He was like a more consistently brilliant version of John Carpenter.
-
Nriks — 10 years ago(September 05, 2015 01:11 AM)
Last House on the Left - GARBAGE
The Fireworks Woman - GARBAGE
Deadly Blessing - GARBAGE
Invitation to Hell - GARBAGE
Swamp Thing - GARBAGE
The Hills Have Eyes Part II - Ed Wood level GARBAGE
Deadly Friend - GARBAGE
Shocker - GARBAGE
Chiller - GARBAGE
A Vampire in Brooklyn - GARBAGE
Cursed - GARBAGE
My Soul to Take - GARBAGE
C'mon, Craven might have been a lot of things, but consistent and brilliant are two words that don't enter into it. He was lucky that he got the Scream franchise and that cemented his reputation as a master of horror, and he has a few cult hits that are worthy of respect, but the vast majority of his films, if not technically incompetent, are just appallingly written. -
FX_Lord — 10 years ago(September 05, 2015 12:02 PM)
You know I've seen just one of the films that you refer to as garbage. A Vampire In Brooklyn was pretty weak compared to much of his other work, but 'garbage' is not a very helpful word analytically.
My version of Craven takes into account The Hills Have Eyes, A Nightmare On Elm Street (1, 3 and 7), The People Under The Stairs, the Scream films and Red Eye.
How many hits must a film-maker have before he is considered a great?
It begs the question, of course, given your obvious dislike of Craven, what in the hell you are doing here? If it's just to get a rise out of me, that doesn't work, too many have tried and failed.
"I don't reckon I got no reason to kill nobody." -
stepsonglass — 10 years ago(September 05, 2015 12:18 PM)
I think John Carpenter had the best film of the 2 with Halloween, but think Wes had the more impressive career overall with good films in 4 decades (hills have eyes, NOES, scream and Red Eye). Perhaps even 5 decades if you want to include scream 4 but I won't for the sake of argument. John's career was essentially only good for a handful of years between the late 70s to mid 80s. I didn't like anything he did after that. So Wes wins for me.
-
FX_Lord — 10 years ago(September 06, 2015 02:46 AM)
Thanks for being the only person, so far, that agrees with me. I was beginning to think I was out of touch haha.
I entirely agree with your choices of films of Craven's to mention, those were the high points. Carpenter's high points were
Halloween
,
The Fog
and
The Thing- which gives him basically four years of decent films compared to the four decades you got from Craven.
Hey, I'm not saying Craven didn't miss, in fact he missed a lot of the time which people experimenting with their discipline will. I'd have respected him less had he not missed at all, as that would imply he was following formulas like Michael Bay for instance.
"I don't reckon I got no reason to kill nobody."
- which gives him basically four years of decent films compared to the four decades you got from Craven.
-
Crotchsplitter — 9 years ago(August 04, 2016 03:45 AM)
You are totally out of touch. Craven movies are trash compared to Carpenter films.
Escape from New York
The Thing
Christine
Halloween
In the Mouth of Madness
They Live
Big Trouble in Little China
The Invisible Man alone practically destroys most of Craven's work. When Carpenter is at his worst, he is still beating 90% of Craven's work. -
apriloish — 9 years ago(February 18, 2017 09:19 PM)
Your being just as big a fan boy invisible man sucked dude lol.The difference between carpenter an wes was an is carpenter is a great director period he could do all kinds of films.Were as wes was a great horror director he could only do horror.Its not fair to compare movies like escape from new york to stuff wes made because he only made horror films except one movie comparing escape to serpent an the rainbow is like saying the terminator was better then halloween.You have to compare the same type of films to each other for it to be fair an in terms of film carpenter has the best two with the thing an halloween but none of the other horror films carpenter made come close to nightmare on elm street or new nightmare or scream.
-
Kuato_and_George — 10 years ago(October 01, 2015 09:23 AM)
I agree that he made more (quantity) quality movies thann Carpenter. I love Carpenter, but he crapped out in a tease; aside from Vampires which I find very entertaining.
http://www.hesaidshesaidreviewsite.com/ -
RevengeOfToonces3 — 10 years ago(October 03, 2015 09:04 PM)
Carpenter was way more consistent in terms of quality. Everything he made between Halloween and They Live are classics one way or other. Exce5b4pt maybe Prince of Darkness. That movie sucks.
Craven was always all over the map and never really had a prime period since he's been hit or miss for decades, whereas Carpenter belongs to the late 70s and 80s. That's his legacy. Craven's legacy is peppered throughout his entire career. While Carpenter was doing Escape from LA and Vampires, Craven was making the Scream movies.
"He makes me laugh, he'a always humping and pointing at Reese Witherspoon."- rebschucks
-
sheetsadam1 — 10 years ago(October 05, 2015 04:32 PM)
Carpenter was way more consistent in terms of quality. Everything he made between Halloween and They Live are classics one way or other.
Correction. Everything he made between Assault on Precinct 13 and They Live are classics one way or other.
As for Craven, I agree. I'm a big fan but he wasn't really a consistent filmmaker. Granted, he may have directed (slightly) more great films than Carpenter and those great films were inarguably spread out over a longer span of time (by my count the first came in 1972 and the last in 2005), but he also had a lot of mediocre films in the same time period. Carpenter has also had his share of mediocre films, but what he accomplished between 1976 and 1988 is something few directors have done before or since. 10 consecutive classics. Who else has done that? Maybe Hitchcock from the mid '50s to mid '60s or Howard Hawks from the mid '40s to the mid '50s, maybe even De Palma in roughly the same time period as Carpenter, but it certainly hasn't been done often. And those like Leone and Tarantino (so far) who have managed to stay consistent their entire career tend to work at a much slower pace than Carpenter in his prime. If Carpenter was the Hitchcock of the '70s-'80s horror directors, Craven was the Michael Curtiz. And there's nothing wrong with that. Curtiz made some of the greatest films of all time, some better than Hitchcock's films. He just made a lot of other stuff as well. -
apriloish — 9 years ago(February 18, 2017 09:38 PM)
Carpenter has a better film career as a whole because of all his great none horror film.But in terms of horror craven has a better out put as a whole carpenter had the best two with the thing an halloween but after that the rest of his horror ones are leave it or take it.Village of the damned was only ok vampires was all right.Christine was also only all right ghost of mars sucked the ward again was just all right.In the mouth of madness an the fog were the only two other great ones he did horror wise.They live was good but no masterpiece an had a way to silly ending.Thats the one were you could tell he was starting to slip.Were as in terms of horror scream nightmare on elm street serpent an the rainbow people under the stairs scream 2 scream 4 by themselves are better horror slashers then village in the mouth of madness vampires christine an especially ghost of mars an the ward.In terms of horror as a whole craven has the better out put.But carpenter is the better film maker.
-
Horror_Metal — 9 years ago(October 14, 2016 12:45 PM)
Wes Craven was a great director, but he was in no way more consistent than John Carpenter, who is way more of a genius. Wes has made several bad movies, whereas John has made maybe 2 or 3. I like them both a whole lot but Carpenter is infinitely more talented than Craven.
Horror_Metal -
kidd-simon — 9 years ago(January 28, 2017 01:06 PM)
I agree. Craven had high points in his career but made lots of schlock. Carpenter did some great stuff from the mid 70s to the mid 80s but after that seemed to lose his way, he also never had a later career resurgence like Craven did with the Scream movies. If forced to choose I'd say Carpenter was better overall and its a real shame his career died out over the last 20 years.
A weekend marathon mi1c84xing the best of these two would be pretty awesome though.
It smells like a Spin Doctors concert in here. -
stepsonglass — 9 years ago(February 02, 2017 02:05 AM)
i have to disagree. i like both i really do, and if forced to pick the absolute best film between their works combined id give it to halloween so carpenter wins there, but in terms of the quality of the overall output i prefer craven. save for halloween i dont find carpenter's work to have permeated the culture as much. a more casual audience not consisting of 80s horror fanboys, i dont think would even be able to tell you another film carpenter has directed. his second most iconic film is probably escape from new york but that's only because of kurt russel's star power.
craven has given us 2 of what id consider the 5 biggest horror icons of the last 50 yrs (granted carpenter has given us 1 as well). but craven also directed meryl streep to an academy award nomination, wrote the very experimental new nightmare, and did good work over the course of almost 40 yrs ending with red eye in 2005. carpenter gave up 30 yrs ago. -
kidd-simon — 9 years ago(February 02, 2017 12:53 PM)
Hmmm
I'd say Carpenter's best two movies are Halloween and The Thing, great movies both and I'm not sure if Craven made anything as good as them. Was NOES as good as those movies, I'd say no. Scream was great fun and a return to form, maybe Craven's best movie. I watched Shocker the other day which was a hoot, total schlock though.
Carpenter is so odd, why did he just give up so easily? He never seemed to recover from his flops which is a shame. You look at some of the stuff being done on TV today and think surely he could come up with something interesting.
It smells like a Spin Doctors concert in here. -
stepsonglass — 9 years ago(February 02, 2017 01:43 PM)
i do enjoy the thing, but i would easily consider anoes better than the thing. halloween beats anoes but really for me, only slightly. i actually consider anoes the best horror film of the 1980s, definitely one of the most original concepts for a horror film especially when you consider what drivel was being released at the time. and the freddy character i would consider the most iconic in horror since the universal monsters. whether you like the film series or not, everyone knows who freddy krueger is. jason is probably a close second 2000but freddy's face, hat, glove, sweater and the fact he actually is played by the same actor and speaks puts him above the rest of the silent masked killers horror was known for.
and id probably give scream the title of best horror film of the 1990s so craven went 2 for 2 in those decades. -
apriloish — 9 years ago(February 18, 2017 09:30 PM)
The difference between the two is an was that carpenter wasnt only a horror film maker he was a director first who could make all kinds of films.Were as craven was only great at horror films.Its hard to compare them because you cant compare films like assault an people under the stairs.Its like comparing an action flick with a slasher it dosent work.You can only compare there horror they did an in terms of those.Carpenter has the best two with the thing an halloween.But craven has the better horror out put over all people under the stairs scream nightmare on elm street serpent an the rainbow red eye scream 4 are all better horror an thrillers then fog christine vampires village of the damned prince of darkness they live an especially the ward an ghosts of mars.Scream by itself is better then every one of those.As is people under the stairs.An serpent an the rainbow.Even red eye is a better thriller then those .In terms of film career as a whole carpenter wins because of big trouble in little china star man escape from new york.An halloween thing but in terms of just comparing there horror films craven wins with a better horror out put as a whole .