|
Jedit posted:I still stand by Elvis: The Movie. A lot of people seem to remember that movie fondly, I've read that it actually was a pretty big part of breaking Kurt Russell's career. He did a lot of television work up to that point but after Elvis he never appeared on t.v. again.
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 19:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 20:46 |
|
|
For a second I thought Elvis: The Movie was 3000 Miles to Graceland and boy was I confused.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 19:06
|
|
|
Dr. Angela Ziegler posted:Romero (who I insist is a one-trick pony, but it's a really good trick) Nah bro, Martin and Monkey Shines and Creepshow. Bruiser and The Dark Half also have their defenders. Franchescanado fucked around with this message at 19:13 on Sep 18, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 19:11
|
|
|
I was going to save it for October itself but since we started the classic horror discussion, hit me with a wildcard. It's up to whomever, but I haven't seen a single Friday the 13th, Halloween, Nightmare on Elm Street, or Romero film. Or the Shining. Or Texas Chainsaw Massacre. I have seen Evil Dead. Your pick what classic I'm missing is the most important.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 19:50
|
|
|
Arivia posted:I was going to save it for October itself but since we started the classic horror discussion, hit me with a wildcard. It's up to whomever, but I haven't seen a single Friday the 13th, Halloween, Nightmare on Elm Street, or Romero film. Or the Shining. Or Texas Chainsaw Massacre. I have seen Evil Dead. Your pick what classic I'm missing is the most important. NoES and TCM
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 19:53
|
|
|
Arivia posted:I was going to save it for October itself but since we started the classic horror discussion, hit me with a wildcard. It's up to whomever, but I haven't seen a single Friday the 13th, Halloween, Nightmare on Elm Street, or Romero film. Or the Shining. Or Texas Chainsaw Massacre. I have seen Evil Dead. Your pick what classic I'm missing is the most important.  It's gotta be Texas Chainsaw Massacre, but you gotta watch Halloween when it's closer to the holiday. Watch the 40th anniversary restoration of TCM. (Watch them all!)
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 19:54
|
|
|
Yea you basically have to watch all of those at some point, but Texas Chainsaw Massacre is pretty appropriate for mid-September when summer is still barely hanging on and the leaves haven't quite turned just yet. Once it gets cold out that's not as good for TCM watchin.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 19:57
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:Yea you basically have to watch all of those at some point, but Texas Chainsaw Massacre is pretty appropriate for mid-September when summer is still barely hanging on and the leaves haven't quite turned just yet. Once it gets cold out that's not as good for TCM watchin. Okay cool. I'll make TCM happen real soon then. No guarantee on the others, I'll see what comes up on the Shudder trial.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 19:59
|
|
|
Plus Tobe Hooper just died, so it's even more appropriate.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 20:00
|
|
|
Arivia posted:Okay cool. I'll make TCM happen real soon then. No guarantee on the others, I'll see what comes up on the Shudder trial. At least watch Halloween at some point during the month of October! I don't think it's too much to ask!
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 20:01
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:At least watch Halloween at some point during the month of October! I don't think it's too much to ask! No probably not! I'm just not making any guarantees yet.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 20:19
|
|
|
Arivia posted:No probably not! I'm just not making any guarantees yet. Not that you asked, but here's the "essentials" with the classic (ie, most well-known) horror films/franchises. Texas Chainsaw Massacre 1 & 2 (they are very different from each other; 2 is insane) Halloween 1 & 2 (1 is essential, 2 is the only "good" sequel, H20 is pretty good as well; Halloween 3 is it's own thing and has a well-deserved cult following) The Shining A Nightmare on Elm Street & A Nightmare on Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors Tremors Romero: Creepshow is Romero's...I don't want to say best, or most-accessible, but it's one of the best horror anthologies. After that Night of the Living Dead, and Dawn of the Dead. Day of the Dead is good too (though I haven't seen it), but I'd say Martin is still a great movie that most people miss. Friday the 13th 1, 2, 4, & 6. (No one can agree on which is the best) The Evil Dead 1 & 2 Hellraiser & Hellbound: Hellraiser 2 Gremlins & Gremlins 2 Cronenberg: The Fly, Videodrome Stuart Gordon: Re-Animator, From Beyond Carpenter: The Fog, In The Mouth of Madness,, The Thing, Christine, Prince of Darkness An American Werewolf in London (We all know about Landis; please don't besmirch this classic just because he's a prick) Slant's 100 Greatest Horror Movie List isn't perfect, but it's a pretty good reference for the must-see classics that most people talk about, and then some. It made up a large part of my pull list this year. I don't expect you to watch any/all of them, I just figured it'd be a handy reference for horror movies that everyone has seen and loved. (I know that sounds condescending, and I don't mean to be; I get very excited when people have missed a lot of the classics, and just want everyone to see them).
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 21:05
|
|
|
No no it's totally cool! Not condescending at all, I get similarly excited about introducing new people to things I'm passionate about. And having recommendations from real people is great, as opposed to just a list. I'm just not promising watching anything beyond TCM because I have to balance time and money and everything. And also my preferred place to watch, under the covers on my phone.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 21:13
|
|
|
Arivia posted:No no it's totally cool! Not condescending at all, I get similarly excited about introducing new people to things I'm passionate about. And having recommendations from real people is great, as opposed to just a list. I'm just not promising watching anything beyond TCM because I have to balance time and money and everything. And also my preferred place to watch, under the covers on my phone. I don't know what city/town you live in, but my city's library system has a better horror selection than most other genres, and I can reserve them at any branch I want online and rent them for free. If you're a student, you have even more options depending on your city and school. And there's always YouTube and Vimeo, which have a lot of classics sneaking in with good quality. No need to spend a bunch of money, the movies are out there. Time and balancing your work-life and everything, that's on you. If you have to watch TCM under the covers, please do a laptop or an iPad or something, because it looks incredible and it's one of the few movies worth seeing with a good sound system or excellent headphones. I just saw a 35mm copy in theaters last month and it was a great experience. In other news, I'm seeing a 35mm print of Critters in theaters on the 20th. I've never seen it before!
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 21:21
|
|
|
Ohhh good idea! Just checked and yes my library has copies of the 40th Anniversary remaster. Ordered. Edit: And that will be at my desk with a good monitor and headphones. I just like getting cozy, but I can totally do otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 21:47
|
|
|
3: The Pit and the Pendulum (1991) From the director of Re-Animator and starring Lance Henriksen, Ollie Reed, Jeff Combs, Mark Margolis, Frances Bay and Rona de Ricci's tits comes ... a mess. There's a couple of nice FX shots towards the end, but dear God, the rest of it was horrible. Production got relocated to Italy and it felt to me like the English speaking cast had all been delivering their lines in Italian then got dubbed back into English again. Also it shamelessly stole the witch burning scene from Good Omens with nary a credit to Pratchett, so the scriptwriter can gently caress off as well.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 22:06
|
|
|
Long time lurker but thanks to all the wonderful movies I've seen because of this thread I'm going to do this here challenge. With the extra two weeks I think 50 is a good? number to aim for - It will include some rewatches and what not. Up to 4 already - I'm also working through the Halloween movies in order and am almost done so that's Halloween 6, H20, House on Haunted Hill and Devil's Pass from over the weekend.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 22:09
|
|
|
Jedit posted:Production got relocated to Italy and it felt to me like the English speaking cast had all been delivering their lines in Italian then got dubbed back into English again. Pretty much par for the course in regards to traditional Italian horror films. smitster posted:Long time lurker but thanks to all the wonderful movies I've seen because of this thread I'm going to do this here challenge. With the extra two weeks I think 50 is a good? number to aim for - It will include some rewatches and what not. Up to 4 already - I'm also working through the Halloween movies in order and am almost done so that's Halloween 6, H20, House on Haunted Hill and Devil's Pass from over the weekend. Glad you could join
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 22:32
|
|
|
Just watched the IT TV movie and it is pretty bad. I mean, it's fine for what it is, but Tim Curry is by far the best part and is maybe in it 7 minutes out of three hours. RIP John Ritter and Jonathan Brandis. I also watched the short film He Took His Skin Off For Me and enjoyed it a lot.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 22:40
|
|
|
Did I see someone mention Cronenberg and not mention his best movie? The Dead Zone. The best Cronenberg is The Dead Zone. I just watched it yesterday and it's still great.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 23:28
|
|
|
I haven't seen it. It's on my list for this challenge. I honestly don't know what I would say is his best from what I've seen, they're all excellent. Probably Videodrome or Dead Ringers.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 23:32
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:Yea Slugs is on Shudder, for months I kinda just assumed it was bad because I'd never heard of it and how could it live up to the poster? Turns out it's actually good though, at least according to a few people in the horror thread. I kind of like Slugs, though I'd never actually recommend it to anyone. It's very much a 1970's "animals go crazy and kill everyone" environmental movies which get under my skin more than most genres. STAC Goat posted:Its a shame he just didn't really make anything the last couple of decades. It seems like his 90s stuff kind of went over badly, he demanded a big fee to direct H20 they passed on, and he just kind of gave up after that? That seems like a really sad ending to a really great career. I'm not a fan of post-In the Mouth of Madness Carpenter, but Cigarette Burns is really good (though thematically very similar to Madness). Franchescanado posted:
I never watched Texas Chainsaw Massacre until last year's challenge because I always figured it would be a grindhouse slasher and that's the kind of horror movie that I like the least. And then it turned out to be really great. So it's a great pick to watch and then be annoyed that the lesson other filmmakers took from it was to have a big guy going after teenagers with sharp implements. Franchescanado posted:Texas Chainsaw Massacre 1 & 2 (they are very different from each other; 2 is insane) The key word in the title of the first one is "massacre". The key word in the title of the second is "Texas".
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 23:38
|
|
|
I watch every movie with subtitles. I'm trying to watch The Prowler right now and all the apostrophes are 4s. It's maddening. The captions look like, "Well if it isn4t old Terry, didn4t he fight in the Pacific?
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 23:47
|
|
|
Bruteman posted:The crazy part is Raimi funded and executive produced it, and Bruce Campbell is the voice of the main character (Raimi) and one other guy (Carpenter, one of the cult leader's lieutenants). If you've listened to Bruce enough he's immediately recognizable. It's triply funny since Raimi's actor has a fairly distinctive chin of his own
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 00:30
|
|
|
Franchescanado posted:I haven't seen it. It's on my list for this challenge. I'm the one guy that goes up to bat for eXistenZ. If you watch his films in chronological order, it feels like he definitely is trying to combine all his sub-themes up to that point of identity confusion under one umbrella. It also suffers from some incredibly DREADFUL timing of release, as it came out around the same time as The Matrix, and was heavily marketed about its having trouble distinguishing between the real and computer worlds.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 00:31
|
|
Dr. Angela Ziegler posted:Carpenter > Craven > Miike > Dante > Romero (who I insist is a one-trick pony, but it's a really good trick) A Doom House?
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 00:49
|
|
|
Well, I'm in. Did it last year and somewhat confident that I could repeat it this year. I'm going to take it easier than last year. A year ago I challenged myself to watch not only every Friday the 13th, Nightmare on Elm Street, Halloween, Texas Chainsaw Massacre, and Scream films in their original runs, but also a number of influential movies that shaped the slasher genre (highlights being Fritz Lang's M, 1945's And Then There Were None, and Charles Laughton's Night of the Hunter). The cap to hit by Halloween was Freddy Vs. Jason, which was the last of the traditional slashers, featuring a non-stop parade of endless sequels. In the end I hit 49 plus (not including a number of other films I watch during the season). The intention was to follow the Halloween season with the 2000's era of remakes, starting with the 2003 Texas Chainsaw Massacre and capping off with 2013's Texas Chainsaw 3d, but I only got as far as the first one. So, I just want to wash my hands of the whole thing and finish my quest. So my challenge is starting off with: 1. The Texas Chainsaw Massacre Remake 2. TCM: The Beginning 3. Halloween Remake 4. F13 Remake 5. Halloween II 6. NoES Remake 7. Scream 4 After that, the theme's are: The blurays I've purchased but never seen, that box set of the Universal Monster Movies I still need to watch, the week where I watch nothing but Never Sleep Again and Crystal Lake Memories, and whatever the hell I feel like. I'll probably get started soon, as goddamn I'm going to have to spend a week watching Never Sleep Again and Crystal Lake Memories.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 01:22
|
|
|
You can knock out Never Sleep Again in an afternoon, but Crystal Lake Memories will take two sittings at least.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 01:32
|
|
|
Lurdiak posted:A Doom House? Now you're outside my basement...and inside my mind!!
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 01:43
|
|
|
Movie #4: Candyman Pretty darn good. Tony Todd's voice makes the movie. Virginia Madsen is gorgeous. I liked the mix of the relatively natural setting and the more dreamlike parts where Helen is interacting with Candyman.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 04:51
|
|
|
7. The Mutilator - Slashers are generally not my thing and this is not an exception. We know exactly who the killer is and what his motivation is from the start, none of the characters stand out, and none of the kills are particularly inspired. One does seem unusually nasty, but it's more of a weird tonal clash with the rest of the movie than something that makes a big impression on its own. I guess the finale mixes things up a little, in that there's more than one survivor, and there isn't really much of a fight or chase. The girl just fucks the killer up very quickly and very directly. Then does it again. It's not terrible for a low bugget single set sort of thing, but it feels like a lot of filler and very few ideas.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 06:02
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:Movie #4: Candyman  #4 Demons - Cinematic cocaine 5/5 Total: 4 Butterly Murders [4/5], Candyman: Day of the Dead [1/5], The Fog [4/5], Demons [5/5] Letterboxd list
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 06:13
|
|
|
Okay, I've been chomping at the bit too much, and I've needed some self care. So at the insistence of my gf, I've decided I can watch movies now, but until October 1st, they have to be stuff I've seen before. Like, years and years back, seen with fresh eyes. These do not count towards my challenge total, only movies I've not seen before will. Tonight I watched Inferno as I had very recently rewatched Suspiria on the big screen. A woman in New York is convinced the building she lives in is home to one of the "Three Mothers", witches that are plotting the downfall of all mankind. She sends a letter to her brother in Rome, where another of the mothers resides (the third one being the title character from the previous film, set in Germany). After some spooky goings on in Rome, the brother sets out to NYC to meet with his sister, only to find her missing and dead. So then he sets about trying to solve the mystery of just what the heck is going on here. Things only get spookier from there. It's funny, this movie SHOULD be as widely praised as its successor. Its use of color and shadow is even more pronounced and menacing than in Suspiria, and the logic of the film feels even more dreamlike, yet there's a far more up-front plot explaining things, unlike in the first film where even the uncut version comes across as though we are deliberately not given most of the plot, and that it only moves in the background. Heck, even the Keith Emerson soundtrack is pretty good at times. It really succeeds in most of the same places that Suspiria does, yet it just doesn't quite feel as finished as the first film. In fact, it feels kinda rushed in spots, and the pace is very uneven. That said, I think it certainly works well as a companion piece to its progenitor. I wouldn't recommend the third film, Mother of Tears however. That's a bland mess of a film.  and a half out of Five.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 06:27
|
|
|
Had to leave the house for work twice during The Prowler. Watching a movie in chunks seems to lessen my enthusiasm for it. All in all it was a pretty standard slasher that was elevated primarily by the excellent and altogethr fuckin gruesome Tom Savini makeup work. I mean the kill in the shower with the pitchfork was almost too brutal. Also practical effects-wise I'd like to nominate the shotgun decapitation as the best head explosion ever put to film. I also liked that when the main heroine was attacked and explained what happened to the deputy, he didn't dismiss her outright. He actually went and investigated what she had claimed and found evidence supporting it. I guess that part stuck out to me because usually a character claiming something crazy is just handwaved off as hysterical. Didn't get my normal 2-3 in today because I had to be out of the house a lot. It's ok though because I have more than enough time to make up for it. 8 down. Untrustable fucked around with this message at 08:32 on Sep 19, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 08:25
|
|
|
1. The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2003 It's my second time watching this. I didn't really like it the first time, don't really this time either. I can appreciate parts of it, but as is the film comes off as an unnecessary retread of a phenomenal movie. Outside of a few promising bits it just comes as off as 'been there, done that not nearly well as it could've'. The plot's different, but the deviations it takes all just come across as faithfully clinging to the cliches developed after the original. And when it does try to twist things into original concepts, it's to what I believe personal little benefit. The most emblematic is the hitchhiker scene. The original, played by Edwin Neal, was an unpredictable and threatening creature born out of the land. The protagonists are interlopers, and he is there to usher them into his dangerous of homeland. His off kilter introduction is a startling premonition, but for the viewing audience he is creating the excitement and the tone of the film. A first act in the freak show to titillate and invigorate the voyeurs who watch from a safe distance. Meanwhile the remake's hitchhiker also creates the tone, but it's not unpredictable and sinister eccentrism of the original, but rather random and senseless oppression coming from a crying woman who kills their self. To contrast, as much as the original was disturbing it also had a fun tension that made it enjoyable to watch. However, the new film wants to up the ante and as a result creates a more upsetting and depressing film to not much purpose. And I can appreciate films that are depressing or revolting, but those that do it right have purpose or meaning motivating the action. And I just get the sense that the grit and the ugliness and the violence is just to make the audience say 'That was hosed up'. And it is perhaps paradoxical to say the original also had the same purpose, to disturb the audience. And it too also used the tools of shock and awe randomness to startle. However the original had several things in it's favour, namely it's style of simplicity. It's basically the same story as The Revenant or 127 Hours, man goes into domain separate from 'society' and it nearly kills him. The characters hold a kind of control over their fates that result in their own doom, dying one by one until only one manages to make it out alive by happenstance. In this newer one, everything happens 'to' the characters. Whatever belief in choice the group has is illusion to the dramatic irony of the audience. And with the large amount of things happening, there's a larger extended cast to muddle things up. Not to say that it isn't easy to pick up that whose the 'them' in this tale of 'us vs. them', but it's harder to come to sense the motivations and actions that certain characters take. Aside from that, when things start getting muddy you end up with either pointless scenes, entire bits that cancel each other out, plot wise. Just as well, add a bunch of seams where you can tell the writers had no idea how to get from point a to point b in a logical fashion, so they either have the characters stumble into it senselessly or just ignore creating any connective tissue at all. I do want to call out my personal nadir of the film personally, being the assisted suicide that Jessica Biel does to her friend. It's the absolute epitome of the theme of pointless suffering. Where the film looses all grounding of being logical or reasonable, all to funnel the events to this one conclusion. It's pretty much a superhero set piece, except instead of fun or exciting you get to think about being in such fatalistic pain that dying seems like a sensible outcome. And the dude begging for it delivered with such calm, cool sensibility while the girl is in complete hysterics. As an audience member, there's such a disconnect between how I read the scene, that the dude is completely unemotional about his own death, versus how the film intends for me to read it, this dude knows what's up p.s. how hosed up is this lol. And the point being, I don't want to watch this scene. When I watched the original film I was glued to the screen. The violence was swift and brutal, making every scene one where Leatherface can pop up so suddenly and without warning, your adrenaline is practically pumping at the possibility he might show up. Always the characters are pushing forward until there's only one left, racing to get to safety. Scene after scene the tenseness just ratchets up and up, that you practically don't even register just how hosed up these events are until they're over. For the 2003 film, any tension is undercut by the fact that they will stop the film just to have scenes just to have characters beg for death. Where the original was swift and brutal, this newer one just agonises in the suffering. Tagging extra pointless bits to between scenes just so we can show women being thrown down stairs, fingernails being ripped off, or to literally just rub some salt in some wounds. Not to any real reason, just to show characters suffering in this new, brutal 21st Century. It's not fun. And this death scene is especially not that creative for a genre known for inventive kills, and the net benefit to the resolution of the film is nada. And it's frustrating, to the exclusion of all other possibilities, we're going to take a wild and meandering route all leading up to the point where they're forcing us to watch this. All it does is add some more pointless, lengthy, agonizing suffering, and I don't like to watch that. I don't find it entertaining. I'll admit, it's a terrifying proposition to be faced with killing someone you know at their request, but it's a much more cerebral and psychological horror that this film isn't about. It's connection to the thesis of this film is that it is a fatalistic unpleasantness. The stuff that makes you sad and morose. Depressing stuff. And it doesn't have anything to say about that, just that it exists and hey come look at it. And I don't want to, especially in a film that's purporting to be just like one of my favourite films of all time. Also, I don't think a knife to the gut will instantly kill a dude, even as weakened as he was. Other than that, there's a bunch of little nit picks. The main characters themselves are flatly defined, barely if ever given reason why they're together as friends or as partners, very little characterisation, nor any motivation until way too late into the movie. All of them sound the same from their dialog, and the actors aren't doing much to differentiate from one another, other than playing into their respective x or y chromosome. Plus, it's crazy that the original was able to get so much out of Leatherface chasing one woman around the forest, and this one is barely able to get 2 minutes of it. Instead it opts for a pointless, and much less iconic, climax at a Slaughterhouse. Followed by a false ending, and a conclusion that doesn't nearly touch the original, and some addition bits that a)frustratingly keep the film from ending, and b) add a sequel hook that was never followed up on. Add on top of that some pointless bits of sex appeal, various small scenes that just work to bum the audience out, a pretty bad music score, and some off colour bits of morbid humor, which ends up sounding like a scuzzy uncle telling you a bad joke at Thanksgiving. Point being, there's a lot to not like in this movie. That said, I will say this film has two things going for it. One, it's look. In no way does this movie outdo the original, but it does fine trying to do it's own thing. The way some of the exteriors are shot makes forested rural Texas look unreal, almost fantastical. And the interior almost has a gothic looking quality, while also being quite dingy and unkempt. Given that some props are a clever reuse of some everyday items, and the film kinda makes it's own style, "Redneck Gothic". Add to that the fascinating looking extras, most of whom end up looking like cartoonist illustrations brought to life. Plus, they generally give a life and believability that even the main actors couldn't get across. That brings me to point Two, R. Lee Ermey. Best actor in the entire film, completely in charge and believably hides his unhinged psychotic nature behind a wall of authority. His intensity is actually enough to bring out a decent performance from the comic relief in the Suicide Reenactment scene. The only thing that bums me out about his character is the one Necrophilia 'joke' he makes. Real disappointing that made it on screen. To conclude, where the original is a cultural touchstone of cinema, the remake is a ploy by the Illuminati elite to force people to forget the history of our past to make them complacent to the atrocities committed by the one world order voting is a lie time is an illusion FOLLOW THE MONEY
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 09:37
|
|
|
I am in for 31 movies! The September start probably won't do me much good since I'm moving and won't have much time till late next week, but maybe I can squeeze a movie in while waiting for deliveries or something. Same as last year I'll be doing mostly new stuff, with a few re-watches of classics as a palate cleanser after something truly bad. I will definitely watch Shock Waves , Evolution, What We Become, A Field in England and The Blackcoat's Daughter and for the rest just pick whatever I feel like. The Tremors and Critters talk a while back in the main thread have me thinking about those a lot, will probably include them.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 09:41
|
|
|
The Resurrected 1991, dir. Dan O'Bannon | rental "I should strip thy flesh from thy bones like a suckling pig, but because I am a madman, they would do nothing to me. Such are the customs of this enlightened century."  This is an adaptation of the H. P. Lovecraft novella The Case of Charles Dexter Ward This is a conflicting mess. What we have is a very fun and compelling detective story: a broke detective agency is hired by a woman to track down her husband who has vanished to conducted secret experiments. The creature and special effects are slimy, gross, goopy; you can feel them dripping everywhere. The cinematography is very good, the lighting is incredibly effective (several scenes are scary mainly because of the light provided), and a few of the scares work well. However, the acting from our two leads, John Terry and Jane Sibbett, are bad. Especially Sibbett, who would have a career with direct-to-vhs family friendly movies where she is mostly left alone. It's understandable, because this woman doesn't react to anything. She finds out her husband has a pile of books on witchcraft and blood sacrifices and she acts like it's a receipt from Waffle House. Giant flesh golems pop up? "Well, that's scary I guess, let me check with Dan--Dan, what's my character's motivation? Scared? Okay!--Yes, that's a scary monster." Jon Terry certainly reacts, he just doesn't emote. There are the detective's assistants who are also a little lame, but they're the side characters, so they're more excusable (to an extent; see below).  The Film's worst offender; should barely be considered an actress  Hope you like seeing this for 1 hour and 48 minutes In general, I can let the acting go, but it actively takes me out of this film. It's a huge loving shame, because I still liked and enjoyed the story, but when your four lead characters can't get the scene to flow naturally, it's going to mess with the rhythm and the pacing. There's a lot of clunky stuff, even secondary actions like smoking a cigarette and changing a shirt, that keep throwing things off from the tracks. Even then, everything would have worked out better if it weren't for Chris loving Sarandon out-acting everyone like a motherfucker.  "You think you can act? I'll show you how to loving act!" He hits the right amount of subdued crazy. He's still over-the-top, but he's a mad scientist, and he's pretty subdued for being surrounded by flesh golems (oh, spoilers by the way). He elevates the film and solidly puts it as a good movie, but it's a shame that the other actors can't match his enthusiasm or energy, because then this movie would be sick. Another telling flaw: O'Bannon didn't write this one himself, either, which makes much more sense given the expository flaws of the first act with a lot of narration. It's an attempt at playing with the noir conventions, but it wears thin quickly. Apparently O'Bannon didn't get final cut. He wanted it to be funnier (this movie isn't really funny, sadly) and tonally closer to his other projects like Return of the Living Dead, but the powers that be decided to make it more serious. Instead, it becomes a B-movie that wants people to know it's a B-movie, but you can tell the more weirder charming bits were probably left on the cutting room floor. There's a flash back with acting so terrible, it had to be intentional, like a TV reenactment of Ye Olden Days from a PBS show, but the way it was edited makes it seem genuinely bad. Another fine example of this flawed gem.  So, I liked it. In addition to my other praises, there were some clever dream sequences, and the final act is well-worth it. I'd say it should be watched, because I did enjoy it throughout, but I'd rather recommend many other Dan O'Bannon projects before. Thematic link to Dead & Buried: Nicolas Flamel; Dan O'Bannon Thematic link to The Mummy: Mankind trying to control the undead & it backfiring. / 5 Movies Watched NEW: I Walked With A Zombie, Dead & Buried, The Mummy ('59), The Resurrected REWATCH: TOTAL: 4
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 13:03
|
|
|
4. The Void, aka John Carpenter's Greatest Hits I kid, I kid. But not really. I thought this was a pretty solid flick that also lifts entire beats from Carpenter's work (especially The Thing and Prince of Darkness) and has a too-abrupt ending which straight up lifts elements of Fulci's The Beyond and the aforementioned Prince of Darkness. The creature FX and gore is really well done, there's some nice suspense, and unlike some other criticism of this I've seen, I didn't think it was too dark to see what was going on. I also appreciated that the movie seriously hits the ground running, you have maybe like 3-4 minutes of calm after the opening and then poo poo goes downhill for the characters super quick. My one gripe, and this is entirely subjective, is about the nature of the threat: I can respect that the film doesn't entirely spell out the cult and whatever it's worshipping , but I like worldbuilding in these sorts of films, and here the threat looks cool and scary but it otherwise just feels like generic eldritch abomination #52, we don't learn anything about it other than its influence mutates humans and lets the evil doctor character deliver a lot of cool evil-sounding "this is all for the best" soliliquies.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 13:06
|
|
|
Bruteman posted:4. The Void, aka John Carpenter's Greatest Hits The thing I really liked about this movie that most people don't mention is that all the major characters arcs are about losing a child, but they all deal with it different ways: "I blame you", "I blame myself", "I blame the world", "I blame God", etc.. It's not the most original theme, but I think it's cool to put it in a Lovecraftian context. Another big gripe I have is, yes, the movie is totally John Carpenter's Greatest Hits, but I feel like they're also big fans of Stuart Gordon, or at least the creature designs of his films.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 13:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 20:46 |
|
|
Slugs Apparently based on a novel(which I have to read at some point), Slugs is the story of mutated, flesh-eating slugs that attack a town after having a bunch of toxic waste dumped on them. The acting in this movie is absolutely atrocious. Not like The Resurrected kinda bad either, we're talking high school play level delivery here. The writing isn't much better. It also has one of the wackier soundtracks I've ever heard on a horror movie. Music that doesn't seem to fit the scene will just come blaring in out of nowhere, and at several points it made me feel like I was watching a t.v. show. In spite of all that, Slugs is actually a very enjoyable because of some truly gross and disgusting special effects. The slugs are used to great effect to create fairly simple, yet vomit inducing scenarios. For example a woman cuts into a head of lettuce and:  There's no shortage of gore and the slugs are very carnivorous, so they get up to some pretty nasty stuff. So anyone who enjoys juicy, gross practical effects will enjoy Slugs. Followed it up with  Venom This was like, a real movie. Very jarring to go from a completely shameless B-movie to something like this, because it takes itself extremely seriously at all times. After all, when you cast Oliver Reed and Klaus Kinski, they are gonna bring some intensity to the movie.  The set up is great, if a bit convenient, and the snake is appropriately menacing once you see what it can do. Still, I think I prefer my Kinski in projects that are a bit more worthy of his intensity, and my B-movies a little bit more light and fun ala Slugs. This was more of a thriller about a kidnapping that also happens to feature a deadly snake, so I'd hesitate to really even call it horror. There's not really much to complain about specifically though, it's well made, well paced, and the performances are very solid. Completed: The Wicker Man, Deadly Blessing, Night Creatures, Shock Waves, Slugs, Venom
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 13:43
|
|