|
Count me in for 31 movies. I don't have a fancy list ahead of time, I'll mostly watch things on a whim just because that's what I normally do. My only goal is to watch through all the old Universal horror movies I own (the Frankenstein, Dracula, and Wolfman series, might throw a few more in if I can find some streaming) just because I haven't seen them in a couple years.
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2018 23:53
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 26, 2024 18:42 |
|
|
Hollismason posted:2) Poltergeist 2 I have never seen this I dunno how though. Anyway I really enjoyed this a lot despite it's mediocre plot. The reason I liked it is because they just amped the insanity of the film up to a thousand. Also it's got a tremendous amount of practical special effects which are always nice to seen. The acting is still solid and the plot is a bit shoehorned but really the special effects are worth sticking through this for. If you haven't seen Poltergeist 3, that one's pretty cool too, even if it still isn't at the level of the original. It's directed by Gary Sherman (of Dead & Buried) if that means anything. It has a very different kind of feeling from the first two movies, which is partly because almost the entire cast was removed.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2018 00:15
|
|
|
I've been on a Brian De Palma kick, which turned into watching through his horror movies for this thread. 1. Sisters - I love how in so many movies from the 70s blood looks like bright red paint. Maybe it was done to get past the MPAA, but it always lends those movies a feeling of falseness. Not in a bad way, but in a way that feels kind of dreamy. You know this isn't reality. You know you're watching a movie. Although the paint blood is a tiny element, it is a microcosm of what Brian De Palma is doing. He makes the viewer very aware that this is a film. He begins by violently pulling the rug out from under the audience. A man is watching a woman voyeuristically. But it's just a game show. The viewer is re-assured. But he still was anyway. The truth of what happened is distorted. This happens all throughout the movie. Fiction is confused for reality. Also, it's a very obvious stylistic quirk of his, but I really have to talk about the splitscreen. De Palma utilizes it here in a deliberate protagonist switch à la Psycho. One protagonist disappears and another enters at the same time. 2. The Fury - Other than Bonfire of Vanities, probably my least favorite De Palma I've seen. Although I think this is much better than that one. It feels too much like he's resting on old techniques that worked for him before. There's very little invention. Features a great cast though. Amy Irving is magnetic. John Cassavetes isn't nearly as fantastic as he is when directed by himself, but he brings just enough that the part works. There's something going on in this with what is seen versus what is felt, but I'm not sure what. 3. Phantom of the Paradise - Holy cow. I didn't think De Palma had this movie in him. A dark cartoon of a satire on the entertainment industry. The film itself makes comparisons between the story it tells and Faust, but it's fascinating how many layers there are. William Finley sells his soul to the devil so he can get his art about someone selling their soul to the devil out to the public. But the devil has also sold his soul to an even greater evil. This implicates the desire for fame as something that is evil, rather than a specific individual. Which is totally fascinating for something released by a major studio. That description of the plot really doesn't do it justice though. It also combines elements from Phantom of the Opera, The Portrait of Dorian Grey, German expressionism, rock opera, and god knows what else. The movie is far stranger and more exciting than I think I can express. And it's utterly fantastic. William Finely and Jessica Harper are also shockingly great singers. 4. Carrie - I feel really dumb for not picking up on this before, but this is a coming out movie. Carrie is terrorized by her classmates and her ultra religious mother for her sexuality. Another girl likes her, but can't ask her out herself so she gets a guy to instead and has a vicarious experience through that. Apparently Kimberly Pierce (of Boys Don't Cry) directed the remake, I'll have to check that out to see if she makes the subtext even more explicit.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2018 18:14
|
|
|
I keep neglecting this thread! 5. Nightbreed - I honestly don't know what the hell this movie was. I'm glad Clive Barker got a sizable budget for his second feature so he could put this together, but I could barely track what was going on in this after the first 20 minutes or so. Really enjoyed David Cronenberg's performance, as I don't think I'd seen him in more than a cameo before. He probably could've had a substantial career as a character actor. There's some great effects work too and I also appreciated Danny Elfman's score, even if it was a bit too Batman '89 at times. I'll have to revisit this sometime. 6. Monkey Shines - I have dim memories of watching this some years ago, but I didn't remember much about it other than it being the killer monkey movie. There's some interesting ideas about the main character's misogyny and the destruction of his own femininity is killing both himself and others around him. The ending feels too neat though. 7. Pulse (or Kairo) - I don't use this word lightly, but this might be a masterpiece. I'll have to re-watch it sometime later and find out. I didn't know what this about going in, so what the subject matter ended up actually being was shocking. I'll dance around what exactly that is for the benefit of anyone who doesn't know. I didn't think this would take the ideas behind what computer technology can lead to that extent. This also shares a deep, aching sadness to this movie. And it's just beautiful. But it kills you. 8. Venom - Kind of plodding and mostly tensionless, although it's redeemed by Klaus Kinski and Oliver Reed. It's really great to see the two of them go at it, but I can't help but think it must've been a nightmare on-set because of that. Venom also does feature one of the most fake looking snakes I think I've ever seen in a movie, so it gets points for that too. 9. Intruder - I think this was the first slasher movie I saw, many years ago now. I have a certain amount of fondness for it because of that, but I don't think it holds up quite as well as I remember. It's nice to see Dan Hicks' acting range in a role which is very different from what he is in Evil Dead 2. Scott Spiegel takes some obvious cues from Sam Raimi's direction of his first three features and he imbeds the movie with the same sense of excitement at its own existence. Sam Raimi also acts in a minor role in Intruder, so that's cool too. 10. Prom Night - Man, Jamie Lee Curtis is great! She really elevates some not great material here. She brings a sense of realism and pathos to the part, and it wouldn't be half the movie it was without her. There's also a sequence which feels like it's 10 minutes long where she just dances to disco at prom. And it's perfect. I enjoyed Prom Night's more subversive elements too. The girls rescue the guys. A couple gets killed after having sex, but the two of them are the goofiest, most likable characters. Leslie Nielsen isn't funny. Good stuff. 11. Terror Train - I like David Copperfield in this though. His presence as (what else) a magician, gives the film certain thematic elements which boil under the surface of most slasher movies. It turns the movie into something about seeing past appearances and seeing things for what they really are. The killer gets tricked at the beginning for failing to look past a practical joke. He turns the tables on the partygoers by using a similar trick against them. They aren't able to see past his disguises and get killed. Even Jamie Lee Curtis, who is able to tell that there are murders going on, is constantly fooled by others. In fact, her character arc is really about becoming more perceptive of the world around her.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 25, 2018 22:12
|
|
|
12. Psycho - After my horror double-feature of Jamie Lee Curtis, I decided to check out a horror movie her mom was in. And hey. It's pretty good. It's worth noting that Norman Bates' mother says "fruit cellar" the same way that Ted Raimi does in Evil Dead 2. 13.Psycho II - I'd heard this was pretty good, but the opening which re-used the shower sequence from the first movie prepared me for the worst. But despite that misstep, this is pretty good! Verging on great. It makes great use of many of the now familiar motifs from the original. Iconic imagery is utilized not for mere shock value or to repeat what was done before but is instead reinterpreted. New meaning is given and the old meaning is played with to destabilize expectations. Richard Franklin's direction is quite good, even if it lacks some of the precision of Hitchcock. I haven't see much of his other movies (besides Patrick), but I'm curious in checking some of them out now. 14. Psycho III - A bit of a letdown from Psycho II. It lacks the suspense and mystery of the first two movies (although I guess there isn't too much of that with the original anymore), but it is interesting to see this series turn into a mostly straight-forward slasher. There's compelling ideas presenting in Psycho III, but very little is done with them. Norman's confused masculinity is contrasted against Jeff Fahey's loathsome behavior. Redemption through faith (particularly in Catholicism) is indicated with the good mother of the virgin Mary compared to Norman's. Norman even strikes up a romantic relationship with a young woman who looks oddly similar to Marion Crane. But nothing much happens with any of that. These concepts are brought out and swept away fairly quickly. I really want to like this one, but it gives me such a feeling of "Is that all?" 15. Psycho IV: The Beginning - Ugh. The drama in this one is totally inert. There's two different storylines going on, one in the present and one in the past. In the plot in the present, almost every character is in a different location and only communicates with one another on the phone. Because of this one actually interacts with one another, which make these bits feels aimless. Norman threatens that he might do something in the future – which I think was meant to give these segments a sense of urgency – but they just feel like a lazy way to make this a sequel to the previous movies instead of just a prequel. The flashbacks also feel pointless as nothing unexpected happens. There are no revelations about Norman's past. No assumptions are upended. Everything happens about the same way you'd expect. Norman's mom abuses his him and then he kills her eventually. It's awful. Olivia Hussey isn't bad as Norman's mom, but her accent feels strange compared with the Mrs. Bates voice used in these movies. Also, John Landis plays a radio producer, and in one point he gets yelled at about getting people killed for the sake of ratings. He says he thinks this is okay. Psycho IV was made 7 years after the Twilight Zone movie.  16. Psycho (1998) - It's kind of difficult to talk about this moie, as unlike most remakes, it can't be approached as its own film. But this is approaching under its own terms. It invites the viewer to compare it to the original. It invites you to question what's different. It invites you to question why those changes affect how you feel about what you're seeing. How they change your perspective. The use of color itself changes everything. Scenes emphasize different aspects because of it. And that's one of the tiniest, simple, most cosmetic alterations. But it changes everything. Best watched in tandem with the original. This is a film about the creation of art. Franchescanado posted:
It's also worth considering this film within the context of who made it. Gus van Sant plays around with the heteronormative elements in the original film in some subtle and not-so-subtle ways. The straight Janet Leigh has been replaced with the openly bisexual Anne Heche. The closeted-bisexual Anthony Perkins has been replaced with the straight Vince Vaughn. Sam Loomis's bare butt is seen instead of Marion Crane's bare breasts like Hitchcock had wanted. Norman now masturbates as he watches Marion, which places the viewer outside of his voyeuristic perspective. Instead of aligning the audience with heterosexuality, they are now watching a heterosexual man. There's probably even more to this element that I didn't pick up on my first viewing. But it's really fascinating how much van Sant's able to change the context of what is being seen without really changing much within the shots themselves.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2018 19:05
|
|
FRAN CHALLENGE #2: Queer Horror
|
17. Maximum Overdrive - This movie features a truck that has a giant sculpture of the Green Goblin's face on the grill, and the soundtrack is done entirely by AC/DC. It's basically a masterpiece. Also, it's a remake of Night of the Living Dead. 18. Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1978) - Rewatch. I still prefer the original to this, but this has some great performances and really admire the filmmaking here. Philip Kaufman does a wonderful job of de-stabilizing the viewer from what would ordinarily be familiar environments. It re-positions the fear of conformity in the original to people chasing after conformity in the appearance of '70s era hippie culture and psychiatry. 19. Angel Heart - Okay, but I expected more from this. The twists and turns of the episodic story fit neatly alongside other film noir. I thought it'd be a little more horror, but it was good for what it was. I might find it more enjoyable on re-watches. I though the plot twists were a little too spelled out too early on. This is a very obvious influence on Nolan(s) though, and I don't think their attempts to recreate what this does are quite as good as the movie itself. 20. Halloween 4: The Return of Michael Myers - A weaker entry in the series, but I think I actually prefer this to the second one. I'm kind of bugged by the change in aspect ratio though. I'd assume that would be done for budgetary reasons, but this had a higher budget than any of the previous movies. This sort of feels like a later entry in the Friday the 13th series, due to a couple of goofier elements. The gas station getting wrecked at the beginning. A bar filled with good ol' boys wearing plaid and denim who decide to take out a mass-murderer. Michael Myers's super strength (He kills several people in this just by pushing his fingers into their heads!). I wish the more comedic elements had pushed slightly more, although I can understand why they wanted to differentiate it from Nightmare on Elm Street and Friday the 13th by backing away from that somewhat. The most interesting idea they added for this one is Laurie Strode's daughter. Danielle Harris does a pretty good job for a child actress and by making her character so young, it avoids comparisons to Jamie Lee Curtis (even if her character is named Jamie). I wish they'd done more with this (like play up the fears a child would have), but they do get some mileage out of it. It turns it into an almost metaphorical conflict. Jamie is life. Michael is death. But she's also Michael. She's Michael happening again. I'm not sure why Loomis is alive again. I thought he died in part 2, but it's been a bit since I last saw it. Maybe it was assumed that the burn/limp they gave him was explanation enough. I'm glad he's back though. It's nice to have at least one recurring actor in Donald Pleasance, and he kind of guides you through the movie as the only person who really knows what Michael is capable of. It reminds me of the old Hammer movies where Peter Cushing kept coming back as Dr. Frankenstein. His craziness feels a bit toned down, which I wasn't a huge fan of. This movie just feels tired and played out and it's only on the fourth movie. I do adore the opening credits though. 21. Halloween 5 - Maybe I'm crazy, but I enjoyed this one the most out of the Halloween sequels so far. (At least the ones that aren't called Season of the Witch). It's a totally straight-forward slasher, without that many interesting elements, but I think it comes together better than the previous ones. Stylistically it isn't much, but it's competent enough. The characters in this stuck with me more than the previous sequels. I really enjoyed Tina especially. She has some great chemistry with Jamie. She actually probably should've been Jamie's sister instead of Rachel, but it was too late for that. There's a pretty bizarre sequence with her where cops save her from being killed by Michael Myers, but then no one thinks to tell her that Michael Myers is on the loose. Weird. It literalizes the metaphorical link between Michael and Jamie so now there's a psychic connection between them. It's an interesting direction to take things in, but I don't think enough is done with it. At least they semi-followed up on previous film's ending. Nobody remembers that Jamie killed her mom, which is odd given that footage is replayed in this movie. Dr. Loomis is completely nuts now. He's just screaming at a little girl to tell her where Myers is. He uses her as bait to lure Myers out and yells at the sheriff about his dead daughter. He's totally off-the-deep-end but barely anyone acknowledges it or even seems to notice at all. I also love the presence of a 50s style greaser. I feel like they often seems to pop up in 80s movies, and I can only assume it happens because teen culture stopped for the people who made the films as soon as they stopped being teenagers. The man in the shadows feels like a precursor to the type of nonsense in recent blockbusters. Something vaguely mysterious is inserted into the film and then used to setup a direct sequel at the last possible moment. In fact, he was lifted wholesale for The Amazing Spider-Man. 22. Halloween: The Curse of Michael Myers - Producer's cut. There's a moment in this where a character screams "Enough of this Michael Myers bullshit!" and that's the way I feel too. This isn't exactly awful, but it is boring. Paul Rudd would've made for a good Norman Bates. 23. Halloween H20: 20 Years Later - Man, this was just a slog. It's nice to see Jamie Lee Curtis again, and she does add a certain je ne sais quoi to things, and I appreciate that they tried to make this more like the original film (the only one that was good), but this is about on the same level as the previous sequels. There's no tension, no drama, no thrilling elements, and no horror. Things just happen. The closest thing to scares in this is a stupid repeated gag where people sneak up on Laurie Strode and accidentally surprise her as a scare chord plays. It's awful. This feels like an attempt to marry some of the aesthetics of Scream with the Halloween series, but it's so half-done that it just feels awkward. The characters don't list all their horror knowledge – thank god – but there's constant non-diagetic callbacks to Halloween and other horror movies. Janet Leigh even pops up in the car from Psycho as music from Psycho plays. The strangest one of these is someone watching Scream 2. In Scream, they watch and discuss the Halloween movies. Which means that Halloween is also a movie in the world of H20. LL Cool J being mistaken for Michael Myers and getting shot does not play well today, but I'm also pretty sure it must've played badly at the time this came out. I might return to the Halloween series later in the month, but those last four really put me through the wringer. Almost Blue fucked around with this message at 23:26 on Oct 3, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2018 20:33
|
|
|
Jolo posted:I think you meant to label this bit Halloween H20. I'm bummed you didn't like it but I also wonder if I remember it fondly because I watched it after the extremely messy Curse of Michael Myers. The next and final (until the new movie in theaters this month) is as bad or worse than Curse of Michael Myers. Whoops! Yeah, you're right. I'd forgotten to change the title/number of movie I was on. Reading up on fan reaction to H20, opinions seem to be split. If you enjoyed it before, I'd say maybe re-watch it to see how you feel about it now. You might really like it! None of the sequels have done much for me (besides Halloween III) but if you liked the second one, you might found some cool stuff in this too. And what you said about the next one jives with the dire things I've heard about Resurrection, so if I do get around to it I'll have to get in the mood for a trashy slasher sequel again. One thing I forgot to mention for H20 is that it begins with narration by Dr. Loomis. But they hired some other actor to imitate Donald Pleasence instead of using old audio. Which is already weird, because the guy they got sounds nothing like Donald Pleasence, but what makes it even stranger is that what he says is just dialog from the first movie. I'd guess that they couldn't get the rights to using stock elements from it, but they splice in a few flashbacks from the original. So who knows.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2018 23:36
|
|
|
Justin Godscock posted:The World's End has less fun and goes into some depressing dramatic territory by showing a deadbeat 40-year old that peaked in high school and whom his very successful friends cannot relate to and despise. Though it flips the tables by having Simon Pegg being the man-child and Nick Frost being the responsible one. THAT right there made me realize I was going to see a different and more depressing kind of movie. I really need to re-watch it, but the most interesting thing to me about World's End to me is that it's slowly revealed over the course of the movie that none of them advanced past high school. Everybody kind of stayed the same way. Paddy Considine has had a crush on a girl for 20 years and Eddie Marsan spends his life hiding from his family the same way he did from bullies. I can't remember what Nick Frost and Martin Freeman's flaws were right now, but it's fascinating that Simon Pegg is the only one who's honest about who he is, even if he isn't a particularly great person. And then the world changes around them to accommodate their arrested development rather than any of them changing. It's great.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2018 22:58
|
|
|
feedmyleg posted:Anyone have suggestions for outsider horror that's actually enjoyable/rewarding? The more bizarre the better, but in my experience outsider cinema tends to be a bit of a slog, but I haven't seen much. Spider Baby was one that would fit into my criteria, but Orgy of the Dead wouldn't. I don't know if I'm completely sure of what you mean, but here's some suggestions I think might be relevant: The Evil Within The Sadist Coven (a short, but whatever) Patrick Eaten Alive The Visitor Frankenstein Unbound The Ninth Configuration (probably more psychological thriller, but it's pretty strange and has a great sense of dread)
|
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2018 17:37
|
|
|
Franchescanado posted:
Dang, I wish this had popped up in the May challenge! I've seen something like 25+ video nasties this year and I've watched three documentaries about them. The major ones I haven't seen are The Burning and Alice Sweet Alice, so I guess I'll have to track one of them down.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2018 01:10
|
|
|
24. Silver Bullet - Gary Busey completely makes this movie. That and the fact that he builds aa rocket-powered wheelchair for Corey Haim. There's also a rocket-powered wheelchair/car chase. It's great. I really appreciatd how Gary Busey isn't brave like an adult in this kind of movie usually would be in contrast to the children. He plays it so he's scared as hell but trying to act brave for his niece and nephew. Both kids are great too. 25. Serial Mom - This movie has literally everything, including now retroactive digs at Bill Cosby. Kathleen Turner is absolutely perfect as a suburban housewife who has suppressed her negativity for just a little bit too long. It's heavy-handed and cartoonish, but that's why it's brilliant. 26. Leviathan - Good, but not great, although I feel like this could easily turn into a comfort watch. I thought it was going to be a knock-off of The Abyss (same year), but it ended up being more of a mashup between The Thing and Alien. Buys into a lot of clichés, but it's a pretty fun ride. Also, I don't think I've seen a movie where Ernie Hudson didn't have a mustache until this. 27. Roadgames - Going into this, I knew that it was more of a Stacy Keach movie than a Jamie Lee Curtis movie, but I was still disappointed. She's so underutilized in this that she feels misused. It's basically Rear Window in a car, but they way it's executed feels ill-advised. Jimmy Stewart has a lot of other characters he plays off of like Thelma Ritter, Grace Kelly, and the detective. Stacy Keach has no one for most of the runtime. He just talks to himself. They try to get around this by having two points where Keach picks up hitchhikers (including Jamie Lee Curtis) but they both leave so quickly that it barely matters. Moments that are mined for tension also feel off. Keach goes to confront the killer in a bathroom but they audience has been tipped off that it isn't killer so he's raving to a guy in a bathroom for no reason. Weirdly, Jamie Lee Curtis is in danger in this scene, but this is given no attention. Then the movie chickens out on the ending too. Ugh. 28. The Slumber Party Massacre - I wasn’t totally on-board with what this movie was doing. I'd heard that this was a feminist slasher (it was written by Rita Mae Brown), but I don't really see in the final film. Maybe it got lost in going to the screen. I'll have to read up on this one some more. I will say that the direction is kind of flat and meandering, so that might have something to do with it. There are some wonderful moments throughout though. Some particular standouts are the self-reflexive moments as a movie within the movie appears to unleash evil (as well as call people) and the constant the comparisons between the killer's weapon of choice and his masculinity (which gets a fantastic symbolic castration at the end). But my absolute favorite bit was when three of the girls were sitting around the corpse of a pizza deliveryman and the following exchange happens: "He's dead, alright.” “He’s so cold.” “But is the pizza?” “Ugh!” “What? Life goes on." Grizzled Patriarch posted:Alice, Sweet Alice is on Tubi. Thanks! I'll check it out.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2018 15:51
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:Cursed(2005) I watched this earlier in the year before the challenge and I actually had a lot of fun with Cursed. The werewolf-stalking in the parking garage I thought was a genuinely pretty good sequence and I liked Jesse Eisenberg's dynamic with Christina Ricci. Some of the production problems are evident (the somewhat disjointed narrative and the actors changing hair), but I was surprised at how well it held together considering what I'd heard about it. Also, I tracked down the R rated cut (which is only a couple minutes longer) so I don't know if that helped me like it more or not. And I haven't seen any positive assessments of the movie so I do know I'm pretty firmly in the minority on this one. STAC Goat posted:Its probably that or Hills Have Eyes 2 but (a) I don't really what to repeat what everyone else is doing, (b) I've never seen Hills Have Eyes so I'd have to watch that too and I just don't like that stuff. You could always watch The Mangler. 
Almost Blue fucked around with this message at 22:52 on Oct 11, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2018 22:48
|
|
|
^^ Hell yeah  Friends Are Evil posted:You’re both wrong, it’s Deadly Friend. I actually love Deadly Friend. It was the first movie where I "got" Wes Craven. Basebf555 posted:Someone should watch Argento's Dracula for the challenge. Not me though, somebody else. I'm planning on it! I have a copy of it that's been lying around forever.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2018 01:03
|
|
|
Butch Cassidy posted:It's a shame Hooper ended his career on Djinn. Though I may now have to revisit that. Was it really so generic a project or just pale in comparison to the rest of his wonderfully grungy filmography? It's not great, but it's also not terrible. There's a little bit of cool Hooper stuff in it but not much. I'm kind of lukewarm on his filmography after The Mangler though. I've heard that Djinn was taken away from him after he finished it, as it was considered too subversive and got re-edited and partially re-filmed by a different director. The few people that got to see the original cut (who are admittedly friends of Hooper) say it was one of his best movies.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2018 15:26
|
|
|
It's been a while since I've updated with what I've seen, so I have a lot from the past week. 29. Ghosts of Mars - I guess a lot of people aren't fans of this but I had a fun time with it. Amazing how cheap it looks on $28 million budget. Doesn't really feel like the same filmmaker who made the stuff Carpenter made in the 70s and 80s, but it feels like the same guy who made Vampires (which I actually quite like). Similarly to that movie, this is Carpenter making a western within the context of a different genre. The transplanting of all the "savage" native American onto brutish Martian ghosts. But it also suggests that Earth/Mars society becomes matriarchal so that's cool. 30. Poltergeist - I got to see this in theaters. This was actually only my second time watching the movie, but I absolutely love it. I'd hardly call Poltergeist polemic in its politics, but it is remarkable in how it attacks the cultural zeitgeist of the 80s. The Freelings do receive wealth which trickles-down as Ronal Reagan (whose receives a quick mention) championed. It's just their profit ends up being ghosts unable to rest because the Freelings live where they do. A corrupt system, which Craig T. Nelson is very much a part of, is responsible for what is unleashed on them. It's great. 31. Humanoids from the Deep - m almost ashamed to say that I kind of half-liked this. The film moves at quite a clip and is never boring – which I was a bit surprised by – but the numerous pointless rape scenes bring the movie down. There's also something to be said about all the rednecks immediately assuming the murderer/rapist is the one native American guy, and the film takes a stance against this, yet it simply displaces all of the racist "they're here to steal our women" anxieties onto fictitious fishmen without the realization that they come to stand in for minorities. This does have a kind of cheap optimism that admire though. It's something that's apparent in many other Roger Corman produced films from this era. It's a bit disappointing in the face of everything this movie contains as its spirit doesn't match the content of the movie. I watched the making of immediately after it was over, which explained some of the stranger aspects of the film (the more shocking stuff was shot in post-production with a different crew), but I still don't really quite jive with it. There's something deeply nasty about Humanoids from the Deep, although I do enjoy some elements from it. 32. American Psycho - I liked this a little more on re-watch, yet I still don't think it totally works. The biggest problem for me is the voice-over, which I almost never have a problem with in movies, but here almost everything Bateman says is already conveyed through visuals. It doesn't allow the audience to infer and connect-the-dots on their own. The card scene is fantastic though. I admire Harron's filmmaking and Bale's performance. It just feels too self-satisfied in its satire. Maybe what it says about Wall Street culture, capitalism, and consumer culture was more interesting when it first came out. 33. The Birds - I was drifting in and out of sleep for the first hour of this rewatch, but the second hour is top-of-the-line Hitchcock. The attic sequence where the birds attack Tippi Hedren had to have been an enormous influence on Dario Argento. The violence incomprehensible, absurd, vicious, and beautiful. Actually this whole movie feels very proto-giallo. It makes me wonder how influential it was on in Italy. 34. Night School - A pretty rote slasher. Has some good cinematography, but it's not terribly interesting other than in who the killers is revealed to be as it transforms the movie into being about internalized misogyny. A professor's girlfriend is pushed into insanity by his constant affairs, and she kills the other women he has affairs with not out of jealously but because she needs to be respected by him. He does end up having to pay for what he's done too. 35. Edge of Sanity - Thank goodness somebody made a slasher out of Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde. Anthony Perkins is quite good in his dual role, and whenever he turns into Hyde he seems to age about 15 years. His performance as Hyde brings to mind the acting in German Expressionist films. His face and limbs contort beyond reality but remain authentic. His accent is bizarre though. Very sexually charged. I guess that's why they thought of Anthony Perkins. The sexuality is actually the driving force behind the narrative and it rests of a glib yet stylish sequence where a young Jekyll spies on a couple copulating in a barn. He accidentally reveals himself and gets humiliated by them, which causes him to murder people who display carnal desires once he becomes Hyde. (Side note: He becomes Hyde after his pet monkey accidentally mixes ether with cocaine) There's a lot of strange things going on in the his character's differing attitudes toward sexuality. He seems to want to purge all traces of it. Yet he's also impotent. He can only get off by forcing other men to have sex. Also an early scene where he begs a prostitute to make him pray and he breaks down in front doing so. I've no idea what to make of it, but Christian imagery is linked to sex a few other times in the film. 36. Innocent Blood - Good, but not great mashup of crime movies and vampire movies. Anthony LaPaglia is a bit of a deadweight as the lead in this, but Anne Parillaud is very spirited and Robert Loggia gives a wonderful performance. Loved the big band score this had and all the random cameos like Frank Oz, Sam Raimi, Dario Argento, and Forrest J. Ackerman. I think if you're a big fan of John Landis you'd find a lot to love in this because it's very him. 37. Bordello of Blood - Somewhat of a mess, but an enjoyable one. Dennis Miller makes for a good rear end in a top hat but I could do without his homophobia. Everybody is a bit over-the-top, which is fun to an extent but it gets to be a bit much after a while. It feels like chunks got taken out of the movie because characters will sometimes jump from location to location with little reason why. (At the end a vampire suddenly appears in a church, even though that's the last place they'd want to be.) It's very short though. I think it's only about 75 minutes without the Crypkeeper scenes or credits. Also, Shout Factor's making of is fascinating. It gives a lot of information about how badly the production went, not all of which is evident from the movie. 38. Strangeland - I kind of admire how oddly structured this is, but it feels like a prequel to another movie. It's almost like Strangeland is the origin movie for a slasher villain and we've already seen several sequels, but none of those exist. Features a baby boomer-like distrust and fear of the internet. It makes the strange choice of setting one character up as the protagonist and then following her father for the rest of the movie as he tracks down her kidnapper and deals with the aftermath. It's actually a bit upsetting as it makes her character a prop as her trauma is turned into a sideshow rather than something that's explored in any genuine way. Also, the movie suggests that mental illnesses and cannot be dealt with. And that's bad. Franchescanado posted:
39. The Toolbox Murders (1978) - I also admire the odd structuring of this movie too. All of the titular murders occur in the first 20 minutes. It almost feels like a clipshow you'd see on YouTube or something. After that, the plot veers off into an investigation into who committed them, which is cut short by an early reveal of the killer. This is actually good, because the bits with the detectives are easily the weakest sections. A bit fascinating in its representation of society. Almost no male character is deemed to have any virtue at all. The women mostly disappear after the opening, and Laurie isn't necessarily given virtue but she is given compassion, which no one else is granted. Also, despite the 2004 version being a "remake," the two films have next to nothing in common.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2018 02:32
|
|
|
40. The Company of Wolves - Man, this movie's beautiful. I don't have a strong affinity to 80s fantasy movies, but this really worked for me. I love all the studio-bound forests and groves. It gives everything an otherworldly beauty. I'd heard this was an anthology movie and I guess it is to an extent, but it's a pretty unique take on one. The frame story is the main plotline and stories are told by characters to anticipate or react to what is happening to them. Those segments aren't even that long in comparison to most anthology movies. Some are only a few minutes in length. Oh, and Angela Lansbury is fantastic.Franchescanado posted:
41. Sweet Home - The main point of reference I have for Kiyoshi Kurosawa is Pulse (or Kairo) and this is a far cry from that, but it is quite a fun watch. There are certain similarities between the two films, especially in regard to the use of shadows and how media is directly linked to disrupting nature. Filled with wonderful effects and makeup work. Also I adore how cell-animated laser beams and lightning look in all these old movies. There's just something so charming about it. 42. Freddy’s Dead: The Final Nightmare - The only one of these I haven't seen before. An improvement over the last two entries, but still not much in comparison to ones Craven worked on. Rachel Talalay does a good job directing the material (I admire her next two films much more though), yet she's brought down by a mediocre script. I appreciate the desire to inject more comedy in these films as at this point there isn't much scary about Freddy anymore. I don't think it ends up work that much in its favor though, as the comedy imbalances the movie. I think it stumbles in including too much serious subject matter. All of these films include this to an extent, but the sixth one decides to take a dive into child abuse in ways no other installments do. Nearly every single character in this is revealed to have suffered at the hands of their parent – including Freddy Krueger. We see all of this. One girl gets mocked by Freddy about her molestation from her father in the same way he mocks another character for playing too many video games. It just doesn't work. You can't do both. I also think the movie is held by kowtowing to some of the normal rules of slashers. Two of the three characters who get killed are completely unimportant to the narrative, and it would be a much stronger film without them. I did find enjoyment in it though, and it's certainly a better watch than 4 or 5, but I wish the film had leaned in much more to a single style and tone. 43. Lisa - An oddly sweet mashup between a coming-of-age movie and a slasher movie. Has such a quaint and good-natured atmosphere that it's hard to hold any kind of ill-feeling against it. Kind of fascinating in how it turns both the protagonist and antagonist into stalkers. Neither's actions are considered good, and both receive punishment for their actions in very different ways. The film just feels so oddly alive and lived-in. Characters like the local grocery store clerk pop off the screen, but I'm almost certain he's only in two shots of the whole film. I adore the chemistry Lisa has with her mother and how the two play off of another, how they push each other, how they reconcile. While it's obvious, there's something so honest about it. The same goes for Lisa and Wendy's friendship. How they imagine growing up to be. How they imagine relationships to be. It's great. 44. Link - I admire this movie's cinematography, but to be honest I really wanted some more killer monkey. It isn't that bad for what it is, I just wanted more. Weirdly, Terence Stamp is barely in it even though he's a central character. Also, despite the the titular Link clearly being an orangutan, he's constantly referred to as a chimp. I looked it up and apparently I saw the Cannon films cut, which is about 10 minutes shorter than the original cut. I'll have to track that down sometime to see how it compares. 45. Bug - Hoo. This was a wild ride. I was not expecting everything to go completely off-the-rails in this. Michael Shannon is as incredible as he always is. I kind of loved this, but I don't think I really understand what it was aiming at, so this is another one I'll have to re-watch later. Franchescanado posted:
46. Curtains - There's something indescribable about Curtains. It's so driven by imagery. There's a And Then There Were None-inspired plotline to go along with it, but that just feels so secondary to everything else. There's also constant subplots which were introduced and dropped immediately, yet that added to film immensely. It's so strange and startling. It exists both outside and inside reality. It felt there was some kind a push-and-pull between opposing ends of something, it was interesting to read up on it and find that it was the work of two different directors over the span of a few years. Their different aims actually work remarkably well together. 47. Popcorn - Likeable, but I wish it was loveable. I actually prefer the slasher plotline to all the movie parodies, even if it isn't particularly great. While I do love all the types of films that Popcorn ribs, the mockeries seem to be based on dim memories of them. While these are parodies, its disinterest in authenticity is off-putting. A good comparison would be Joe Dante's Matinee from just two years later. There's a real love of film an attention to detail there that's simply lacking here. It interesting in how it occupies a somewhat similar space as New Nightmare and In the Mouth of Madness. In a pre-Scream world, it tackles with how horror affects audiences. A rowdy crowd at a theater eggs on the killer to slaughter someone, not realizing (or not caring) that the violence could be real. The villain lives for being lauded, he's defeated as soon as the audience looks away to see explosions. It seems to indicate slasher films give way to greater Hollywood spectacles. And that's really too bad. Franchescanado posted:
48. Anguish - Wow! I can't believe I'd never heard of this one before. I never knew Michael Lerner had this performance in him. I don't want to say too much about the film, as it really needs to just experienced. Very radical take on slasher movies, especially for 1987. 49. Night of the Demons - This has been recommended to me several times over the years, so I though I'd finally sit down and watch the whole thing. I really want to like this movie, but there's just something about it that doesn't connect with me. Maybe it's just the pacing? I'm not really sure. I've actually watched the first 40 or so minutes of it several times over the years, but never made it past them until now. I think all the best elements are in the back half of the film though, so I was missing out some pretty great stuff. The opening credits are brilliant though. Almost Blue fucked around with this message at 23:03 on Oct 20, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2018 22:59
|
|
|
Franchescanado posted:What are the legitimately good Roger Corman directed films? Honestly way more than you'd think. His Poe-cycle has already gotten a mention but some other horror standouts are X: The Man with the X-Ray Eyes, Frankenstein Unbound, and Premature Burial. Last Woman on Earth has some really interesting stuff in it too (and it's scripted by Robert Towne). For his non-horror stuff, The Trip, The Wild Angels, The Intruder, and Bloody Mama are all pretty solid.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 23, 2018 21:02
|
|
|
Okay, this is going to be a long post. I just re-watched through the Universal Dracula/Frankenstein/Wolfman series. All of these movies were very formative to me when I was a kid, so the reviews of them might be a bit blah. 50. Dracula - Probably my least favorite of the debut films in Universal's horror catalog, but it's quite good. I never really noticed how much this seems like a silent film before I think it's been criticized for that, but it really adds a lot to the movie. It's most evident to me in the performances. Everything is a little bit more fantastical than what you'd see just a few years later. But I think it's also stylistically designed to be the way that it is. I kind of wish I could watch this totally silent with intertitles just to see how it plays though. It also makes the camera moves more engaging when they occur because they're so seldom used. You feel you're getting pulled further into Dracula's castle as the camera dollies in on his casket. It tilts down to reveal the fainted maid and Renfield set to prey on her. The movie doesn't exactly play as horror for an audience nearly 100 years later, but these moments are truly great. Not to mention Lugosi as Dracula and Dwight Frye as Renfield, my god. 51. Frankenstein - This is the first horror movie I ever saw. It's still one of my favorites, and I feel like so much of it is indelibly printed on me. I remember in the sequence where Dwight Frye drops the normal brain and is compelled to steal the abnormal brain, my brother questioned why didn’t just dump the bad brain on the floor and use that jar to scoop up the good brain. A better question probably would have been to ask why Frankenstein doesn’t notice the Batman-esque “Abnormal Brain” label on the jar. There’s so many tiny details in this film that have stuck with me ever since that first viewing. When Fritz runs down the stairs to answer the door, he pauses for a moment, and then he adjusts one of his socks. I remember as a kid thinking “Oh, I have to do that too sometimes.” I’d just never seen anything like that before in a movie. But I admire the filmmaking of this now in a very different way than I did before. There’s the often-praised creation and windmill sequences, but what stands apart to me is when the monster is first revealed. In order to obscure his face, he enters the room backward. A series of jarring cuts occur as he turns around. Each on quick enough to register but short enough that you could be unsure of what you’re seeing. Everything about this film’s production design is astonishing. While it carries influence from some earlier movies, there’s so much that is original to this. One of the big examples of this is the monster isn’t created with electricity in the book. Almost every mad scientist cliché can be traced back to this. It really makes me wonder how much this impacted audiences back when it came out, but I suppose I got to feel at least some of that. 52. The Old Dark House - This one I'm a little less familiar with. I don't think I ever watched it as a kid, but man this one would've scared me if I had. I actually never noticed the similarities between this and Texas Chain Saw Massacre before this rewatch. Travelers find themselves in a house only find it isn't exactly a safe-haven. It does a similar thing with ludicrously old patriarchs and a moment where a character thinks they're saved by finding the one normal member of the family, only for it to turn out they might be the most insane of them all. Love the deep shadows here, and James Whale's sense of humor is just as present in this as it is in Bride of Frankenstein and Invisible Man. 53. Bride of Frankenstein - This is overflowing with so much personality. I love the original, but this one might be even better. James Whale really outdid himself here. Boris Karloff brings so much poignancy to the character, some of which was present in the first, but it cuts so much deeper here. And Ernest Thesiger is a force of nature. I love all the sets for outdoor scenes, it gives the film a storybook feeling, which is informed by the appearance of Mary Shelley at the beginning. It’s all so great. 54. Dracula’s Daughter - Very strange for a direct sequel to Dracula. It picks up moments after the original ends as Van Helsing is found over his dead body, but this hardly matters to the rest of the film. In stark contrast to Dracula's character in the original, Countess Zaleska is portrayed very sympathetically. Has the same feel as many of Val Lewton's films, relying more on suggestion than the explicit. This is apparent in much of the horror put forward throughout the movie, but even more so in its lesbian subtext. (Although it would've been impossible to get away with a lesbian relationship in a Hollywood film of this era without any obfuscation.) Zaleska's vampirism actually comes to stand-in for her lesbianism. I'm not totally certain what the filmmaker's intentions where at the time, but it comes across now with some degree of sensitivity, which is very refreshing to see for its time period. 55. Son of Frankenstein - This one's also perfect. It might be my favorite of the Frankensteins. Some of the monster's humanity is stripped back here – he's mute again and he's used in the film mostly as a symbol of the passing of a father's sins onto his children – but there's something so haunting about Karloff's performance. His scene sees his face in the mirror is easily on par with anything in the first two films. Lugosi is incredible as Ygor in what I think is his best performance. He's uninhibited and expressionistic with bizarre mannerisms and his constantly tilted head. But he's got a kind of whispered menace about him. Lionel Atwill is the unsung star of this. He gives some similar performances in later sequels, but none match the power he achieves here. Every performance is elegant. Rowland Lee plays around the shadows in this in a distinct way from James Whale. Both are expressionistic, but there's more contrast here. It feels very Germanic. Although I would say much of the production design is closer to German expressionism than the first two movies. Buildings are formed out of odd angles. Notably, there's no electrical equipment in the film. Frankenstein's experiments seem more mystical – they're all based around a smoking sulfur pit. The script is fantastic as well. It's filled with so many great lines ("One doesn't easily forget an arm torn out by the roots," "When the house is filled with dread, place the beds head to head," "I'm sorry. I cough. You see, a bone's stuck in throat!"), but it also puts together a wonderful three-way conflict between Ygor, Dr. Frankenstein, and Inspector Krogh. Anyway, I love this one to bits. I could probably talk about it forever. 56. The Wolf Man - Man, I never noticed it as a kid, but Lawrence Talbot is a real creep in this movie. An engaged woman constantly rejects his advances as he continually pursues her. His inability to control his desires actually does tie into his lycanthropy. His father even suggests to him at one point that his unconscious desires are manifesting as delusions of werewolfism. To me this is Lon Chaney Jr's best outing as the Wolfman. He gets to portray a greater range here than he does in the latter installments. Talbot begins as goofy spoiled playboy and quickly deteriorates into an absolute wreck as his beast form takes over. And he's fantastic when he's actually the Wolfman too. I adore all the sequences of the Wolfman stalking the studio-based moody woods. The film is decidedly less gothic than Draculas and Frankensteins, but George Waggner definitely conjures together a compelling atmosphere. 57. The Ghost of Frankenstein - Oof, what a step down from the last three movies. I still do like this one, but it feels more like a Saturday-morning cartoon than a followup to Son of Frankenstein. It mostly only functions on a plot level, lacking the substance of the three previous entries. But even then, the plot isn't terribly interesting. It's assembled out of space pieces (haha) from the previous films. Ygor goes to find the son of Frankenstein (this time a different son) to help the monster. Dwight Frye is in the film. The monster befriends a little girl. The monster kills villagers (some played by the same actors as before). Lionel Atwill is in the film. Buildings get blown up and burned down. Lon Chaney Jr seems too stiff and too expressionless as the monster. The character is made even more inhuman and simplified. I've come around on it a bit on this rewatch, but he does little to match what Karloff brought to the role. That said, I do admire this movie. It's a wildly entertaining watch and even though it lacks some of the artistic elements of the previous entries, the production design and makeup is just as admirable as ever. 58. Frankenstein Meets the Wolfman - Kind of odd as a Frankenstein movie. The Frankenstein monster is barely even in it, his screentime only clocks at around 6 minutes. But as a Wolfman sequel, it is quite good. Lawrence Talbot discovers that even silver cannot kill him and he worsens into a someone who is suicidal without the ability to die. He seeks out the Maleva the Gypsy from the previous film as they attempt to some way to bring him peace. Pretty drat dark for 1943. Just like in the previous film, Lon Chaney Jr brings quite a bit of pathos to the role. Roughly 40 minutes in, it also becomes a Frankenstein movie. Talbot and Maleva attempt to seek out Dr. Frankenstein (it’s unclear which one), Talbot ultimately discovers the monster encased in ice (??), and thaws him out. It’s also unclear in the final film how he knows the person he finds is the Frankenstein monster. This is because in the original cut of the movie feature dialog from the monster, speaking as Ygor, due to his brain transplant from the last installment. Supposedly this was removed because audiences found his Hungarian accent too funny coming out of the monster. This has a very negative effect on Bela Lugosi’s performance as the monster. Since there is now no explanation in the movie for his blindness, his awkwardness as he stumbles about with his arms outstretched come across as just that – awkward. Still, this is an interesting interpretation of the monster, although that might be owing to the fact that he was initially playing a different character. This rendition is brutal and violent – the monster appears to know exactly what he’s doing. He displays a cruelty lacking in Chaney Jr and Karloff’s takes on the character. Also, this has a full on musical sequence about an hour in and I always forget about it, even though I’ve seen this countless times. 59. Son of Dracula - Better than the last couple of Frankensteins, but still a bit of a step down from Dracula's Daughter. Makes great use of shadows (at times this feels closer to film noir) as well as its New Orleans setting. There's just something compelling about the swamps and mansions in this, and it gives the film a very different atmosphere from the surrounding movies. (Although the setting was re-used in the next two Mummy movies, to a much lesser effect.) I hate to keep harping on the guy, Lon Chaney Jr. is a bit of a wash as Dracula. Very different from Lugosi's portrayal, this Dracula is curt yet oddly restrained. Which would be okay as a different interpretation of the character, but it doesn't seem to fit with the way the film is written. Also, despite the title, Dracula's son is not in the movie. It's just Dracula. I do enjoy what is done with the male lead, for how bizarre it is. Frank doesn't get a happy ending (as is usual in these stories), but even more subversively he's almost completely unlikeable. Dracula does steal his fiancée, yet Frank comes across as a raving lunatic in his reaction to this. His entire life crumbles apart as he constantly attempts (and fails) to assert his worth. In fact, his role is overtaken by the much older (and still uncharismatic) Dr. Brewster. He doesn't even fit into his own narrative. It's all so strange, and I'm still not sure what to make of it. 60. House of Frankenstein - This has the breathless momentum and enthusiasm of a little kid telling you story with action figures. I do admire the complete and utter insanity of putting three different monsters in one film and having them never interact with one another though. I have a very distinct memory of seeing this as a child and being disappointed as Dracula's bones transform into his body that it wasn't Bela Lugosi. 61. House of Dracula - It seems as though most people are a bit down on this one, but I quite like it. The last few entries have been almost nonsensical from a narrative standpoint and this isn't that much of an exception, but it cuts much deeper than the previous couple movies. The whole film centers on dual natures. It showcases a profound sadness and fear of the monstrous nature found within people. It's no surprise that Lawrence Talbot is this way, but even Dracula appears to be sick of what he is. Dracula almost seems like an alcoholic who's trying recover but failing. he desperately wants to stop being a vampire, yet can't prevent himself from being tempted with another victim. Onslow Stevens's Dr. Edlemann also gets in on the action. A failed blood transfusion turns him into a Dr. Jekyll/Mr. Hyde type of character. His first transformation scene features a wild hallucination with multiple overlays which feels like something from the 60s rather than the 40s. The filmmaking is quite good here too. The scene where Dr. Edlemann attacks the coach driver rates with the best scenes in any of these movies, as does the Nosferatu-inspired chase through the town. There's a shot in which Edlemann disappears from frame as his shadow grows larger and larger that's just etched into my brain. 62. Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein - So, uh, this movie's fantastic. I really don't know what to say about this one as so much has been said about it before. This was one of my favorites as a kid and it still is now. The comedy blends wonderfully with the horror elements, which are doubly benefited from being played completely straight. And it's great to see Lugosi one more time as Dracula.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2018 17:22
|
|
|
Franchescanado posted:
63.Final Exam - Set in North Carolina. I'm fascinated by how little focus Final Exam gives to the killer. He's an aberration. He's not normal. The story isn't about him. It's about everyone else. All the other characters exist in a prank-filled college romp in the vein of Animal House. The mere presence of a murderer is totally jarring, which gives the film its power. It certainly sticks with you. My take on it is the killer operates as something to force the characters to "grow up." He exists outside of what they could imagine. Even something like the practical jokes with faux terrorists are handled in a goofy way that's totally lacking in the murder sequences. There will be a time where the characters won't be able to act like adolescents – live their lives in arrested development – and he's here to bring it to them. (Side note, one of the characters has a fascination with the "modern phenomenon" of serial killers. Charles Whitman is name-checked as an example.) It's also worth noting how little attention is given to images of distress for the female characters. Their deaths are obfuscated or unseen. But the male characters get prolonged deaths seen in detail. Their corpses linger in pain even after being massacred. I'm not completely sure what to come of it, but it's very interesting for a subgenre that's commonly derided for misogyny. 64. The Mutilator - This was a load of fun. It's oddly heartfelt and seems like a real labor of love from everyone involved. The main title song is ridiculous in all the best ways. Franchescanado posted:
65. Madman - I didn't enjoy this one quite as much. I think it's actually one of the dullest slashers I've seen in quite some time. It plays every cliché to the absolute hilt, so it is somewhat interesting in that respect. I just don't think there's too much that makes it stand out from other slashers from the era. 66. Too Scared to Scream - Not great, but not bad either. I'm finding I don't enjoy the police procedural slashers quite as much as the dead teenager variety. The ones I've watched seem to place too much emphasis on things other than the victims. There's just something about how most slashers are about trauma and the effects of dealing with that directly that's absent in the ones focused on investigation. They feel oddly detached. This has some respectable performances. Ian McShane is pretty good as the doorman, but my favorite was Anne Archer as an undercover cop. She's very lively in a way the rest of the cast isn't. She has an odd scene where she dances to pop music off-rhythm. I think from a script standpoint this might have one twist too many, it ended on a "Wait, who?" note for me rather than the shock I think they were going for. (It also has the bad habit of regurgitating ideas from Psycho.) These two writers also scripted The Prowler, and I'd recommend that much more than this one. 67. My Bloody Valentine - I really wanted to love this movie, but something about it just didn't work for me. Maybe I'm just watching too many slashers too close together. I liked it okay enough, but again there wasn't a whole lot that I found unique in this one other than the mining town location. Even the holiday setting wasn't leaned into very much. The most interesting thing to me actually ended up being an element related to the restoration of it. Each kill scene had lower-quality footage inserted that was much more violent than the surrounding parts of the film. It gave those moments a grimy, forbidden feeling that I'm not sure it would have otherwise had. It made me question what I was watching and why in way the rest of the movie just didn't. 68. Friday the 13th Part VIII: Jason Takes Manhattan - This has certain things I admire, like just about every scene where Jason wanders about in New York, (standouts include his bewilderment at his own visage and running into street gangs), but I just can't get behind this one. The dominant location of the cruise ship is forgivable due to the budget cuts (although I can imagine the disappointment upon its initial release), and that setting is quite interesting for a slasher. But I don't this makes a very prominent use of it. The death scenes don't operate with ideas that could only be execute there. They even bring new things (a dance room complete with disco ball!) and then Jason just chokes the person. And that's it. The more inventive stuff is saved for when they actually get to New York in the last thirty minutes. But the racially-charged attempted rape scene just brings the whole thing down. It's so pointless and out-of-place. All it accomplishes is a display awkward anxiety about the inter-mingling of races in New York. 69. The House on Sorority Row - There's an essay by Kit Carson where he discusses Tobe Hooper's propensity for not letting the audience trust the movie. He breaks the rules by not allowing the audience a degree of of comfort, "the deal is simply this: no deal." The House on Sorority Row is similar. There's more than one moment where the movie takes extreme, shocking turns that there's no going back from. By the end, it devolves into a hallucinogenic nightmare. It's seriously great. 70. The Burning - I really hate being down on some of these movies because I actually do love slashers quite a bit. This one has several phenomenal sequences – the raft scene is remarkable – but I just find the constant rape attempts and nonconsensual sex too repulsive. That aspect probably didn't play too well before, but it comes across even worse now as the film begins with a "Created by Harvey Weinstein" title card. 71. The Town That Dreaded Sundown - Man, this was great. Has somewhat of a documentary style. The omniscient narrator certainly makes it feel that way, but it isn't afraid to break its matter-of-fact presentation during the more violent sequences. Which makes them more shocking. I'm not sure how to feel about the goofy comedy aspect of the film. There isn't very much of it, but the Keystone Cops-esque antics seem strange considering the other tones being juggled here. Some register as indignation about the absurd attempts by the police to apprehend the killer, and I think that's where they work the best, as it operates on more than one level. It is fascinating though, as the movie is assembled from four distinct films that appear to be fighting one another. There's a police procedural movie, there's a slasher, there's a docudrama, and there's a goofy comedy. The tension between each of these components is what gives the film its power. Also, this had to have been a huge influence on Fincher when he was making Zodiac. 72. Blood Harvest - A real oddball. I know I just complained about the sexual assault aspect in two other movies, but Blood Harvest seems to engage with the implications of it in a way that the two other films simply don't. While I found it genuinely uncomfortable in all three movies, this one understands that it is reprehensible. There is no attempt made to revel in it. Beyond that, easily the most fascinating aspect of it is the presence of singer/musician Tiny Tim. He plays a major supporting role as a clown, and man he gives the movie such as a strange atmosphere. He's both strangely sweet and utterly terrifying. One moment he's singing in his inscrutable falsetto, the next he's weeping in church. He's nearly impossible to read, which really works in the film's favor. The story is also strange for a slasher. A woman, Jill, comes back to her tiny hometown for the first time since college, only to find her parents missing and everyone angry at her father for forcing the townspeople to foreclose on their houses. The small city is almost empty. I don't think there's any extras in the movie, which helps give it another unsettling undercurrent. The few characters who do appear are mostly Jill's close friends, it's as if the world only exists around her. There's just so many unconventional and bizarre elements in Blood Harvest, I can't help but love it. I highly recommend it, but I'm also not sure if it will work quite as well for people who aren't already into Tiny Tim.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 27, 2018 18:28
|
|
|
Franchescanado posted:
73. Lord of Illusions - Probably closer to film noir than horror. It's a fun ride, but it didn't stick with me as much as Barker's other movies. Although this is truly nuts in the same ways that his other two movies are. It's a shame he hasn't gotten to direct more, but I think he might have been turned off by all the interference he got. I'll have to track down his original cut of this some day. 74. Hellraiser: Bloodline - I was talking with my dad the other day and he asked me if I thought people who made later entries in these types of franchises ever took a step back and thought "Wow. We're pretty far away from the spirit of the original." I wouldn't say this is exactly bad, but I'd hesitate to call it good. It really only works on a plot-level, which I suppose was true for the third one as well, but it's disappointing going from the first two to this. Not totally sure if I understand why the story unfolds in three separate time periods though. And I've heard the Hellraiser series gets much worse from here on, so, uh, yikes. Franchescanado posted:
75. Halloween: Resurrection - Dull and tensionless, but still a fascinating watch. The movie is premised on the idea of emerging technologies blurring the line between reality and fantasy. There's an actual audience within the film who veer between complete apathy to seeing murders and egging on Michael Myers to kill people, not realizing that it's actually happening. This may sound rote, but there is something to the movie's execution of the concept. (Also, the only connection between the first 15 minutes and the rest of the film is a thematic one. There's creepy connections made between real-life horrors and what entertains people, and the film isn't particularly happy about it.) I think this works much better as a response to Scream's meta-horror than H20, but it'd be improved if didn't have the baggage of being a Halloween movie. I can get why this one doesn't work for most people, but it's got more ideas than the previous several entries. Franchescanado posted:
76. Waxwork - A pretty fun watch! This would make for a good movie to put on during a party. It plays as a kind of anthology movie, so it would work well as something that people don't have to pay strict attention to. And they filled with just about every monster they could manage on their budget. I'll have to check out the sequel (with Bruce Campbell!) later. 77. Gremlins - I love this movie to bits, but the "mystical Chinese" elements always come across uncomfortable. Which is especially odd as the film is to me a critique of racial anxiety in small towns. Franchescanado posted:
78. Dracula 3D - Well this was certainly the worst Argento movie I've seen. I do enjoy some of his later work (Sleepless is pretty good), but there's just so little to recommend here. It wears its budget on its sleeve (and just about everywhere it can), which I don't mind too much. This is a low-budget movie and there's not much of an attempt to make it look like anything else. Wonky CG and awkward sets are forgivable and charming in their own way. But the look of the film has problems deeper than that. Several scenes seem to be accidentally overexposed, which is an issue I'd expect to see from a film student in their first semester, not someone's who's been making movies for over 40 years. The script is nothing special, which isn't that much of a surprise, as Argento often excels in other areas. He just doesn't bring that much of a sensibility to the material. Everything is so shot monotonously. And despite all that, there are occasional moments that are truly insane and audacious – not in style but in content – which provides the film with some interesting points. I do admire what is done with Jonathan Harker's character as it's a huge and unexpected departure from the source material. Rutger Hauer appears in the last 40 minutes or so (this movie is nearly two hours) and provides the most entertaining performance. Yet he feels like he's phoning it in, which I guess just goes to show how much of a slog this is. Franchescanado posted:
79. A Quiet Place - Works in a Saturday matinee sense, but I wish it went beyond its modest ambitions. Its anxieties revolve around the parental fears of protecting children and if it’s even right to bring children into a broken world, but nothing new is conveyed about this after the concept is introduced in the first ten minutes. Frankly, I think it would’ve worked better as a short film. I just wanted something more. More ideas and more confrontational ideas. I don't think a good horror movies necessarily has to do this, but it feels like a missed opportunity here that it never challenges the audience’s beliefs or attempts to provoke much thought. It actually comes very close to being feel-good-horror. I’m also kind of bugged by the movie switching between diegetic and non-diegetic sound. Just pick one or the other, especially when the entire movie’s premise is based on sound. Franchescanado posted:
80. Insidious - I picked this movie for this challenge as I'm not that big on horror movies made in the past decade. I tried to go in with an open mind, but yikes. I don't know how anyone could talk about this movie without also talking about Poltergeist. Insidious is very nearly a scene-for-scene remake of that film. A little more than halfway through they start throwing in elements from Poltergeist's much worse sequel. This could've been okay if it were served up in an interesting way. But it's just so banal. It has no ideas of its own and almost nothing to say other than its fears about protecting children and how parents' issues can be passed on to them. Similarly to A Quiet Place, I just wanted more. Could've used more music by Tiny Tim. And with that I'm done with all the Fran Challenges!  I'll probably watch a few other horror movies over the next few days, but I'm not sure if I'll be able to do write-ups of them before the end of the challenge.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 30, 2018 00:30
|
|
|
81. Invaders from Mars (1986) - I watched this for the May challenge too, but I liked it more the second time around. I still admire how Hooper transforms the narrative into a nonsensical dream, in contrast to the original which used the artificiality of the sets to lead in to that revelation. Here, the plot becomes stranger and stranger as multiple leaps in logic are made to the point where it becomes completely how they got from point A to point B. But I didn't really get how much of a kids movie this was the first time around. It threw me off the first time as Hooper has never made a children's movie other than this. Even Poltergeist is told from the parent's perspective, not the children. On the other hand, this is filled with jokes about how frank and direct 50s B-movies are, which I'm sure would fly over the head of most children who would have seen this back in the 80s. The intended audience could probably actually best be described as Tobe Hooper (and maybe Joe Dante too) but I'm fine with that. 82. Jason Goes to Hell: The Final Friday - What a wild ride! I mentioned in the horror thread that I understand why this doesn't work for fans of the series (there's almost no Jason), but I had a blast. This is schlock in the best possible use of the term. The newly introduced mythology doesn't fit with what the previous films set up, but you can't exactly pretend that these movies fit together or form any strict continuity. I think if this didn't have the burden of being a Jason Vorhees film it would be much better regarded as a slice of 90s horror. 83. Freddy vs. Jason - Didn't quite make it to Jason X, but I thought I'd go ahead with this one because I haven't been watching the Friday series in order to begin with. It's pretty good! Not great, but it's much better than this movie has any right to be. The weakest elements are related to the teen characters. I can't quite explain it, but they aren't played (or written) earnestly enough to work seriously but they also aren't goofy enough to be campy. It's just stuck in an odd middle-of-the-road stylization. I kind of wish that Tommy and Nancy (even if she's dead) could've come back, but I suppose they didn't want to transform it into franchise cross-over instead of two characters fighting each other. And the fights are pretty good too! The decision to employ a Hong Kong action director really paid off. And unlike Frankenstein Meets the Wolfman, they get more than one fight scene together. Jason fights Freddy in his dreams, Freddy fights Jason in reality. Appreciate how much blood they were able to get away with in these parts too. Rather bizarrely, this movie seems to comment on the exploitation of labor, as well as an argue for why past trauma should be remembered. People forget Freddy exists (which it's hard not to read as Nightmare on Elm St losing cultural cachet), so he tricks Jason into kill people in order to piggy-back off the fear (franchise) created by him. Jason isn't exactly happy with having the fruits of his labor stolen and Freddy isn't happy that Jason is still taking his kills (audience). The only reason why Freddy comes back is the town of Springwood has forced themselves to forget he existed in the first, which damages nearly every character in the film in some way. Will is committed to a mental hospital as he saw a Freddy murder which everyone wants to cover up. Lori's mother was killed and she was forced to believe it was an accident rather than confront the truth. Only by coming to terms with the legitimate past trauma can they come to terms with the present. 84. Halloween (1978) - Man, after watching a bunch of trash slasher movies throughout the month (which I do love), this really stands out. I forgot how lonely this movie was and how totally great PJ Soles is. And after all the nonsense that gets peddled by Halloween 2-8, I'm surprised that it doesn't affect the power of the first film at all. So that's it for me! I'm not any good at ranking movies, but a few of my favorite first time watches this year were:Phantom of the Paradise Serial Mom Pulse Psycho II Almost Blue fucked around with this message at 20:39 on Nov 1, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2018 17:29
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 26, 2024 18:42 |
|
|
Franchescanado posted:
Whoa! That's super great! Was not expecting that. I'm glad I stuck with it and marathoned movies for the Fran challenges I had left near the end. I'll PM you within the next couple days about sizing/shipping.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2018 03:32
|
|