|
Wilhelm Scream posted:OCTOBER 17 I haven't seen most of the rest of this list (and what little I have seen out of the rest, like Boggy Creek, is kinda not good) but every one of these movies is well the gently caress worth checking out.
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2016 19:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 23:43 |
|
|
1. The Wicker Tree (2011) #2. Mexico Barbaro (Barbarous Mexico) (2014) Okay, this is an anthology of 8 (!) different Mexican filmmakers making horror shorts to highlight the culture and mythology. It would be wrong to judge them all en masse. Plus the shorts themselves even have individual poster art if you go looking for it. This feels less like one big wrap-around set of tales, and more like a mini film festival. So I guess I have to judge accordingly. But I'm still counting it as only one film in my tally. Also, for those of you watching at home (it's readily available on Netflix and Shudder), there's FIFTEEN MINUTES of closing credits!! Anyways, in order: Tzompantli (Dir: Laurette Flores Bornn) A reporter gets in contact with a gang member who promises to fill him in on stories of a return to ancient Aztec ways of dealing with enemies. More than anything, this one feels like it's there mostly to set the tone. These are stories of cruelty and strangeness, with no happy endings. It's so so. Jaral de Barrios (Dir Edgar Nito) Two bandits are fleeing after robbing a bank, one of whom is badly shot. They find themselves taking shelter in an infamous haunted hacienda, and they are not alone. This one made me pause as I think it was letting me know what I was in for. There's some very graphic sexual content, and possibly some misogyny, but it's not quite on the surface. This is paired with surreal action, and a hauntingly beautiful setpiece of the hacienda. I can dig it, I suppose. Drena (Drain) (Dir Aaron Soto) A girl first steals a cigarette from a corpse she finds, then after smoking it encounters a strange monster demon who commands her to steal her sister's period blood, else face some serious consequences. Um, what? This one isn't based on any myths, and seems deliberately made just to confuse and shock the audience. Interesting visual design at least. La Cosa Mas Preciada (The Most Precious Thing) (Dir Isaac Ezban) A teen couple skip school and go rent a cabin in the woods to have their first time together. She especially wants it to be special. However, the elderly groundskeeper tries to warn them off, speaking of things in the woods that like to steal from people. This one needs a serious trigger warning. It's gross, and plays things off as sorta comedic. It's awful. I'm getting a bad feeling about this anthology at this point. Lo Que Importa Es Lo De Adentro (It's the Inside That Matters) (Dir Lex Ortega) A single mother finds herself split between her son that she dotes on, and her special needs daughter that actively enrages her, who is fixated on the idea that a homeless man that lives outside their building is El Cucuy, ie the Boogeyman. Is she correct? Oh dear, this keeps getting into some absolutely tasteless territory in this anthology. This one is no different. It's exactly as bad as you're hoping it's not in this segment. I feel like I need a shower after this and the last one, despite both being technically well-shot. Munecas (Dolls) (Dir Jorge Michel Grau) we open with a woman desperately trying to fight off a hulking madman in a swamp before ultimately he takes her to his hut on an island covered in dolls. This one is simple, with almost no dialog, which is fine. Grau has made films internationally, and seems the most accomplished director of the bunch. This piece feels very much like a brief concept piece for a much larger film, and is fine in that regard. It's refreshing after the rough content previous. Siete Veces Siete (Seven Times Seven) (Dir Ulises Guzman) Rabbit, a man with half his face horribly burnt and scarred, takes a body from an overcrowded morgue, then brings it to a barren lake, where he proceeds to perform magic to bring this person back to life for his own reasons, as he flashes back to how he got his horrible injury. Wow, this one might be the best of the bunch. It has a great deal of ambitious effects work and stunning imagery, and a great, dark story. I loved it completely, and want to see more of this man's work. Dia de los muertos (Day of the Dead) (Dir Gigi Saul Guerro) A harsh madame runs a strip club celebrating the titular cultural holiday by having all the employees (and herself) in traditional sugar-skull makeup. These girls also have...other plans for the foul patrons of the club. This one is pretty straightforward by the end, and is a refreshing bit of feminism after some of the prior entries. I liked it, though I don't have much to comment about it due to its brevity. And that's all the pieces. Considering most of the filmmakers have only done shorts up until now (and many are collaborating again for another upcoming anthology called Aztech) I like to think what we're looking at is a new wave of Mexican horror that's only on the rise. That said, I would not really advise that this set of films is for everybody. Again, there's some pretty awful content seen here. That it's mixed with more feminist centric pieces is truly an odd dichotomy. Enter at your own risk
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2016 19:35
|
|
|
I always overplan and get burnt out, so this year I'm trying to make the movie decisions day-by-day. Gonna focus on horror comedies and kids' movies, with a smattering of more atmospheric and terrifying flicks. The guide I'm using is Scarecrow's, which is STRONGLY RECOMMENDED, and which gives you a solid structure for diverse movies from day to day. I'm starting with Scooby Doo, and doing either Bad Ronald or Under Wraps tomorrow. A few movies I need to hit are as follows: Possession Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2 Bay of Blood Belladonna of Sadness Night of the Hunter
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2016 19:38
|
|
|
Day 1 - It's impossible to talk about any film in the Phantasm series without talking about it's strange history. Phantasm more than any other horror film series, is the work of an auteur: Don Coscarelli. Coscarelli wrote, directed, and produced the entire series up to the most recent one where he handed off direction to someone else. Phantasm is his baby and new movies have only come when Coscarelli could find the money on his own terms to make them. And then there were the distribution problems. For about twenty years it was almost impossible to watch the movies. An extremely limited VHS release and a general lack of licensing the films for television screenings meant that you had to really go out of your way to see it. The cult around Phantasm grew, though, based on the striking visuals and creepiness of the movies. These days it's easier to check out the movies, though the restrictive distribution has become a series tradition. Phantasm V premiered last weekend at a film festival and will have a very limited engagement next weekend in a handful of theaters around the country. A quick concept description for those three or four people reading the thread not familiar with the series: Angus Scrimm is a mortician known as The Tall Man. And he's also something else. He's using the dead to make some kind of army, twisting them to his purpose. The Tall Man deals with people who are interfering with him by setting a flying silver orb on them which pursues people and drills into their heads if it catches them. The series has a very warped, unreal tone to it that feels almost like a fantasy movie with heavier gore. I've only seen the first two Phantasm movies, but I've heard that the third and fourth go off the rails which is why I didn't actively seek them out (not that the first two movies were ever properly on the rails  ). But now it's October and it's time to fill in some of those blanks so I'm watching them this month. The fifth film isn't playing anywhere near me so I won't be watching it.Which (finally) brings me to Phantasm III: Lord of the Dead. I'm trying to find something to say about this movie and it's tough even to recap since it's wildly incoherent. The story wanders from episode to episode without meaning or purpose until everything just kind of slams together at the end. It starts at the end of Phantasm II, wanders off to what feel like left over bits from the previous two movies haphazardly attached to this one, abruptly ends what seems like it was the plot of the movie in a dream sequence halfway through, everyone decides to go to the climax of the film for no good reason, and then it ends on a cliffhanger. The character we're following twice in twenty minutes wanders into an abandoned town only to be caught by robbers. And in an ending that makes you go, "What was the point of all that?" the movie flat out says, "You're not supposed to understand it." While I still enjoyed the off-kilter nature of Phantasm III, I can definitely feel the series running out of steam. The weird edge isn't quite there anymore. This feels like one of those long running series of fantasy novels where the first one is pretty good and the second one is a good follow up and then they keep going even though all the good ideas were used up already. My biggest disappointment was that only one person got their head drilled out by a silver ball. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2016 20:24
|
|
|
Oh just wait til you get to part 4 which is all kinds of whackadoo, as it finally starts trying to explain things (spoilers: it does a terrible job of it, only raising further questions). It's clear that Coscarelli was already having trouble securing funds for the films, and this one was a bumper film meant to get interest in the story he really wanted to make that he was saving for 5 (we'll see if that remains true). The plot has Mike out in the desert on a sort of spirit journey with The Tall Man as his Tulpa, and Reggie out looking for him and blasting dwarves. Tim from part 3 is never mentioned and seems to have disappeared from existence. Rocky apparently is coming back for part 5 however. I saw the remaster of 1 in theaters recently, and next saturday I get to see 5 on the big screen too, so I've recently refreshed myself before the month's challenge began.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2016 20:53
|
|
|
I have no theme as of now, but I do have a few on my plate I am planning on hitting this month. CAT PEOPLE/RETURN OF THE CAT PEOPLE/CAT PEOPLE 1982 are on the menu very soon. I've been very curious about the 80's remake of CAT PEOPLE and after watching a clip of the famous pool scene, I am inclined to check it out. The original is one of my favorites to watch yearly. For some others I am planning on... Halloween 3, Creepshow, Martin(Romero), I Saw The Devil, House of The Devil, Nightmare of Elm Street, Night Of The Living Dead, Day of the Dead, Halloween 1,2,4, 5... Mainly going to just find things that sound goof off this thread or the Horror thread and have at it. Today's treat is a first time watch... THE BURNING (1981)! There isn't one bra in this movie.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2016 21:11
|
|
|
Howling Man posted:Today's treat is a first time watch... THE BURNING (1981)! There isn't one bra in this movie. Such a great, under appreciated slasher. It's better than nearly every single Friday the 13th movie.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2016 22:33
|
|
|
1. The Wicker Tree (2011) 2. Mexico Barbaro (2014) #3. I Can See You (2008) Three young privileged hipster 20 somethings are starting an ad agency, and their first big client is a window cleaner whose spokesman recently died. Frustrated with the pictures they have on hand, the men (and one girlfriend) decide to go out camping and take their own. The first night they have friends join them for a bonfire party, and one guy hooks up with an old flame who decides to stay the weekend with them. The next day two members of our group go missing, and everyone starts losing their goddamn minds less than 24 hours out of the city. As you can tell from my glowing synopsis, I certainly enjoyed this film that tried oh so hard to be edgy by combining a faux mumblecore aesthetic with trippy attempts to replicate I dunno, being on a bunch of drugs? There's a big difference between trying to say something with surreal imagery and actions, and just throwing in nonsense because you think it makes something bland look deeper, but you don't actually have anything worth saying. Guess which this is?  /5
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2016 23:23
|
|
|
It's a lazy Saturday so I thought I'd throw on something I haven't seen in awhile. Evil Dead (the original one) is a bit rough, but once it gets going the creativity that made Sam Raimi so popular is on full display. Some young people go out to a spooky cabin in the woods where they find a tape recorder of a guy reading from the Necronomicon. Playing the tape lets bad things out which picks them off until one is left. I felt like the first half of Evil Dead was kind of bland. The low budget weakness is on display there and I don't care about the characters (yes, even Ash). Then the ball starts rolling, Raimi goes crazy with the camera, and things get weird. That said, Evil Dead 2 makes this movie pointless. The sequel is so amazingly good and covers the same ground so heavily that there's no reason to watch the original unless you want to see how Raimi did the same story with even less money.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2016 23:38
|
|
|
Alright, let's do this. Two movies a day but I'll keep it to one post per day, writing some basic thoughts for each film right after I watch. Lemme know if the selective spoilers are annoying compared to a big black block, but I like to think I'm being clever. 1.1: I seem to remember Cloverfield getting a bad rap from some, but I liked it the first time and I liked it more this time. Some really nice terrorist/large-scale apocalyptic imagery/situations and it does well making you care about the characters while still giving a pervasive sense of "these people are totally hosed" - both in the usual found-footage "tell" sense with the framing device and the "show" sense with the multiple random main character deaths/spider attacks. On that same note, it actually does nicely subvert the usual "everyone dies, of course" FF trope with one of the main characters happening to get on the first chopper and probably get away, I think. Actually, I really like how it's put together because it takes the two big complaints people usually have about found-footage movies and not only addresses them, but incorporates them into its primary themes. Why does Hud film, and narrate, everything? Not just because he's a textbook Asperger case who doesn't get social cues, but because he's right that "people are gonna want to know how it all went down" even in-universe - nicely tying into the ending when someone else picks up the camera and addresses it, if only so somebody has the chance to know who they were after their death. And why are these people putting themselves in danger instead of being tactically realistic??? Because as we are told literally the instant before everything hits the fan, "forget the world, and hang on to the people that you care about the most", whether you've been together a while (Lily and Jason), you had a one-time thing that you both are scared to admit you still want (Rob and Beth), or you only connected after poo poo started going down (RIP HUD and Marlena, the best most awkward couple that almost never was). Honestly, I can understand if something about Cloverfield doesn't sit right with people, but only because everything is so on-the-nose, and I feel like this is a rare film that gets away with both showing and telling. There's a whole list of horror and FF tropes it plays straight and then plays with, from the standard looting being used to remedy the standard "there happens to be a reason my phone's not working!" situation, as well as everyone stopping in their tracks when they see on TV that they really do have much bigger things to worry about, to the collapsing building being the one the characters have to get into instead of just a pretty shot used to show that the city is falling apart. Cloverfield, like Resolution, is a found-footage movie to watch when you've gotten bored of the rest of them. I consider it a love letter to the format. It even has multiple nested narratives/framing devices! 1.2: ...I don't think I can write any real words about 10 Cloverfield Lane right now. Not yet. Whatever people have said between the connections or lack thereof between it and Cloverfield, I'll just say I'm glad I knew as little as possible going in to this one, and I'm glad I watched Cloverfield first if only because they're both well-structured pieces where everything ends up mattering. Go watch them just like I did. Though, I can think of several other films, any of which would be great lead-ins to 10CL, awkwardly spoiled but they're all perennial horror thread favorites and mousing over won't necessarily ruin 10CL: 1) They Look Like People, 2) Take Shelter, and 3) of course You're Next, because seriously, talk about girls that are fighters/survivors and can't catch a drat break. In any case, this may end up being my favorite movie this year. For those that have watched it: .......... ............e: The 10CL thread is a wasteland  If I didn't already appreciate SMG I would now that he saved the day there.
VROOM VROOM fucked around with this message at 02:01 on Oct 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2016 00:31
|
|
|
Day 1 The Fury (1981) Was bizarre and good. De Palma rules.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2016 01:35
|
|
|
Day 1: Scooby Doo Fairly entertaining until Marc McGrath shows up, at which point it becomes hard to stomach. Fun monster design and some nice weird psychosexual imagery--the wall of meat vaginas and sausages that Scooby and Shaggy try to eat their way out of is particularly evocative. Overall I give it a Not As Good As Zombie Island/10. UP NEXT: Under Wraps or if I can't find that, Ghostwatch!
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2016 01:48
|
|
|
My viewing habits result in a lot of unfinished things. I absorb all the references and important scenes over time but the number of movies I've seen from start to finish is embarrassingly low. So let's actually complete some of these and maybe get some culture in my life (with cheap, trashy entertainment). Also a lot of this stuff has been sitting on my shelf unopened for literally a decade or more. First up is something I'm embarrassed to admit, George A. Romero's Dawn of the Dead. First a preface: I really dislike the modern zombie genre. Too frequently it falls into survivalist fetish material where everyone is terrible and survival comes at the expense of your morality. It's humanity at its worse and even when there's an argument that society could win in the face of the zombie apocalypse, people are ultimately too selfish and violent to carry on together. Which is strange because Romero, the source material for so much of the genre cliches, takes a very humanist approach to his stories. Cooperation is good, loners are dangerous, and things don't fall apart until people give away to recklessness and material desires. Night of the Living Dead** ends with the sole survivor -- the one most capable of surviving but cannot sympathize with his frightened and less adept partners -- confused for a zombie and unceremoniously shot. It's bleak but ends with the hope that through cooperation, the zombie horde can be beaten. There's something about movies from the 70s, maybe it's the budget and technological limitations, that make for really physically demanding and chaotic scenes. The frantic television studio with guys-in-white-coats giving exposition was an amazing way of highlighting civilization's collapse without relying on pointless montages. Immediately cut to the government violently suppressing survivors complete with a racist cop who unsubtly comments on the struggles of inner-cities in 70s. The camera frames every scene in whole, none of the lovely close ups and quick cuts that dominate modern action films. The actors struggle, wrestle, push, and jostle each other as heads explode and gore splatters the wall. The script is blunt as a brick but humanism rules here. The characters are hesitant to cooperate at first but grow as friends, mourn together, and live as a family. Even as it comes to an abrupt and weird end, Romero denies the "heroic sacrifice" cliche because gently caress man, LIFE IS WORTH LIVING. Dawn deserves all the accolades it gets. It's widely copied in style and violence yet none of its messages are carried forward. A+ e: It was also fun hearing some music that I've heard sampled in other works like Gorillaz. **I'm really hesitant to see the 1990 remake of Night knowing that Harry Cooper is basically a cartoon racist villain. The irony is that Harry was right in the cellar being the safest place. Ben is a sympathetic character, and a bold choice as a black protagonist in 1968, but his lack of humanity was his undoing. I don't know what Romero meant by rewriting the screenplay and it almost seems vindictive on the struggle he went through to acquire the rights to the original. al-azad fucked around with this message at 03:07 on Oct 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2016 03:02
|
|
|
Ok, we're off! October 1st  - (1) 30 Days of Night (2007) "No God." So my October rule is "new movies." I get a kick out of holding off horror movies all year and watching them for the first time in October. So I officially only count them. But I also love movies I've seen before and will probably see more of them than the new ones this October, so they enter the second count. This year I started with one of those because I had company and they picked. I didn't mind. I've actually always been a little surprised this movie doesn't get more love. It seems poorly regarded and reviewed but I think it does a ton well. It has really gruesome and horrifying monsters that are simple. I suppose you could argue they're too simple and one dimensional but there's some subtext to them and I think they're scarier as just terrifying animals on the hunt. The setting is beautiful and horrific. All that snow not only helps really sell the "there's no escape" setting of the film but also makes for some really beautiful/terrifying images of blood or _____oil______ soaked snow. Not to mention blizzards and the use of them in the story. I also think it does a good job with characters. Few characters are DEEP and really fully developed but at the same time there's probably dozens of characters who you recognize and know well enough to appreciate the situation they're in in the movie. I think that's a feat in and of itself. And I think the leads are fine, although its weird that I'm currently binging Penny Dreadful so Josh Hartnett is my horror guy at the moment. Anyway, I'm not saying this is a GREAT film or a classic, but I think its a highly competent monster flick with a unique spin. I'm glad I started with it and got myself going with one I know I like.  1 (2). It Follows (2015) Now that I've seen this movie I'm uncomfortable with that whole Ted Cruz thing and associating him with sex. Ok, so this is what my marathon is about. A movie I've heard a ton of hype for, that I've had at my disposal since Spring, but which I've been holding back month after month waiting to see it on October 1st. Maybe that was too much buildup. Don't get me wrong, I really liked the film. There was great use of tension and scares, even if I found some of the camera work more artistic than genuinely effective. I don't remotely mind not having clear answers on what It is and I've read a number of interpretations that I'm open to and like the ambiguity of a movie like this or Mr. Babadook (which was, oddly, last year's October 1st movie I waited all year to watch). I enjoyed this and I understand why people responded to it stylistically and thematically. Something just never fully clicked for me. Maybe its that "It" isn't scary, but then again "It" isn't really supposed to be. Its the dread and knowing fear that its always approaching and that there's no true escape that is scary. Maybe the acting was off? I think the lead played her part well though, and really they're all basically well done disaffected youth stuck dealing with this horror on their own for no carefully laid out reasons (again, I get the subtext and I appreciate it, even really enjoying how its almost a sendup of how most teen horror movies always seem to be remarkable adultless without some vague "the adults are all drinking away their dying American suburban dreams" subtext). I don't know. I definitely enjoyed it and call it a win, its just not one of the best of the last few years that I've seen. I think. In the end I suspect the hype and drawn out buildup for this might have hurt this movie for me. This is one that would have been way more effective if it had surprised me in the middle of the month. Que sera sera. You know what bothered me? This is a weird one. What the gently caress time period was this movie set in? On one hand it seems to clearly be the 70s-80s with the jean jackets, corded landlines, tube tvs, and a freaking typewriter. But the movie starts with a girl on her cell phone. And that one girl carries around some kind of compact e-reader all movie. So what the hell? I could buy that the first scene is from a different period and "It" just exists always. But that compact distracted me the entire movie. My best guess is that the movie was supposed to be intentionally anachronistic to make a statement about it being a universal tale of adolescence and coming of age. On one level I think I get that. But the thing is I couldn't stop thinking about it during the movie, especially when that compact came out. It became a real distraction to me that took me out of the film. In the end I think maybe THAT's it. I think the movie was TOO "dream like" and intentionally "limbo" like. I never felt truly grounded in the film and that made it hard for me to ever fully invest in it or the plight of Jay. I don't know. In the end I come away thinking this was an interesting idea handled pretty well for a rookie director, but which feels like a movie done by a rookie director who made some key mistakes. STAC Goat fucked around with this message at 03:36 on Oct 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2016 03:33
|
|
|
hot off the scream stream- 10Interview with a Vampire Which not so great. I mean it's not the worst vampire movie I"ve ever seen so It's got that going for it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2016 03:36
|
|
|
Interview With a Vampire was really good 20 years ago and I haven't watched it in at least 10 years because I'm positively certain it doesn't hold up for poo poo. Like, the young adult/vampire thing has been ridden so far into the ground over the last decade that Anne Rice has to seem like such trite garbage now. But at the time I thought it was pretty good and there wasn't a lot like it. And Kirsten Dunst was a hell of a child actress and a really uncomfortable role.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2016 03:46
|
|
|
So I've gone into this almost entirely blind. Of my 31 movies I could tell you the basic premise of at most 10 of them. I generally don't like overly violent or gorey movies, but if that ends up happening I can handle it. It'll be interesting to just essentially choose one of these movies at random and see what happens. I have really no expectations other than someone somewhere put them on a psychological horror list. Zodiac - I watched this one on September 30th because even though it was listed as a horror movie on some list somewhere, I knew it was probably the biggest stretch on my list of the movies I know anything about. That said, I really enjoyed this movie. It's probably one of my favourite genres that I don't think really has a name but I'd call an investigative thriller. Not necessarily crime movies, but just people trying to figure something out and going through the logic process of getting that done. The pacing and the shifting focus on characters was a little strange. The three main guys were all in the lead at different points in the movie despite all being there at the same time. It was like the movie was circling around the three of them, where you can still see the other two when one was in focus, but never completely showing all three. It made me have to keep readjusting my perception on the movie which was mildly distracting. There was a line that Gyllenhaal says about just wanting them to see each other honestly face to face that reminded me of The Vanishing/Spoorloos, which is my favourite horror movie of all time. Also without spoiling I'd say there's a brief 30 second almost silent scene near the end of the movie that I rewatched several times that I think is the connection to the horror genre. All in all a pretty great start to the month.  Funny Games -  I watched this one all the way to the end of the credits because I wouldn't have been at all surprised if the writer/director appeared on screen going "Did you get it?! Did you see what I was doing?!" I don't enjoy slasher movies or overly violent movies at all, so I don't think I was the target audience this dude was trying to shame, but I didn't feel smugly superior either. I just found it dull and was relieved when after a good 20 minutes of pointless monotony something happened again. Was I supposed to feel bad that I was excited for more violence? Probably, but I didn't. Congratulations on making me happy for more violence when I normally don't like violence because it was better than the alternative. You win, I guess? Like half a They Look Like People - Okay this is my jam. This was just on the verge of 2spooky4me since long sustained shots on people just standing there freak me the hell out, but I made it through. It's a subtle kind of scary which I enjoy even if it freaks me out. It's a really simple story between like 3 people, and it does a great job with each of them. I really liked the characters and they had their flaws but they felt like realistic flaws. They all had a great dynamic together, the scene with the two guys acting like children after a lot of bravado made me genuinely laugh. I'm not sure how much else I have to say on this one, but I really liked it. I'm not really keeping to a schedule or an order, but I may be able to get through most of my list in a month. Will probably watch another movie or two tomorrow.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2016 04:08
|
|
|
STAC Goat posted:Interview With a Vampire was really good 20 years ago and I haven't watched it in at least 10 years because I'm positively certain it doesn't hold up for poo poo. Like, the young adult/vampire thing has been ridden so far into the ground over the last decade that Anne Rice has to seem like such trite garbage now. But at the time I thought it was pretty good and there wasn't a lot like it. And Kirsten Dunst was a hell of a child actress and a really uncomfortable role. I read everything Anne Rice had written up to that point when I was about 13 years old and part of me really, really wants to reread some of those old books, but I know that just like the movies they will absolutely not hold up.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2016 04:09
|
|
|
I nearly forgot about this. Movie #1 for me was Carnival of Souls. I watched it on YouTube and the sound quality wasn't great, but it was nice and atmospheric, and the end was pretty good. Haven't decided for tomorrow. "Evil Dead: the Musical" counts, right? I'm in the splash section so I feel like it should count.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2016 04:21
|
|
|
Asiina posted:Funny Games - Did you watch the 1997 original or 2007 remake?
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2016 04:25
|
|
|
al-azad posted:Did you watch the 1997 original or 2007 remake? I watched the English one so I could knit at the same time, but from what I was able to tell when choosing a version they are functionally identical.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2016 04:27
|
|
|
3. Faust (1926) Can't say I'm familiar with the source material at all, but I ended up really liking this adaptation from Murnau. God and the Devil make a bet about the nature of the soul of a doctor named Faust. The Devil bets that he can corrupt him, and tempts him. Faust gives into temptation in order to help others, but is rejected by those he wants to help, and isn't satisfied with anything else the Devil can offer...until he falls in love. I've only seen Emil Jannings in one other film (Murnau's own The Last Laugh), and his performance is wildly different here. He plays the Devil as this really exaggerated dude that is just so happy to be loving with people and it's great to watch. Like with The Golem there are some cool early special effects, like the rings of fire. or the characters flying around, or the Devil growing huge. Asiina posted:I watched the English one so I could knit at the same time, but from what I was able to tell when choosing a version they are functionally identical.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2016 04:38
|
|
|
U at least have to dig the title sequence
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2016 04:51
|
|
|
Hat Thoughts posted:U at least have to dig the title sequence Yeah, but then the movie couldn't live up to it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2016 05:27
|
|
|
All right, I'm in on this thread/idea. I intend to get to 31 films watched by the end of the month, with the possibility of more being seen by the end. I'm not going in with any kind of plan here, just gonna wing it based on how I feel that night. Started with The Witch (or The VVitch, if you prefer). Wish I could say that I enjoyed this more than I did. I eventually ended up getting on the wavelength of the actors and their accents and mumbling speech patterns, but it definitely took a while to get there. I remember there being talk about the goat having a great scene, but the way it was used to kill the father ended up feeling anticlimactic, I dunno. I also was kind of weirded out when the goat, Black Peter, turned into a guy (Satan) - he ended up looking more like Blackbeard than anything else. That whole bit took me right out of the experience, right at the end of the film, and right at the most important moment. Still, great score, great cinematography, good acting by the elder daughter. I give it a 3/5.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2016 05:28
|
|
|
I did the 31 movies thing 5 years in a row then on the 6th year (2013) quit halfway because I couldn't find anything new that didn't suck. I might do it again this year if I can find 16 horror movies I haven't seen that aren't completely terrible.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2016 05:35
|
|
|
Class3KillStorm posted:All right, I'm in on this thread/idea. I intend to get to 31 films watched by the end of the month, with the possibility of more being seen by the end. I'm not going in with any kind of plan here, just gonna wing it based on how I feel that night. Black Philip offers pretty dresses and butter and lures the girl into a fancy floating witch party
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2016 05:45
|
|
|
Buca di Bepis posted:Black Philip offers pretty dresses and butter and lures the girl into a fancy floating witch party This doesn't change the fact that he shows up looking like an extra from a Pirates of the Caribbean movie, though. Nor that, by looking like a reject from a Pirates of the Caribbean movie, he instead pulls me out of the film in the last two minutes, right before the fancy floating witch party.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2016 05:53
|
|
|
October 1st - Dark Star Probably a stretch to call this "horror," but it was on Shudder so I'm countin' it. Reviews seem pretty mixed on this one, but I enjoyed it well enough. It's certainly a bit rough around the edges, but for a student film it really holds its own, and the special effects aren't nearly as bad as I was expecting them to be. I'm also pretty impressed by how restrained the movie is; it's perhaps not the most cerebral movie, but it has enough confidence in itself not to get really bogged down by the cynical, overwrought stuff that usually comes with satirical student film projects. You can definitely see a bit of the blueprint for Carpenter's later work here, as well as the influence on Alien. I wouldn't be surprised if it influenced Douglas Adams, too. Nothing about this movie was really scary, though. It does a good job of building a tense atmosphere and playing on the claustrophobic setting, and I guess maybe you could make a case for it being some low-grade existential horror, but that's about it. It's honestly got a good bit of humor in it. Still a good start to the month! .5 / 5
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2016 06:38
|
|
|
1. Hush (2016) Heard a lot about this movie and I have to say this is a very solid psychological thriller/slasher movie about a deaf-mute author being stalked/tormented in her isolated country house. Horror movies work best when vulnerabilities are used to elicit empathetic dread and fear in the audience and this film works by showing a protagonist that, while at a disadvantage, works with what she can to overcome a villain that is almost too confident in what he has encountered. .5/4
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2016 07:37
|
|
|
What's the limitation on how non-horror movies apply for the "horror season"? I think it's weird if a lot of comedies that also happen to have literal monsters count, but, say, Roar doesn't. What a strange, strange, yet extravagant film.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2016 07:51
|
|
|
 The ListProto-Slasher 1. The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari (1920) 2. Fritz Lang's M (1931) 3. The Old Dark House (1932) 4. And Then There Were None (1945) 5. House of Wax (1953) 6. Night of the Hunter (1955) 7. Eyes Without a Face (1960) 8. Psycho (1960) 9. The Abominable Dr Phibes (1971) 10. Dr. Phibes Rises Again (1972) 11. Mario Bava's Bay of Blood (1971) 12. Torso (1973)  Maybe I was just in the wrong mood, or perhaps the way I was watching it, but halfway through the film I just started hating it. It's hard to pinpoint why, probably because of I felt it was tediously slow, perhaps because of an incessant lingering on attractive women. In any case, the film just couldn't hold my attention, until about the last 30 minutes. Once introduced into the 'trapped in the house with a killer who doesn't know I'm here' plot unfolded, I was absolutely hooked. It had a definite progression and personal stakes that the rest of the film didn't have. Plus, it was held up by the lead, Suzy Kendall and her voice Susan Spafford, both sold the horror, desperation, and sickening feeling that goes with being surrounded by your gruesomely murdered friends and their killer. The only bane to her performance is that once her role of being menaced is finished, there's pretty much nothing for her to do. And that's where the film's weird politics comes to play. It's a very sleazy film, filled with breast and sex and women being weirdly comfortable with nudity around their 'quote' 'unquote' friends. And when the women aren't on screen, it's seemingly all about men who just talk about these hot babes in a bizzaro Bechdel Test. Yet the film's villain is a reflection of one facet of man's relation to women, wrathful and focused on one minded conviction. Of a belief of a gender's inherent ability to control and abuse another, and being blind to their own. This is the film recognizing that a desirable women in a man's world can be a hard position to hold to, and one that can be fraught with danger when you become the desired object of a dangerous man. So, the film says that the women who have died aren't being punished for their sexually provocative nature, but because they're victims of the wrong-headed belief that they should be. And that the ultimate hero is a man who is able to see the woman who lays beyond the breasts. But that man also is a very nurturing figure, fatherly to a helpless young girl who needs such a man to navigate it all. And thus it supports the traditional gender roles of protector and his maiden. So, it's kind of a mixed bag that I'm sure comes out of a much simpler belief of the filmmaker's being that, 'I like breasts, and I think women should be free to display those breasts loud and proud'. So, it's a very sleazy film. One that I can recommend at least the last half hour of, as a quality piece of tense, thrilling film making. Plus, it ends with an amazing fist fight that seems to be trying to emulate a kung-fu movie. Out of place, but highly entertaining. Plus, YouTube Also, it feels kinda appropriate to follow up two Giallo films with a third Giallo film, so I'm just going to push Black Christmas back a bit. Next up: Deep Red
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2016 08:48
|
|
|
Day 1: DEAD AND BURIED. Pretty good! It's basically kind of a slasher except the whole town is killing people. The only mystery is why they're doing it. It was originally conceived and shot as a black comedy but re-edited by the financers (And an unfortunate gore sequence that was added without Stan Winston). As it turns out the director made one of my other underrated favourites, RAW MEAT (or DEATHLINE, depending on where you're from) and it's a shame that he barely worked since then, aside from some stuff with reality TV. It has a quirky charm to it and if you'd said it was written by Larry Cohen I would've believed you. As it was, it was written by Dan O'Bannon and Ronald Shushett, though the former tried to downplay his role in it and says their names were just used for marketing. And he either likes the movie or hates it, depending on what interview you're reading. One thing I appreciate is that the end is kind of nuts, but everyone just commits to it. This is the time of movie where people talk about Voodoo with sincerity, instead of endless scenes of a disbelieving sheriff. I like the economy of it all. Today I'm going to plug in a pretty big hole in my movie watching. Despite being a huge horror fan I have somehow never seen SUSPIRIA. In my defence it's because I had seen a bunch of latter day Argento works first somehow and watching DRACULA 3D is enough to put you off movies altogether.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2016 11:19
|
|
|
Justin Godscock posted:1. Hush (2016) Hey, me too! 2. Hush - I enjoyed it a lot, but would add that I wish that she used the limitations of her disabilities more often while fighting back. /53. The Howling - This movie is a slooooooow burn, and is pure triple-distilled 70s. I enjoyed the effects, and think I probably enjoyed it more thanks to the Scream Stream. .5/5
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2016 14:13
|
|
|
K. Waste posted:What's the limitation on how non-horror movies apply for the "horror season"? I think it's weird if a lot of comedies that also happen to have literal monsters count, but, say, Roar doesn't. I'd call it completely subjective to the viewer what is and isn't a horror to you.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2016 15:37
|
|
|
Class3KillStorm posted:This doesn't change the fact that he shows up looking like an extra from a Pirates of the Caribbean movie, though. Nor that, by looking like a reject from a Pirates of the Caribbean movie, he instead pulls me out of the film in the last two minutes, right before the fancy floating witch party. When I saw The Witch in theaters, all I could see was Black Philip's hands in that scene. K. Waste posted:What's the limitation on how non-horror movies apply for the "horror season"? I think it's weird if a lot of comedies that also happen to have literal monsters count, but, say, Roar doesn't. If you take a list at the movies in the 2nd post, I included loose horror comedies and family movies for those with younger viewers in their family. It's your discretion. Someone mentioned Under Wraps, andd if it's the ABC/Disney mummy movie, that's one of my all-time favorite family movies, right next to Hocus Pocus.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2016 15:46
|
|
|
1. Awakening of the Beast (1970) 5/5 2. The Baby (1973) 4/5 3. Shocker (1989) 2/5 4. Murder Party (2007)  This is a modest movie with verve that manages to convey a lot in its contained space. Murder Party is deliciously silly and dark, and somehow keeps the insanity onscreen humorously understated in its own weird way. Murder Party is a movie about a party with sex, drugs, dogs, and murder. I enjoyed this party. /5
Thirsty Girl fucked around with this message at 16:04 on Oct 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2016 15:52
|
|
|
7. From Beyond A perfect horror movie? Maybe! Another classic I re-watched to show my girlfriend. She was completely disgusted and disturbed, so success! A few take-aways: I love the color palette of blues and purples and reds with hot pink used for interactions with the "next dimensions". It would be a good visual pairing with Creepshow or even Friday the 13th Part V. I'm not thr biggest fan of the green and blue color filters in post-2000's horror movies, but when it's the physical lighting, (or the 80's), it works well. The physical effects are still amazing, up there with The Thing (which has the advantage of tighter editing). The only shot that induces groans should be one of the most exciting moments in the movie, the main monster we've been warned about the whole movie swooping down to rip off Jeffrey Combs head, which suffers from the brightly-lit puppet super-imposed into a dark scene. Maybe this would be fixed on a remaster? It has more layers than Re-Animator, concentrating on ideas of alternative dimensions bleeding into each other, giving characters better motivations, and exploring sexual roles. Re-Animator just has slightly more manic energy that is infectious. So I'll be watching Re-Animator in the near future. /5
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2016 16:16
|
|
|
Before watching SUSPIRIA I've caught DON'T GO INTO THE WOODS, which is an insane slice of early slasherdom. It's legitimately a terrible movie, however it really goes all in on the killing. There's scenes where the movie cuts to characters you've never met before just getting offed. They don't even have lines, it just cuts straight to them getting killed. The score is also hideous and all synth based, coupled with the handheld style of filmmaking it adds up to something that's so disorienting that after 20 minutes I wasn't sure how much I could take.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2016 16:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 23:43 |
|
|
DrVenkman posted:Before watching SUSPIRIA I've caught DON'T GO INTO THE WOODS, which is an insane slice of early slasherdom. It's legitimately a terrible movie, however it really goes all in on the killing. There's scenes where the movie cuts to characters you've never met before just getting offed. They don't even have lines, it just cuts straight to them getting killed. That sounds great, actually. Speaking of unendurable yet compelling movies, somebody better watch The Manipulator with Mickey Rooney this year so that I may share this pain.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2016 16:47
|
|