|
Basebf555 posted:Right but that's kinda the point. It did happen in the 30s and 40s and it was loving awesome. That's why they're still celebrated almost 100 years later. I don't disagree. I just don't think its a "franchise" any more than if the Hellraiser, Evil Dead, Nightmare on Elm Street, and Friday the 13th franchises had actually been combined into crossover movies retroactively creating a "shared universe". Which Freddy vs Jason actually did but we all agree it doesn't make them the same franchise. Universal is unique because they did it and they ran with it to revitalize the franchises. But IMO Dracula and Frankenstein are the franchises, the Larry Talbot Saga is the retroactive shared universe.
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2020 18:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 19:47 |
|
|
The rules of the tournament are, to count for this, they must have at least three films in continuity with one another. Your argument for why people should vote for Chucky over the Universal line is "it's not fair". I want you to understand why I do not take that very seriously. It's not like House of Dracula is a good movie- it objectively is one of the absolute worst. House of Frankenstein at least had some great German inspired shots but it's also a loving disaster of a film, it's just better than House of Dracula. Most of the Chucky films are better than both, in arguably. But the thing is, you can't just arrive at House of Dracula. Because that isn't the first, third or even fifth movie. You go back to where that started and you get to House of Frankenstein. You go back to where that came from and you arrive at Frankenstein Meets the Wolfman. You go back from there and you find The Wolfman and Ghost of Frankenstein. It'd be kind of like going, okay, we're going to have a Monster Movie Tournament, but Godzilla isn't allowed to have any of his in continuity sequels because that wouldn't be fair to the rest even though it's 100% allowed by the rules. Godzilla would dominate that tournament for the exact same reasons. This is why Hammer flagged in comparison. No cross continuity at all, meaning each of their franchises had to live or die on their own. I personally would have picked Frankenstein over Dracula myself, but the fact that they never had the idea to have Lee V Cushing as Dracula and Doctor Frankenstein is THEIR mistake. Not ours. And they seriously should have had that. Just a movie with no heroes, only monsters. That would have been amazing. but they didn't. Universal did. And even just counting the ones that SHOULD be counted, Invisible Man or not, they stomp the Chucky films into the ground by weight of Wolfman alone. let me put this another way- if this was just Universal Frankenstein, and it easily could have been, Universal would still be crushing Chucky beneath its iron booted feet. There's a reason why Bride of Chucky is called Bride of Chucky and draws so much love and inspiration from the Universal lot.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2020 18:41
|
|
|
Burkion posted:let me put this another way- if this was just Universal Frankenstein, and it easily could have been, Universal would still be crushing Chucky beneath its iron booted feet. There's a reason why Bride of Chucky is called Bride of Chucky and draws so much love and inspiration from the Universal lot.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2020 18:45
|
|
|
Just rewatching the Chucky films now, and I noticed that it's a Universal picture! Clearly the sensible, down to earth option then is that they join forces instead of fighting
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2020 20:39
|
|
|
SO, I'm gonna play contrarian here for a moment on Universal Monster chat and say that, while there are one or two stand-out movies, on the whole the idea of it being a franchise is weighed down by all of the terrible, repetitive sequels. I know we're constraining this down to largely just the Frankenstein and Wolf Man movies, with a few tangential asides for Dracula (and I personally don't see how the two direct Dracula sequels have any bearing on House of Dracula), but even still, you have to square up some basic facts here. Namely: - House of Frankenstein is bad - House of Dracula is bad - Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man is bad - Dracula and The Wolf Man are not that great to begin with I get that we're trying to cast as wide as possible a net for the idea of snagging as many UM movies as possible, but we're looking at what we get with rosy colored glasses. Out of the, what, 9 or so films we decided should count, I peg more than half as being middling to poor. And you know that if we started counting things like the various Mummy or Creature from the Black Lagoon sequels that this would just further hamper their standing. I dunno... I like the concept of the Universal Monsters more than the process of watching them, a lot of the time. They have great aesthetics and design, and sometimes precious little else. I also think that, overall, the Child's Play saga is like 5 for 7 in terms of very good to middling quality - and I'll even stand up for the 2019 reboot as being not that bad, if we want to lump that in here too - which means we're back into the debate between "one great film vs. several good films" that we've played out a couple of times already.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2020 22:46
|
|
|
Class3KillStorm posted:I know we're constraining this down to largely just the Frankenstein and Wolf Man movies, with a few tangential asides for Dracula (and I personally don't see how the two direct Dracula sequels have any bearing on House of Dracula), IF we're including Dracula, we must include Daughter, since it is a direct sequel, and Son is more thematically relevant in the tradition of recasting the role of Dracula, and beginning the Alucard trend. quote:but even still, you have to square up some basic facts here. Namely: Let's have some words. House of Frankenstein has some brilliant cinematography and direction and it picks up from the last film competently. It is flawed, but not bad in any dire sense. The worst thing about it is that Dracula is completely separate from the rest of the action, taking up the first act only. Larry's torment and character arc is carried on perfectly well and Boris Karloff as the Mad Scientist is beautifully poetic as he hams it up with the absolute best of them. He is the king of the show, and it is fitting that the Monster that he created carries them both to their death. It is flawed, but not bad and has a lot of positives outweighing the negative. House of Dracula is a trash fire but an amusing one. The plot is fully off the rails, Dracula is an active agent of destruction even though it costs his own life, the entire finale is stock footage, and we have a rogue Doctor Jekyl Mr Hyde alike. But we also have the foundations of greatness, as Talbot knows for certain he is truly immortal- no method can kill him. So he has taken his first steps to thwarting other evils, and is the ultimate hero of the piece, defeating the rogue doctor and cosigning the Monster to its repeat burning finale. It is easily the weakest of all of these films, but still has elements of greatness to it. It just couldn't get the footwork together. That wouldn't happen until Abbott and Costello but we'll get back to that. Let's swing back to the bad bitch that got us to the ball. Frankenstein Meets the Wolfman is a great film, maybe not an all time classic, but a great one all the same. It functions simultaneously as a sequel to The Wolfman and to Ghost of Frankenstein, and generally does not miss a beat. The movie is harmed by the choice to shy away from Bella Lugosi speaking as the Monster, as he is canonically still Ygor at this point and also blind, but this is the movie that started THE walk for the Monster. You have the Wolfman Frankenstein Monster throwdown at the climax, the exploding dam, the villagers being very rightfully wary, the best drunk in the world, the return of class acts all around, and a seamless blending of two very different monsters. It is the first cinematic crossover and stands out even now in how well it managed. The Wolf Man not being a great horror film on its own terms deserves some loving talk back. I already went on at length about what the Wolfman accomplished and what it did and what it means, so I want to hear from you on how it failed itself. Yes, the violence is muted because they couldn't do what they wanted- that is the lament of all but the rarest of horror films. But sheer pound for pound, Wolfman stands heads and shoulders above almost all other films for birthing an entire genre of work. There were werewolf movies before The Wolf Man, but there has never been one after that ever looked the same with few exceptions. Every single werewolf movie made thereafter has been inspired by, in response to, or because of the Wolf Man, and the mark the Wolf Man made on pop culture is beyond iconic. The worst thing I can say is that the camera work isn't the best, but the sets, actors, lore, story, all of it is firing on all cylinders. Chucky was not the first evil toy movie, though he certainly made his mark on the genre. The Wolf Man defined what it was to be a cinematic werewolf. And Dracula? Yes the movie is flawed- it has no sound track that isn't diegetic, though you could argue that works as part of its style the same way with Frankenstein. Yes it's not a perfect adaptation of the book and takes several liberties, again, like Frankenstein. Also like Frankenstein, it defined what this genre was. Bella Lugosi, on the strength of one film, defined the role of Dracula forever. The Spanish version has superior effects and cinematography, but the English version has Bella Lugosi who personified the monster of Dracula without a drop of blood to his name and a single fang in his mouth. He speaks as if he knows the words to use, but not how to use them, very specifically. He blends into high society so he may dine on whomever he wishes. He slaughters men and women alike like animals. A role Christopher Lee would become synonymous with after ten times, Bella Lugosi owned in one. The fact that he returns for Abbott and Costello is just the icing on the cake. The film is weakened only by its run time and restrictions, and still stands the test of time. But let's grant you the House movies as bad. Let's grant you Meets Wolfman, Dracula and Wolfman as middling. Then we have Frankenstein. Two bad films, three middling films (that are all time greats and iconic and genre making and) and then we have Frankenstein. Frankenstein '31, Bride of Frankenstein, Son of Frankenstein, Ghost of Frankenstein. Five all time great films that each accomplish very different things, very different ambitions and very different stories. Each establish a legacy unto themselves, beholden to no other. Eclipsing the books, eclipsing the moon and the stars, eclipsing all else, is Frankenstein. The most nuanced films of its era, especially Bride. The most ambitious and transgressive and imaginative. The five movies that stand above and beyond and defined what cinematic horror was, what the sympathetic monster was, what the idea of the Mad Scientist and his Lab Assistant was. Defined what the Horror Movie Crossover was, the big monster throw down, the big dumb as balls cinematic crossover to end all crossovers. Do you really think House of Frankenstein and House of Dracula muddy the water that much? The worst thing about both of them was that they could not live up to what came before. And that's why Abbott and Costello Meets Frankenstein was made. I love Chucky, but Chucky's best film was great. These films are iconic in a way few others ever were. And not just because they're first, because there's a reason we don't have more Nosferatu running around, or stans for the Werewolf of London. And you don't want to bring the Mummy or Creature into this because then I'll just get to go on longer
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2020 00:04
|
|
|
I always thought Dracula was kind of a dud until I saw it in a theater, where the scale of the castle sets is massive, Lugosi's performance becomes entirely captivating and the whole film just moves by at a clip -- a rarity for direct adaptation Dracula stories which tend to suffer from pacing issues imo (even a classic like Nosferatu drags). I wouldn't discount the strength of that or The Wolf Man in deciding this.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2020 00:06
|
|
|
Burkion posted:He speaks as if he knows the words to use, but not how to use them, very specifically.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2020 00:24
|
|
|
Shrecknet posted:Ive mentioned it upthread but Lugosi literally dis not speak English at the time of filming which is why his dialog is so captivating and weird, he learned his lines phonetically Oh yeah, definitely. He just had the raw charisma to carry that through. When Lugosi was on, he really was on. Ygor might be his best performance.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2020 00:33
|
|
|
Considering he had been playing Dracula, and other roles, on broadway for years before the film, I highly doubt Lugosi didn't know English by the time of filming.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2020 00:39
|
|
|
Origami Dali posted:Considering he had been playing Dracula, and other roles, on broadway for years before the film, I highly doubt Lugosi didn't know English by the time of filming. This is something I'd really like to know the truth on. I've heard both things from different sources, which is why I was vague.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2020 00:44
|
|
|
Both could be true. It's possible that he knew English, but his grasp was still weak enough that he relied on learning new scripts phonetically.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2020 00:54
|
|
|
I forget what it is, but IIRC there's a terrific You Must Remember This episode that covers that period of his life extensively and has a well-researched answer the subject.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2020 01:03
|
|
|
I think people are taking Lugosi's performance way for granted. It defined the notion of a super-villain. I think after years of Bond villains, it becomes diluted. It's not like Karloff's performance where the tragedy of his monster is pretty unrivaled. Karloff's performance is the greater of the two, but I'd argue Lugosi's was probably the more important for film. On Bela's English abilities. Basically it was true of Bela early in his career, but not for Dracula.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2020 01:07
|
|
|
Burkion posted:House of Dracula is a trash fire but an amusing one. The plot is fully off the rails, Dracula is an active agent of destruction even though it costs his own life, the entire finale is stock footage, and we have a rogue Doctor Jekyl Mr Hyde alike. But we also have the foundations of greatness, as Talbot knows for certain he is truly immortal- no method can kill him. So he has taken his first steps to thwarting other evils, and is the ultimate hero of the piece, defeating the rogue doctor and cosigning the Monster to its repeat burning finale. I actually really like House of Dracula. It is a bit nonsensical, but with its strong focus on dual natures and the monstrous elements within people, it ends up having really interesting sort of "recovering addict" storyline that cuts deeper than House of Frankenstein or Frankenstein Meets the Wolf-Man. It's a sadder, and more desperate. Like, Dracula knows that he can't go on as he is, but he can't help himself. I find some of the cinematic aspects of it superior to the past couple entries as well – like look at that wild transformation sequence that the doctor goes through, it feels more like something from the 60s than the 40s. And all that business with the doctor's rampage on the two is fantastic: the way he threatens the coach driver, the Nosfeatu-like stuff with him jumping around on rooftops, and there's this incredible moment where he runs away and his shadow gets larger and larger and larger. Plus, it's only like an hour and five minutes. A nice, breezy watch compared to the "bad" entries in other franchises. Almost Blue fucked around with this message at 01:52 on Apr 30, 2020 |
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2020 01:35
|
|
|
Almost Blue posted:I actually really like House of Dracula. It is a bit nonsensical, but with its strong focus on dual natures and the monstrous elements within people, it ends up having really interesting sort of "recovering addict" storyline that cuts deeper than House of Frankenstein or Frankenstein Meets the Wolf-Man. It's a sadder, and more desperate. Like, Dracula knows her can't go on as he is, but he can't help himself. This right here is why I hesitate to even call it bad. It has so many interesting things in it and it tries to do a lot of stuff. The movie is just straight up bonkers
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2020 01:37
|
|
|
Burkion posted:Let's have some words. Okay, let's. Burkion posted:House of Frankenstein has some brilliant cinematography and direction and it picks up from the last film competently. It is flawed, but not bad in any dire sense. The worst thing about it is that Dracula is completely separate from the rest of the action, taking up the first act only. Larry's torment and character arc is carried on perfectly well and Boris Karloff as the Mad Scientist is beautifully poetic as he hams it up with the absolute best of them. He is the king of the show, and it is fitting that the Monster that he created carries them both to their death. I'm going to have to disagree with you on this one. I just found it a complete mess. Burkion posted:House of Dracula is a trash fire... You can stop here. House of Dracula is a trash fire, that is one thing we can be in total agreement on. Burkion posted:Let's swing back to the bad bitch that got us to the ball. Frankenstein Meets the Wolfman is a great film, maybe not an all time classic, but a great one all the same. It functions simultaneously as a sequel to The Wolfman and to Ghost of Frankenstein, and generally does not miss a beat. The movie is harmed by the choice to shy away from Bella Lugosi speaking as the Monster, as he is canonically still Ygor at this point and also blind, but this is the movie that started THE walk for the Monster. God, no. Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man was boring, drawn out, nonsensical garbage. Even as someone who knows the continuation on from Ghost of Frankenstein, the way the Monster was handled was a terrible decision, badly explained, and unfairly defined the way the character was seen in pop culture forever after, in a negative way. (I still don't know why, really... was that just the most popular one from the whole Shock Theater band of films Universal put on television back in the day or something?) Burkion posted:The Wolf Man not being a great horror film on its own terms deserves some loving talk back. I already went on at length about what the Wolfman accomplished and what it did and what it means, so I want to hear from you on how it failed itself. Yes, the violence is muted because they couldn't do what they wanted- that is the lament of all but the rarest of horror films. But sheer pound for pound, Wolfman stands heads and shoulders above almost all other films for birthing an entire genre of work. No way. The Wolf Man was boring and dragged on and on. The set work in Talbot Manor was nice, but that was about as far as that went. Music was dull and recycled, a lot of the secondary performances were bad, and the script just kept repeating itself - I think I marked it as 3 complete repetitions of that poem in a 10 minute period last October. It's as if no one making it trusted the audience to be able to follow all of the rules and crap it was making up as it went. And it's not like the film can even keep to those rules as it goes on, either. Burkion posted:The Wolf Man defined what it was to be a cinematic werewolf. No? I don't know of any werewolf film today that gives a single poo poo about things like wolf's bane or pentagrams or silver beyond silver bullets, and most of them go for more wolf than man than this one did. (I saw that movie Howl for the April Challenge which went the other way and trust me, that does not work.) And it isn't even like the rules that they're making up in the film are adhered to fully - Talbot's first victim was some random gravedigger, not some one that he had felt compelled to seek out as the Wolf Man via the pentagram mark. It marks the whole thing out as sloppy and inconsistent right from the get-go, and if they want to insist so mightily on trying to set up all of these various rules and elements the least they could do is play within the sandbox they built. This is like arguing that Night of the Living Dead defined what being a cinematic zombie is when it didn't - it's the progenitor, yes, but Return of the Living Dead is what defined what we think of as a zombie. (Well, that and Tom Savini's make-up work in Day of the Dead.) The definition of a cinematic werewolf is a bit hazier, since it's such a mutable design and so open to wildly differing interpretation, but I'd peg the defining films as either An American Werewolf in London or The Howling before The Wolf Man. Burkion posted:And Dracula? There are two good performances in Dracula - Edward van Sloane as Van Helsing and Dwight Frye as Renfield. Bela Lugosi is certainly a massive presence in the film, but I do hesitate to call it a good performance in and of itself, especially for how little screen time and dialogue he actually has. That's just me, though - I'm the ride-or-die Frank Langella weirdo. Burkion posted:Then we have Frankenstein. There are two great films out of this - Frankenstein and Son of Frankenstein. I'm actually nowhere near as big on Bride as most of the people here are - I don't think the more broad, comedic aspects work in this, and there's a good 5 minute special effects sequence showing off Pretorius' little creations that stops the pacing of the thing dead. It's not bad, but it is wildly overrated for what is, ultimately, a competent but not transcendent sequel. Ghost of Frankenstein is only okay. Burkion posted:Do you really think House of Frankenstein and House of Dracula muddy the water that much? I do, because I think that you're adding more cruft into the Universal mix than is necessary. If we wanted to focus on only the Frankenstein Quadrilogy of continuous sequels and leave out the shared universe aspect, you might have a better, more persuasive argument for the UM films continuing. As it is, you're taking two great films and two good enough films and shackling 5 or 6 more mediocre to terrible films to them and asking me to vote for the weight of averaged mediocrity. Ultimately, I'm kind of looking at this like the debate over the Romero Living Dead series vs. the Return of the Living Dead series, where RotLD has one outstanding, fantastic, better than almost anything film and a whole bunch of nothing weighing against it, vs. a trilogy of films that are not quite as good, but two are almost as good in their own right. (Plus some other not as good to outright bad sequels there.) I voted for the trio of good films over the one great film with a bunch of garbage weighing down on it; ultimately, I think a vote for the Child's Play series has to be made, following the same logic here. Burkion posted:And you don't want to bring the Mummy or Creature into this because then I'll just get to go on longer I almost want you to, because there's only one good Mummy movie out of five (The Mummy's Ghost, btw) and one good Creature movie out of three. The more of the Universal Monster sequels you add into the mix, the more you dilute the power of the few outstanding ones, and the more you make a vote for Chucky easier and more enticing. That's kind of the point I've been trying to make. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2020 02:18
|
|
|
Class3KillStorm posted:This is like arguing that Night of the Living Dead defined what being a cinematic zombie is when it didn't - it's the progenitor,
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2020 02:44
|
|
|
I didn't want to just leave off on sniping at Burkion's responses point by point, and wanted to post a more passionate defense of the Child's Play/<Noun> of Chucky series as a whole. And it's not that I don't think it's warranted. I think there's plenty to discuss there, about how Chucky's position preys upon your sense of rationality to his advantage (I mean, a doll can't hurt you, that's absurd. It's just a toy. It certainly can't stand up on its own, let alone hurl invectives into your face, let alone bleed or scream in pain or show human anatomy, let alone refuse to be put down by fire or bullets or other forms of punishment. That's absurd. And yet, there it is, doing just that, and the idea of it, taken seriously and literally, does a lot to upend your sense of perspective and safety just by the virtue of being.) There's plenty to discuss about the rest of the series and its setpieces and design. I mean, I can't think of any other film that makes cheery Banana Yellow as unnerving or frightening a color as Child's Play 2 does, with all those unnerving Chucky faces hanging around in the periphery of your vision everywhere you turn. The carnival setpiece at the end of Child's Play 3 doesn't make much sense, even in context, but it is a great collection of set design and atmosphere carrying things forward. And I'll never say no to a hellish red horror ride past a mountain of foam skulls, in any scenario. You could discuss Don Mancini's singular focus and commitment to adaptability with this franchise, and his desire to not let it stagnate after getting pushed into the (probably ill-advised) third one so fast. You could discuss the queer themes and focus on gender identity in Seed, which are admirable things to try even if the overall film doesn't really work on its own merits. You could discuss the horror reinvention in Curse, or its desire to not lose sight of everything that came before as the series' 25th anniversary celebration, either. You could talk about the radical direction shifting of Cult and the promise of where the series looks like it's going, and how [spoiler]we look to be turning a series about a lone killer doll into a lesbian Bonnie and Clyde road trip movie, which boggles the mind that it turned out that was even possible[/b]. Hell, unlike with the Universal Monsters series, we don't even really know what the future will be for the Chuckster, since he has a television series slated to come out next year and Mancini is talking about doing two more follow-up films after that. Thing is, I don't know that I'm the right person to make any of those arguments. Because, honestly, while it looks like Burkion is arguing with his head on the UM series, I can't help but look at the CP franchise with my heart. When I look at Child's Play 1, I don't just see a good slasher movie with an inventive villain, I see the boogeyman that terrified me as a child. I see the thing that absolutely poisoned my relationship with my My Buddy doll, who was pretty much my substitute friend for most of that period of my life. I see terror at seeing that title appear in the Green Pages TV listings for afternoon viewing, knowing that I would have to speed past those channels. I see the VHS copy that the local grocery store had in its video rental inventory, knowing where on the shelf it usually sat in the third row, the horror row. (That's the same grocery store that introduced me to the "Aliens vs. Predator" arcade game, for whatever that's worth.) I see the illicit thrill of knowing there was our own forgotten VHS tape in the hall closet with the last 20 something minutes of the film on it, where the film had been taped off of HBO and then partially taped over with 1960s Batman episodes in an attempt to get rid of it... and of watching said 20 minute segment at home alone some otherwise barely remembered summer afternoon. I don't just see Child's Play 2 as just a good slasher sequel with a dynamite finale and some great set design. I see my ninth birthday party, where me and my friends ended up watching the whole thing on USA, hacked up but safe for afternoon viewing. I see the thrill of seeing that title in the Green Pages, knowing I could pause on USA on random weekend afternoons and soak in the safe-enough-in-the-daytime experience. I see the random video kiosk at... Spencer's Gifts? Sam Goody, maybe? I think it was Sam Goody... some store in the mall, and seeing the button for the CP2 commercial. And I see me playing it, getting scared... and then needing to show my mom, hiding behind her while it played a second time, asking her as we walked away if it wasn't the scariest thing she'd ever seen. I see the horror at seeing the banner in a theater when going to see The Land Before Time with class mates. I see the Marvel Comics adaptation hiding in my dad's comic book collection, only partially complete (we never got issue #3). I see the illicit, haunting image of Chucky daring you to call his 1-900 number, an experience I never was brave enough to attempt. I see my pre-college self using the VHS copy rented from the Video Gallery store where I worked to torment my sisters in the summer before I left, and the time we watched a pirated from Limewire copy on my Macbook on the car ride home at the end of my first year. I don't just see Child's Play 3 as a better-than-its-reputation-suggests (but still not great) mid-tier slasher sequel. I see the mini poster we got from some Comic Con convention thing, when I was just there to see Darkwing Duck, dammit (say that three times fast!). I see that horrible poster image jumping out from the racks of VHS stores everywhere around town. I see the copy of Young Frankenstein taped off of USA that a friend and I kept returning to, because we saw the first commercial for the film during one of those random commercial breaks. I see the same USA thrills in the paper, knowing that I was better fortified for the more modern film. I see the argument another friend and I had over watching CP3 on USA or a "Mystery Science Theater 3000" hour repeat on NBC some random summer night. I see me as an adult, with a mini-habit of pairing this film with bad Chinese food as some odd comfort food of the spirit, something to do in the waning days of August as we move firmly into the Halloween build-up season in September. I don't just see Bride of Chucky as a good reinvention of the character in the post-Scream era, as one of the few good films to ape that film's sense of humor and detached irony. I see my 16th birthday party, renting the VHS from the same Movie Gallery, years before I worked there. And watching it again a day or so later on my own, at home, at night, on Halloween, when my sisters and parents were out trick-or-treating. God, I felt some stupid and brave then. I could go on, but this has already been weird and stupid and rambling enough as it is. My point is, more than anything else in this tournament, the Child's Play series means something to me, personally, in a way that most everything else doesn't, beyond a sense of film school appreciation or something on that level. I can appreciate Burkion making a detailed analysis of all of the Universal Monsters movies and speaking from a point of intellectual passion. But, in order to go along with that, I would have to vote against my heart, against a series that has kept circling around and around in my life in weird and stupid ways at weird and stupid times. And, while I might make that concession for other series, I just can't do that here. Not for this series. I can't. I won't. You shouldn't either. Vote Chucky. Timeless Appeal posted:Well that's not true Yeah, okay, if you want to argue for something like White Zombie or something else inspired by the Haitian voodoo legends in the 1930s and 40s, sure, technically. But that's not the image of zombies that the modern world knows and understands today, which all begins with George Romero's 1960s sci-fi take on a barely remembered monster that no one cared about. Class3KillStorm fucked around with this message at 05:19 on Apr 30, 2020 |
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2020 05:16
|
|
|
Class3KillStorm posted:Yeah, okay, if you want to argue for something like White Zombie or something else inspired by the Haitian voodoo legends in the 1930s and 40s, sure, technically. But that's not the image of zombies that the modern world knows and understands today, which all begins with George Romero's 1960s sci-fi take on a barely remembered monster that no one cared about. --Hordes of the undead swarming on people --Eating human flesh --Becoming a zombie after being attacked by one and dying from your wounds --Small group of mismatched people trying to survive --Humans are the real monsters --Shooting them in the head and destroying the brain Night of the Living Dead absolutely defined the platonic ideal of a zombie for most people.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2020 12:40
|
|
|
Class3KillStorm posted:
It hasn't helped that everyone seems to have forgotten the voodoo zombies. I don't think anything post Night's been done involving them aside from Serpent and the Rainbow, Zombie Nightmare, or the All Flesh Must Be Eaten RPG.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2020 12:48
|
|
|
After seeing Midsommar a week ago and really enjoying it, I thought I would check out Hereditary as it comes with a lot of fanfare. It was good, I guess, but it felt a little repetetive (which is what I guess Midsommar felt like to people who saw Hereditary first). We have themes of grief, cult-stuff and an ending in / in front of a wooden chapel. Don't get me wrong, I liked it, but didn't feel as strong as people make out. Still very nicely shot film though, but scooby-doo posessed mum flying up into the treehouse thing at the end was unintentionally funny.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2020 12:54
|
|
|
Not the right thread but all the humour in Hereditary was absolutely intentional.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2020 14:05
|
|
|
Ya'll should keep an eye on this post because I'm gonna be sampling it on the 3rd to remind everyone to read up on the entrants. I find it very telling no one has even bothered to talk about Night or Return of the Living Dead. It's possible I guess both franchises are just top-tier and it comes down to personal preference. But here's what I'll say: You should vote for Wishmaster. Here's my arguments: 1) Andrew Divoff. End of list. More in-depth explanation here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYHIJG_8z2E I'm not going to defend Wishmaster 3 and 4 at all, but honestly Friday the 13th has just as many stinkers, by percentage, as Wishmaster so that's a push. I think what I like most about it is that at no point is it even trying to be scary. This is 1997, we're well past the point of being scared of supernatural monsters, so Wishmaster goes the route of "we just got a studio to fund us and all our best friends in horror to make a love-letter to all the things that rule about horror, let's do it!" and it is just the best about it. The single greatest thing is, of course, Divoff's Djinn character, who (like Hannibal Lecter) never blinks when he's on camera. The Djinn is incredibly goofy (he's wearing a puffy power rangers villain outfit in half his scenes) but at the same time brims with menace, and it's all down to Divoff. He's as all-powerful as Freddy but instead of having a Bane of "must be asleep," it's "must actively ask for it" which focuses all the way to the core of the "Don't Go In There, Girl!" response part of the brain and just tongues that neuron receptor till it's burnt out. So yeah. Jason is cool and all but Wishmaster is just loving bonkers and never stops being fun (until Divoff leaves the franchise)
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2020 16:23
|
|
|
Oops! 'Scuse me, thought this was a general horror thread. That fuckup was intentional too  .
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2020 16:24
|
|
|
I have like three to four Friday the 13th sequels that I enjoy throwing on at least once a year so sorry, no sale. I'm probably voting against Jason next round though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2020 16:27
|
|
|
Shrecknet posted:I find it very telling no one has even bothered to talk about Night or Return of the Living Dead. It's possible I guess both franchises are just top-tier and it comes down to personal preference. I think the Night vs. Return series debate is ultimately a retread of the argument that has been made in the past, about having several very good films on the one side against one transcendent film with several other, lesser films weighing it down on the other. It's a hard call to make, since I think Return is one of the single greatest horror movies ever made, but 2 is pretty bad and 3 is only okay, and I know there's several more sequels that I have no honest interest in seeking out. It makes it harder to judge RotLD as a strong franchise in and of itself. Meanwhile, while I think that Return is better than any one single George Romero zombie movie, it's hard to say that Day of the Dead and Night of the Living Dead aren't very close to it, in terms of quality. I personally think Dawn of the Dead is a little too flabby and poorly paced in the middle to really be considered in the same stratosphere as the others, but it's still a good enough movie on its own merits. Those 3 together should offer enough firepower to overshadow RotLD 1 on its own - let alone RotLD 1 dragging several other films behind it - but I guess it's ultimately down to how much you think something like Diary of the Dead or Survival of the Dead should weigh against the trilogy. (FWIW, I'm indifferent to Land of the Dead, so I figure it's a wash when trying to rate that one as a pro or con.)
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2020 16:57
|
|
|
Class3KillStorm posted:It's a hard call to make, since I think Return is one of the single greatest horror movies ever made.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2020 17:14
|
|
|
Shrecknet posted:One Linnea Quigley striptease does not make it that great. I really just don't see what you do. It's a muddled, confused movie that is trying to run two or three plots concurrently, none of which work until they abandon that and just put everyone in the same funeral home. Meanwhile, everything that isn't the costumes and makeup looks like sub-Mac and Me-quality garbage. Boo this man
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2020 17:31
|
|
|
Shrecknet posted:One Linnea Quigley striptease does not make it that great. I really just don't see what you do. It's a muddled, confused movie that is trying to run two or three plots concurrently, none of which work until they abandon that and just put everyone in the same funeral home. Meanwhile, everything that isn't the costumes and makeup looks like sub-Mac and Me-quality garbage. Haaaaaaaaard disagree on all points. Also, I can attest from showing it to my Spooky Night group, it’s genuinely scary at many parts. And living through the rigor mortis process while your brains feel like they’re on fire from agony is incredibly disturbing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2020 17:42
|
|
|
I honestly don't think there is a Friday the 13th that doesn't have something that I like. It's irrelevant for the competition it's about to face, but the Romero movies are only of the four big seeded franchises that I would definitely vote over Friday without questioning it. I think I'd absolutely vote Friday over Halloween. Halloween is a masterpiece, but Friday is much better at being a trashy franchise.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2020 17:48
|
|
|
The striptease isn't necessarily defensible but I don't find it particularly objectionable. Yeah, it's cheesecake, but cheesecake fits in that heightened comic book reality that's playing with the seedier and more exploitative parts of old horror comics. It doesn't feel extraneous to me because it fits with the relatable but misguided punk attitudes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2020 17:52
|
|
|
Shrecknet posted:One Linnea Quigley striptease does not make it that great. I really just don't see what you do. It's a muddled, confused movie that is trying to run two or three plots concurrently, none of which work until they abandon that and just put everyone in the same funeral home. Meanwhile, everything that isn't the costumes and makeup looks like sub-Mac and Me-quality garbage.  Franchescanado posted:Haaaaaaaaard disagree on all points.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2020 17:57
|
|
|
There's no reason to short change RotLD, a truly great film in its own right, but I don't think it completely lives up to any of the first three in Romero's Dead series, including Day which came out the same year. Romero's Dead movies are even more hostile, even more desperate, yet almost always exhilarating (though I can agree with Dawn having a little flab, but that really gets more into nitpick territory than serious issues). I mean, Night is my pick for the single greatest film in this entire bracket, comparable to and surpassing Evil Dead II, Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Halloween, and Frankenstein. It's honestly no contest for me. I'll admit I haven't seen Romero's second trilogy, so I'm not really factoring those in there. But I can't imagine they would be bad enough to weigh down the impact of those first three films, which are among the finest films ever made in any genre.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2020 17:57
|
|
|
There's a defense of NotLD inside me, but I just know it's going to inflate and inflate into a 10,000 word thesis, and that'll just be the section on Dawn.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2020 18:00
|
|
|
feedmyleg posted:The striptease isn't necessarily defensible but I don't find it particularly objectionable. Yeah, it's cheesecake, but cheesecake fits in that heightened comic book reality that's playing with the seedier and more exploitative parts of old horror comics. It doesn't feel extraneous to me because it fits with the relatable but misguided punk attitudes. Shrecknet posted:I'll be honest. I think Wrong Turn is a perfectly cromulent franchise and has spectacular practical gore effects and a satisfying nastiness that harkens back to Day of the Dead. But: Shrecknet fucked around with this message at 18:06 on Apr 30, 2020 |
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2020 18:04
|
|
|
Shrecknet posted:One Linnea Quigley striptease does not make it that great. I really just don't see what you do. It's a muddled, confused movie that is trying to run two or three plots concurrently, none of which work until they abandon that and just put everyone in the same funeral home. Meanwhile, everything that isn't the costumes and makeup looks like sub-Mac and Me-quality garbage.  I can take plenty of criticisms against this movie but saying the plot is overburden and confusing is pretty mind-boggling. Also I don’t know about “ignore costumes and makeup” in a thread about horror films- those are integral parts as they are in many, many genre films. I overrate this movie because the (incredible) music, design, and sense of humor happen to really align with my personal preferences. But that doesn’t discount how influential and iconic it is. The hilarious and tragic interactions that James Karen and Thom Matthews have are by themselves worthy of plenty of praise. WeaponX fucked around with this message at 18:35 on Apr 30, 2020 |
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2020 18:18
|
|
|
Shrecknet posted:You misunderstand: Ah, I see. Then yeah I fully disagree with you. To me everything about RotLD is the ideal horror movie from the tone to the production design to the internal logic to the social commentary to the effects to the acting to the humor to the etc etc. If I had to find a single thing to complain about it's that it doesn't lean into its EC Comics visuals as much as it could have when zombies aren't on screen—if the lighting had more of that 4-color Creepshow vibe to it, it would be the perfect movie. That and As it stands it's definitely a top 5 of all time for me. As much as I dig NotLD it's not one I often want to return to because it's a goddamn bummer. But I also haven't seen the rest of the series because I like saving some horror classics for rainy days, but I should probably jump on board with this as an excuse. e: okay, thought of a second thing I'd change: have Suicide live longer, because a passionate punk poet should have as much screentime as possible. feedmyleg fucked around with this message at 18:35 on Apr 30, 2020 |
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2020 18:32
|
|
|
I'm voting for Romero but I believe Return of the Living Dead is the best zombie movie ever made. It's just that Romero made three that are on about the same level, even if I don't like any of them quite as much as Return.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2020 18:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 19:47 |
|
|
I love Return and it might be one my Top 10 horrors, definitely one the most rewatchable Halloween type movies or things I'd suggest if someone was like "I want a fun horror night". But Night is one of my favorite movies of all time. Return only exists because of Night. Night has at least 2 sequels that people love. Even the 3rd is fine. It only gets bad when Romero gets old and is kind of mailing it in on small budgets. I just feel like this is a self evident vote. I'm not saying everyone is gonna choose Night. I wouldn't be shocked if Return won. Upset, but not shocked. I think this place's tastes tend to lean more towards Return. But I think everyone knows what they're doing here and there's no real undecided voters in this race. Either you love or respect Romero's films enough that they win easily, or you just love the one good Return movie so much that nothing else matters.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2020 18:37
|
|