Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
lizardman
Jun 30, 2007

by R. Guyovich
I had some very mixed feelings coming out of this one. The movie is a lot of fun when it's being dumb and gory and outrageous--- but those moments are surprisingly sparse. There is a good 20-minute stretch where it feels like nothing's happening (did they really think anybody would care about the love triangle?) and the movie was at times an utter bore. Also, the second the Tom guy started popping pills, I knew he was the killer with a split-personality

The 3D's definitely the whole reason to see the movie, but I do wonder if it's really "the future of movies!" like we're hearing out of some industry players. This probably isn't the right movie to judge this on, but while it was enjoyable, the 3D still had a pop-up book feel to it (aside from the instances where you could see the ground/floor and it go into depth smoothly) and all my favorite instances of the 3D were in those moments when things were sticking out to the camera for their cheesy charm. The 3D certainly didn't save those moments that were boring.

I do think I lost out by attending a more sparsely-attended, quieter audience showing though.

EDIT: Did anyone else notice a flash/spotlight or something sweep over the audience whenever the on-screen killer's helment-mounted light appeared? Maybe it was someone else in the audience trying to be funny but it'd be pretty cool if this was an intentional part of the experience.

lizardman fucked around with this message at 00:26 on Jan 26, 2009

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

lizardman
Jun 30, 2007

by R. Guyovich
Oh, I'm afraid this one didn't work for me at all.

I felt there were two ways you could handle a Friday remake: to Casino Royale/The Dark Knight it and try to transcend the material or to all-out homage the originals. This felt like they tried to have it both ways (I suspect the director wanted to do the former and the screenwriters wanted to do the latter) and to me this is a movie with a crippling identity crisis.

Add to that my personal little nitpicks: I don't think the ultra-slick look suits this movie (especially since it's a near direct lift from TCM 03 - and it worked better there since it's a more earnest movie than this one); I didn't find Jason's appearance very scary; the final chase felt weak to me (and while not as bad as some other movies, the camera still shook around too much for my tastes); and the scares were telegraphed via satellite and always on the exact beat expected (and personally I dislike it when the end credits roll precisely after a jump scare). I'll also admit it bugged me that the main plot had absolutely nothing to do with summer camp, but again that's a personal little nitpick.

Props to Nana Visitor though, for making a great Mrs. Voorhees.

lizardman
Jun 30, 2007

by R. Guyovich
^^^ I don't mind a jump scare at the end as long as it's not the very last thing that happens. The first Friday has the infamous Jason-pops-outta-the-lake shock, but there's still a little bit of movie left afterward.

To me it just seems kind of cheap when it's literally *BOO!*, *roll credits*

lizardman
Jun 30, 2007

by R. Guyovich
Was that Carrie Fisher?

lizardman
Jun 30, 2007

by R. Guyovich
This thing hs become so far removed from the original Halloween concept that it actually doesn't even bother me anymore. It's so very clearly it's own thing.

That said, we already have a perfectly good unstoppable killing manchild with a mommy complex, there's no need for another one.

lizardman
Jun 30, 2007

by R. Guyovich

Doctor Claw posted:

So, the forum is in consensus that Halloween, Halloween 4, and Halloween: H20 are the best in the original series? After seeing H2 (2009) I've been in a mood for more ever since.


Honestly there 's never been a fully satisfying Halloween sequel, but that's about the cream of the crop right there. You might also want to check out the original Halloween II since it it atleast captures the look and feel of the first one even if the story sucks. I'm not much of a fan of Halloween 4 but some fans swear by it so I guess it couldn't hurt to check it out. H2O is actually kind of dull in parts and feels like a Scream clone at times, but Jamie Lee Curtis and the ending make it worth it.

lizardman
Jun 30, 2007

by R. Guyovich
Re: Final Destination, I always liked the concept that it wasn't necessarily DEATH incarnate that was behind everything but rather the universe itself. That predeterminism was true to the point that even if you could change your fate the entire universe would work to correct you because it MUST happen.

lizardman
Jun 30, 2007

by R. Guyovich

Hollis posted:

Someone just showed me the movie The Poughkeepsie tapes which I had not seen, thats a pretty interesting film. Not amazing but definitely good with what they had. The talking heads get annoying but other than that I liked it as a whole Mockumentary / Slasher film.


Not sure if it really counts as a slaher flick, but I'll throw my two cents in about Poughkeepsie. For the most part it's an enjoyable flick, even if the acting is never 100% convincing. Some of the mock found-footage scenes, however, do approach a kind of uncomfortable line of distaste: even though of course it's fake, it's supposed to look like actual torture/murder footage as much as possible, so in effect we're supposed to be getting a thrill from watching people get murdered. It leaves a bad taste in the mouth in parts. If the movie ever actually gets released (it was made in, what 2006?), I imagine they might cut a bit of the video footage, especially since some of them go on for a while.

But whenever the movie's trying to be the biggest, baddest episode of Forensics Files or Unsolved Mysteries, it's a hoot.

lizardman
Jun 30, 2007

by R. Guyovich
Oh wow, they managed to get Neve Campbell back. The last I heard she had declined, so that's cool. Here's hoping Wes Craven signs on.

The timing's OK by me. People were burnt out on Scream in the early 2000s so it's good they took a long break. They can work out the "10 years later!" angle in the marketing.

bad movie knight posted:

I hear they nixed this idea a while ago and Scream 4 will be a bona fide sequel, but who the gently caress knows.

Maybe Scream 4 will gets its meta-mileage by riffing on sequels to trilogies that were never supposed to have sequels, but I can count on one hand how many movies this has actually been true of.

Or maybe this will be a sequel AND a reboot, to riff on this trend...

The best way to do it would be a sequel, but the killer is trying to "reboot" everything, co-inciding with "Stab" getting a remake.

(I always thought it'd be cool to have a Scream spinoff that's in the "real world" and Scream is an actual in-universe movie itself, and the killer is imitating the movie. Thing is Scream already kind of does this itself with "Stab" so hey).

I wonder what the "Rules of a Remake!" would be.

lizardman
Jun 30, 2007

by R. Guyovich

Slasherfan posted:

Promo art for Scream 4

You have got to be kidding me.

Edit: Well, as long as it's not an actual poster in theaters or anything

lizardman fucked around with this message at 09:56 on Nov 6, 2009

lizardman
Jun 30, 2007

by R. Guyovich
^^^
That's about what it's always looked like, yeah.

lizardman
Jun 30, 2007

by R. Guyovich
I actually thought Screams 2 & 3 were pretty solid all things considering.

lizardman
Jun 30, 2007

by R. Guyovich
^^ Oh, no doubt Scream 3 is the weakest (and tamest) of the trilogy, but I'll give it props for actually coming up with a "the gang goes to a wacky new location!" story that actually makes thematic sense with the series (a horror movie set), I dug Parker Posey's character, and it even just continuing the series' tradition of extended set pieces and chase sequences (seriously, before Scream most slasher flicks had one MAYBE two chase scenes in the entire movie) with Craven's tight direction and the movie's still a hit for me. That knife handle gag was a riot, too.

lizardman
Jun 30, 2007

by R. Guyovich

DrVenkman posted:

So any slither of hope I had for Scream 4 has gone out of the window now that Ehren loving Kruger has been brought in to do rewrites on the film. Lauren Graham walked off the project because her character was reduced to a few lines (Which is a shame as she's generally great). Hasn't it started shooting already? Just how far into production do you need to go before you decide to completely rewrite a script?

Oh God no!

The one possible good thing is that hopefully this kills the "start of a new trilogy" bullshit Kevin Williamson kept spouting off on. I don't want a new trilogy that focuses on new people with the main stars of the first three in the background (or worse, all get killed off). I want a (a!) reunion movie with Sidney, Dewey, and Gale front and center. Perhaps that's what they're doing now? It would fall in line with them cutting down on the new characters' parts.

Thing is it's WAY too into production for me to be comfortable with.

lizardman
Jun 30, 2007

by R. Guyovich
As for Paranormal Activity 2, I have so many mixed feelings about it. I don't mind them making a second one, and I have a feeling they're going about it the right way: this is an instance where I think everybody does simply want to see the first one again only bigger and badder. But, like I said about Scream above, I don't want this to become some ongoing series.

Thing is though (and this might not totally be fair since we don't even know if this footage will be in the movie or if the movie will even really look like this) the footage already looks too in-authentic; coming across convincingly enough as "real" footage was pretty much the key to get the heebie-jeebies going in the first one. The trailer looks like a movie trying to look like real footage.

lizardman
Jun 30, 2007

by R. Guyovich

Slasherfan posted:

I'm wondering of Paranormal Activity 2 will be as big a hit as the first one. Working in a video store I've had a lot of angry people returning it complaining about it. But I've also had people saying they couldn't sleep a wink after watching it.

I think it'll be about half as successful as the first one, which would actally still be pretty good considering I'm sure it's not a very expensive movie.

lizardman
Jun 30, 2007

by R. Guyovich

Small White Dragon posted:

Hope this is the right place to ask, I did a google search across the forums, and came up with nothing, so...

Anybody know anything about the upcoming "Apollo 18" movie?

The poster looks vaguely horror-esque.

It's another found footage movie apparently.

lizardman
Jun 30, 2007

by R. Guyovich

FoneBone posted:

Apollo 18 got moved to January 6, 2012. Definitely not a good sign.

This was supposed to release next month. What in the gently caress?

lizardman
Jun 30, 2007

by R. Guyovich

Xenomrph posted:

But in the end it does. Mac and the others realize that the only way to "win" is to destroy the camp and prevent it from getting to civilization, so they end up blowing up the makeshift UFO, blowing up the camp, and ultimately accepting that death is their only option if they want to save the world.

Exactly. The design was literally done because James Cameron thought it would look cool, and he offhandedly suggested it to Stan Winston while on a plane ride.

Also I'd say that 'Predator' was more of a deconstruction of 80s action movies (especially with the otherwise by-the-book 80s action movie setup up until about when Hawkings gets killed) and American hunting culture, but that's just my interpretation.

It isn't so much that authorial intent assumes the author is an idiot, it's that sometimes the simplest answer is, in fact, the best or most-correct one. Sometimes the director or writer just wants to see something that looks visually interesting or whatever. In 'Alien', Ridley Scott shot the alien egg upside down so that the water droplets on it would flow "upward" in the movie. There was no hidden symbolism or deeper meaning to the droplets, or why he filmed the egg that way, beyond "the drops flowing upward would be creepy and unsettling". That was literally the conscious reason why he did it that way.
Sometimes movies get changed because of financial or technical decisions that prevent the "true vision" from being realized, for instance. Originally the Alien was supposed to be translucent - it was going to be essentially identical in design, but translucent. The reason that didn't happen is because there was no practical way to make that effect work with a guy in a suit. But if they had made it work, I imagine there'd be all kinds of talks about the symbolism of the translucency and whatever, just as there's people who talk about the blackness of the Alien representing filmmaker's desires to demonstrate the unknowable depths of space and soulless Lovecraftian horrors and the like, when the real reason it's black is because the translucency effects didn't work.
Or in 'Alien3', you can get different meanings out of the Alien being born from an ox or from a dog (depending on the version of the movie you watch), and it's amusing to see people talk about the Alien taking "dog-like" actions throughout the movie... when all the adult Alien scenes were filmed under the assumption that the to-be-filmed ox-bursting scenes would work as planned (meaning that the adult Alien as filmed was, at the time of filming, assumed to be born from the ox and is not "dog-like" at all).

People read into a lot of stuff, and it can be an interesting interpretation or viewpoint, but they don't always hold up.

The meaning the receiver hears is more important than the one the messenger intends.

lizardman
Jun 30, 2007

by R. Guyovich

Xenomrph posted:

You say the phrase "exactly the point of it" as if it's a well-established concrete fact. I think it's that sort of phrasing that turns me off to wacky film interpretation and analysis. Seeing different interpretations and whatnot is neat - I liked the earlier discussion about the Thing as a female and the "artificial intelligence" idea, that was an interesting way to look at it. But saying things as if they were obvious factual intentional choices done by the filmmaker strikes me as pretentious as hell. Especially if, as lizardman said, the audience's perception is more important than the messenger's intention. If that's the case, then saying "the filmmaker obviously meant [x]" is really silly, when what you're really saying is "the audience perceived [x]".
Really it's not the actual film analysis and whatever that I don't like, it's the way it's commonly presented.

I guess I'm just an unwashed plebeian, I dunno. :saddowns:

I'm actually with you on this, for the most part (though I think you should be careful not to confuse "the film is obviously saying this" with "the author is obviously saying this"). Movies are such a collaborative medium that a lot of the time I think the deeper themes are usually accidents. I think it would distress the likes of SMG to know how often this is the case. I honestly don't think McTiernan or John Carpenter really thought their respective monsters were inherently representative of femininity; and even with Alien, the sexual imagery is obvious, but I think Ridley Scott's primary motivation for employing it is "it looks really cool" ("interesting" is probably how we would put it).

That said, a work of art is out of the author's hands once it's committed. A film says what it says as long as what's on screen follows.

lizardman
Jun 30, 2007

by R. Guyovich

flashy_mcflash posted:

But I don't remember a rash of horrors that tried to recapture Blair Witch's lightning in a bottle (unless you count Blair Witch 2, hahaha) after that movie was successful either.

Two reasons for that:

1) At the time Blair Witch's found footage aesthetic was so distinct that anything coming out after it would have been a little too "it's just a Blair Witch RIPOFF!"

2) The Blair Witch Project had the most severe case of movie hype backlash of all time. A lot of people HAAAAAAAATED it (and still do). To this day I have still not seen a more polarizing mainstream movie.

lizardman
Jun 30, 2007

by R. Guyovich

Slasherfan posted:

Does anyone know why we are getting screwed over with Scream 4 in the UK? It was a big hit over here yet the blu ray has no features on it what so ever.

I don't know the specifics but the video rights to Scream 4 belong to different companies in the US/UK. The US rightsholders managed to snag the features. Same reason there's not going to be a boxset with all four movies, someone else has the video rights to the first three.

lizardman
Jun 30, 2007

by R. Guyovich
While we're on the subject of New Nightmare, can someone explain the meta-ness to me? It's been quite a while since I've seen it and if I remember right it pretty much begins and ends with the fact that "Freddy is in THE REAL WORLD now!" Is there more to it?

EDIT: I guess what I'm asking is, does it mean anything that Freddy's in the real world or is it just a cool gimmick?

lizardman
Jun 30, 2007

by R. Guyovich

ZombieParts posted:

It wasn't well done but apparently the film is saying that evil forces exist, and in the process of dreaming up this film, Wes Craven gave evil the Freddy Krueger identity making it real. The film will capture this evil by giving it an outlet to express itself. Heather Langenkamp had become the literal personification of good somehow, so Freddy is after her because she's who stops him in the film. And if she's dead she can't do that and he can be evil forever.

Some poo poo like that..

Sounds like a "horror movies are a public good because they're an outlet for the dark side of human nature and without them we'd all be killing each other" type of theme. Which is fine, I just thought there might've been something deeper considering the movie has fans that hold it in such high esteem.

lizardman
Jun 30, 2007

by R. Guyovich
Re: New Nightmare, I think it's a solid movie, too (at least from what I can remember from when I saw it like ten years ago). I guess what gets me in regards to this discussion is that New Nightmare is meta without ever really becoming a deconstruction or providing really meaningful commentary; arguing that horror movies are a positive outlet is nice and all but it falls short of the it-does-Scream-better-than-Scream sentiment some people have (even Ebert said something like this, I think)

lizardman fucked around with this message at 18:01 on Aug 30, 2011

lizardman
Jun 30, 2007

by R. Guyovich
Friday the 13th Part 2 really opened the floodgates. It came out before even Halloween II and when it was a hit it pretty much let Hollywood know, "Yes, you really CAN just make the same movie over again and people will see it!"

Though way back in the day Universal developed franchises of sorts with their classic movie monsters like Dracula and Frankenstein and The Wolfman.

lizardman
Jun 30, 2007

by R. Guyovich

Dissapointed Owl posted:

Just in case anybody was wondering, this was... surprisingly good. Way better than the actual Paranormal Activity 2. Although it does retread a lot from the first Paranormal Activity.

Definitely worth checking out if you liked the PA movies. Hell, this one has a better and more interesting (little) backstory that ties back to the first PA than PA2 did.

How/ where did you see it?

lizardman
Jun 30, 2007

by R. Guyovich

SuperMechagodzilla posted:

Because it was so poorly conveyed that I'm pretty sure no-one recognized that's what happened.

No one recognized it but you, isn't that right SuperMechagodzilla? Oh, you are such a genius :allears:

lizardman
Jun 30, 2007

by R. Guyovich

wormil posted:

Last night I rewatched Scream ('96), it had been a long time since I'd seen it. The middle dragged more than I remember but the beginning and end are excellent, still a fun movie. One and three are on Netflix streaming but oddly two is dvd only. Hopefully I have it on dvd around here somewhere.

2's been on streaming before, for whatever reason they never have all the Screams up at the same time.

lizardman
Jun 30, 2007

by R. Guyovich
Man, Scream is such a great movie. It would be great if someone could start a big Scream thread!

lizardman
Jun 30, 2007

by R. Guyovich

Cinnamon Bastard posted:

I'd like a horror-concept critique please.

This is an idea some friends and I fleshed out back in highschool (goddamn, that was a decade ago) for a horror movie. We wanted a monster/slasher/stalker film where the murdering antagonist is completely unknown.

Do you know how it would end?

lizardman
Jun 30, 2007

by R. Guyovich
If I'm remembering right, isn't Phantoms like a metaphysical version of The Thing? Except they don't really play up the whole "it could be one of US!" bit.

lizardman
Jun 30, 2007

by R. Guyovich

Rageaholic Monkey posted:

How? I've heard this before and I don't get it. I saw Let Me In in theaters and it seemed like a shot for shot remake of the original with none of the amazing atmosphere of the original.

Shot-for-shot is usually a term used pretty literally.

lizardman
Jun 30, 2007

by R. Guyovich

ClydeUmney posted:

Is the ending really this? There's no ending. Nothing is resolved. It ends at the height of the action and tells you to visit the website. The movie is actually just a giant advertisement for an ARG game. Because that might be the funniest, most insultingly stupid thing I've ever heard of a movie doing.

They could have at least told us the Devil died on his way back to his home planet or something.

lizardman
Jun 30, 2007

by R. Guyovich
I will be SUPREMELY disappointed if The Devil Inside doesn't drop at least 75% next weekend. Come on, you got the rare CinemaScore of 'F'*, don't let us down Devil Inside, let's see how low you can go!

(*For reference, a score of "B-" is usually considered pretty mediocre on this poll...)

lizardman
Jun 30, 2007

by R. Guyovich
If anyone was tempted to go to a Devil Inside screening just to see the audience reaction to being trolled, someone's done the work for you: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pX41IJ8xHGY

(I hope this isn't :filez:)

lizardman
Jun 30, 2007

by R. Guyovich
I'm well aware of the spotty reputation of Wes Craven's body of work, but from what I have seen (the Screams, Nightmare on Elm Street, Red Eye), his direction was always on point even if the scripts occasionally don't hold up. I can't really accept that he just lucks himself into sudden competence every so often. I think it's more likely that he just phones it in a LOT.

Scream 4 kinda suffered with not having as elaborate set pieces as its series brethren, but I think he rung about as much suspense as you could from the script. I distinctly recall the scene where a girl opens a door to prove there's no killer behind it, and there's this tree standing there in the background in the center of the doorframe. It struck me because it was dark out and the tree kind of looked like a shadowy figure and I kept watching it in case it actually was a shadowy figure, or perhaps the killer was hiding behind it, or something because it was so predominant in the frame. Craven made that short scene twice as effective with just a drat tree. Guy's got talent.

lizardman
Jun 30, 2007

by R. Guyovich
When the guy explains that he's going to place the camera on an oscillating fan platform, he should have looked at the camera with an evil gleam to his eyes and said, "....for MAXIMUM terror!"

lizardman
Jun 30, 2007

by R. Guyovich
This is like... the exact polar opposite of an "upcoming" horror movie since it was released in 1986 but I just want to say I just saw April Fool's Day on Netflix for the first time after hearing for so long that it was infamous for some reason and I gotta say I enjoyed it.

It was a pleasant surprise seeing Biff from Back to the Future in this as well as Amy Steel from Friday the 13 Parth 2 (man she was a scream queen, wasn't she?) and I liked the characters here a lot more than most 80s slasher flicks.

Oh, and of course I gotta mention at the end all I could say was "No loving way. No loving way would they go there!" They went there.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

lizardman
Jun 30, 2007

by R. Guyovich
I feel like we were just talking about the Friday the 13th movies/remake and then I remembered we had that Friday the 13th thread that just kind of fizzled :(

Anyhow it isn't so much that Friday the 13th 2009 has the wrong tone so much that it can't decide on which one tone to stick with. Sometimes it's campy and sometimes it's really nasty and the movie never quite gels together.

As for the Rob Zombie Halloween flicks, I always say that Halloween 2007 isn't 'good' but it is interesting to watch. Halloween II 2009 is probably even worse.... but it's even more interesting.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5