|
LtKenFrankenstein posted:Friday the 13th part II, definitely. Dawn of the Dead, arguably. You mean Day of the Dead.
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 02:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 19:56 |
|
|
Zombi 2.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 02:42
|
|
|
MacheteZombie posted:You mean Day of the Dead. caiman posted:Zombi 2. Also arguable. Dawn of the Dead's my favorite of the trilogy, but any one of them could support an argument for "best of." And Zombi 2 is an excellent wildcard. So really none of the four belong in this conversation after all, because it's too close to call (but then, maybe so are the Evil Dead movies).
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 02:46
|
|
|
caiman posted:Zombi 2. Shark v Zombie is a great gag. Fun Fact: the shark was fed horse meat and sedatives before they filmed that scene.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 02:50
|
|
|
LtKenFrankenstein posted:Also arguable. Dawn of the Dead's my favorite of the trilogy, but any one of them could support an argument for "best of." And Zombi 2 is an excellent wildcard. So really none of the four belong in this conversation after all, because it's too close to call (but then, maybe so are the Evil Dead movies). Nah, Evil Dead series is easy. ED2 >>>>>>>>> ED1 > AoD
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 02:50
|
|
|
caiman posted:Nah, Evil Dead series is easy. ED2 >>>>>>>>> ED1 > AoD I agree that Evil Dead 2 is the best (it's also my favorite movie, period) but I think it's closer than that. I appreciate the first one more and more every time I see it, it's a fantastic horror movie in its own right.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 02:58
|
|
|
caiman posted:Nah, Evil Dead series is easy. ED2 >>>>>>>>> ED1 > AoD
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 03:01
|
|
DeimosRising posted:No, it's normal movie length, and hour and a half or so. I think I've heard there was another much longer cut, but I have no idea if that was ever available. I actually found the rest on youtube cut into several parts. It's getting worse and worse by the minute haha. The soundtrack, while probably good on its own, is INCREDIBLY out of place at parts. To the point of drowning out dialog while some faint 80's guitar is playing.... maybe it's just a youtube mixing issue but it's very jarring at points.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 03:02
|
|
|
It's been awhile since I've watched ED2, but ED1 always seemed way more mean-spirited to me and I enjoyed that aspect a lot more so I put them way closer to each. I prefer 1, but see why 2 is considered the better one.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 03:03
|
|
|
TOOT BOOT posted:Are there any other horror sequels that completely outshine the original movie to the extent Evil Dead 2 does? Evil Dead owns and understands that the into the woods subgenre of horror is about atavism, not the dangers of the wilderness or something. The villains are the characters and the audience. It's tremendous. Edit: It's actually probably most accurate to say the villain is the camera, but the film is about the barely suppressed urge to violence in modern culture and how things like modern technology and society are a thin veneer on that urge. The camera literally possesses people and makes them do all the violent things we want to see. It's arguably kind of misogynistic, though. DeimosRising fucked around with this message at 03:19 on Mar 21, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 03:16
|
|
|
MacheteZombie posted:You mean Day of the Dead. Exactly. Dawn is the weakest of the three, and Day is clearly the best one in the trilogy, historical value of NotlD aside.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 03:38
|
|
|
I liked Night of the Living Dead but think Dawn 2004 is vastly superior to original Dawn or Day. They had their moments but didn't feel as solid as Dawn 2004. I have a feeling I'm in the minority, though. I also thought Land was loving terrible, FWIW.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 04:09
|
|
|
Rageaholic Monkey posted:I also thought Land was loving terrible, FWIW. Land is a masterpiece compared to what would follow. Survival and Diary are among the worst films I've ever seen.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 04:14
|
|
|
LtKenFrankenstein posted:I still think you're overstating how much of a cipher Charles Foster Kane is compared to a Lovecraft protagonist. Some closer comparisons to me would be the leads of movies like Vampyr (which, as I already mentioned, evokes the Lovecraftian protagonist the most), Barry Lyndon, Scanners, or Drive.  I could go into this in tedious detail if you wanted. My point is that while Lovecraft passively doesn't let us into his characters, Citizen Kane goes way the gently caress out of its way to actively deny us entry, and deliberately created dead ends for us to wander down to demonstrate the futility of the exercise.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 04:15
|
|
|
Rageaholic Monkey posted:I liked Night of the Living Dead but think Dawn 2004 is vastly superior to original Dawn or Day. They had their moments but didn't feel as solid as Dawn 2004. I have a feeling I'm in the minority, though. I wouldn't say vastly superior to Dawn, but there were serious flaws in the original day and in the end I'd rather watch the remake. Still think Day was the best though. While we're talking remakes, I'd say the order goes like that. Day > Dawn Remake > Night Remake > Original Night > Original Dawn Feels good to get that off my chest now that Romero is not a sacred cow anymore the way he used to.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 04:16
|
|
|
I didn't even know there was a Night remake. When did that come out? And it was actually good?
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 04:24
|
|
Rageaholic Monkey posted:I didn't even know there was a Night remake. When did that come out? And it was actually good? Early 90's IIRC. I think it has the same guy as the main actor that was the star of candyman... EDIT - 1990, and it was Tony Todd. I liked it well enough. The ending is pretty interesting and imo fairly realistic to what would actually happen in real life (yes, I know how unrealistic / stupid that scenario really is....).
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 04:28
|
|
|
Twee as gently caress posted:I wouldn't say vastly superior to Dawn, but there were serious flaws in the original day and in the end I'd rather watch the remake. Still think Day was the best though. While we're talking remakes, I'd say the order goes like that. I'll agree with the love for Day, but the Night remake better than the original? That's so wacky!
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 04:29
|
|
|
Rageaholic Monkey posted:I didn't even know there was a Night remake. When did that come out? And it was actually good? It came out in the 90s. Look, fact of the matter, the original Night is objectively better, historically important, and all that. I'd still rather watch the remake if I'm in the mood for a zombie film. It was directed by Savini and Romero wrote the script so it's not like it's ridiculous either. The one thing I wish is that they'd gotten rid of that stupid brick sequence with the zombie. Running and picking up a brick to smash a window 
Twee as Fuck fucked around with this message at 04:39 on Mar 21, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 04:37
|
|
|
priznat posted:Tall Man owned. Thanks for that rec guys!
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 05:05
|
|
|
Can someone please explain to me the appeal for Day of the Dead? It seems to be very well-received in this forum but when I watched it I honestly thought it was trash; forgettable trash, even.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 05:26
|
|
|
I'd say that Altered States does a nice job evoking some of Lovecraft's most-used themes (dangerous knowledge, scholastic protagonist, otherworldly experiences that threaten his sanity, scientific attempts to analyze or disprove those experiences), and modifies it by making religion and sexuality part of the characters' considerations and adding a non-passive female role. Is it normally considered horror, though? Then there's 2001.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 05:55
|
|
|
Darthemed posted:I'd say that Altered States does a nice job evoking some of Lovecraft's most-used themes (dangerous knowledge, scholastic protagonist, otherworldly experiences that threaten his sanity, scientific attempts to analyze or disprove those experiences), and modifies it by making religion and sexuality part of the characters' considerations and adding a non-passive female role. Is it normally considered horror, though? The difference is the protagonist in Altered States is a lovable, over-eager doofus. He's probably the most sympathetic portrayal of "the arrogance of rational, Western man" I've ever seen, especially in a horror film.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 06:02
|
|
|
MantisToboggan posted:Can someone please explain to me the appeal for Day of the Dead? It seems to be very well-received in this forum but when I watched it I honestly thought it was trash; forgettable trash, even. Everyone is acting in with capital letters is the main reason I like it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 06:29
|
|
|
When I was a teenager Evil Dead 2 was my favorite but more and more I gravitate towards the first. This also happened to me with Dawn/Night recently. I'm not sure that conversation is still going on.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 06:41
|
|
|
penismightier posted:When I was a teenager Evil Dead 2 was my favorite but more and more I gravitate towards the first. This also happened to me with Dawn/Night recently. Only if you plan to tell us why Day of the Dead is the best as well.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 06:50
|
|
|
Day of the Dead is great because of Bub, the screaming head decapitation and the body ripping. Choke on 'em. e: as for the sequels that are better than the original -- Sleepaway Camp 2, I <3 Pamela Springsteen
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 08:05
|
|
|
I'd have to say that, in general, I think Romero is overrated. He made a few good horror films (NotLD and Dawn of the Dead) and after that a lot of people tried to apply some greater meaning to his work (not that anyone on this forum would ever read too far into a piece of cinema, oh no, certainly not) and he got caught up in it. Day of the Dead seems like a perfect example of someone out of their depth trying to make an important statement without anything important to say.
MantisToboggan fucked around with this message at 09:36 on Mar 21, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 08:06
|
|
|
BetterToRuleInHell posted:
Fun fact: That name isn't just a mere coincidence.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 10:22
|
|
|
I think Night of the Demons 2 is superior to the original, despite being direct to video and pretty low budget.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 13:22
|
|
|
MantisToboggan posted:I'd have to say that, in general, I think Romero is overrated. He made a few good horror films (NotLD and Dawn of the Dead) and after that a lot of people tried to apply some greater meaning to his work (not that anyone on this forum would ever read too far into a piece of cinema, oh no, certainly not) and he got caught up in it. Day of the Dead seems like a perfect example of someone out of their depth trying to make an important statement without anything important to say. He's made like four or five great films that people love and a bunch that people don't rate. I suppose you become overrated when you inadvertently create a new monster and horror subgenre, but if anything, he's underrated. Who's the person overrating Martin, for example? Nobody even talks about Knightriders and that's a great little movie, ditto Monkeyshines. I'm still curious to see what deep meaning people read into Dawn of the Dead, because the stuff commonly cited is explicitly text in the film itself. BetterToRuleInHell posted:e: as for the sequels that are better than the original -- Sleepaway Camp 2, I <3 Pamela Springsteen gently caress no. Although one thing I do like about the series is that it's a clearinghouse for famous people's relatives. HUNDU THE BEAST GOD fucked around with this message at 14:11 on Mar 21, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 14:09
|
|
|
BetterToRuleInHell posted:e: as for the sequels that are better than the original -- Sleepaway Camp 2, I <3 Pamela Springsteen I, of course, agree with this.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 14:14
|
|
|
Anyone else going to HorrorHound Weekend in Cincinnati this weekend? I'm excited to meet Tony Todd and John Carpenter. It's too bad Virginia Madsen cancelled because I was going to get a copy of Candyman signed by both of them. I think I want to go with something from Night'90 now. On that note, is anyone interested in pictures from the convention? I can post up an album when I get back from it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 15:29
|
|
|
re: Day of the Dead, if anybody hasn't read Romero's original screenplay then you gotta seek it out. It's really fantastic and has a much wider scope than the movie was able to pull off.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 15:41
|
|
|
MantisToboggan posted:I'd have to say that, in general, I think Romero is overrated. He made a few good horror films (NotLD and Dawn of the Dead) and after that a lot of people tried to apply some greater meaning to his work (not that anyone on this forum would ever read too far into a piece of cinema, oh no, certainly not) and he got caught up in it. Day of the Dead seems like a perfect example of someone out of their depth trying to make an important statement without anything important to say. HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:I'm still curious to see what deep meaning people read into Dawn of the Dead, because the stuff commonly cited is explicitly text in the film itself. No one is "reading into" Night either, the movie is about racism. It literally ends with a posse of white rednecks mistaking the African American lead for a zombie and shooting him. Romero was prescient - he predicted the anxieties of his own pseudo-survivalist fans. The irony is that they failed to see how the film is a satire of their own paranoias.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 16:54
|
|
|
While we're on the subject, I'd like to make some comments about Night of the Living Dead (1990). It's directed by Tom Savini and includes many of the people who worked on the original. It stuck close to the original script with a few minor alterations. Overall, I definitely enjoyed it. I wouldn't say it's a complete improvement on the original. Some of the acting isn't as good, for example the Harry Cooper character was a bit stiff in the new version. Pat Tallman (of Babylon 5 fame) plays a stronger, more involved and less hysterical Barabara. Also the ending is slightly different. Anyway, worth seeing if your a fan of the genre. 3.5/5
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 17:43
|
|
|
StickySweater posted:While we're on the subject, I'd like to make some comments about Night of the Living Dead (1990). It's directed by Tom Savini and includes many of the people who worked on the original. It stuck close to the original script with a few minor alterations. Overall, I definitely enjoyed it. I agree with this post 100%.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 17:48
|
|
|
StickySweater posted:I wouldn't say it's a complete improvement on the original. Some of the acting isn't as good, for example the Harry Cooper character was a bit stiff in the new version. Pat Tallman (of Babylon 5 fame) plays a stronger, more involved and less hysterical Barabara. Also the ending is slightly different. Seriously? The awful, stupid, on the nose ending alone makes it a vastly worse movie. It's not slightly different, it's tonally and thematically a whole other thing. Also I'm not sure why you're spoiling that a different movie has a different ending. It's not like you said what it was.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 17:55
|
|
|
DeimosRising posted:Seriously? The awful, stupid, on the nose ending alone makes it a vastly worse movie. It's not slightly different, it's tonally and thematically a whole other thing. Also I'm not sure why you're spoiling that a different movie has a different ending. It's not like you said what it was. It's also the ending Romero wanted, and he thought it improved on the original
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 18:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 19:56 |
|
|
Twee as gently caress posted:It's also the ending Romero wanted, and he thought it improved on the original I...don't care? People can be wrong about their own movies. They do it all the time. I'm sure he wouldn't have written the new ending if he didn't like it. It doesn't make any sense and isn't justified by the events that precede it, and reduces the political and social commentary of the film to the tagline of an editorial. It's bad. That's not the only reason the film is worse, though. Savini's direction is pedestrian and the pacing of the film is too slow. The changes to the plot drag out the dullest parts of the film and reduce tension by spending way more time on people yelling. And I agree with Ebert on this one - the subject matter looked a LOT better in black and white.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 18:16
|
|