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 $3,400 per month for bandwidth bills alone, and since we don't believe in shoving popup ads to our registered users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
«3 »
  • Locked thread
lizardman
Jun 30, 2007

by R. Guyovich




They remade Poltergeist, and you know what? I'M A-OKAY WITH THAT.

Because honestly - and I remember mentioning this a while back on CineD somewhere - I think the original Poltergiest has become a lot more forgotten than it deserves. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe it's left a pop-culture footprint that's still there and I've just missed it, but considering I was responding to a post where someone was all "Hey guys I saw this movie from the 80s called Poltergeist and it kicked rear end anybody else seen it too?" I don't think I'm way off here. I say anything that gets Poltergeist back into the public eye and remind people people who Insidious and The Conjuring call their daddy is a net positive in my book.

I wish I had time for a meaty original post, but here's a quick rundown to get things started:

POLTERGEIST is a 1982 supernatural horror film directed by Tobe Hooper (of Texas Chain Saw Massacre fame) and co-written and produced by some guy you might have heard of named Steven Spielberg, starring Craig T. Nelson (from "Coach" and The Incredibles) and JoBeth Williams (I think this might've been her most famous role, but she's had a fruitful career over the decades and you've definitely seen her in something). The story revolves around a family that moves into a new house in the suburbs, only to discover some ghosts already live there, and they're not exactly happy...

What sets Poltergeist apart, aside from simply being high-quality, is that it's still the biggest and baddest haunted house movie I can think of. I love the crescendo where the 'basic' paranormal haunting stuff happens (objects moving on their own, etc.) and things just keep escalating until all hell breaks loose and then it goes even farther. Let's just say if the remake doesn't end with the walls exploding with scores of rotting skeletons I'm going to be sorely disappointed!

Some interesting talking points:
- This is one of the movies that started the conversation that eventually led to the creation of the PG-13 rating.

- There's been persistent speculation over just how much influence Spielberg had on the movie... really, the movie looks and feels exactly like classic Spielberg. Many think that Spielberg was tied by contractual obligations (he was doing E.T. at the same time) and his clever ploy to get out of this was to ghost-direct Poltergeist and let another talented director he respected take the official credit. In an interview, actress Zelda Rubenstein (who played the psychic lady in the film) seemed to suggest a less flattering scenario: that Tobe Hooper was high as a kite during most of the production and Spielberg had to step in and ghost-direct to salvage the movie.

- A popular urban legend that grew around the movie and its sequels posited that they were cursed and caused the deaths of many of the cast not long after production. Really, two of these deaths were from actors that were either very old or terminally ill (or both) before production so a 'curse' doesn't seem terribly apt. Mostly, the legend is fueled by the untimely deaths of two of the younger actors from the films: Dominique Dunn (who played the teenage daughter) was killed by her boyfriend in 1982, and Heather O'Rourke (who played the family's youngest daughter, Carol Anne) died from complications of Crohn's Disease in 1986).

- If you were alive in the 80s and 90s and people kept saying "they're heeeeeeeere" or "they're baaaaaaaaack" (like this thread title) this was a meme started by the Poltergeist movies (I didn't realize this until I actually saw the movies years later).

- Poltergeist II and Poltergeist III are predictably not as good as the first, but they're both worth a watch, and Poltergiest II has a specific credit for "The Vomit Creature" and has a pretty nifty poster, to boot:

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

gey muckle mowser
Aug 5, 2003

Do you know anything about...
witches?


Buglord

I saw a 35mm print of this last weekend at a local horror movie marathon, it's still one of my favorite 80's horror films. Oliver Robins, who played the boy Robbie, was there and did a little Q&A afterwards, he got asked basically the standard dumb questions but he did talk about Spielberg a bit and I thought it was interesting even if it wasn't news to anyone. Spielberg was on set for the majority of the filming and was very hands-on with everything (not shocking) - for example during the face-tearing scene it was actually Spielberg who stood there and tore the flesh off of the fake head. He said Hooper was definitely the director but there were many times that Spielberg stepped in and took control. I mean, if you're on set and Steven fuckin' Spielberg says "hey I think you should do it this way", you're probably gonna listen to him. He didn't comment on Hooper being high.

Also Robins seemed like a cool dude, he was hanging out in the lobby for the rest of the day "signing autographs" but I don't think anyone really cared about having his autograph. I talked to him for like 10 minutes about Twin Peaks. I think he was stoned. Good times.

lizardman
Jun 30, 2007

by R. Guyovich


Derailing my own thread for a sec, I always found the "signing autographs" portion of celebrity public appearances to be awkward and uncomfortable, especially if they're charging for them. Especially since it's nearly always lesser-known celebs that do them; it makes me feel like we're giving them donations or something. Honestly the whole convention thing feels bizarre and mildly exploitative for reasons I can't quite pin down.

VincentPrice
Jun 26, 2009


lizardman posted:

Derailing my own thread for a sec, I always found the "signing autographs" portion of celebrity public appearances to be awkward and uncomfortable, especially if they're charging for them. Especially since it's nearly always lesser-known celebs that do them; it makes me feel like we're giving them donations or something. Honestly the whole convention thing feels bizarre and mildly exploitative for reasons I can't quite pin down.

It's how they make a living. How do you think Doug Bradley (Pinhead from the Hellraiser movies) puts food on the table?

Is this thread about the remake? It's mostly about how much you love the original (it's a great flick, who can blame you?). I don't give a poo poo about the remake, there's nothing about it that makes me want to see it. But I'm also not one to claim my childhood/the genre/the original is being raped because someone made a no-effort movie to cash in on name recognition, so eh.

lizardman
Jun 30, 2007

by R. Guyovich


You're free to talk about anything and everything Poltergeist related. I think the remake looks decent enough, and it actually looks like it might be kind of scary, so hey.

Here's Jim Carrey doing his impression of the infamous "face" scene:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMhP6-YLpCg

gey muckle mowser
Aug 5, 2003

Do you know anything about...
witches?


Buglord

lizardman posted:

Derailing my own thread for a sec, I always found the "signing autographs" portion of celebrity public appearances to be awkward and uncomfortable, especially if they're charging for them. Especially since it's nearly always lesser-known celebs that do them; it makes me feel like we're giving them donations or something. Honestly the whole convention thing feels bizarre and mildly exploitative for reasons I can't quite pin down.

I agree, I understand that many of them make their living going to conventions and selling poo poo, but it still feels a bit awkward to me. I've never gotten one and I don't see myself doing it in the future, but if it makes some fans happy and the celebrities some extra cash, it's a good thing I guess.

On topic, I'm somewhat looking forward to the remake and I hope they do something new and interesting with it. Worst case I think it will just be forgettable and unnecessary.

Zogo
Jul 29, 2003



lizardman posted:

Because honestly - and I remember mentioning this a while back on CineD somewhere - I think the original Poltergiest has become a lot more forgotten than it deserves. I don't think I'm way off here.

I've thought the same thing.


lizardman posted:

Poltergeist II and Poltergeist III are predictably not as good as the first, but they're both worth a watch, and Poltergiest II has a specific credit for "The Vomit Creature" and has a pretty nifty poster, to boot:

Classic moments from part II:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n83c1aFWkOs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ISy4yjdYQk

Neo Rasa
Mar 8, 2007
Everyone should play DUKE games.



Daveski posted:

I agree, I understand that many of them make their living going to conventions and selling poo poo, but it still feels a bit awkward to me. I've never gotten one and I don't see myself doing it in the future, but if it makes some fans happy and the celebrities some extra cash, it's a good thing I guess.

It's literally how they pay the bills, it's a job. For a lot of celebrities it's not "extra cash," It's "cash." I mean you can shell out $100+ for autographs from much more famous people too and fans are happy to do that as well. But if I somehow were in a situation where I did something iconic that people loved but I wasn't filthy rich I'd be at every convention/screening I could reasonably schedule myself to be at too.

Anyways if people were curious here's the trailer for the remake itself:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ViWTPto3atU

Doesn't look particularly bad or amazing, I'll check it out. The trailer does seem to ape the gradual ramping up of minor stuff to major stuff happening that the first movie does. Hopefully it does some things differently, otherwise not much point in it existing.

Neo Rasa fucked around with this message at Apr 26, 2015 around 03:19

Modus Operandi
Oct 5, 2010


It seems like they are putting in more clown action this time and more creepy clown is always a good thing in a horror movie. Poltergeist is pretty timeless though, it has that weird 80's charm to it that's hard to replicate.

lizardman
Jun 30, 2007

by R. Guyovich



The two things that come to mind upon rewatching this clip are (1) of course, how skin-crawlingly creepy Reverend Kane is and (2) it's a shame Patrick Wilson was already in Insidious because holy cow would he have been the perfect successor to Craig T. Nelson

EDIT - Re: celebrity meet 'n greet chat:

Neo Rasa posted:

It's literally how they pay the bills, it's a job. For a lot of celebrities it's not "extra cash," It's "cash." I mean you can shell out $100+ for autographs from much more famous people too and fans are happy to do that as well. But if I somehow were in a situation where I did something iconic that people loved but I wasn't filthy rich I'd be at every convention/screening I could reasonably schedule myself to be at too.

Yeah, I suspected this was the case and it's what helps fuel the "giving donations" feeling. As if these events were some kind of telethon to "feed our B-(and C- and D-) list movie stars". Of course I don't blame anyone (either the celebs or the attendees) for participating and I sincerely hope everyone involved genuinely does enjoy these things and they aren't depressing the way they're portrayed in Galaxy Quest and the like...

lizardman fucked around with this message at Apr 26, 2015 around 04:40

Coffee And Pie
Nov 4, 2010

"Blah-sum"?
More like "Blawesome"


The original was a childhood classic for me (not sure why I was watching it at like 4 years old, but I difress) the trailers for the remake are doing nothing for me. It feels like they just put the original story on Insidious and called it a day.

Hibernator
Aug 13, 2011



lizardman posted:

It's a shame Patrick Wilson was already in Insidious because holy cow would he have been the perfect successor to Craig T. Nelson

I gotta say, Rosemarie Dewitt is loving terrific casting for the JoBeth Williams role. Sam Rockwell doesn't feel like the same "type" as Nelson but he's great in absolutely everything so it's not like I'm complaining.

I'm kinda cautiously optimistic about the remake. I think the trailers make it look pretty lame, but I've been misled by crappy trailers before. Definitely curious to see what they do with it.

Re: the face scene in the original. It's interesting that scenes like that led to the creation of the PG-13 rating, but if that scene was in a movie today it would get an automatic R.

Neo Rasa
Mar 8, 2007
Everyone should play DUKE games.



Hibernator posted:

Re: the face scene in the original. It's interesting that scenes like that led to the creation of the PG-13 rating, but if that scene was in a movie today it would get an automatic R.

Much like how The Beastmaster is rated PG despite the nudity and level of violence.

BottledBodhisvata
Jul 26, 2013

by Lowtax


VincentPrice posted:

It's how they make a living. How do you think Doug Bradley (Pinhead from the Hellraiser movies) puts food on the table?

Maybe he should get a job. Next time you see him at a convention, tell him to come down to the career fair sometime. We have such sights to show him.

lizardman
Jun 30, 2007

by R. Guyovich


Hibernator posted:

I'm kinda cautiously optimistic about the remake. I think the trailers make it look pretty lame, but I've been misled by crappy trailers before. Definitely curious to see what they do with it.

I think if I wasn't aware of the original, the trailer for the remake wouldn't do anything for me (it does look a bit 'generic modern supernatural horror') but because I am familiar with Poltergeist I can pick up on the little hints of how crazy the story eventually gets. (Well, some might consider a shot of the house pretty much exploding more than a 'hint' but the general tone makes it seem more on the lines of something like Sinister or The Grudge level of 'in-your-faceness').

I feel like they're playing a lot of the set pieces close to their chest, which makes me optimistic.

ConfusedUs
Feb 24, 2004

Bees?
You want fucking bees?
Here you go!
ROLL INITIATIVE!!


My kid, who is 11, has been practically begging me to find him something scarier than Goosebumps to watch. I've put some serious thought into Poltergeist.

I can't think of any reason not to do it. It's not too gory, there's not too much swearing, there's no nudity that I can recall...and it's pretty drat scary.

Any thoughts?

Davros1
Jul 19, 2007

You've got to admit, you are kind of implausible

ConfusedUs posted:

My kid, who is 11, has been practically begging me to find him something scarier than Goosebumps to watch. I've put some serious thought into Poltergeist.

I can't think of any reason not to do it. It's not too gory, there's not too much swearing, there's no nudity that I can recall...and it's pretty drat scary.

Any thoughts?

He is prone to nightmares? 'cause the atmosphere of that film could give him nightmares.

Coffee And Pie
Nov 4, 2010

"Blah-sum"?
More like "Blawesome"


Davros1 posted:

He is prone to nightmares? 'cause the atmosphere of that film could give him nightmares.

Go for it, from personal experience, it's great for kids, and I was loving terrified of Scream until I was like 13.

Silence of the Lambs, on the other hand...

lizardman
Jun 30, 2007

by R. Guyovich


ConfusedUs posted:

My kid, who is 11, has been practically begging me to find him something scarier than Goosebumps to watch. I've put some serious thought into Poltergeist.

I can't think of any reason not to do it. It's not too gory, there's not too much swearing, there's no nudity that I can recall...and it's pretty drat scary.

Any thoughts?

Obviously every kid is different and you know yours best, but Poltergeist (I'm assuming your mean the original) is probably just right for him. It's legit scary, but it has the bombast of a summer blockbuster (because it is one) that helps keep it 'fun' and the trademark Spielberg family warm-and-fuzziness helps give it a bit of a 'kids movie' feel. Also, despite all the gross parts and the disgusting corpses, I'm pretty sure nobody actually dies in the movie.

Another movie that'd be a perfect "first step into horror" for a kid would be The Monster Squad but that one might be hard to find.

ConfusedUs
Feb 24, 2004

Bees?
You want fucking bees?
Here you go!
ROLL INITIATIVE!!


lizardman posted:

Obviously every kid is different and you know yours best, but Poltergeist (I'm assuming your mean the original) is probably just right for him. It's legit scary, but it has the bombast of a summer blockbuster (because it is one) that helps keep it 'fun' and the trademark Spielberg family warm-and-fuzziness helps give it a bit of a 'kids movie' feel. Also, despite all the gross parts and the disgusting corpses, I'm pretty sure nobody actually dies in the movie.

Another movie that'd be a perfect "first step into horror" for a kid would be The Monster Squad but that one might be hard to find.

Thanks to you and the others. I think this helps solidify my decision.

We've already done Ghostbusters, which has a few legit scary scenes, and we've watched most of the Twilight Zone, which has lots of existential dread. We've watched the first season or two of the X-Files, too, including that weird stretchy guy episode that terrified me as a kid.

He loves it all. The only movie that's legitimately scared him was Jurassic Park. The raptors freaked him out when they started opening doors.

I think it's time to give him something with a bit more bite. The original Poltergeist should do nicely.

Steve Yun
Aug 7, 2003

I
ANALYZE
CARTOONS


Soiled Meat

Poltergeist is one of the greatest. At its heart it's a kidnapping movie. Unlike most horror movies the central fear isn't death, it's that they won't see their daughter again, and that really taps into the heart strings.

But here's a question I have always been wondering and since somebody finally made a Poltergeist thread I thought I'd post it here:

quote:

Diane: How long have you been investigating haunted houses?
Dr. Lesh: Mrs. Freeling, the determination as to whether your home is haunted is not very easy. [A heavy teapot slides across the table in front of her] I -- what I meant to say was, it might very well be a poltergeist intrusion instead of a classic haunting.
[Light flashes twice]
Diane: There's going to be two more in a couple of seconds. They always come in pairs.
Dr. Lesh: Dr. Casey.
[Casey fails to photograph the light flashes]
Diane: You got to be quicker than that around here.
Steve: There's a difference?
Ryan: It's electrical. You can smell the charge.
Dr. Lesh: Poltergeist are usually associated with an individual. Hauntings seem to be connected with an area, a house usually.
Marty: Poltergeist disturbances are of fairly short duration, perhaps a couple of months. Hauntings can go on for -- years.
Diane: Are you telling me that all of this could just suddenly end at any time?
Dr. Lesh: Yes, it could, unless it's a haunting. But hauntings don't usually revolve around living people.
Diane: Then we don't have much time, Dr. Lesh, because my daughter is alive somewhere inside this house.
Is the movie is actually about both a poltergeist and a haunting? There was a demon that wanted Carrie Ann, but the surprise at the end is that there were also spirits haunting the house because of their desecrated grave.

Steve Yun fucked around with this message at Apr 28, 2015 around 13:19

InfiniteZero
Sep 11, 2004

PINK GUITAR FIRE ROBOT



College Slice

lizardman posted:

Maybe I'm wrong, maybe it's left a pop-culture footprint that's still there and I've just missed it

It's on TV a lot and it spawned a couple of sequels. I think it's made at least as much of a pop-culture footprint as other big name 1980s horror films.

I also think that all of the "Tobe Hooper didn't really direct Poltergeist" stuff is bunk because when you compare this film to Hooper's other stuff, it's very consistent in style and tone with his other work in that era (see: Lifeforce, The Funhouse, or Invaders From Mars). Everybody expects every Hooper film to feel like Texas Chainsaw Massacre for some reason, but outside of some elements of Eaten Alive, none of Hooper's films feel like the original Texas Chainsaw, including the sequel he made for it.

I'm reserving judgement on the remake until I actually see it, but I doubt if I'll get nearly as excited about seeing it as I get for a fresh property like It Follows and films like that.

InfiniteZero fucked around with this message at Apr 28, 2015 around 19:02

Basebf555
Feb 29, 2008

The greatest sensual pleasure there is is to know the desires of another!


Fun Shoe

Steve Yun posted:

Poltergeist is one of the greatest. At its heart it's a kidnapping movie. Unlike most horror movies the central fear isn't death, it's that they won't see their daughter again, and that really taps into the heart strings.

But here's a question I have always been wondering and since somebody finally made a Poltergeist thread I thought I'd post it here:

Is the movie is actually about both a poltergeist and a haunting? There was a demon that wanted Carrie Ann, but the surprise at the end is that there were also spirits haunting the house because of their desecrated grave.

I never really thought about it but I think the idea was to set up the expectation of a mostly harmless poltergeist, then as things get progressively worse you realize its much more serious than that. At the end you realize the whole place was just hosed from the start, the "poltergeist" activity was like a tremor preceding a massive volcanic eruption.

tetrapyloctomy
Feb 18, 2003

Okay -- you talk WAY too fast.

Nap Ghost

Basebf555 posted:

I never really thought about it but I think the idea was to set up the expectation of a mostly harmless poltergeist, then as things get progressively worse you realize its much more serious than that. At the end you realize the whole place was just hosed from the start, the "poltergeist" activity was like a tremor preceding a massive volcanic eruption.
That's a big Twinkie.

Basebf555
Feb 29, 2008

The greatest sensual pleasure there is is to know the desires of another!


Fun Shoe

tetrapyloctomy posted:

That's a big Twinkie.

Basically

lizardman
Jun 30, 2007

by R. Guyovich


Steve Yun posted:

Poltergeist is one of the greatest. At its heart it's a kidnapping movie. Unlike most horror movies the central fear isn't death, it's that they won't see their daughter again, and that really taps into the heart strings.

But here's a question I have always been wondering and since somebody finally made a Poltergeist thread I thought I'd post it here:

Is the movie is actually about both a poltergeist and a haunting? There was a demon that wanted Carrie Ann, but the surprise at the end is that there were also spirits haunting the house because of their desecrated grave.

I think it was a haunted house that sort of turned into a Poltergeist situation. The ghouls' primary disturbance is that the house is built over their graves, they (well, specifically "The Beast" who is like the big cheese of the group) get revenge/whatever else by kidnapping Carol Anne. The family manages to get Carol Anne back, which just pisses them off even more and decide this family are their mortal enemies, etc.

It's been a few years since I've seen it so that might not be 100% right, but I'm almost absolutely sure that it isn't "This one ghost (The Beast) decides to kidnap Carol Anne" and THEN "These OTHER random ghosts are pissed that they steamrolled their graves", they're a lot more unified than that.

lizardman
Jun 30, 2007

by R. Guyovich


InfiniteZero posted:

It's on TV a lot and it spawned a couple of sequels. I think it's made at least as much of a pop-culture footprint as other big name 1980s horror films.

It's definitely hyperbole for me to suggest it hasn't left an imprint (I mean, I'm friggin' quoting its ubiquitous-at-the-time catchphrase in the thread title!).

I still say (from admittedly just from what I can observe) the movie is nowhere near as well remembered by the public as some of its contemporaries like Alien, A Nightmare on Elm Street, etc. , which I think is probably mostly because its 'franchise' didn't continue beyond the 80s. You had those three movies and then... well, that was kind of it. They didn't keep releasing a bunch of merchandise or have a long train of sequels into the 90s and 00s and it didn't have an instantly recognizable iconic monster that you could dress up as for Halloween, etc. It also for some inexplicable reason was never given the "Super Ultra Classic Special Edition Bursting with Extras" video treatment, either (there was a "25th Anniversary Edition" that was honestly kind of pathetic for a 'special' release).

I also think the movie kind of falls through the cracks in horror retrospectives because of its whole family-friendly summer-blockbuster feel; hell, I've seen horror nerds straight up refute that Poltergeist is a 'real' horror movie at all. Then on the other end of the spectrum, despite how much everyone seems to want to associate the movie with him, it's not really in the conversation of Spielberg classics.

So it's really only been its showings on TV (it's nice to hear it's on a lot, at least; I haven't had cable in a while) and like, a Family Guy reference that's kept its profile visible the past decade and change.

BENGHAZI 2
Oct 12, 2007
Probation
Can't post for 3 days!


The remake looks like a hot bag of poo poo

Coffee And Pie
Nov 4, 2010

"Blah-sum"?
More like "Blawesome"


Literally The Worst posted:

The remake looks like a hot bag of poo poo

I would describe it more as a lukewarm bag of poo poo. It's just so uninteresting. Like, all you need to see is that one shot of the little girl with her hands on a big flat-screen TV giving a slightly different reading of "they're here" and you can extrapolate the rest of the movie from there.

Like, say what you will about the Evil Dead remake, at least that had something going for it.

lizardman
Jun 30, 2007

by R. Guyovich


One possible semi-interesting thing about the remake is that the main character - to the extent that there is one - is allegedly the family's young son.

Also, somehow I didn't notice until just now that the family in the remake are not the same characters from the original. Huh.

Technetium
Oct 26, 2006

TRILOBITE TECHNICIAN
QUITE POSSIBLY GAY



Coffee And Pie posted:

Like, say what you will about the Evil Dead remake, at least that had something going for it.

Gore?

Coffee And Pie
Nov 4, 2010

"Blah-sum"?
More like "Blawesome"



Gore, a pretty much different storyline that kept in the same themes of the original, and I really enjoyed the "okay, which one is Ash" guessing game where they constantly tease famous gags from the original without really going through with it until the post-credits GROOVY, and to a lesser extent the pseudo-chainsaw hand.

NarkyBark
Dec 7, 2003

one funky chicken

I'm taking a slightly different stance. I was in the WHY ARE THEY REMAKING THIS camp until seeing clips of it. I'm getting good vibes from the way the familiar scares are set up, although I'm well aware I could just be a victim of trailer editing. It also might be because awful films like Insidious just made me yearn for the actual Poltergeist movie. Perhaps since this is a literal Poltergeist movie it will hit me far better than that crop of films did.

Jonas Albrecht
Jun 7, 2012



lizardman posted:

Also, despite all the gross parts and the disgusting corpses, I'm pretty sure nobody actually dies in the movie.

That's one of my favorite lil pieces of trivia about this film. I'm pretty sure it's the only horror movie I've seen that can make that claim.

Modus Operandi
Oct 5, 2010


ConfusedUs posted:

My kid, who is 11, has been practically begging me to find him something scarier than Goosebumps to watch. I've put some serious thought into Poltergeist.

I can't think of any reason not to do it. It's not too gory, there's not too much swearing, there's no nudity that I can recall...and it's pretty drat scary.

Any thoughts?

Let's just go right to the big leagues. Show him The Thing.

Parasol Prophet
Aug 31, 2012

We Are Best Friends Now.


Jonas Albrecht posted:

That's one of my favorite lil pieces of trivia about this film. I'm pretty sure it's the only horror movie I've seen that can make that claim.

The Babadook?

I'm looking forward to this. Although, I am a terrible person who hasn't seen the original yet, so I'm also looking forward to seeing that first.

ConfusedUs
Feb 24, 2004

Bees?
You want fucking bees?
Here you go!
ROLL INITIATIVE!!


Modus Operandi posted:

Let's just go right to the big leagues. Show him The Thing.

I don't think he's quite ready for The Thing yet!

But man, I can't wait. The Thing is the best horror movie of all time, in my eyes.

VincentPrice
Jun 26, 2009


Monster Squad is a great horror flick for kids and shouldn't be too hard to find, it got a special edition dvd a few years back (finally!). I don't know how old your kid is, but maybe the Fog and They Live might be suggestions too?

As for the remake, I'll leave this here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5HMwJmuCuo

DrVenkman
Dec 27, 2005


The original is a great movie in which the woman is the most progressive and proactive character, while the father is largely useless. I also love the subtle joke that the oldest daughter is pregnant.

It's great how layered the original movie is, and it's ostensibly Spielberg rejecting modern America and sprawling suburbia. I'll dig it out when I'm home, but there's a great 2-Part article on Badass Digest. One about the movie itself and the other about the history of how it came to be made. It was an excellent read, though it does suggest that Rubenstein was probably exaggerating about Hooper based on the comments of others (Though it's hard to gauge. People who were friends with Hooper deny that he was coked off his tits the whole time). It's clearly a Spielberg movie though. The blocking and camera movements are all him. I believe the general consensus is that Spielberg would place the camera and Hooper would call action.

The one thing that annoys me about that remake is the loving clown. The clown in the original is just a clown that becomes scary. The one they've used in the remake looks like something you'd get from the scary clown store.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

frank.club
Jan 15, 2011


Pg13 poltergeist remake is going to be bad op

  • Locked thread
«3 »