to ruin a movie right :-) I can also pick apart any movie with firearms in them (Matrix fails that miserably also) and involving anything with computers (Independence Day...)

Well, yeah... the Matrix in the firearms department is extremely over the top. But what is the goof with firearms in other movies? And how did you detected a goof with computers in Independence Day? Incredible! What was the error? I confess that the only thing I remember from the movie, is how the humans found the way to victory... basically F-18 crashing the core of the giant alien mother ship. Nothing like a good crash to save the day :P

LaRoza
August 22nd, 2008, 03:10 AM
Well, yeah... the Matrix in the firearms department is extremely over the top. But what is the goof with firearms in other movies? And how did you detected a goof with computers in Independence Day? Incredible! What was the error? I confess that the only thing I remember from the movie, is how the humans found the way to victory... basically F-18 crashing the core of the giant alien mother ship. Nothing like a good crash to save the day :P

F-15, not an F-18 ;)

Most movies portray firearms in a very unrealistic manner. In fact, only a few war movies and some western directors do it propery most often.

Dremora
August 22nd, 2008, 03:17 AM
F-15, not an F-18 ;)

Most movies portray firearms in a very unrealistic manner. In fact, only a few war movies and some western directors do it propery most often.

Yeah, most movies where people use firearms, there is no kickback, or they're holding it too close to their ear (SAW type guns).

Glucklich
August 22nd, 2008, 03:28 AM
Most movies portray firearms in a very unrealistic manner. In fact, only a few war movies and some western directors do it propery most often.

Damn. Now I'm hoping that Brian de Palma is one of them. I wouldn't like to feel the final scene from Carlito's Way ruined. Nah, I guess that's a detail easily excused, because every director will try to compensate it emotionally. By making scenes full of adrenaline or overwhelmingly dramatic. And I think, for example, Carlito's Way even if the gun shot doesn't sounds realistic you simply can't ignore the emotional storm involved in that scene.

LaRoza
August 22nd, 2008, 03:43 AM
Yeah, most movies where people use firearms, there is no kickback, or they're holding it too close to their ear (SAW type guns).

They have no concept of reality either. They are either too accurate, not accurate enough. Too easy to control, too many rounds in a magazine, or just plain wrong.


And I think, for example, Carlito's Way even if the gun shot doesn't sounds realistic you simply can't ignore the emotional storm involved in that scene.
I haven't seen that movie, but I do know every movie with firearms has sound issues (you can't record a gun shot, it will always end up sounding like a little firecracker so they have to dub them with rather large explosions)

Saint Angeles
August 22nd, 2008, 03:58 AM
Yeah, most movies where people use firearms, there is no kickback, or they're holding it too close to their ear (SAW type guns).
i hate it when people in movies try to look cool by holding their guns sideways...
it seems like it would really hurt the wrist.

Glucklich
August 22nd, 2008, 05:10 AM
I haven't seen that movie, but I do know every movie with firearms has sound issues (you can't record a gun shot, it will always end up sounding like a little firecracker so they have to dub them with rather large explosions)

In Independence Day, are you sure it was an F-15? I just went to IMDb and in the trivia facts they say that it is, indeed, a F-18.
I had no idea about that fact about gun shot's in the movies. I love being aware of these facts because I'm sure, the next time, I'll be more attentive to that particular effect. Once again, thank you.
Oh, and although Carlito's Way is not a 70's movie or a Sci-fi one, I would recommend it. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised.

mips
August 22nd, 2008, 09:21 AM
Too easy to control, too many rounds in a magazine, or just plain wrong.


Lol, I always though they had unlimited rounds or until the mechanism jams :)

Dremora
August 22nd, 2008, 09:26 AM
Lol, I always though they had unlimited rounds or until the mechanism jams :)

That was one of the jokes in Last Action Hero, when Arnold Schwarzenegger comes into the real world and his gun can run out of ammo, and not everything he shoots blows up.