This guy seems to be trying to replicate the career of Ed Wood.
-
m_wonderful — 19 years ago(September 24, 2006 05:01 PM)
People who like Jim Wynorski don't necessarily have "terrible taste." They just know what they like and his 80s bobies films delivered big time.
Fans like me who loved his 80s B movies like Chopping Mall, Not of this Earth, etc. just liked light hearted movies with tongue in cheek humor and great looking babes with the obligatory shower scenes. I didn't/don't watch his movies for anything else but just a good, fun time.
People with terrible taste are going to see Lindsay Lohan, Jessica Simpson, Paulie Shore, etc. and reading People and watching E!TV.
I don't know whether Jim was/is a nerd, but you sound like one trying to be a Roger Ebert clone. -
m_wonderful — 19 years ago(October 22, 2006 12:37 PM)
Yeah, I'll admit Jim or any other guys from that era haven't put out anything worth seeing in a long, long time. It seems like Jim's and Fred Olen Ray's time has passed. I can't think of any great modern B movies made in a long time.
I'm not a fan of the current Wynorski stuff, but yeah, I'm a huge fan of his "Not of this Earth" and "Chopping Mall" era work.
"His films lack depth and quality,"
If you're talking about the 80s era work, depth wasn't a problem. Have some good looking ch5b4icks, shower scenes, some humor, a semblance of a plot, and voila! Nobody was looking for "depth", just fun, which is why they are known as "B movies."
Quality? Again, I knew what I was watching and accepted them for what they were. I wouldn't say they lacked ANY quality, but they were acceptable for what they were. I was smart enough to know I wasn't watching a Scorcese, big budget Hollywood film.
You are making pointless criticisms of Wynorski's works. If you are judging in context against typical mainstream Hollywood movies, fine. But, as a B movie director, etc., he was one of the best.
Basically, you are comparing apples to oranges. -
The_King_of_Cool — 19 years ago(January 03, 2007 08:22 AM)
I totally agree with you m_wonderful.
I'm a fan of Jim Wynorski as well. He makes fun movies simple as that. Chopping Mall in paticular is just a blast to watch.
And also people are brining up Uwe Boll.
He has a budget for his movies and they are terrible and look terrible. If Uwe, is this bad on the budget he has I'm scared to think how much worse he would be if his movies had the budget that Jim Wynorski has.
Wynorski makes fun movies and knows how to make them on a low budget.
I think people take things to serious. I don't think Jim wanted to change the world with Chopping Mall he wanted to entertain us and I think he more than did that. -
johnjonesjr — 17 years ago(October 01, 2008 09:48 AM)
Exactly, Jim Wynorski is almost like Russ Meyer. both know how to work a low-budget and make fun movies. I wouldn't compare him to Ed Wood (the man was more interesting than his movies), or."cough"!..Uwe Boll.
-
kaiju0 — 17 years ago(November 10, 2008 11:46 AM)
Ridiculous to compare Jim to Ed Wood. Of course I have no idea whether or not Jim dons Angora, I can certainly say that while I consider Plan 9 and One Million AC/DC to be classics of insanely bad cinema, I consider many of Jim's films to be viable films, to be taken at face value, and not to be relegated to "bad" movies that people still love.
Personally, I truly enjoy Deathstalker II, Not Of This Earth, The Haunting of Morella, Scream Queens Hot Tub Party (as a side note, does anyone know where I can find this on DVD?), The Wasp Woman, and Sorceress. I haven't seen any of the H.R. Blueberry movies of the last few years, but I need to (I'm a big fan of Glori's). I would not compare these films to most other films, they have a specific tone and purpose, which I happen to enjoy.
Keep it rolling, Jim. -
salimy3k — 17 years ago(March 02, 2009 10:25 AM)
I totally 1c84yet respectfully disagree with the OP. There are MAJOR differences between Jim and Ed Wood. Chiefly being:
a) Ed Wood was under the impression he was an auteur. Jim KNOWS his movies are B-flicks
b) Ed Wood's movies were made with a very serious and pretentious mindset - Glen or Glenda being a prime example. Wynorski has absolutely NO pretensions about the movies he makes - they're all done to earn a profit.
c) Ed Wood uses stock footage just for the sake of inserting footage in the movie to impose his love of bizarre, jarring imagery onto the viewer. Case in point: a 15 minute fantasy sequence in Glen or Glenda that takes place entirely in Glen's tortured mind which has a wedding, several fetish sequences and Bela Lugosi droning on and on about 'snips and snails and puppy-dog tails' - very profound (if you're on drugs!) but of virtually NO relation whatsoever to the main plot. Wynorski's movies Do use stock footage - but they're all relative to the plot. For example, a movie about an earthquake may use stock footage from another disaster movie - but he's NOT going to insert a random scene of a dinosaur at large!
d) Stock footage was used to shore up the running time in Ed Wood's movies; Wynorski has to trim most of his movies down to 90 minutes so as to be suitable for running on cable and TV.
e) ALL the humor in Wynorski's movies is intentional. All the humor in Ed's movies isn't.
f) Ed Wood started off making well-funded movies starring known actors and later on degenerated into making sexploitation flicks. Wynorski started off in softcore movies and now works mostly with well known actors in well funded B-flicks.
g) over 20 years after his debut, Wynorski is heavily in demand for his ability to deliver product under budget and on time. By contrast, the veteran Wood was destitute and forced to eke out a living writing porn novels.
Jim really has more in common with Russ Meyer - the only TRUE American Auteur as he financed, shot, distributed and profited from his films all on his own. Jim probably wanted to go down the same path Russ took - only with Russ using the drive-in and Jim using Cable TV to showcase their movies. Modern day distribution and financial business considerations make it almost impossible for Jim to do things his way, but he still churns out the occasional big-breasted softcore romp, which is what I suspect he REALLY wants to do anyway
I really think you should have posted this 'modern day' Ed Wood question on the Uwe Boll forum.
Oh, yes, unlike Uwe Boll, Jim's movies appear halfway decent, despite their miniscule budgets -
freudified_n_funkified — 16 years ago(April 15, 2009 04:27 AM)
Also, like Meyer, Wynorski has a fantastic sense of humor and a crystal clear and realistic understanding of what his target audience wants to more fully develop his ability to deliver it to them. I'm still on the fence about whether or not Ed Wood was ever tongue in cheek or not. But while I can't say I have much use for Wynorski's post-1995 work, I respect the fact that the man is able to happily churn out his product to some apparent success ad infinitum - and I unabashedly love his first cycle of films from 85-89 which are all clever, fun and endlessly watchable.
-
curator99 — 16 years ago(June 02, 2009 10:24 AM)
Hi, Jim Wynorski here. I don't usually hop into a thread like this, but I'd just like to say I enjoyed all the posted comments regarding my work. Yes, I do my movies entirely to entertain. Whether I'm making a higher budget sci-fi epic or a sexploitation quickie for Cinemax, I try to put in elements that hopefully will keep viewers happy.
I do not read reviews, good or bad. If you believe the warm and glowing words of one viewer, you must also cringe when someone else takes you apart. Time is the only real critic. Movies I made early in my career like CHOPPING MALL or DEATHSTALKER 2 were panned at the time of their initial release, yet today are appreciated. So who is to say how my most recent films will be taken twenty or so odd years from now. Hopefully, some will still be around.
In closing, I'd like to say that I do consider myself more Russ Meyer than Ed Wood. Being a 'breast man' from way back, I've always tried to include some shapely ladies in my films as it never hurts to bring on a pretty girl.
Again, thank you for your comments.
Jim Wynorski -
salimy3k — 16 years ago(September 11, 2009 09:26 AM)
Very kind of you to reply back - us mere mortals always welcome someone of your stature sharing his opinion with us, Jim - and since you log on here, may I be kind enough to offer a few suggestions?
a) Please no more filler - specifically 'new' productions featuring 'recycled' materials from old flicks; Yes, 'Lusty Busty Babe-Que' is what I'm talking about! It can't be THAT hard to shoot all-new movies with digital video now, can it?
b) More Tamie Sheffield please!
c) I've noticed a lot of the girls you use are not as 'big' in the chest area as a few of your older flicks' leading ladies - There's this great site called PinupFiles.com and it's sister site PinpGlam.com that features busty women - I'm pretty sure you'd have no problem casting some of the models there for you films!
d) Whatever happened to Monique Gabrielle? I heard she's had health problems and suffers from stage fright or something, but surely she can make a guest appearance in a movie or something?
P.S. Please could you kindly ask Melissa Brasselle to go back to her natural brunette hair - she was never more beautiful than when she appeared in 'The Wasp Woman'
e) Screwballs was brilliant - why no more follow ups? Better yet, you've done action films, monster movies, disaster movies and the odd softcore romp - but NO teen college-set sex comedy! WHY? I'm pretty sure Jim Wynorski doing a 'nymphomaniacs pretending to be school teachers and seducing every student in sight' or a 'busty blond female version of animal house' or 'horny losers beating the bullies and nabbing their girlfriends' flick would blast all those American Pie knockoffs off the video shelves once and for all!
So how about it Jim?
BTW Thanks for caring! -
curator99 — 16 years ago(September 12, 2009 04:53 PM)
a) Please no more filler - specifically 'new' productions featuring 'recycled' materials from old flicks; Yes, 'Lusty Busty Babe-Que' is what I'm talking about! It can't be THAT hard to shoot all-new movies with digital video now, can it?
To reply to your statement above - LUSTY BUSTY was done only as a pay-per-view special for several specific cable outlets. If I'd done it from scratch, I would have lost money. The return on it wouldn't have justified the production funds.
b) More Tamie Sheffield please!
Tamie Sheffield has a nice role in my upcoming sci fi outing, DINOCROC VS. SUPERGATOR, which will be out and available sometime in early 2010.
c) I've noticed a lot of the girls you use are not as 'big' in the chest area as a few of your older flicks' leading ladies - There's thi1c84s great site called PinupFiles.com and it's sister site PinpGlam.com that features busty women - I'm pretty sure you'd have no problem casting some of the models there for you films!
Thanks, I'll check it out.
d) Whatever happened to Monique Gabrielle? I heard she's had health problems and suffers from stage fright or something, but surely she can make a guest appearance in a movie or something?
According to reliable sources, Monique moved to Florida and made about 30 hardcore videos, then retired. I haven't seen or spoken with her since 1992.
P.S. Please could you kindly ask Melissa Brasselle to go back to her natural brunette hair - she was never more beautiful than when she appeared in 'The Wasp Woman'
Melissa Brasselle has gone back to being a beautiful brunette.
e) Screwballs was brilliant - why no more follow ups?
I'm currently working on SCREWBALLS:THE NEXT GENERATION. -
salimy3k — 16 years ago(September 13, 2009 01:26 PM)
You are a prince among men to reply back so quickly - since you were kind enough to reply back so quickly, I'll be nice enough to show my gratitude towards you for doing so;
a) I'm very sorry about the situation regarding the LUSTY BUSTY pay-per-view - the problem is, the viewer tends to feel ripped off if most of the scenes in the 'new' movie are ones he has viewed before already in an 'old' one - I had NO idea the returns on cable these days are so limited - it's a real eye opener for me regarding the movie business today - it's just that there are so many bad 'Sci-Fi Channel' movies out there that someone like me (who is in no way shape or form connected to the movie industry) and who does not understand industry economics tends to assume that it's not THAT hard to get financing these days.
b) More Tamie Sheffield - THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU !!!
c) Russ Meyer and Andy Sidaris have both passed on - you're the only guy out there not casting anorexic blonds in lead roles; so help us please - you're now our only mammary supplier out there!
d) Wow - I guess she HAS dropped of the face of the earth - I am very surprised by your admission that you haven't spoken to her for so long considering (or so I'm told) you were once engaged to her
e) Once again - THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU !!! -
curator99 — 16 years ago(September 13, 2009 05:05 PM)
Salimy3k, I appreciate your reply. Yes, Monique and I were once very close, but as everyone knows - things change. I still wish her the best, where ever she may be.
And in regard to financing, getting the money is ten times as hard as making the show. That's the way it's always been, but even worse now in the declining economy. -
christian-bayer — 15 years ago(October 21, 2010 08:24 AM)
I don't think he is trying to be known as the new Ed Woods. But there are a few other directors vying for that crown like Fred Olen Ray and Albert Pyun. Uwe Boll is in a class all his own because of his budgets. With Jim, Fred and Al, Al is considered a slight step up because of Cyborg and Nemesis and the Sword and the sorcerer were considered more mainstream successes. But the amount of films that these three have grinded out is far ahead of all others.