|
I'm going to actually participate in this thread for, I think, the first time. My goal is a modest 12 films. I'm kind of cheating since I plan on spending a fair amount of time in the Scream Stream but I also just moved and am going through a life overhaul this month so I don't want to overcommit. 1) I'm going to talk about Dagon so I can vent feelings about Lovecraft and swoon a bit over Macarena Gomez I've never liked Lovecraft's writings. His style of prose has never, with one exception, captured me the way all my favorite novels and short stories have. There's something about his insinuations that, generally speaking, completely fail to fire the most evocative parts of my imagination. That one exception is The Shadow Over Innsmouth. The paranoia and dread of the author's flight from the villagers fully grips me when I read despite the story being told after the fact. It was the first Lovecraft I read and what I thought reading his works would be like. Sadly that wasn't the case but for the sake of this movie I was very happy to see the story return. The film's beginning is bland but quick and the more time is spent in Imboca the deeper the mood settles in. Characters that don't matter stop appearing as soon as their utility to the plot runs out. The town itself is the (second) best thing in the film and more time spent in it the better the movie gets. In its own way it completes a task for me rather similar to the novella's; it manages to suck me into the dread and adrenaline of the situation even though I know this story. The villagers overall are well presented and make for memorable faces even when they don't speak. The best of them, however, is Gomez. Even though her script direction might as well have said "just stare at 'em real hard" her very intense and unwavering gaze still manages to reflect her character's longing, desperation, admiration, and rage. It's a notable performance especially considering her character is effectively airmailed into the story later on and given the bulk of the plot's importance to shoulder. Basically a bunch of intense Spaniards were hired to make a Lovecraft mashup movie that unintentionally looks almost a decade older than it is. It's still fun, though/10 Aside: I'm thinking of some of the thread challenges to complete and need a nudge. For an '83 horror film, should I roll with Sleepaway Camp or Videodrome? Those are the only options. I've seen neither. First vote wins. Lester Shy posted:Edit: Oh yeah, can anybody recommend a movie from '87, preferably available on Prime, Shudder or Tubi? I don't (yet) have anything besides Netflix but '87 has quality choices like Hellraiser, Evil Dead 2, NoES3: Dream Warriors, and Near Dark alongside less-conventional-for-spaces-outside-this-subforum titles like The Stepfather and Rock N Roll Nightmare. It's a pretty good spread. Adlai Stevenson fucked around with this message at 01:05 on Oct 7, 2018 |
#
¿
Oct 7, 2018 01:02
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 12:10 |
|
|
STAC Goat posted:Stephen King apparently loved it, though. I don’t know what that’s about. I think King is willing to indulge cynicism. I doubt there's more to it than that. -- 2) Murder Party - Second time I've seen it in the past few months. Liked it a little less this time; once the overt comedy of the first half ends there's zero energy as you wait for the film to stop. Still not a bad movie, though. 3) Video Dead - It's like an attempt at an Italian stylistic nonsense extravaganza but it only 20% succeeds. Fun to watch with an audience but I would've fallen asleep otherwise. Too much Jeff, not enough aerobics. Franchescanado posted:
4) Sleepaway Camp - In case the one other person on this forums that hasn't seen this movie but also reads this thread is going through my posts, this section will have unmarked spoilers. I'd known about the twist ending for about as long as I'd been on the internet but this was my first time seeing the film. I was going to use this one for my birth year challenge and then, hey, the movie happened and I realized I could slot it here instead. Knowing about the ending made it a little more fun for me. This isn't exactly a Poirot adaptation and I don't think, given the time spent on Angela giving people silent intense staredowns, that the identity of the killer is ever really in doubt. I honestly don't know what to do with this film. It's part legitimate summer camp comedy and part "small children hatcheted to death" style slasher. The two aspects of the film don't gel in the way that other mixed bag horror films can. I think it's reflective of Angela's demeanor as she tries to grow into her social surroundings; when no one's messing with her scenes have a "normal" mood for an 80s summer camp film and when people mess with her murders happen in what feels like a different movie altogether. This movie would make a lot more sense thematically as a pseudo-revenge style slasher if it didn't end with Angela naked on the beach growling like a feral animal. When I sit down and think about Angela for the majority of the runtime, including the ending but minus the animalistic screaming and emotional violence from her adoptive mother, I see the rough edges of a coming out narrative featuring a very shy and nervous kid who wants to kiss a boy and not rock the boat and how enough of the people at the camp are jerks that ruin everything. From that perspective the killing spree seems less the work of a prototypical slasher villain and more the horrendously violent lash-outs of someone who really just wants to be left alone. I think there's a sympathetic narrative in here. ...but then there's the matter of the story beginning with Peter's forced emotional changes and the final shot being Angela's primal roar as two counselors look on in disgust. I guess I'll say that it was a choice that made it easier to get the movie funded and distributed while providing a strong potential for positive word of mouth advertising at a time when films were released in a way that the buzz the ending could generate would be highly important to its ability to make money. The movie feels sympathetic in a way I didn't expect going in but still exploitative in the way I'd assumed it would be. I don't know if I'll ever rewatch it but it passed the time well. Franchescanado posted:
5) The House on Sorority Row (1983) - This was much better than I thought it would be! I don't have an exhaustive knowledge of the early 80s American slasher boom but in general I assume them to be fair-to-middlin' late night fare until proven otherwise. This was well constructed with a more interesting shot selection than I'm used to from the time. I don't know if I have any real deep thoughts on it; it feels like a competent film that knows how to show its influences in a non-intrusive way. I don't think there's much here that's groundbreaking but it is highly entertaining for all the right reasons. If this had been a movie I'd grown up with I could see myself making all kinds of excuses for it but as it stands I came to it now so all I can offer is warm appreciation. Very rewatchable.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2018 21:13
|
|
FRAN CHALLENGE #2: Queer Horror
|
6) Slumber Party Massacre - what is this nonsense The internet tells me this was originally written as a spoof of slashers before the studio pushed for a more straightforward take on the genre. Directed by Amy Holden Jones, who went on to write Mystic Pizza because why not, and written by Rita Mae Brown (?!?!?! wow) this one settles into a really fun ride after an awkward series of opening scenes. The beginning feels like what was shot to make the studio heads happy with the change in script direction. Lots of nudity, a couple kills performed on characters we know little to nothing about, and a killer that wanders around on screen in full daylight with minimum presence. I paused the movie during the chase portion of the second kill and considered swapping to another option before I saw who the director was and read a few paragraphs on its production. After getting something to eat and committing to being in a better mood I hopped back in. Thankfully the rest of the movie is much better than the start. Whether due to its inception as a comedy or the preferences of the writer and director nearly all of the characters with lines feel much more like they received actual creative consideration compared to the vast majority of interchangeable slasher victims. From the neighbor hunting snails with a cleaver to all the girls being big Dodgers fans (Cey homered, of course) to the schmucks who admit the girl's basketball team could easily beat them up to the interplay between Valerie and her sister this is a really fun set of characters. It's a series of screenplay choices that I greatly enjoy especially given the genre. There's very little here that's simply lazy or passed over. I think the movie as it stands, once you get 15 minutes in, is a great example of people working under a set of cross purposes demanded by their bosses and still coming up with something fun and distinct. Adlai Stevenson fucked around with this message at 23:30 on Oct 7, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2018 23:26
|
|
|
Franchescanado posted:
7) Carnival of Souls (1962) - I felt so nitpicky watching this. Lemme just blow past all the good things about this movie (the tone, the atmosphere, the fact that you're not sure if anything's changed about the lead since you spend no time with her before the accident) and talk about why I had a really hard time concentrating: I've lived in Kansas and I currently live in Utah. Every time they swapped between the two or got something wrong about the geography of the settings it threw me off. I was totally, absolutely, 100% incapable of taking the story's version of geography at face value. There's no reason to make you all read my nerding out over this but basically the old Saltair is too distinct a building for me to pretend it's anywhere other than where it really is, and there's weird little things like the lead going to have her car checked out at a garage called Lawrence Tire and Oil that has an ad for a still-active Topeka-area radio station. I still like the movie. I'd easily recommend it. It was just full of locales and settings I'm familiar with and I couldn't shake how they were being used. 8) I Am the Pretty Thing That Lives in the House (2016) - I spent most of the day watching traditional slashers so this was a nice comedown. Someone (possibly Lurd) in chat linked a synopsis of a review that I'll paraphrase: This is a very atmospheric movie that I greatly enjoyed and I don't know who I could recommend it to. I like the nested ghost story and I enjoyed the sense of mystery and, yes, I can be satisfied with two drops of water to drink so long as I know going in that that's all I'm getting. I'm not claiming Nail Gun Massacre. I don't want it on my permanent record.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2018 20:09
|
|
|
I had way more free time today than I thought I would so here you go 9) The Initiation (1984) - I miss old malls The second half of this movie takes place in a large shopping center; several floors ring an open atrium. There is no ethical consumption under capitalism blah blah blah I miss old malls. I miss having to actually leave the house to go somewhere to buy luxury items I wanted. I miss them being slightly more complicated than layouts filled with summerwear and shoes stores. I miss being able to mess around in their open spaces and run into friends. This technically is relevant to the movie because one of my favorite sequences involves a group of college kids who don't realize what kind of danger they're in just tooling around an empty mall and having fun. Not like a montage of decadence or a robbery spree. And there's no hand-wringing over their stupidity because there's no reason for them to think that anything's wrong. Just some folk having a good time. It's not the kind of scene that can always work due to potential tone issues but oh buddy this movie already bounces around moods like a rubber ball so the frivolity doesn't break any immersion you might have. A group of sorority pledges are in the final stretch before they're officially members. They just need to do ~one last job~ pulling a prank in a shopping center after hours and they're home free. This is the central plot but by absolutely no means is it the only major thread the movie wants to dig into. Here's an incomplete rundown of major plot details in the film: recurring nightmares of parental sex, a discount Nurse Ratched, hand cultivators sharpened to lethal precision, doctorate students of parapsychology, a man dressed like a penis, a scheme to steal the clothes off a security guard, and repressed experiences of severe trauma. The movie reaches for a few actual themes and motifs and then hurriedly has characters shout them out loud so the script can show how proud it is of itself. I enjoyed the movie despite itself. It's not as clever as it thinks it is but it still managed to surprise me in a few ways I enjoyed. It's not as funny as it hopes to be but there's enough intentional lightheartedness to keep the proceedings from drying out. It's not scary at any part but did manage to make me anxious for the sake of characters I didn't want to see impaled in an empty mall. I'm not sure how rewatchable the film ultimately is. It's an inoffensive Halloween-appropriate film and seeing Daphne Zuniga in anything that isn't Spaceballs is a neat kick in the nostalgia. Well worth the 90-ish minutes spent but I'll admit I was rather enthralled with all the ways the film tried to stand out from the slasher crowd even if the efforts were strange and sometimes ineffective.  10) Murder-Rock: Dancing Death (1984) - Enjoyable! Functional! Serviceable! I'm very welcoming to mysteries in media, unless it's Luther, which can get out. A story being a mystery is not a guarantee that I'll enjoy it but I've been watching and reading mysteries since I was a kid so I want to enjoy them when they're put in front of me. From Matlock to Bava, Poirot to Psych, Tenspeed and Brownshoe to Raines, so long as it doesn't involve Idris Elba correctly determining if someone's a murderer based on whether or not they sympathetically yawn I'm in. This is only the second Fulci I've seen. The first was A Lizard in a Woman's Skin a few years back. I've already forgotten most of it. From his reputation he's rather multi-faceted so although I know him largely by the gory 80s titles of his I haven't seen I knew going in that I shouldn't be surprised if this film was different. As someone who's not much of a gorehound I'm glad to say that this film's violence is understated but it is still very disturbing. Someone's killing gorgeous young dancers trying to make it big! Who would do such a heinous thing? Is it one of their peers, trying to climb to the top? A family member trying to provide a breakthrough for a less-talented sibling? Is it a jealous ex-lover pushed to the edge by uncovered secrets? The answers provided by the film satisfied me. This is not a top-notch twist-a-thon giallo; it's more like a half-sane half-crazy giallo-lite. I don't mind my giallos tempered. As much fun as a full-bore thrill ride can be I also greatly enjoy mysteries that have a bit more plotting and care put into them. That's not to say that this is some fine-tuned clock, however. There's still a greater sense of style over, well, sense. But enough threads come together in neat and clean ways to make me feel like it's a proper murder mystery that also happens to be Italian rather than the other way around. Again, there's nothing wrong with a nonsense fest but if I had to choose I'd take a dollop more sense for the sake of a satisfying reveal. The flip side is that the cleaner the mystery is the less rewatchable it can be. Great and/or fun performances can elevate a more common mystery but you're not really going to find those here outside of the lead detective. As much as I enjoyed it I won't be coming back soon. I'll still know the details a few years from now though. Adlai Stevenson fucked around with this message at 03:58 on Oct 9, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Oct 9, 2018 03:55
|
|
|
And now I'm already at my simple goal of 12. I think I'm going to make a much-too-bold statement of upping my prospective mark to a full 31 movies. Knowing how things tend to go in my life something bananas will happen in the next 48 hours that will completely derail this effort.Franchescanado posted:
 11) The Burning (1981) - Yeah you guys were right this is a lot better than Sleepaway Camp A deranged burn victim, freshly empowered by five years of convalescence, takes his anger out on teenagers at a camp near his old place of employment. In his time away he has mastered the arts of silent movement, setting traps on open water, and utilizing his bed-ridden superstrength on hapless victims. The killer is the only thing about the movie I dislike. The rest of the cast is primed and ready to be well-grounded and make smart choices given the information they have so it's disappointing to have the killer be a Jason-lite supernatural murderbeast. I guess it's hard to shake Friday the 13's influence given the time period. I guess there's one other aspect I don't like but it fits a kind of character arc so I'm not too upset. I really wanted Alfred to get got. Okay, sure, a bully picks on you a bloo boo everyone else in that cabin seems to get along with you and backs you up! Don't say you don't have friends, you goon! YOU HAVE FRIENDS! And stop peeping on the girls! But, again, they actually do something with it so I'm not going to totally knock the film for the execution. The cast is great and I feel bad for (most of) them when they get killed. I've heard that Jason Alexander isn't proud of the job he did but I like him anyway. It's basically His Shtick 1.0 so I can see why he doesn't want to look back on it but considering the kinds of performances generally turned in for these movies I had fun watching him. Acting all around is pretty solid for the genre and it's not a surprise that actual professionals both came in (Brian Backer) and carried on (Jason Alexander, Fisher Stevens, apparently Holly Hunter has one line). There is one category that I'd give a bit of a nod to Sleepaway Camp for between the two films: killer motivation. The Burning is a standard slasher rampage against people who happen to exist in his path while ostensibly being about revenge. Sleepaway Camp is a kid lashing out against real and perceived threats in a violent attempt to be left alone. The fuel behind The Burning is fine enough for more pared down films like some of the Friday the 13 sequels but the rest of the film's elements are too good to let such a basic slasher mentality be strong enough to hold up its end of the equation. Good film, good times, this could easily be an annual rewatch from me.  12) Daughters of Darkness (1971) - I'm not used to class and quality of this magnitude I don't have to make excuses for this one. It's a drama about corrosive relationship dynamics and the reverberations of abuse that also happens to feature lesbian vampires. There have been plenty of movies of all kinds and varieties that do the push-and-pull that happens here. What I like about this film is that it uses the supernatural elements in a very positive and constructive way that helps stitch and sew the narrative together in a way that would seem too broad or rushed in a simpler character drama. The locations, the wardrobes, and the makeup are all fantastic. I'm a sucker for a strong sense of style and doubly so when there's an emphasis on impactful uses of color and contrast. The acting is mostly good minus Valerie, the young wife, who is fine enough. Otherwise what I enjoyed about this movie were the conversations, the dialogue, and the personal interplay between characters. I have two complaints: one medium-sized and one minor. Both are less egregious than things I've handwaved or gotten past in most every other film I've watched this week. I'm just bringing them up here in case anyone else who has seen the movie agrees. The medium-sized complaint is so the retired cop either died or was grievously wounded from getting his bike nudged? I spent the rest of the movie waiting for him to show back up but nah, apparently his organs exploded when he slumped to the ground at 10 miles an hour. He wasn't even able to make it back in time for the dinner scene. It's fine for the narrative that he gets written out there but considering the care put in almost everything else it's shocking how bad the scene looks. The minor complaint is while the Countess' death is telegraphed in both an immediate and long-term sense (after the two commitments to vampires being weak to running water it was only a matter of time for another weakness to show) and, again, it serves the story well to see Valerie continue on her own it's messy in a way that the rest of the movie isn't. The cop getting booped made sense but was filmed poorly; the Countess dying was filmed well but I don't think it's a smooth transition to the epilogue. Full recommendation. For a taste of the horror to come, below is a still frame of what elicits the biggest scream of the movie: 
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2018 00:13
|
|
|
 13) The Beast Within - (1982) I tried, honestly I tried I feel like I'm willing to watch movies on what I think their own terms are as opposed to what I want them to be. Some movies make it difficult to ignore what could have been, some movies make it difficult to ignore the thing you're looking at that's limped onto the screen, and sometimes there's a movie that's both simultaneously. This movie has the sad distinction of being both simultaneously. A humanoid creature rapes a newlywed woman in the Mississippi swamp. 17 years later that woman's son starts to suffer from a debilitating medical condition that neither the woman nor her husband can explain. Now the couple needs to force themselves to confront that terrible night in the swamp to try and find the boy's biological father and understand what's happening to their son. There's a spine of a great idea in here and parts of it poke through from time to time. A basic theme of dealing with angry male puberty exists but it's heavily muddled by the other parts of the plot the movie wants to dance with. As a result the more coherent through line winds up being family and how they influence one another except it's pretty heavily weighted on nature over nurture except for when it's not. If both of these themes had been better assembled this would be a crazy strong movie. If one of these themes had been better assembled this would be a solid movie. As it is the movie exists in its current form and I can't change that so I'm almost completely disappointed in what I've watched. What the movie gives the audience is a tale of revenge via progeny. The progeny, however, becomes the parent after a 17-year incubation that mimics the cycle of the cicada. Still not a bad idea at all! My issue is that the influence of the progeny plot fundamentally changes the other themes that the movie wants to play around with. The blood father of the boy in question was imprisoned and tortured for years and the movie posits two different explanations for his ability to recreate himself in his eventual child. One of the explanations helps the plot and the other doesn't. Even if you ignore the explanation that doesn't help the plot it still greatly detracts from the issues of emerging anger and hunger that the boy has to deal with by framing it as his blood father literally taking over his body. The boy has no history with his bio dad and the movie seems much more interested in what the bio dad does instead of what the son has to go through. The son's suffering by the middle of the movie doesn't have anything to do with him anymore; it's all about setting up the rebirth of the bio dad. It's a weak move with a disappointing payoff. The cast is populated by a strong collection of character actors, the settings and locations chosen are all successfully mindful of the intended mood and environment, and the makeup and costuming is fine. Not great, not strong, but fine. There are statements on the internet that the movie's coherence and plot were heavily hurt by studio-mandated cuts and rearrangements. I don't know if it's true but it would absolutely explain some of the problems with the plot on its own terms. There's a backstory that gets dumped near the end but by the time it arrives it's too late and explains not quite enough for it to matter. A character undergoes a shift in personality that changes their dynamic and motivation without explanation or payoff. The ending plops on the ground without any of the resonance the story thinks it has been granted. Meshach Taylor doesn't have enough lines. I can't recommend this. I'm certainly not going to rewatch it. I'm moving on.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2018 06:40
|
|
|
Guy Goodbody posted:& Italy & Korea Yeah I need to consciously avoid Italy and Japan for this one to actually step out of my comfort zone
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2018 22:21
|
|
|
 14) Summer of 84 (2018) A young boy in suburban Oregon is convinced, convinced that his cop neighbor is actually a dastardly serial killer. No one really believes his theory but his friends are willing to humor him as they all burn away one of their last summers of youth. I've seen complaints of it trying too hard to cash in on the Stranger Things style of nostalgia and I suppose I can agree with that to an extent. Some of the references made, especially in dialogue, are a little too cute. One character in particular is a troubled one liner machine and he doesn't come across as natural. There are a few plot developments that seem like a bit of wish fulfillment but I think this point in particular settles down and makes a lot of sense by the end. The pacing of the film is probably what surprised me the most. At 105 minutes it's a bit longer than most movies of this general type but the time still slid by. There's a decent amount of humor and the tension worked well for me. Ultimately the film clicks for me as an experience. Franchescanado posted:
married but discreet posted:If there's one challenge I'd really like to see it's "Scroll down as far as you can on Prime/TubiTV and find a movie nobody has ever seen". There's just soooo much. Let's watch Mongolian horror movies! I used to live in Mongolia teaching English at the equivalent of junior high and high schools in the capital of Ulaanbaatar. Despite this I never saw a locally-produced movie during my time there nor have I seen any of their films since coming back stateside despite one or two of them in particular being rather well reviewed. To correct this oversight I'm using this challenge as an opportunity to familiarize myself not with any of those internationally acclaimed efforts but rather with one of the nation's modern ~*~award winning~*~ horror directors about whom I can find out virtually nothing: Baasandorj Tsogt-Erdene. Tsogt-Erdene, I would guess, is still developing his skills. I do not know how many films he has directed or been otherwise involved with beyond the three I've been able to track down online. There are issues present in all three of these films to varying degrees: basic pacing issues particularly regarding cut and scene length, general mismanagement of the score, two of films are ten to fifteen minutes too long and the third is a touch short while wasting too much time, occasional severe underacting from his talent in the face of horrifying duress, and an overreliance on certain styles of editing. On the other hand his films are actively striving for interesting shot compositions and sequences in a way I don't usually see from lower-budget filmmakers. He makes great use of the capital's environments to build a sense of place and purpose (although I don't know if that comes across to people unfamiliar with the city). His effects work fluctuates a bit as he uses different techniques and his use of blood is inconsistent but there are some legitimate highs in here I was surprised by. Anything substantive that happens is set up beforehand--even when the pace drags and the acting flags there are setups and payoffs and it still feels like an actual movie is happening. His films all share a basic, and very appropriately Mongolian, theme of "your bad decisions impact innocent people well beyond yourself/personal mistakes harm the community." It's a rather Soviet-style message that stems from the country's geopolitical history. Even if Tsogt-Erdene is too young to remember Soviet rule (and again I have no idea how old the man is) it's an edict that also has roots in Mongolia's nomadic and herding culture. Individuals excelling is great for everyone; individuals failing is disastrous for everyone. All three of the following films are currently available on Amazon Prime. The subtitles aren't the worst I've seen but they're rough. You can still parse most of the lines without a great amount of difficulty but knowledge of the Mongolian language sure does help.  15) Zoor (aka The Vault) (2015) - it's kind of a riff on Amityville Horror This one's rough. A man buys a house out in the tent districts on the north side of the capital. As he moves himself, his wife, and his daughter in an old woman admonishes them to leave immediately. But how could they? It's a dream house considering its condition and the part of town it's in. Yet as time goes on and the bizarre happenings and warnings start piling up they might start wishing they had listened. There's so much flab in this movie. It's 90 something minutes long and could stand to lose up to 15 minutes of it. You could almost certainly shave off a handful of minutes by trimming scenes that linger too long trying to build atmosphere that doesn't arrive on time. The lead's in-laws show up late to the proceedings out of nowhere and remain throughout when they could have very easily been introduced earlier to prevent an awkward introduction. There's a creepy kid whose outfit looks more hilarious than unsettling. The whole thing feels like they filmed the rough draft. Having said that there are details that work pretty well, although not all of them completely. The house, in for instance, is a mixed bag. Trust me when I say that a house in that condition with those furnishings in the part of town that it is an unbelievable steal. This is why I would compare the movie to Amityville; the family is obviously in a Horror Movie House but how could they give up such an amazing place to live? The downside for the viewer is that the walls and general interior of the house are really bland. Seriously though trust me on that house being real quality for the part of town it's in. The strongest aspect of the movie is showing a lower-class family landing higher up the ladder than they've ever been. Weak acting undermines the stress of the situation, though. Overall this movie is too long and too slow for what it's putting on screen. The ending's not bad, though, and it's the first real clincher of the broad theme of personal mistakes harming the community. Things get much better from here.  16) Huuhuldei (aka The Doll) (2015) - basically a Monkey's Paw story This one's actually pretty fun. Note: some sources like iMDB say this film is from 2017. This is incorrect and the source seems to be someone erroneously linking the year of its release to the year it had an apparent theatrical run in Cambodia, of all places. The credits state it was made in 2015 and it would have needed to have been released before June that year to be eligible for the local award it eventually won. A young office worker is getting crushed by her financial obligations. Her mother is in the hospital and requires expensive medical therapy; trying and recently failing to continually supply the funds needed has also pushed her behind on her rent to the point of threats of eviction. The job she desperately needs to maintain even a semblance of balance is constantly under threat by the needy sexual harassment of one of her directors, further fraying her state of mind. At this volatile crossroads, however, she happens upon an opportunity to acquire an object that just might help her out of her circumstances... Why, yes, the poster above is accurate: this film took home a ~*~highly prestigious~*~ award for best special effects from the 2015 Mongolian Academy Awards. Are the effects really that special? Eh. There's a dream sequence that's incredibly underwhelming and the blood can't decide if it's blood or red water for the length of the film but there are some practical effects that work pretty well. While there are still some editing and flab issues in this movie it is light years better than The Vault. The pacing, editing in general and for a few sequences in particular, shot selection, and acting (especially from our lead) are all a massive upgrade. There are some questionable choices where it comes to use of flashbacks and deciding to not explain details at certain times but I don't think these choices really harm what's going on. This movie of the three is the most overt with its use of the theme of harming the community with personal mistakes, even ones that seem like the only way out. I had a good time and if any reader were inclined to watch one of these films I'd suggest it be this one.  17) Oroolon (aka The Demon) (2016) - a haunted house story It's a step back but not a large one and there's still progress in some ways. In a resort house in the countryside north of the capital a man is trying to nurse his wife back to health. After a long battle, sadly, she succumbs and passes on. Soon after her spirit enters the home to reoccupy its space. Advised by a local monk that there is little to be done but move out and not sell the property to keep from passing off the ghost on someone else. The man leaves the house behind and moves south to the capital. Several years later the man's nephew, desperate for a cheap place to have a New Year's party with his friends, learns that his uncle still owns what has to be a nice place up in the resorts north of the city... This movie is the shortest of the three at 72 minutes but still manages to have pacing issues with imprecise cuts and overlong attempts at atmosphere building. The majority of those issues truthfully occur at the beginning of the film before any of the partying starts and once you clear the 20-ish minute mark the pacing improves. The acting is overall strong for most of the scenes involving the twenty-somethings; the uncle is meh and when people need to act scared it's a mixed bag but the bulk of the scenes are well done. The story and setup are weaker than The Doll's but there's so little story here that it's actually not a big detriment and some of the storytelling choices used here work better for this film than the previous. This is much closer to a prototypical stack-the-bodies style film and this is reflected in the reduced runtime and lack of depth-building scenes with all the partygoers. The effects work is a step down from The Doll. There's some awkward CG with a severed head and one of the jiggling kitchen knives has a very apparent string attached to it. The final scenes tie some things together but they're muddled by ham-handed subtitles. This movie is intentionally more slight than The Doll because it's working towards a different goal. I personally think it doesn't hit its intended mark as well as the previous movie hit its personal mark but The Demon isn't bad because of this. It's just not as effective. -- tl;dr: The Doll is fun, your mileage will absolutely vary with the other two, all three are on Prime
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2018 05:59
|
|
|
ah nvm
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2018 20:05
|
|
|
Guy Goodbody posted:next week there will be the opposite challenge, watch a movie by a director who has made at least 100 movies. Your options are Roger Corman and Takashi Miike "Everyone watch a Corman that no one else has already used for this challenge" could be fun imo
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2018 23:07
|
|
|
Franchescanado posted:
 18) Seven in Heaven (2018) - It's like a feature-length half-baked episode of Sliders Qualifying paragraph: The director, Chris Eigeman, is a film and TV actor whose most recognizable role in this household is Lorelai Gilmore's failed beau Jason Stiles in season 4 of Gilmore Girls. This is his second film; his first is some domestic drama about running off with a kid and he has an upcoming feature about WW2 something something I don't care. Some geek and a mean girl get tabbed to play seven minutes in heaven in a rich kid's house. They shuffle into the closet-within-a-closet in the master bedroom to sulk awkwardly but when they emerge they're in the same apparent house but a different party altogether. There are unnerving differences between their home neighborhood and the lookalike they stumble into. They don't really understand why they arrived; how will they get home? Part of me thinks I can't recommend this but I want to maintain that I was interested for the length of the film. The movie is filled with things that aren't really dug into or explained in any proper way but not all examples are negative. Some of the little (and big) mysteries suit me just fine being unexplained especially for a movie of this type. On the other hand there are some character motivations that should really have been fleshed out to make some of the actions taken make sense. The beginning is slow, the middle kept me intrigued even though it's a little paint by numbers (with some notable moments), and then the third act is weird enough that I was fully engaged. The ending toggles between petering out in part due to those soft characterizations but the final scene works for me. Again, I don't know if I can recommend it because I know it's the kind of goofy story that's right in my wheelhouse. But if you're a-hankerin' for a long and somewhat pudding-headed episode of Sliders then give it a shot.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2018 01:42
|
|
|
 19) Splinter 2008 - Decent but not crucial One of the dudes from Royal Pains marries above his station but gets to walk away from a night of horror with his wife while lesser folk die around him. The greatest consequence of the presumably small budget isn't the two locations, one of which is a field, or the uneven and at times laughable special effects. It's the microscopic cast relative to the screen time they all receive. From my memory six people appear in the film; only four get more than one scene (plus death throes) and only three get a substantive amount of dialogue. This means most of the movie is spent watching those three people stand around and wonder if something's going to happen. The sound design was pretty dope, though. Two thumbs up for that aspect by itself.  20) CreepTales 2004 I guess - Fun in a group, don't watch alone Some buried anthology from a time lost to the ages released for incomprehensible reasons. Surprising amount of quality from a few of the stories. The same cannot be said of the production values. Overall something I'll only revisit in gif form thanks to enterprising video herders from the Scream Stream.  I'm actively looking for excuses to post this gif -- Franchescanado said I could split up the two fully distinct seasons of Slasher into their own entries~  21) Slasher Season One: The Executioner 2016 - Somehow both trying too hard and not nearly trying hard enough A woman returns to her hometown--and site of the brutal slayings of her parents--as an adult with her husband in tow. Soon after a series of homicides begins taking place seemingly perpetrated by a copycat of her parents' killer. The opening sequence of this season is stellar and the remainder of the show fails to live up to the introduction. There certainly are high points to enjoy over the course of eight episodes but this story is a prime example of being a mixed bag. The positives: the portions of the show focusing on the more episodic nature of the kills are the best aspect of the production. Once the show settles into a groove the victims are rather clearly marked but understanding why the victims are chosen makes the episodes more fun than they probably deserve. Character dynamics bob and weave in strange directions as the cast narrows and more sins are unearthed. The killer's visual design is strong and imposing. The negatives: the portions of the show focusing on the overarching story and connective tissue are the worst aspect of the production. The killer's motives are weak to the point of distraction. This wouldn't be a big problem except the show wants to be a slasher that's also Silence of the Lambs but don't forget a heaping helping of Seven too! Only the slasher portions work. The Silence parts aren't terrible but are heavy handed. They lead somewhere decent but not spectacular. The Seven parts are about as cohesive as runny jello especially in hindsight when you realize how limp the killer's mindset is. The acting is scattershot with special notice given to the lead actress' ever-wandering accent. Concerning the identity of the killer sometimes I try to figure these things out and sometimes I get immersed to the point where I don't really even want to connect the dots because I just want to watch the story happen on its own time. This season was not interesting enough to get me to dive in fully so I felt that it was too easy to notice that one and only one character was ever in position to do the things the killer was pulling off. So, bonus demerits from me. The action is a mixed bag. The more dynamic kills are, by and large, reminiscent of things done in better shows and movies. I recommend this only to the bored and patient. Season 2 is better.  22) Slasher Season Two: Guilty Party 2017 - My favorite character lived so I declare the season a success A group of six college students working as camp counselors decide one of their number has violated numerous friend codes and drum her out of the group. They accidentally drum a little too hard, though, and she dies in the ensuing confrontation. Fearing reprisal and ruination the remaining counselors stuff her body under a rock in the Canadian wilderness and call it a day. Five years later they learn that the land the now-former campground is on has been purchased by a developer looking to build new facilities on the property. Fueled by paranoia the five counselors take a trip the winter before construction is set to begin to move the body to a more secure location. Things don't go as planned. Virtually all complaints I had about season one--the sloppy writing, unremarkable characters, weak killer motivation, trying too hard to be like movies it has no chance of properly mimicking--are solved here. The only real tradeoff relative to the first season is that the killer's visual design isn't nearly as striking. The emphasis on secret pasts from season one returns as an even bigger part of season two. Overall this is done better than season one in no small part due to the entire plot and a bulk of the characterization relying on this part of the storytelling rather than having it be another gimmick on top of the trainwreck of hooks that season one employed. This season also marks an uptick in rating, leading to notably more language and gore. Compare, for example, the first on screen kill of both seasons for a direct nod to the advancement of what the show is putting on the table. Overall nearly every aspect of the show is improved in season 2 and I'm looking forward to the announced season 3. Franchescanado posted:
I don't like movies about spoopy children. There's never enough spoop and among the movies I've seen in the subgenre the potential for deeper storytelling tends to be wasted as window dressing for the main event of kids killing things. This wouldn't even be worth mentioning save for the fact that I don't think there's anything inherently interesting about a horror movie that revolves around the premise of murderous children. Werewolves can rend and tear, vampires can corrupt and subvert, the cruel and uncaring universe can coldly shrug. Kids can't tie their own shoes. I need more. There's a deep well of interest to be drawn from that's readily available in more dramatic renditions of the theme. In horror realms, however, discussions about psychopathic innocence, the collapse of societal hopes and expectations, and fear of the alien nature of the rising generation get buried for the shock value of an easily puntable mini person getting frisky with a pair of scissors. Too easily the concept becomes a cinematic cul de sac of filmmakers trying and failing to create a work more dynamic than the most mediocre Child's Play movie.  23) The Children 2009 - What terror lurks when the smallest and least capable of us rise in anger I fully appreciate the thread stipulation of not being overly negative. In honor of that demand I will write a review that is much kinder than this thermos of backwash pretending to be a movie deserves. I don't use the word 'hate' liberally. For all the bad or, worse, boring movies I've seen there have been very few that I've properly hated. Disliked? Sure. Been disappointed in? Of course. Hated? It's a genuinely short list. A movie I hate is one that leans so heavily on a clumsy aspect or mishandled plot device or flimsy premise to the point where it overwhelms my experience completely. It can be a little irrational or peculiar because what gets my goat might not come anywhere close to anyone else's. Have you ever seen The Good Dinosaur? I hate that movie. I can't engage with it at even a basic level because the setup is too lazy for me to be willing to follow along. For the blissfully uninitiated it's the story of an Earth where dinosaurs don't go extinct and in time develop enough intelligence to become capable of agriculture and civilization. They essentially follow the track of development that humans eventually would otherwise obtain. As a consequence human beings still exist but remain arrested in their development as wild animals. They're basically raccoons stealing from the dinosaurs' grain silos. The dino protagonist of the movie is tasked by his father with killing a young human who has repeatedly stolen their food and in turn was caught in a vermin trap. Our lead blanches and lets the human go. After being told off by his father and sent into the wilds to hunt and kill the thieving human a storm causes flood waters to rise. As a consequence the father, in an effort to come to the aid of his child, drowns in the river. This leads to a journey of self-discovery on the part of the young dino as he travels the land and learns to appreciate the human he failed to exterminate, who has become his plucky animal sidekick. That's right; the plot revolves around you, the viewer, being okay with the idea of watching a movie where a kid gets his dad killed because the lad refused to kill a raccoon that was stealing from the family's limited food stores. The raccoon is shaped like a young human but this is only to provoke sympathy in the audience; the entire premise of the film is that dinosaurs are the dominant species. They have replaced humans in the timeline of this world. The entire film hinges on you, the viewer, looking at the human child on the screen and ignoring all of the world building the movie has just taken the time to set in front of you detailing how the dinosaurs in the movie are the human analogues. The dinosaurs aren't dinosaurs; they're people! Come watch the people dinosaurs build a farm and have adventures! The humans of the film aren't humans. They're raccoons. Don't let your dad die because you pitied a raccoon. ~ I hate The Children. It is the epitome of why I hate spoopy children movies. What setup is there to make the children menacing? They start coughing in the way all children always do whenever you think you might have a peaceful evening around them. What setup is there to make the adults more interesting? Several lines of dialogue providing rough outlines of their respective parenting styles and providing for the potential of various dynamics between one another as well as between them and the children of each of the respective couples. (Nearly) None of that winds up meaning anything though because the specter of SPOOKY KIDS is apparently supposed to be enough to carry the weight of the film. IT ISN'T Especially when, at the onset, it's the smallest kids who are the most violent. You know, the ones that are the slowest and weakest and worst-equipped to do anything other than freeze to death outside. If it sounds like I'm ragging on the movie for failing to provide bloodthirsty hyperzombie kids it's because it wants me to be menaced by squat morons with the sniffles. It really, really doesn't help that the first kill only occurs because a man on a sled with well more than ample warning to get out of the way of a hazard does literally nothing of any kind to dodge or protect himself. It set a strong negative tone for the mistakes the adults would need to make for the movie to have any kind of forward momentum. On the one hand, some of the characters cotton on to the threat comparatively quick and keep themselves safe but on the other hand this movie demands too much stupidity and circumstance to function as even a rough slug of a plot so I don't feel like giving it any due. Also the ending with the stinger of the teenager possibly being infected is the kind of gotcha that direct-to-VHS features spent the entirety of the 80s abusing and refusing to justify while still being more welcome than what happens here. Turning off this movie felt like escaping from a cage. Franchescanado posted:
 Qualifying director: Robert Siodmak, 1900 - 1973 24) The Spiral Staircase 1946 - Who is killing the great invalids of Vermont? In early 1900s New England a killer is on the loose and murdering women with notable physical or mental imperfections. At a local manor the lady of the house, weak in body but still fiery in spirit, fears for her favorite servant, a young lady mute since a childhood trauma. As the night advances and the storm outside howls it appears that the young lady is in more trouble than anyone initially thought. Movies like this are one of the biggest reasons I love digging through classic films. I've never taken a film studies or production course so movies like this, which is far from forgotten in circles where technique lineages are well known, are a fun surprise for me. In the same movie as the smirking, brandy-stealing maid and the rejected, sourfaced nurse is a series of shots and moments and point of view shifts that I recognize from much later giallos and slashers. The story, though thin, is still just as thick as it needs to be to feel like a satisfying watch. I started the film on guard for a slog and was rewarded with a good time. The climax is aces and made for a fulfilling ending to my movie watching for the evening.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 24, 2018 09:22
|
|
|
As of this post I'm finally caught up on the Fran challenges  Franchescanado posted:
 25) The Babysitter (2017) - It's nice to realize when people you know understand your taste A weak willed and put upon kid stays up past his bedtime one weekend and sees his  babysitter get up to some rather diabolical shenanigans after hours.I like the mood, the tone, the everything. The broad characters work for the comedy used. The humor works for me at virtually all levels and at virtually all times. This, in turn, makes the violence pop for me more strongly because it's often a hard mood swap. Overall the onscreen graphics worked for me and helped push the film's sense of style. Ken Marino is in it which is always a plus. I'm having a genuinely difficult time crafting a write up for this movie because my primary reaction to the watching experience is wanting to somehow turn it into an embarrassing body pillow and hug it while I fall asleep. This is my favorite movie I've seen this year to date and it's not close. It's not the best necessarily; that's probably Daughters of Darkness. But it's what I'll likely be watching a couple times a year while other, better, sharper, less personally effective movies get left behind. Franchescanado posted:
 26) Thoroughbreds (2018) - I guess this counts, not that I'm complaining And now I'm having trouble expounding on this movie because as good as it is I'm already mentally filing it away under, "Sure, it was good and I'd recommend it but I probably won't rewatch it for at least a decade. No no, really, you should watch it, it's great! I'll come over after it's done though, I've got other things to do, it's been a busy week and I need to finish up some laundry." My mental library is very precise. Seriously though that's it Franchescanado posted:
 27) Seizure (1974, Oliver Stone) - also starring Herve Villechaize as THE SPIDER As houseguests fill his family's country estate for a weekend gathering a critically acclaimed author can't help but feel a building sense of dread as scenes and figures from his nightmares start appearing in the real world. Part intriguingly bizarre home invasion thriller, part overindulgent freshman film embarrassment, it's Oliver Stone's first movie! Overall it's an interesting attempt to mix both grounded and surreal elements in an increasingly homogeneous blend. Certainly particular characters and scenes show the rapid tilting well. Many other sequences, however, are more on par with what you would expect of a young filmmaker with more ideas than technique. On the balance there is indeed a heartening amount of technique on display considering it's a low budget first effort. It's not enough to keep the movie from being out of its depth and ultimately disappointing but I'd be surprised if if many people found this a boring experience. Villechaize plays an escaped mental patient/reincarnation of an ancient French despot/monologuing knife fighter, for example. His character is one of many facets of the film that elicits a "is this seriously happening right now?" reaction. Too many of those facets are to the detriment of the film, however, with not nearly enough of the surrealism functioning well enough and the effective portions not having the strength to counterbalance the dead weight. If I wasn't familiar with Stone's later films I would have assumed that some of the weaknesses of over exposition and forcing themes too hard were a result of being afraid that he wouldn't necessarily get the chance to direct again and he wanted to get these things out there, man. But it's Stone so in some ways it's par for course with his weaker efforts. Watch if you're bored and want a slice of lumpy surrealism I guess. There's some real gold in here, just not enough.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 25, 2018 01:10
|
|
|
My last post was sloppy and offends the sense of improvement I've been enjoying this month as I've been reactivating the part of my brain that likes to talk about movies and all the things that go with that. I can't do much about The Babysitter's review because I don't have the vocabulary to describe the taste of a cinematic scooby snack. And my Seizure write up needed another pass to fix basic writing errors but otherwise contained the impression I wanted to project. Thoroughbreds, though, was like an unmoving lump in my mind that just broke up in the past hour and now the ideas are flowing. After finishing the movie I realized that I had enjoyed my time spent on it but the rush that typically accompanies seeing a movie I liked in the moment rapidly faded into nothing. Within thirty minutes of hitting the credits I felt surprisingly ambivalent without really understanding why. I had enjoyed the performances, especially of the two leads. The pacing was excellent. The shock of the proceedings was effective. The ~big scene~ was notable and landed with a fierce amount of strength. Yet afterwards I felt strangely unsatisfied while only being able to think of one real flaw: I didn't like Anton Yelchin's role in the story. It seemed minor, though, so I simply thought of the movie as "merely" imperfect but still struggled to understand why I couldn't maintain my enthusiasm for the movie I had just enjoyed. Then I spat out a nothingburger of a review. The charge that blew the dam was me realizing why I didn't like Anton Yelchin's character. It's almost entirely spoiler territory from here on. And if these are things you understood immediately while watching the movie, well, you caught on faster than me. This movie fully engrossed me and as a result it took a while for this to fully sink in as I went over the details again. Then I realized that one scene that I had liked meant way more than I initially realized it did. In the moment I thought that the step-dad's takedown of Taylor-Joy was merely a harsh but accurate sequence that helped establish a stronger motive for the following plot developments. I didn't realize it was literally describing the structure of nearly every scene in the movie. What had bothered me about Yelchin is that he only seemed to exist for the girls to triangulate dialogue off of. His abandonment of the assassination plan had me thinking that some further development was coming and when it didn't, and the next time he shows up he's at another dead end job so that Taylor-Joy has someone in the know to talk to, I felt deflated. I didn't get the point of his character. It wasn't until hours later that I understood that this isn't a movie about two girls and the way they handle a rekindled relationship under duress. It's about one girl, Taylor-Joy, and how the people around her only matter--both to her within the movie and to the movie itself--according to the terms with which they interact with her life. No character is ever shown or featured outside of the attention of Taylor-Joy. The examples of the scenes she is not present for are Cooke's confrontation of the horse (a moment Taylor-Joy digs into and finds out about), Cooke's ending monologue (an attempt to connect with Taylor-Joy), and the step-dad's confusion with the tracking lights (that occurs while Taylor-Joy's focus is on the step-dad's circumstances). If they aren't on Taylor-Joy's mind, they don't exist. For as much time is spent on Cooke's character and the contrast that she provides of "abnormal" behavior in comparison to Taylor-Joy's "normal" behavior she is ultimately another satellite orbiting Taylor-Joy. So Yelchin's job isn't to have any real significant plot impact. He's there to show how the girls' attitudes are progressing and then at the end he's the only character left that Taylor-Joy can deliver those particular key lines of dialogue to without raising suspicion, so back in he goes. To the credit of Taylor-Joy and the filmmakers the film feels distant and dehumanizing even when I didn't understand while watching exactly what they were putting together. It's an unyielding movie about a manufactured girl who makes everyone, including the audience, think that there's more to her than her base desires and manipulations. She didn't read the letter. So now I understand why, after being captivated by the journey, I reflexively distanced myself from it as soon as it ended: it's like a cinematic ice sculpture. Striking, graceful, finely crafted, and freezing cold to be near. I feel better now. Adlai Stevenson fucked around with this message at 10:10 on Oct 25, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Oct 25, 2018 10:03
|
|
|
STAC Goat posted:Even though I’m probably gonna check out the series now… Scream: Season 1 is fun and I earnestly recommend it. Scream: Season 2 is a decent show but a horrendous sequel. If you can (somehow) disconnect it from Season 1 in a way the show doesn't want or intend, though, you should still have a fun time.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2018 06:35
|
|
|
STAC Goat posted:Out of curiosity are the actual sequels/in universe? I've been avoiding Wikipedia on these since the Scream series is all about mystery identities of killers so I didn't want to come across any spoilers. I assume the OG trio aren't involved in the series but I was just curious if its part of the whole thing following Scream 4 or just its own reboot thing. It's been a long time since I've seen any Scream movie but to my knowledge there's about 0% crossover between the movies and the show. Maybe some visual references or sly nods at most. The plot is wholly distinct. Season 2 is a direct sequel to Season 1, but worry about burning that bridge when you get to it.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2018 06:58
|
|
|
STAC Goat posted:Yeah, well the truth is there really isn't much to crossover with the movies anyway besides the actors/characters left over from the original movie. Everyone else pretty much dies and any connections between the films is made up on the fly. I guess I was just curious if like its: It's C. When I said 0% crossover I should have said that while it's called Scream it's an entirely different story and different characters. The intent was to make something stylistically similar to Scream (slasher-style secret antagonist, characters with a working knowledge of media conventions) but the only connection to the franchise as a whole is the title.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2018 07:31
|
|
|
In case you're like me and you're not good at thinking of movies that take place on Halloween that aren't named Halloween, have a Wikipedia article.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 27, 2018 00:31
|
|
|
Franchescanado posted:
Franchescanado posted:Bride of Frankenstein picked by Choco1980: "What can be said about this that hasn't already? It's just an absolutely perfect film from its time. Better in every way from the first film, from the writing, to the acting, to the tension, to the humor, to all the subtle bits, to the tragic, painful end. Every time I watch it, I promise myself I won't cry at the ending. And I know every time that will be a promise I break."  28) Bride of Frankenstein (1935) - I wish I could love any film as much as Choco apparently loves this Mary Shelley decides to compose an extemporaneous sequel to the first movie where Dr. Frankenstein finds himself roped into returning to the blasphemy game while his first creation begins to intellectually and emotionally expand. By the standards of the time this is clearly a superior film although I, personally, would have liked 10 or so more minutes of connective tissue to tie the movie together more cleanly. Truthfully I was cruising along until the end. I liked more of the humor than I thought I would and I was more interested in the Monster's development than I had assumed I would but I was a little distracted by the clip at which most of the film moves. For example I enjoyed the People in Jars scene and considering the overall thrust it didn't feel out of place but it was still strange to consider for a first viewing when I couldn't spend much time digesting it when the movie kept flowing. This would undoubtedly get better with repeat viewings. Knowing what's coming and how to consider and slot it in as the movie speeds by would certainly help increase my appreciation for the whole. As it stands I find myself enjoying more individual scenes than the overall themes. Currently my favorite parts are basically every moment the Bride is onscreen twitching like a bird. After spending the runtime watching Karloff expand and grow it was a shock to remember, hey, they're basically weird kids when they first awake. It's been much too long since I've seen the original Frankenstein so I wouldn't presume to rank one above the other. Regardless I'm confident that I'll see this film again; I want to see how the pace feels when I know where it goes and how much time I have to dwell on any given scene. DeimosRising posted:It’s good, and disheartening but not really a shock that the queer girl melodrama written and directed by women gets a bunch of comments about the leads are hot and dumb, and “plain” respectively Okay sure  29) Jennifer's Body (2009) - People hurtin' people BFFs Jennifer and Anita go to an indie rock concert at a seedy bar. A fire breaks out and in the resulting chaos a tipsy Jennifer is whisked away by the band members. Later that night she shows up at Anita's and she's...changed. This was quite a surprise. When this was first released I pondered seeing it considering I liked Juno and wanted to see what Diablo Cody would do with a horror movie. Then virtually all word of mouth I heard was negative, I gave it a pass, and I mostly forgot about it until this thread. Or, rather, the horror thread when I opened to a random page and saw DeimosRising, who is a 49ers fan and therefore correct, drop a few words on the matter. I had two slots left in my queue for my month's worth of movies so I slotted them in. Of the scripts Cody's written I've only seen Juno and Jennifer's Body. I like them both and one of the primary reasons I do is the dialogue. Since Juno's release she's taken flack for writing that's described as unnatural and distracting and I suppose I just disagree. Here, at least, I feel like the style of humor fits and the characters are distinct. As for the tone I suppose I would say that this is a movie where JK Simmons wanders around with a claw hand, a ritual sacrifice is set to an a cappella rendition of a Tommy Tutone song, and we're supposed to believe that Amanda Seyfried looks plain wearing glasses. It's ridiculous by nature. As much as I enjoyed the comedy I was much more invested in the personal drama than I thought I would be. The horror is fairly minimal given the premise; cut out a few moments of sharp-toothed special effects and there would be very little to speak of. The drama is the meat of the story. I'll say this, though: for all the real readings of empowerment and the examination of intense high school female relationships I, a dude, am intrigued by the use of violence in the film. The source of violence here is primal in a way that I can't help but fixate on in a comedy built around a feminine BFF dynamic. Jennifer's being is reduced to her body (hey, there's the title) because that's all the band needed from her. Jennifer in turn does this to the largely inoffensive boys at school because, hey, their bodies is all she needs from them. Anita sheds decorum for the sake of embracing power and asserting herself against Jennifer. None of this has anything to do with any rules or stipulations that many horror films embrace. There's no sex ban. No one taunted the devil. No one accidentally camped in the wrong part of the woods. Everyone just existed as they did every day before except, today, someone with power decided to exploit them. Overall I'm sad I waited so long to watch this.  30) It Follows (2014) - Half of the movie is about finding a guy named Jeff You know that group icebreaker about the snail that's always chasing you, and nothing can stop it, and if it touches you you die? And everyone in the room talks about how you would manage yourself and what you would do to get away from the snail for as long as you could? This is basically that conversation turned into a movie about a sex ghost. There's a lot in the visuals of this movie to enjoy. There, I said something positive. I had a real fundamental problem with the construction of this movie. Namely, according to its own rules, I knew nothing was going to happen without a sex scene or a twist. And there was never a twist. Does that, by itself, constitute a problem? No, not necessarily. A movie can be transparent with its intentions and maintain tension and atmosphere. It needs other aspects to put work in but it's very possible. What It Follows provided in the early going, however, was the entirely ineffectual apparition I decided to name Señorita Pee Ghost. Upon her arrival I checked out mentally and rarely resurfaced. The forms the ghost took weren't intimidating or unsettling; they were awkward and embarrassing. You may not want to see a senile relative wander out of the house in their robe during a family reunion but it's not really frightening if they do so. With 1:09:00 left I asked the movie, "how does this take another hour?" and the movie answered, "I don't know either!" The sequence that flattened my resolve was Greg's demise. I was all ready for a cool set piece and almost got it until the camera decided to show me that Greg died via ghost humping. It wasn't shocking, or gross, or unsettling. It was sad. I felt bad for the movie. But what about the themes, eh? All that downtime spent trying to avoid the inevitability of death? Well, for me it mostly came off as the slowest possible Final Destination movie. Spoilers for Summer of 84: it's like the existential implications of the ending of Summer of 84 except that's the whole movie. Both dwell on the loss of childhood innocence and the changes involved in growing up and realizing that some day you're going to die and there's nothing you can really do about it. I liked Summer of 84 much more both in general and in the delivery of this concept. For my money the only interesting scene in the movie is Jay swimming to the boat and getting at least one of those dudes killed. I don't think a movie full of the tone of that scene would work but it was the first time I felt like the premise was evolving and then the movie went for the endgame and time was up. I guess that itself is interesting in its own way but not to the point of satisfaction. In summation it's a slow movie that I don't feel delivers on its premise. There's no tension without real threat of change and there's no fear when the entity lacks menace. It does look nice though. -- THE TALE OF THE TAPE: POOL CLIMAX EDITION Jennifer's Body's scene has character development and confrontation. It Follows' scene has a noodle noggin accidentally shoot his friend but not in a severe enough way to stop her from ponderously quoting The idiot while sipping from a juice box. Neither are tense. Jennifer's Body has Megan Fox getting maced and then stabbed with a flagpole; it's supposed to be funny and it is. It Follows has a man in plain underwear throwing small appliances at a girl in a swimming pool; it's neither thrilling nor anywhere near as interesting as a sentence with that construction would imply. Winner: Jennifer's Body
|
|
#
¿
Oct 31, 2018 10:38
|
|
|
Several Goblins posted:57. The Chilling Adventures of Sabrina (2018) (Full season) I've seen that criticism too and it's a shame some people are giving it guff considering it's one of the earlier warning signs that, hey, Sabrina's not exactly using her newfound resources in a wise and fruitful way, maybe that'll turn into a plot point later!
|
|
#
¿
Oct 31, 2018 15:28
|
|
|
Franchescanado posted:
 31) Creepshow (1982) - I would also like my cake It's been a long month and I'm glad I was able to have fun with all these movies while I dealt with it. Capping it all with Creepshow is appropriate; it's the horror movie I've probably seen more than any other save Gremlins. Having said that I think I've seen it maybe five or so times; it's not a personal institution and certainly not a yearly tradition. It's something from my youth that I have fun memories of but I see it infrequently enough these days that I forget many of the story details by the time I sit down with it next. As a result I've probably gone through the same process every time I've seen it the past twenty years. Father's Day starts slow but I honestly prefer it that way. It eases me into the proceedings while pleasantly reminding me, yes, that's what the stylized shots and frames look like, don't you remember? This gives me the time necessary to settle into the mood most of the movie utilizes. The Lonesome Death of Jordy Verrill is dumb but gosh darnit Stephen King is trying so hard to be a goober I can't get mad at him. It's a dead spot, yes, and the best opportunity to get that thing I forgot from the other room that I wanted to have during the movie. It's like an early intermission. Something to Tide You Over is chock full of Leslie Nielsen being evil so I buckle in. The funny thing is that this is the short I always forget about. Every time I start watching this movie I'm surprised when this story pops up and I'm like, "Oh yeah! This one! I remembering loving this one!" And I do. The Crate is too long and somehow has too much Adrienne Barbeau but this is the one that made the deepest impression on me as a kid. The monster was deep in my memory for years after seeing this for the first time and is probably my biggest source of my nostalgia for this movie. Watching it now I can't ignore the pacing. Slashing Barbeau and Holbrook's roles would greatly help push things along without, I believe, losing much if anything from the impact of the story. They're Creeping Up On You always surprises me with how effective it is with its composition. I don't think insects are scary or gross and honestly I like watching the lead be a mean loon honking angrily at people over the phone and intercom systems. It also eschews the film's style almost entirely bar one shot. But it replaces that style with a real cold and sterile aesthetic that I find much more suitable for the movie's capstone. So I settle into the movie's style, then I enjoy a Leslie Nielsen interlude in-between bouts of looking at my watch, and then I have a great time at the end when the movie seems to already be done with itself and what it set out to do. By the time the credits roll I find myself circling back to the opinion that the time I spent was fine but the movie never seems to be as good as I remember it being. Given long enough, though, the issues I have with it fade in the back of my memory behind splashes of vibrant color and frosting frames. Then I watch it again a year or two later with a group and the cycle starts anew. ~~~ ------- ~~~ Hey, I completed my expanded personal goal and all the Fran Challenges!  Superfluous tier listing I spent too much time on ~ some opinions may have settled in flight I loved it and will recommend it to you even if I think you won't like it, you can't stop me: Daughters of Darkness, The Babysitter, Thoroughbreds I really liked it and will probably recommend it with some amount of qualifiers: I Am the Pretty Thing That Lives in the House, Jennifer's Body, Bride of Frankenstein, Summer of 84, The Spiral Staircase I liked it but I probably won't bring it up unless we're talking specific sub-genres: Slasher Season Two: Guilty Party, Huuheldei (The Doll), The House on Sorority Row, Slumber Party Massacre, The Initiation, The Burning I guess I liked it but I don't think I'm going to leave my chair: Dagon, Murder Party, Sleepaway Camp, Creepshow, Murder-Rock Overall I didn't like it but maybe you will, there's certainly good things here: It Follows, Seizure, Carnival of Souls, Splinter, CreepTales I didn't like it but I won't belabor the point: Oroolon (The Demon), Seven in Heaven Whatever value is here is strongly outweighed by its negatives: Zoor (The Vault), Video Dead, Slasher Season One: The Executioner Get out, stay out, good riddance: The Beast Within, The Children
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2018 01:17
|
|
|
married but discreet posted:Eh, the beauty of the horror is that there's so much variety that it doesn't feel like I'm watching the same genre for a month.  I don't watch all that many movies, honestly. I've seen more horror films this past month than all genres combined the previous couple years. So while I did absorb hours and hours of new experiences I also have a healthy list of unseen possibilities to still choose from. I don't always or even usually want horror when I'm in the mood for a movie but it's the genre I can most easily talk myself into. Odds are I'll keep chipping away at the mountain of new-to-me movies that have accumulated over the years; I'll just be doing it at a slower pace.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2018 22:25
|
|
|
Unless the entire premise is revenge against the remorseless I don't know if I'm ever in the mood to just watch bodies hit the floor in a slasher. The kills may wind up being staged and shot well, and that's a good thing that can be entertaining, but if the victims aren't interesting outside of their death scenes then I probably don't care about the movie. Slumber Party Massacre is a good example of a slasher that I like. Once you get past the off-key opening scenes all the remaining characters have enough life and variety in them that I don't look forward to their deaths which, oddly, is what makes the film more engaging for me. I have better things to do than watch cardboard cutouts get knocked over even if they hit the ground in spectacular ways.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2018 22:56
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 12:10 |
|
|
This was a dope month, I should make sure to wander back to the forums next fall toograventy posted:Biggest Disappointment As someone who is a fan of both movies I don't know if you should really stress it. They're both, in my opinion, very reliant on getting you to line yourself up with their frequency as opposed to being movies that can push or seduce you into their way of thinking. Does that make sense? Besides you said you enjoyed Killer Klowns so it's clear you have taste
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2018 19:39
|
|