I can understand what you’re saying. I think Rodriguez is a talented filmmaker , but he is no horror director (just look at “The Faculty” for chrissakes). Maybe comparing FDTD to Evil Dead was a bit far-fetched; but I still have to admit I truly enjoyed FDTD from beginning to end. Just a matter of taste I guess.
[quote]Starkey, how come you love the Evil Dead movies but hate the second part of FDTD so much? [/quote]
Because Evil Dead was a joke. It made me laugh the entire time, While In FDTD the first three quarters was a thriller/crime/action and the end quarter was a Horror film. There was this huge story building up then it totally changed and the entire begining had nothing to do with the end. Evil Dead is just one big joke and that’s all it is.
maybe i just don’t like Rodrigue? that would explain everything.
And Plus evil dead seems like the polor oppsite of this film. As Starkey said the whole thing is a fuckin joke for evil dead. This film tries to be serious and scary.
I’m sorry but I don’t see what’s wrong with FDTD.  It kicks ass, all 90+ minutes of it.  Does it change pace?  yes, but that’s kind of the point.  It’s the only Rodriges movie that I actually love (I haven’t see OUATIM yet, don’t know), I like the Faculty, but FDTD is brilliant.  It’s a big budgett B-movie, that’s what it’s meant to be.  It’s foremost a horror movie, the only real difference between it and a 70’s and 80’s style horror movie is that it builds slowly so you get to know the character’s and feel for them in a way. ÂÂ
FDTD in a way has many of the themes that Pulp and Dogs does.  The brothers are criminals, Seth is a very sick-minded criminal. they are kicked in the ass by fate, Seth is murdered for his sins by fate, granted, in this movie fate is a whole bar of vampires, in Friday the 13th fate is usually Jason, make some kind of sense?  If you don’t like it, I guess that’s your opinion, but understand that the reason you hate it is one of the same things that makes it so good.
I remember when I was young, anxiously awaiting to see it on video (I didn’t go to the theatres as much as I do now, when I was younger).  My mom who loves horror movies and gave me my taste for a good horror movie watched it with me.  I kept telling her that the movie was a vampire movie, so we watch anxiously awaiting those bloodsucking mexicans.  While we were waiting, I became sucked into the dialog, character development, the coldness of Seth, the family they hijack.  The brothers are horrible people, but somehow, you hope they don’t get discovered.  All through the first 45 minutes both I and my mom are starting to doubt that the movie is a vampire movie, but it’s still a great movie, just a different movie.  And finally everyone goes to the Titty Twister, and the anticipation builds for gore and violence.  All of the sudden FDTD is not a criminals on the run movie it’s a gore-fest.  The reason I love the movie is that it is two movies, and both kick ass.  Like I said though, you have your opinion, maybe it’s kindof like how I feel about Full Metal Jacket.  Though I don’t hate the second half, it doesn’t stack up to the first half.
To say the only reason you like the movie is because of Tarantino is complete bullshit.  Don’t fuckin’ watch it, if you don’t like it.  I don’t care if my favorite director acted and wrote a movie I hate, I’m sure as hell not gonna say anything good about it (not that I agree with your opinion about the movie, I love FDTD).
I do disagree that the movie dies with Tarantino, I love the end when Clooney leaves Juliette Lewis, and then the camera pans to the junkyard behind the Titty Twister.
One Last Comment of Tarantino as an actor:
He’s not a good actor when he’s acting out someone else’s lines, but he however is brilliant when handleing his own.
Let Tarantino be whoever he wants to be in any Tarantino written or directed film.
It’s you’r choice to like or dislike the ending. To me the end destroyed a good thing. The entire movie is running smoth and everything is falling into place. Then the Vampires came out and totally changed the story line. The entire relationship between all of the characters ment nothing, that entire great begining ment nothing. It had nothing to do with the end. The movie never concluded, it just had some random fucked up scene with vampires where everyone died. It’s so fucked up.
By the way, Evil Dead one was trying to be serious. only evil dead 2 and Army of darkness are made to be funny.
There was nothing serious about it. It was trying to be scary but not serious, theres a difference. It cost $300,000 to make so instead of scary we got funny. Now the begining of FDTD seemed serious to me and was going well. Then out came the ol vampires.
When I mean serious, I also mean scary. IMO there has to be a certain seriousness to something in order to be scary. Funny scary doesn’t work, it’s just funny then.
It wasnt’ to be takes seriousally. It was to have LOUD noises and FAST chace scenes. That’s how a cheap horror film works. If you watched the commentary with Bruce then you would understand that nothing in this movie was serious. How the fuck could a plot like that be taken seriousally.
Anyway, we’ve moved off topic. Rodriguez was not going for serious in the end but there’s no way that he wasn’t in the begining. He had little to do with the begining, and should have little to do with anythign at all.
I did watch all of the commentaries for Evil dead, and yes all of the key players (especially Campbell) are goofs. That does not however mean that they meant to make a funny movie. Evil Dead in it’s time actually scared people. We don’t find it scary but we come from a different age. Is Evil Dead funny? Yes, some of it is intentional, but most of it isn’t. Most of the humor in the movie is either low-budget side-effects, or the humor that unintentionally came through by the creators. Just because funny people made the movie, doesn’t mean it has to be a funny movie. Anyway Evil Dead 1 one was intended to be a serious movie, not serious in the sense that a drama is serious, but rather serious in the sense that it was meant to scare. It doesn’t now (did a little back then). It wasn’t made to be a joke. That’s all I’m saying
Anyway, I don’t think the two should be compaired. They are totally different movie with totally different styles. I love them both, but it’s like apples and oranges.
[quote]I did watch all of the commentaries for Evil dead, and yes all of the key players (especially Campbell) are goofs.  That does not however mean that they meant to make a funny movie.  Evil Dead in it’s time actually scared people.  We don’t find it scary but we come from a different age.  Is Evil Dead funny?  Yes, some of it is intentional, but most of it isn’t.  Most of the humor in the movie is either low-budget side-effects, or the humor that unintentionally came through by the creators.  Just because funny people made the movie, doesn’t mean it has to be a funny movie.  Anyway Evil Dead 1 one was intended to be a serious movie, not serious in the sense that a drama is serious, but rather serious in the sense that it was meant to scare.  It doesn’t now (did a little back then).  It wasn’t made to be a joke.  That’s all I’m saying
Anyway, I don’t think the two should be compaired.  They are totally different movie with totally different styles.  I love them both, but it’s like apples and oranges.[/quote]
It didn’t scare anyone people thought it was too violent and had too much gore.
It scared people. Like I said it was a different time, what was scary then isn’t scary now. That’s part of the reason I believe it’s hard for a movie to scare and shock these days. Horror films can’t go many place that the classics haven’t already been. Granted Evil Dead isn’t something that would scare someone who loves Texas Chainsaw Massacre, but it did scare and startle some people.
What I think is so funny is that you all believe Evil Dead was a complete masterpiece, that Raimi made the movie he meant to, and that it wasn’t just another horror movie. I appreciate Evil Dead alot for it’s recourcefulness, Raimi was obviously talented, but he didn’t make the movie that he meant to. It’s a classic because it’s different, but I’m not even sure he meant to make it any different from any other run of the mill horror film. Evil Dead was an expirement, that had a lot of love and determination behind it, that found fluke cult success. No one involved with the movie thought it was going to be anything but a learning expierience, and possible starting point. Evil Dead is full of flaws though, that weren’t intended, those flaws add half of the humor.
Okay, I’ve spoken my mind. I believe what I believe, you what you believe, I’m tired of talkin about it.
so uh… where were we…
Oh yeah…
From Dusk Til Dawn kicks alot of ass. Rodriguez only made one classic and it’s FDTD. Then someone had the bright idea to make sequels that niether Quentin nor Rodriguez wrote or directed. What the Fuck.
I honestly haven’t seen them but I heard 2 sucks ass, and 3 is just a little better than 2. They do have interesting casts though.
[quote]I did watch all of the commentaries for Evil dead, and yes all of the key players (especially Campbell) are goofs.  That does not however mean that they meant to make a funny movie.  Evil Dead in it’s time actually scared people.  We don’t find it scary but we come from a different age.  Is Evil Dead funny?  Yes, some of it is intentional, but most of it isn’t.  Most of the humor in the movie is either low-budget side-effects, or the humor that unintentionally came through by the creators.  Just because funny people made the movie, doesn’t mean it has to be a funny movie.  Anyway Evil Dead 1 one was intended to be a serious movie, not serious in the sense that a drama is serious, but rather serious in the sense that it was meant to scare.  It doesn’t now (did a little back then).  It wasn’t made to be a joke.  That’s all I’m saying
Anyway, I don’t think the two should be compaired.  They are totally different movie with totally different styles.  I love them both, but it’s like apples and oranges.[/quote]
I never said evil dead was subposed to be a "funny movie". I said that it wasn't serious. Scream isn't a serious movie but it is scary. it was subposed to be like that. Not serious, but there are loud noises and shit like that to scare you. But the scary parts ended up being funny because they were so cheap. But they weren't ment to be funny. AAAAAAAAAAAAAA
Anyway, i don't care what other people think. I thought the end of FDTD was up there with The Matrix: Revolutions.
WOW YALL JUST KILLED THAT MOVIE U OVER ANALYZED IT QT HAS HIS REASON FOR DOING WHAT HE DID EVEN IF ITS NOT CLEAR TO U 
:-*
Maybe it’s just me, but I thought that rape-aftermath scene was the only serious part in FDTD. In the Dvd commentary,QT also says that some critics were taken aback by it because they believed it didn’t quite fit with the overall tone of the rest of the movie. All the other parts were all meant to be funny and cheesy like the Evil Dead movies, that’s just why I made the comparison in the first place. The pussy speech, the cheesy killings, Sex Machine’s crotch gun, QT getting knocked unconscious in the trailer…take your pick.
That was a great part.
I loved the first part and still love the what the fuck is this effect when part 2 kicks in…lol…the great lines still continue in part 2 just in another setting, I totally love clooney in this movie…QT should do a vega/gecko brothers movie…lol…hahaha…just kidding…
didn’t see the movie… wanna but haven’t. Just posting to see if this works…
[quote]didn’t see the movie… wanna but haven’t. Just posting to see if this works…[/quote]
wtf dude! go see it!
As soon as the first vampire comes out…stop the movie. Then think something reallllllly cool happaned.