Why did this have to be super natural? - The Midnight Meat Train (2008) Discussion

[–] Fluxerik 13 years ago

That's exactly how i felt about this movie. They should've let those creatures out of this whole movie.
Still aweseome movie indeed!
’’I'M A ‘‘

reply

[–] blackninja-2 13 years ago

So they should've excluded the dénouement of the original short story from the movie to fit yer tastes ?
Nice joke, selfish ass.

reply

[–] Indifferent_Observer 13 years ago

I would say its because Clive Barker is not going to push out a crappy mindless slasher movie. That would have killed the greatness of this movie.

I'm surprised that anyone would want to cheapen such a great movie.

reply

[–] Fluxerik 13 years ago

The monster cheapened it for me. It just took the scary feeling away and made it crappy. That's like when Jason Voorhees was actually killing all those people to feed his ghosty hungry mom.
’’I'M A ‘‘

reply

[–] Indifferent_Observer 13 years ago

I disagree about both movies, First of all Jason Vorhees saw his mother, but she wasn't really* there, she wasn't a ghost.

With this film, it was the best possible outcome IMO, but how would you have ended it? Just Vinnie Jones and Bradley Cooper fighting to the death for no reason? Why would he be hauling bodies into the tunnel? Sorry, but like all slashers which are all the same, sounds quite lame unless you can enlighten me how you would've done this.

With Monsters, we have mystery. What's going on? Why is Mohogony killing people, why is he hanging them on meathooks and bringing them into the tunnels? Just to dump them? That would be, yawn..boring.

Without Monsters it would have just been another boring mindless slasher with no plot other then killing to kill. We have too many of those already. Th9is introduced something new to the genre that no slasher will ever be able to do.

So, like I said, Clive Barker would never let that happen and disappoint die hard genre fans. It would be the equivalent of Stephen King coming out with a slasher film,its just never going to happen.

And the effects of the monsters in this were almost perfect and not cheap at all. The head shots and other attacks were a bit CGI, but the monsters weren't and they were very realistic.

Are you even a horror fan? Have you read any Clive Barker books? Not being facetious just trying to understand where your coming from..because I have no idea?

reply

[–] Fluxerik 13 years ago

First, i didn't say that Jason's mother was actually a ghost.

Second, it's kinda easy to ask me how i would have made it. Look i'm not the moviemaker or anything near. I'm a movie watcher, one of the million people for who movies are made for.

There could've been a lot more outcomes other than monsters. If i would make some endings up.. well that would've been just plain stupid. As I said: i'm not a moviemaker or a storywriter. I liked the movie a lot. Don't get me wrong. But when the whole movie is kinda "realistic" (in comparisation with monsters) and it ends with some supernatural monsters...... that's kind of a bummer to me.
And a real good storymaker/moviewriter could've make a good ending right? If you think Mohogony is killing people "Just to dump them", then that tells more about your imagination than mine

If i'm right, you're saying that all slashers are clichés. Well, i can tell the same of all those monster movies. In the end it were just monsters terrorising people, right? And this actually is a slasher movie. You're saying it yourself, everything would have been slashy if there weren't no monster. Well, let me tell you something: the monsters won't change a single effing thing about mohogony SLASHING all those people. They won't thange all those slahser movie screams and slasher movie blood pools. It's just slasher with some monsters in it.

Yes, i'm a huge horror fan, but i just don't like all those unrealistic monster movies. The same is with all those people who say that the classic horror movies from the 60's/70's or even older, are the best horror movies ever made. I think that's just retarded to have that kind of limited view. They were good back then, not now. Now they just suck.

Don't be all butthurt about my different opinion or because i didn't read any of his books. The book hasn't to do anything with what i said. I'm talking about the movie here.

I just saw the movie, i liked the beginning and i hated the end. Nothing else.
"Enlightened" enough?

’’I'M A ‘‘

reply

[–] StrangeSwami 10 years ago

The book hasn't to do anything with what i said. I'm talking about the movie here.

Right, because who wants to see movies being true to their source material?
I for one want to see Lord of the Rings ending with Frodo and Sam dying, and Sauron getting his ring back because he needs its power to turn Mordor into Middle Earth's first Themepark.
Romeo and Juliet...? No-one dies, and Romeo and Jules marry, emigrate to New York and found a successful pizza delivery dynasty (lots of sequels in that one!)

Without the supernatural element this movie would be a "Whodunit", but a bad one because we know whodunit right from the start. The movie is good because it's a "Whydunit", and the "Why" is a real perspective changer for the viewer. The conspiracy element gives it even more tension. It's like a hardcore The Cabin in the Woods.

"Use the Force, Harry"
- Gandalf

[EDIT] PS: Tony Curran should be in a lot more movies....

reply

[–] therefdotcom 10 years ago

"Right, because who wants to see movies being true to their source material? "

generalize much?

"I for one want to see Lord of the Rings ending with Frodo and Sam dying,"

i would like to START lord of the ring that way.

"Romeo and Juliet...? "

oh, you mean the story that has been visualized as a play and film, with 70% of those just losely basing itself on the original story? that one?

"Without the supernatural element this movie would be a "Whodunit", but a bad one because we know whodunit right from the start. The movie is good because it's a "Whydunit", and the "Why" is a real perspective changer for the viewer. The conspiracy element gives it even more tension."

and with it, it is just a huge build up finished with a terrible copout. "ooooh, to feed creatures is the solutin. oooooh, i am so blown away". just as easy they could have chosen "it was all a dream", "he was dead and in hell" ... etc etc etc. ultra lazy ending.

"It's like a hardcore The Cabin in the Woods. "

cabin in the woods a) has an ENTIRELY different concept and b) the end goes way beyond: "creatures. creatures is the twist".

reply

[–] Defenseman13 10 years ago

Could everyone STFU and go reread the original short story?

Seriously, have none of you read Books of Blood?

reply

[–] therefdotcom 10 years ago

no. i don't read. i have minions that read stuff for me.

reply

[–] Duragizer 9 years ago

no. i don't read. i have minions that read stuff for me.

And they all lie to you, leaving you ignorant and vulnerable.

If this is a consular ship, where is the ambassador?

reply

[–] dashab 9 years ago

oh, you mean the story that has been visualized as a play and film, with 70% of those just losely basing itself on the original story?

Other than West Side Story, which adaptions are you talking about? Or do you not know that Shakes adaptions are regularly trimmed down to prevent them from being a four hour movie?

reply

[–] TeraisaWrites 8 years ago

Great answer and ty for not stooping to the level the name-caller did. I don't get why people can't just have a conversation here without someone condescending. It's just a conversation.

reply

[–] mitchell-g 13 years ago

"With this film, it was the best possible outcome IMO, but how would you have ended it?"

The first time I watched this movie (I haven't read the book) I missed some of the ending and in turn the suprnatural scenes, when I watched it again i was dissapointed. I thought Mahogany was unloading the meat at the meat packing plant to literally butcher them and feed them to the general public. this would have made a lot more sense, the fact that he is a butcher is pointless if he's just feeding the victims to monsters, And why would the city cover up for them, if it was a cheap resource for food the city might condone it but monsters? in my opinion this nearly ruined the movie. Still one my favourites though :)

reply

[–] Fluxerik 13 years ago

Exactly.

’’I'M A ‘‘

reply

[–] ticktickBOOOM 12 years ago

I assumed it was a long standing tradition that involved the consumption of human flesh - by humans, hence the old timetables, the subway stop at the meat plant, the involvement of the driver and the police lady.

Over the course of a century this service has been offered by the meat place, to the cannibal types in the city. This would have been cool, but instead we got a generic monster ending. That said, I did like how it all came together with the tongue removal, Bradley Cooper taking over the role and Vinnies death etc.

...and a pair of titties that make you wanna stand up and beg for buttermilk

reply

[–] Thought_Criminal_J62377 11 years ago

The best possible outcome??? Explain why "Leon" accepts the new role he's been given as "the butcher?" Plot Holes Aplenty!

I loved the movie, but I prefer it to be closer to reality, so for me it didn't need the supernatural ending. Were those demons from hell? Were they zombies? What were those gross lesions the butcher cut off his chest?

On a side note, I like to rant about authenticity flaws, within the written characters actions. When Leon first returned home after being tattooed by the butcher, I don't think it's realistic, that he'd walk by the woman he loves so deeply and want to sleep before taking a shower(I know it's nitpicking but these things are so easily fixed.) Why do writers continue to write like this? It didn't add to the story. Is it realistic that his fiancee would get his best friend and go serial killer hunting? Or camera hunting in the "serial killers domain?" In reality I don't believe so. And before anyone asks me to write it differently so that the same outcome is accomplished, I'd say the killer could've tracked Leon to his apartment, where Jurgis(spelling?) just happened to be and kidnapped the 2 of them or something similar.

There is always an alternate way to accomplish the same plot elements. I don't get why Leon didn't try to save his fiancee once his tongue was torn out. No I'm not the type of American that has to have a happy ending! I just put myself is his place and I love mine so much, I'd be dead before anyone touched her.

reply

[–] englisher101 13 years ago

Are you even a horror fan? Have you read any Clive Barker books? Not being facetious just trying to understand where your coming from..because I have no idea?

This question wasn't directed to me, but I kind of felt the same way as the OP. However, being a Clive Barker story, I did expect the usual monster fare and 'flesh art' so it didn't come as a surprise to me and I didn't mind as much.

Where I think the OP makes a valid point though is that the monsters here are really ultimately just there as a sort of cheap plot twist. They don't really bear any significance up until the very end except to serve as an explanation for why the people were being slaughtered, and it's also difficult for a film to start explaining itself in a way that's very intriguing (though it's certainly possible with a film like Devil's Advocate where the film's revelation is really quite stunning).

If this was to be a monster movie, I would have liked them to have played a more significant role prior to the end of the film, or at least for the film to have provided more hints to start building up to the whole monster explanation in the end.

I don't think anyone here was hoping for a happy ending where the hero just triumphed over the villain. An interesting alternate explanation offered here was that the killer was just feeding the victims to the public. That would have made for an interesting twist and the film could have better explained why the main character suddenly developed a taste for meat (perhaps he was fed some on the train). It might also have made for an interesting setting where the girlfriend was actually a waitress for a restaurant serving bits of human flesh... something like that.

Ultimately the monster revelation was shocking (especially the slaughter of the girlfriend), but it wasn't that interesting as a revelation. It seemed kind of random as is the nature of mediocre plot twists since it wasn't set up too well in the earlier parts of the film.

reply

[–] Anon_Andy 12 years ago

last paragraph should be spoilerised

reply

[–] davidajgp 13 years ago

As you clearly states you're a proper fan of slasher films I however am not, but I like great films. For you the ending was probably satisfying for me however and others who just like great films and not especially slasher films, felt a bit disappointed and we would have liked an ending with in the bounds of realism

reply

[–] robertmf-407-182834 12 years ago

I just saw this on DVD

Actually there were 2 outcomes playing in my mind midway thru the movie...

(1) As Bradley Cooper was gearing up then head into the station waiting for the train to stop I was thinking it would lead to the revelation that the killer was Bradley Cooper after all and Mr.Juggernaut butcher is just a made up character in his mind. Just like Robert de Niro in Hide and Seek and many other films.

(2) As the butcher seems to be careful in extracting the eyes with his surgical tools I was also entertaining the fact that Mr.Butcher wasn't really a psycho killer but more like part of a big syndicate killing people for body parts like eyes, kidneys, etc. Part of the syndicate would be the train driver and then the lady police who covers up missing persons. I even thought Cooper had a kidney removed while he was on the bathtub.

But since this is a Clive Barker movie there is a Hellraiser flavor in the plot.

reply

[–] colefisher1701 12 years ago

As the butcher seems to be careful in extracting the eyes with his surgical tools I was also entertaining the fact that Mr.Butcher wasn't really a psycho killer but more like part of a big syndicate killing people for body parts like eyes, kidneys, etc. Part of the syndicate would be the train driver and then the lady police who covers up missing persons. I even thought Cooper had a kidney removed while he was on the bathtub.

That's very similar to what I thought. A big syndicate that's run by a bunch of rich, elite bankers/lawyers/businessmen/upper class people - possibly including the woman that ran the art gallery - that secretly enjoy cannibalism, and pay Mahogany to harvest their meat. It would tie in with Mahogany working at the meat packing plant; he uses his experience butchering cows by day to butcher people by night, and the abandoned subway station is where he does it. The twist would be that some of the human meat gets mixed in with the meat from the butcher plant, and that regular, everyday people have been unknowingly engaging in cannibalism. Bradley Cooper's character would have solace in the fact that he only eats tofu, so there's no way that he could be an accidental cannibal.

reply

[–] alekhyadas 11 years ago

I felt the same !

Contact Me..
www.facebook.com/alekhyadas

@|€kh¥@

reply

[–] bdlio 13 years ago

The super natural monsters did not really bother me - what did bother me is how they tied into the story as an explanation (Maybe it makes more sense in the written original, I have not read that one).

*spoiler*
So Mahogany was basically a servant to these creatures or rather protecting humanity as a whole by providing for these creatures so they would not seek out civilization and go on a much worse killing spree of their own.
ok, nice reasoning - even puts the bad guy in a different light.
however how and why did he then have to brutally slay the prey for the creatures and make such a bloody mess every time by dragging around half dead bodies through half of the train?
wouldn't/shouldn't he try to kill his victims as quickly and painlessly as possible then instead of practically slaughtering them and pulling their eyes out etc.?
So with the way Mahogany goes about his business I would have prefered a slasher style ending with no attempt to explain his doings other than him being a sick freak. The monsters however -to me- did not make a good explation of why he is doing it the way does, seemed more like a somewhat cheap attempt at a twist rather than a good explanation and draged the movie down as a result.
*spoiler*

reply

[–] Mezmerize 10 years ago

Yes! And also like to point out to the OT that it doesn't have to be seen as supernatural, if you look it at as the "lizard overlords" conspiracy.

reply

[–] lentini1 13 years ago

Thank you so much for ruining the movie for me with the title of your post. There was no need to add spoilers right in the title; save it for the post itself.

reply

[–] scarylibrary 13 years ago

I disagree. One of the things that makes this movie so different to me is the supernatural. There are oodles of crazed killer films but rarely is there a supernatural component such as with this film. It definitely felt Clive Barker-ish! I really enjoyed it. I thought it was a successful gore/slasher/supernatural genre mashup.

"Searchers after horror haunt strange, far places." H.P. Lovecraft

reply

[–] alix488 12 years ago

OMG i agree completely, was terrified of jeepers creepers till it turned out to be some weird bat thing, same with this probably never would ahve got the train alone at night but thne when it turned out to be what it was i was like -_- oh okay now im not so scared!!!!!!!

reply

[–] Falconeer 12 years ago

Because there already are countless films about serial killer cannibals hacking people up. The "supernatural" element is what set this film apart from the others. you have to consider that this was penned by Clive Barker of "Hellraiser" fame, and this is exactly the themes that he is known for. I don't think the final scenes really harm the film. I did think it was a shame that this didn't get a normal release, as it's a very polished and high-budget looking film that deserved a chance at the cinema.

"IMdB; where 14 year olds can act like jaded 40 year old critics...'

reply

[–] paulfitzpa 12 years ago

Because it's Clive Barker. If you want a simplistic serial killer writer, he is not your man.

There is something more sinister and horrific about a race that is older than man, lives underground and must be sated or they start killing those above.

Read a few Clive Barker books, he writes about a lot of perverse stuff. I find the whole underground species more frightening than a simple serial killer.