shiva@duts.UUCP (10/23/85)
> > AFTER HOURS > A film review by Mark R. Leeper > ....... People will see AFTER HOURS as an often > nightmarish but hilarious black comedy but it may not register that it is > also very effective as a horror film. A horror film? Come on, give me a break! I feel that you are guilty of giving the wrong impression to people who may want to see the movie. I found nothing horrible in the story. Rather, I found it to be the most sophisticated comedy around nowadays. Did you call it a horror film because you needed an angle for the review? (mini flame: I hate serious, deep movie reviews.... no offense to you personally sir). In any event I would rate the movie +4 on our Official Olympic Movie Rating Scale, and urge people to go see it. But not as a horror film, as a comedy. ps: Perhaps this should have been in net.flame..... -- Shiva, Amdahl
leeper@mtgzz.UUCP (m.r.leeper) (10/25/85)
>> >> AFTER HOURS >> A film review by Mark R. Leeper > >> ....... People will see AFTER HOURS as an often >> nightmarish but hilarious black comedy but it may not register that it is >> also very effective as a horror film. > >A horror film? Come on, give me a break! I feel that you are guilty >of giving the wrong impression to people who may want to see the movie. >I found nothing horrible in the story. I don't know what your definition of horror is. If you restrict it to vampires and madmen with knives, no, it is not that sort of a horror film (except for a few moments toward the end in which it really does indulge in a concept that really was taken from an old horror film, I won't say what (to avoid a spoiler), but there was a film of the 50's that was pretty much about the same idea). But for most of the film there were no traditional horror elements. Instead there was a man embroiled in a nightmarish situation. One that seems simple on the face of it and one easy to get out of, he just wants to go home. But every effort is frustrated in some way or another. I am reminded of a Richard Matheson story of a man who ate popcorn at a movie and then is frustrated in every attempt to get a drink of water. As the story goes on he becomes more and more frantic. It was a very effective horror story, yet not really all that different from AFTER HOURS. I would say it was even more effective as horror because in HORROR OF DRACULA it was possible to say, this is a far away place and vampires don't exist. SoHo is not that far away and the sort of people in the film really may exist there. The fantasy element comes in the unlikely chain of coincidence, not unlike CUJO, and in neither film am I really sure it is all that unlikely. I don't expect most people who see AFTER HOURS will see it as a horror film, but in fact it fits any objective criteria I can give it. I am not trying to sell it as a horror film, I am asking people who see it or who have seen it to consider that it might actually be a horror film without them realizing it. >Rather, I found it to be the most sophisticated comedy around >nowadays. Where people have disagreed with me before is that they thought I was overrating the film. At least we agree that it was good as a comedy. >Did you call it a horror film because you needed an angle for >the review? (mini flame: I hate serious, deep movie >reviews.... no offense to you personally sir). I think a movie review should give the reader something to think about. Maybe ask the viewer to see the film in a different light in addition to (not instead of) the one the viewer would have gotten on his own. I don't like reviews I consider pretentious, but pretentious is in the eye of the beholder. If you don't think the film bears the interpretation of being horror as well as comedy, fine. >In >any event I would rate the movie +4 on our Official Olympic Movie >Rating Scale, and urge people to go see it. But not as a horror film, >as a comedy. Is that -4 to +4 or 0 to 10? You seem to like it too much for the latter, but I am not sure. > >ps: Perhaps this should have been in net.flame..... -- I'm glad it wasn't. I don't read net.flame. Mark Leeper ...ihnp4!mtgzz!leeper
dave@cylixd.UUCP (Dave Kirby) (10/30/85)
>>[LEEPER] ....... People will see AFTER HOURS as an often >> nightmarish but hilarious black comedy but it may not register that it is >> also very effective as a horror film. >[SHIVA] A horror film? Come on, give me a break!... >Rather, I found it to be the most sophisticated comedy around nowadays. I just saw the movie myself, and I shall present a third viewpoint. AFTER HOURS is written like a comedy and directed like a horror film. To some it will appear as a horrifying film; to others, it will be the most hilarious comedy they ever saw. How you see it depends on how cruel your sense of humour is. If you like picking the wings off flies, you'll laugh your head off at what the story writer does to this poor guy; I know I did. But if you view the movie seriously, not having the warped sense of humour that this film requires, you will be scared out of your wits ever to go to New York. This is the blackest comedy I have ever seen. It was not obvious to me that it was a comedy until well into the film, where I realised that NOBODY can have that much bad luck. When I saw that every decision the guy made somehow turned out sour and got him into deeper trouble, I began to realise that this film was somebody's cruel joke on the main character, and then the movie began to make sense. Each predicament got more and more ridiculous and far-fetched, until you had to stop taking the movie seriously. The ending, of course, gives it away as a comedy to anyone who hasn't yet caught on. So I tend to side with Mr. Leeper. AFTER HOURS is a lovely black comedy, but because of its direction it masquerades very well as a horror flick. The camera angles, the background music and sound effects, the build-up of suspense in some scenes, and the general feeling that something awful was always about to happen to the poor guy, gave it the tone of a good horror flick. BTW, I give four stars to the theme music at the beginning and end of the movie. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Dave Kirby ( ...!ihnp4!akgub!cylixd!dave) (The views expressed herein are the exclusive property of Dave Kirby. Any person, living or dead, found with the same or similar opinions will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of law.)
leeper@mtgzz.UUCP (m.r.leeper) (11/06/85)
>I just saw the movie myself, and I shall present a third >viewpoint. AFTER HOURS is written like a comedy and >directed like a horror film. I might almost say it was the other way around. It certainly felt like a comedy and I think that is because of the feel that the director gave it. But the actual events -- provided by the script-writer -- were horrifying. Because of that, it is only horrifying on reflection after the film. >How you see it depends on how cruel >your sense of humour is. If you like picking the wings off >flies, you'll laugh your head off at what the story writer >does to this poor guy; I know I did. Ouch! I did laugh my head off, but I never thought of myself as a sadist. I guess am pretty callous about what nasty things happen to fictional characters. >But if you view the movie seriously, not having the warped >sense of humour that this film requires, you will be scared >out of your wits ever to go to New York. That may be putting it a bit strongly. I realized that the chain of coincidence that caused all the trouble is extremely unlikely... I am just not sure how unlikely. Mark Leeper ...ihnp4!mtgzz!leeper