Sangre, cuchillos, y tetas --- Horror Film Discussion

[Rowland]

Legion (Stewart, 2010) **

Absolutely ridiculous amalgam of The Terminator and Carpenter's siege thrillers, only instead of Satan commanding the homeless to perform his dastardly sieging as in Prince of Darkness, we have God's angel army possessing weak-minded human vessels Ã* la the agents from The Matrix to swarm our heroes like mindless Romero zombies, apart from the inexplicable instances where they can crawl like insects and perform other superhuman acts, usually dependent on whatever scenario is most convenient to the internal-logic-challenged screenplay. Also, I expect an angel would be a bit less crude than to quip "Don't worry, I just want to play with your baby" before charging at a pregnant woman with a cleaver. It's because of this at-least semi-self-aware daffiness however that the film retains a surprising degree of watchability, in addition to the fine efforts by the cast, who manage to imbue their paper-thin characters with more pathos than the material warrants, and the solid directorial craft courtesy of former-ILM vfx-stooge Scott Charles Stewart (certainly superior to any given SyFy Original Production to which Walter Chaw ludicrously compares it), which manages to avoid the trendy techniques abused by so many genre hacks. So it's just a shame then that this thing loses momentum during its bloated second act, its hole-ridden screenplay never actualizes the potential of the scenario to any really surprising, tense, or meaningful ends, and the distasteful, nonsensical denouement takes its inherently right-wing politics a little too seriously after the goofiness of what preceded to register as anything more than a significant comedown. Still, that I liked this as much as I did suggests it'll have a robust future in its inevitability as a late-night cable staple. Be sure to stick around for the angel-fu climax, during which a giant-hammer-wielding angel freshly descended from Heaven deflects the bullet-spray from Paul Bettany's dual uzis with what appear to be metallic wings.

[Grouchy]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f8/Humanoids_from_the_deep.jpg

Tuesdays of Terror brought it on, and we saw Monster a.k.a. Humanoids from the Deep. Inmensely bad Corman production that features almost every Horror movie cliché one can think of. It's directed by a woman with an unhealthy interest in other women's breasts. She misses no chance, however remote, of showing nipples in a scene. The budget of the movie also seems to have been completely spent on three overlong explosions, the last of which makes zero fucking sense except in that movie sense that if a vehicle impacts into anything, it's probably cooler if it inmediately explodes. Seems they spent all that money on T.N.T. and then did the most unconvincing, slow-moving, rubber foam monsters of the '80s, and that's saying. Although I have to say, seeing these gill swamp critters breaking people's necks and slaughtering children in a small town barbecue was kind of neat.

[Dukefrukem]

'The Wolfman remake wasn't horrendous, I enjoyed it at times, but its definitely not something to write home about.

Silly nit pick:

"I took the powder out of those shells years ago." Well what about the primers, did you remove those two? And if the guy who owned the shells was worth two shits when it comes to shooting/ammuniton, he would've fucking known that there was no FUCKING powder in the shells. Plus, the primers would've 'caused at least some of a detonation not just a click, and its pretty obvious if the primers would've been removed.

I'm sure there's plenty of other things to say about that movie, but, hey, you know me....

Back to drinking.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who didn't hate it. I couldn't understand the level of "suck" people were relating it to.. almost as if it was a direct to DVD release quality.

[Dukefrukem]

Legion (Stewart, 2010) **

Absolutely ridiculous amalgam of The Terminator and Carpenter's siege thrillers, only instead of Satan commanding the homeless to perform his dastardly sieging as in Prince of Darkness, we have God's angel army possessing weak-minded human vessels Ã* la the agents from The Matrix to swarm our heroes like mindless Romero zombies, apart from the inexplicable instances where they can crawl like insects and perform other superhuman acts, usually dependent on whatever scenario is most convenient to the internal-logic-challenged screenplay. Also, I expect an angel would be a bit less crude than to quip "Don't worry, I just want to play with your baby" before charging at a pregnant woman with a cleaver. It's because of this at-least semi-self-aware daffiness however that the film retains a surprising degree of watchability, in addition to the fine efforts by the cast, who manage to imbue their paper-thin characters with more pathos than the material warrants, and the solid directorial craft courtesy of former-ILM vfx-stooge Scott Charles Stewart (certainly superior to any given SyFy Original Production to which Walter Chaw ludicrously compares it), which manages to avoid the trendy techniques abused by so many genre hacks. So it's just a shame then that this thing loses momentum during its bloated second act, its hole-ridden screenplay never actualizes the potential of the scenario to any really surprising, tense, or meaningful ends, and the distasteful, nonsensical denouement takes its inherently right-wing politics a little too seriously after the goofiness of what preceded to register as anything more than a significant comedown. Still, that I liked this as much as I did suggests it'll have a robust future in its inevitability as a late-night cable staple. Be sure to stick around for the angel-fu climax, during which a giant-hammer-wielding angel freshly descended from Heaven deflects the bullet-spray from Paul Bettany's dual uzis with what appear to be metallic wings.

Degree of watchability? Rowland I never would have expected this from you. This has to be worst film of 2010.

[Rowland]

This has to be worst film of 2010.As I'm sure some may argue for The Wolfman. *shrug*

I almost liked them both. The Wolfman is stupid, and not really accomplished or memorable in any particular way, but it has a feverish flamboyance in its best moments that is rather infectious, the old-school effects are gratifying, and the actors are clearly having fun with the material. Low expectations probably helped, but I'd cite them both as two of this year's more underrated films, and that's after giving them both mediocre scores.

[Dukefrukem]

As I'm sure some may argue for The Wolfman. *shrug*


I suppose....

What got my attention from Legion was the ridiculousness of it and thought it would be fun. They didn't even finish scenes. They just ended and left you wondering how the characters escaped the segment. The Ice Cream truck scene was exactly how it was portrayed in the trailer and equally as long (hyperbola)... at least think about a scene before you shoot it! Have it go somewhere! Do something! Something that isn't in the god damn trailer!

The Wolfman, although it did take itself seriously (which was probably 99% of the problem people have with it) has much more entertaining value than anything in Legion. The mental hospital scene, roaming the fields at night (which I thought looked spectacular), runnin on the rooftops... The only thing I would suggest to Benicio Del Toro's character is, when you are planning on killing you father, you should probably do it on one of the 29 days in the month where there ISNT A FUCKING FULL MOON.

[jenniferofthejungle]

Looking forward to The Wolfman in spite of everything I've heard. I don't expect much at all, save for a little entertainment. I'm sure it will at least be beautiful to look at (and I don't just mean Emily Blunt).

Grouchy, Humanoids from the Deep is one I remember from cable, and yes, it did suck. Monster rape was really popular in the 1980s, wasn't it? Have you seen The Beast Within yet? It used to be one of my favorite guilty pleasures, though I feel that using that term is a cop-out and I should just admit that I had really shitty taste in horror films at times.

[Grouchy]

Grouchy, Humanoids from the Deep is one I remember from cable, and yes, it did suck. Monster rape was really popular in the 1980s, wasn't it? Have you seen The Beast Within yet? It used to be one of my favorite guilty pleasures, though I feel that using that term is a cop-out and I should just admit that I had really shitty taste in horror films at times.
Yes, I should have mentioned that monster rape is a really big part of this movie. Tits thrusting against rubber. And nope, I haven't seen The Beast Within, but at this rate, I probably will.

Speaking about rape, who has seen The Entity? Great film.

[Scar]

Anyone seen the original Crazies?

I liked the remake.

[Dead & Messed Up]

Anyone seen the original Crazies?

I liked the remake.

I haven't seen the remake, but I thought the original was kind of awful. Interesting fuck-society piece with some good ideas (the "crazy" is more unpredictable) hampered by irritating editing choices and across-the-board bad acting.

[MadMan]

The original Crazies is solid, but its one of Romero's lesser efforts. The remake is much better, really.

[Scar]

Dead Snow.... Why am I still watching this, and how many Evil Dead/AoD quick cuts are they going to do? Christ this is bad.

[jenniferofthejungle]

Dead Snow.... Why am I still watching this, and how many Evil Dead/AoD quick cuts are they going to do? Christ this is bad.

It's like you have to finish it or you will forever wonder about it.

[Dead & Messed Up]

You could just stop. It was never painful for me, but it never became good.

[Pop Trash]

For a completely unnecessary sequel (or remake of a sequel) Rob Zombie's Halloween II isn't too bad. Zombie definitely has an eye for composition and some of the shots are outstanding. He also includes some interesting effects like the Wong Kar Wai-esque slo-mo shutter thing. He's also good with creating an irony-free intensity to it all via the acting (I kept wondering if he had his lead actress watch A Woman Under the Influence) and strong make-up effect.

I guess the only real reason I can't give it a higher rating is simply how unnecessary it is. That said, if old slasher movies have to be remade, I'd rather them be remade by someone with a strong auteurist sensibility like Zombie, rather than some Hollywood hack that's given tons of studio notes.

Zombie definitely has promise. I just hope that he one day brings it all together to make something truly outstanding.

[megladon8]

I thought Daybreakers was surprisingly good. And brave in that it actually gives the audience some credit and expects them to figure out or assume things for themselves once in a while.

I think the comparisons to Equilibrium are really only skin deep. And it's much more intelligent than the Bale action film.

I enjoyed it. I also thought it was very pretty.

[Dukefrukem]

Dead Snow.... Why am I still watching this, and how many Evil Dead/AoD quick cuts are they going to do? Christ this is bad.

I was so disappointed with that one.

[jenniferofthejungle]

You could just stop. It was never painful for me, but it never became good.

I have to keep going or the crap will haunt me til I feel the compulsion to watch it again.

I saw a movie that made Ax'Em look like less of an apocalyptic pile of nuclear shit. There were two like that, actually, but I watched them with the FF button on so I didn't suffer quite as much as I would have otherwise.

The first was called Dead Clowns aka The Biggest Piece of Clown Shit Ever (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0372859/) and the second was Night of the Dead, a calamitous piece of shit they compared to Re-Animator (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0816594/). They hurt my brain.

I paid nothing for them as they were downloads given to me by my sister, so I didn't contribute to their future sequels or harm anyone other than myself.

[MadMan]

For a completely unnecessary sequel (or remake of a sequel) Rob Zombie's Halloween II isn't too bad. Zombie definitely has an eye for composition and some of the shots are outstanding. He also includes some interesting effects like the Wong Kar Wai-esque slo-mo shutter thing. He's also good with creating an irony-free intensity to it all via the acting (I kept wondering if he had his lead actress watch A Woman Under the Influence) and strong make-up effect.

I guess the only real reason I can't give it a higher rating is simply how unnecessary it is. That said, if old slasher movies have to be remade, I'd rather them be remade by someone with a strong auteurist sensibility like Zombie, rather than some Hollywood hack that's given tons of studio notes.

Zombie definitely has promise. I just hope that he one day brings it all together to make something truly outstanding.I completely agree with most of this. Although I gave it a rating in the 50s because I felt it had the potential to be great, but ruins all that and wastes said potential. And that Zombie really does have talent, which reminds me that I should watch his first two movies sometime.

[Rowland]

Babysitter Wanted is House of the Devil made by idiots. Contrasting the two could prove a most instructive exercise, or so you'd think, since I've discovered numerous instances of both online horror fanboys and respected cine-bloggers preferring the hackwork to the real deal, which I have to say is as inexplicable as it is risible. Anyway, my recommendation is to avoid it.

[MacGuffin]

Anyway, my recommendation is to avoid it.

I don't think I would have been able to resist had I saw it on Netflix. ;)

[Bosco B Thug]

Babysitter Wanted is House of the Devil made by idiots. Contrasting the two could prove a most instructive exercise, or so you'd think, since I've discovered numerous instances of both online horror fanboys and respected cine-bloggers preferring the hackwork to the real deal, which I have to say is as inexplicable as it is risible. Anyway, my recommendation is to avoid it. Who are these people? Dread Central writers?

[Rowland]

Who are these people? Dread Central writers?Jeremy Heilman of MovieMartyr.com, who is admittedly known for having wonky taste, and Jason Overbeck of Bentclouds.com, whose taste I don't usually take much stock in anyway.

[Bosco B Thug]

Okay Clipper Ship Captain, you win this round. Suspiria makes a lot of sense as someone's favorite Argento film. It's just such a spectacular and consistently stunning film, and heck, I'd say it has as much a study on perception and experience as Deep Red, without that film's distractions and cold, jaded narrative. Suspiria, in spite of all the still-extant flaws, one can see as building a thin but at least concentrated and purified picture of petty little girls and fascistic, entitled, hypocritical administrators/witches.

Inferno's a baffling mess full of baffling artistic choices, some impressive, some just not so much... It has a wonderful esoteric bent, though. Thank you film and Ed Gonzalez for alerting me that there is a literary origin to the Three Mothers. Why didn't I wiki that before?

[MacGuffin]

Glad you liked it and spot-on analysis. The juxtaposing of ballet/ballerinas with witchcraft/witches is indeed one of the most memorable horror movie blueprints, and from the very beginning, the movie appears cloaked in multiple layers of atmosphere. So much so that it actually makes sense how people claim to see a face in the shadows in the first few minutes of the film.

[MacGuffin]

I found this (http://horrordigest.blogspot.com/2010/05/hidden-scares-in-suspiria.html) blog post which proves Argento to be a director whose attention to detail allows him to create atmospherically rich dreamlands of dread and wonder.

[Dead & Messed Up]

Oh boy. I've been watching an Asylum picture every night since Sunday, since I had a script that I actually thought would fit well to their mode (90 minutes, a few key effects, minimal cast). But after watching a few...Christ, it's really hard to want them to ever produce anything again, let alone something I've created.

Not that I think my crap is great or anything. They just have a remarkable capacity for sucking at filmmaking.

[Bosco B Thug]

I found this (http://horrordigest.blogspot.com/2010/05/hidden-scares-in-suspiria.html) blog post which proves Argento to be a director whose attention to detail allows him to create atmospherically rich dreamlands of dread and wonder. I don't know... that witch in the blood spill is kinda a streeetch...


Oh boy. I've been watching an Asylum picture every night since Sunday, since I had a script that I actually thought would fit well to their mode (90 minutes, a few key effects, minimal cast). But after watching a few...Christ, it's really hard to want them to ever produce anything again, let alone something I've created.

Not that I think my crap is great or anything. They just have a remarkable capacity for sucking at filmmaking. I keep on thinking I've seen an Asylum film, but then I realize Full Moon Features is probably practically an A-class outfit in comparison to Asylum.

Will I ever sit myself through an Asylum pic? That's a good question.

[MadMan]

/Predator/ (McTiernan, 1987) ****Indeed times infinity. Also, I'm going to see Predators next week-I'll let you know what I think, seeing as it appears you didn't care for it all that much.

[MacGuffin]

I don't know... that witch in the blood spill is kinda a streeetch...

Hah, yeah, maybe so.

[Dead & Messed Up]

Will I ever sit myself through an Asylum pic? That's a good question.

My advice: skip 'em.

[jenniferofthejungle]

My advice: skip 'em.

I'm taking your advice.


Revisted Hellraiser and I think I can safely say I am a fan of that one. I need to watch the second one again (my last viewing was rather meh, but I was moody and can't trust my opinions on things when I'm moody), though I know I really dislike the third.

Those cenobites really scared me back in the day. :lol:

[Grouchy]

Yeah, Hellraiser I and II are classics. The third is shit.

[megladon8]

I'll jump on board with the first two being great.

I also really, really enjoy Hellraiser: Inferno.

[Dead & Messed Up]

I didn't care for II at all. I thought it was tedious, and its good ideas and images could've made for a nice 8 to 10 minute short.

[megladon8]

I didn't care for II at all. I thought it was tedious, and its good ideas and images could've made for a nice 8 to 10 minute short.


It's funny, for years I would have ranked II above I.

But one day about 2 years ago I put it on and realized "wow, a lot of this is just...kind of...bad"

I still like the movie a lot, and it's my second favorite of the series, but that's really not saying much. There are only three worthwhile entries in the series anyways, and only one of them (the first) is truly great.

[MadMan]

Tonight I finally viewed Fright Night, and it was highly enjoyable and entertaining. Was the standard 80s cheesiness present? Yes (mainly in the whole disco scene where Chris Sandon is stalking the main characters), but that's not surprising. Yet despite the dated special effects this movie had some really freaky moments, and I loved Roddy McDowell's character, who acted as a modern day Van Hesling-only he hosts a TV show. Really good movie, although the ending is interesting since I'm not sure that last moment should even be possible, but hey its all good. 80s horror is great fun, even though it pales in comparrison to 70s horror.

[jenniferofthejungle]

I used to love Fright Night, though the disco Dracula scene still makes me cringe. It's so cheesy. :P

Saw The Grave Dancers last night (after being blown away by the awesomeness of Narc) and I have to say that I didn't like it the second time around. I really have to stop judging a movie based on the fact that it didn't suck quite as much as other ones I've seen.

There were a few decent things in this one, but I can't recommend it. Sheesh, Purcell is freaking huge. How can he walk around with all that muscle? :lol: His build alone should have been enough to frighten any ghost.

[MadMan]

I used to love Fright Night, though the disco Dracula scene still makes me cringe. It's so cheesy. :PWell yeah, but the cheesiness is part of the charm, I suppose. Regardless that Dracula disco scene is indeed awful.

[Philosophe_rouge]

When and if you have the chance, The Loved Ones is a must see.

[Grouchy]

http://thebonejangler.com/BloodFreak2.jpg

Jesus, people, last Tuesday I watched one of the weirdest attempts at filmmaking imaginable. Nothing had prepared me for Blood Freak. The premise itself (biker turns into a turkey monster) makes it sound like a fun time, but it gives you no idea of the punch this one's carrying. In between endless conversations about strange shit where the dialogue often becomes a sort of sub-chanting accompanied by unexpected zooms into wine glasses we have some sort of story about this biker who's lured by a sexy girl into smoking marijuana and grows incredibly, stupidly addicted to it. Eventually a mad scientist appears and by bribing him with the joint his body so badly desires turns him into... a person with a ridiculous turkey mask. The movie also has director Brad F. Grinter giving commentary on the action that makes the Log Lady speeches seem normal.

I'd keep explaining but, if you haven't had it already, this is a one in a million kind of experience.

[Dead & Messed Up]

It took way too long, but I finally posted some thoughts about The House of the Devil on my blog. Click the sig for my genius. Gonna try to post one more thing there before the month ends. I really suck at consistent bloggery.

[jenniferofthejungle]

Jesus, people, last Tuesday I watched one of the weirdest attempts at filmmaking imaginable. Nothing had prepared me for Blood Freak. The premise itself (biker turns into a turkey monster) makes it sound like a fun time, but it gives you no idea of the punch this one's carrying. In between endless conversations about strange shit where the dialogue often becomes a sort of sub-chanting accompanied by unexpected zooms into wine glasses we have some sort of story about this biker who's lured by a sexy girl into smoking marijuana and grows incredibly, stupidly addicted to it. Eventually a mad scientist appears and by bribing him with the joint his body so badly desires turns him into... a person with a ridiculous turkey mask. The movie also has director Brad F. Grinter giving commentary on the action that makes the Log Lady speeches seem normal.

I'd keep explaining but, if you haven't had it already, this is a one in a million kind of experience.

I own this movie, Grouchy, and you are right about everything. :lol: It is one very bizarre experience.

[jenniferofthejungle]

Has anyone seen The Descent 2? I borrowed it and wondered if it was worth a view.

[D_Davis]

Has anyone seen The Descent 2? I borrowed it and wondered if it was worth a view.

I've heard it's not terrible, nor is it a complete disaster.

[Ezee E]

Has anyone seen The Descent 2? I borrowed it and wondered if it was worth a view.
Basically a retread of the first movie that doesn't make any logistical sense. The end brings something a little new, but it's not enough.

[Raiders]

It took way too long, but I finally posted some thoughts about The House of the Devil on my blog. Click the sig for my genius. Gonna try to post one more thing there before the month ends. I really suck at consistent bloggery.

On your second observation, it may be true that his filmic influences were mainly of the 70s, but he is absolutely right that the satanic ritual abuse was a phenomenon that popped up widespread in the 1980s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satanic_ritual_abuse

[Dead & Messed Up]

On your second observation, it may be true that his filmic influences were mainly of the 70s, but he is absolutely right that the satanic ritual abuse was a phenomenon that popped up widespread in the 1980s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satanic_ritual_abuse

Oh no, I'm aware of that. I just found it fascinating that he made a film in the 2000's that takes place in the 1980's but looks like a renegade from the 1970's. To say nothing of the 1940's mansion she's in (serious shades of The Spiral Staircase and The Uninvited).

EDIT: I bookmarked the link - fascinating stuff.

[jenniferofthejungle]

I've heard it's not terrible, nor is it a complete disaster.




Basically a retread of the first movie that doesn't make any logistical sense. The end brings something a little new, but it's not enough.

Thanks. I think I'll risk it.

I wish I had a copy of Resident Evil: Extinction to throw on tonight. It's nothing great, but still very watchable. The trailer for the new one is making me want to re-watch the other three.

[Dukefrukem]

Thanks. I think I'll risk it.

I wish I had a copy of Resident Evil: Extinction to throw on tonight. It's nothing great, but still very watchable. The trailer for the new one is making me want to re-watch the other three.

Me too! I'm so excited for the discless PS3 Netflix app. These are the kinds of movies I'd love to fall asleep to in bed.

[Bosco B Thug]

So I watched William Malone's completely independently-financed film Parasomnia because, man, ballsy move, and he sacrificed and put a lot into it, and it's been making engagement screenings while garnering lots of good will behind it, and there was a "Horror Masters" screening where horror patron-saints like Tobe Hooper, Stuart Gordon, and Mick Garris were there to pat Malone on the back. I thought, it had to be at least an interesting "new thing." Okay it was pooped onto DVD like magic, but people can't be just pretending to like it because Malone's in the underdog spot, right?

That's why I feel some guilt saying: Ouch. Not good. Just a corny failure, with the occasional House on Haunted Hill-quality creep-outs, but the no-budget does Malone no favors. I don't see how anyone on this board would feel any reason to see this one, even the fans of The Fair-Haired Child (soo much more watchable).

[Dead & Messed Up]

So I watched William Malone's completely independently-financed film Parasomnia because, man, ballsy move, and he sacrificed and put a lot into it, and it's been making engagement screenings while garnering lots of good will behind it, and there was a "Horror Masters" screening where horror patron-saints like Tobe Hooper, Stuart Gordon, and Mick Garris were there to pat Malone on the back. I thought, it had to be at least an interesting "new thing." Okay it was pooped onto DVD like magic, but people can't be just pretending to like it because Malone's in the underdog spot, right?

That's why I feel some guilt saying: Ouch. Not good. Just a corny failure, with the occasional House on Haunted Hill-quality creep-outs, but the no-budget does Malone no favors. I don't see how anyone on this board would feel any reason to see this one, even the fans of The Fair-Haired Child (soo much more watchable).

God damn it.

I have such a soft spot for House on Haunted Hill and Fair-Haired Child, and Feardotcom, while awful, certainly looks good. I love his saturated colors, his assaultive montage moments, and his deep, deep blacks and shadows. I was really looking forward to this one.

Shit.

Added it to the top of my queue anyway.

[Bosco B Thug]

God damn it.

I have such a soft spot for House on Haunted Hill and Fair-Haired Child, and Feardotcom, while awful, certainly looks good. I love his saturated colors, his assaultive montage moments, and his deep, deep blacks and shadows. I was really looking forward to this one.

Shit.

Added it to the top of my queue anyway. :sad:

If it's any comfort, a large part of its failure is not that his stylistic touch is missing, but that Malone's aspirations are all over the place here, instead of just focusing on making a freaky ass movie. It's his gothic horror but mish-mashed with serial killer/weird science-hospital drama/sub-par avant garde film/love story. If he goes back to just making a straight-up scare flick, he'd be fine.

[Rowland]

Trilogy of Terror barely justifies the three-star rating I ultimately decided upon, and that decision is hardly based on the surface merits of the stories, the first two being clunky and predictable whereas the notorious Zuni fetish doll tale is satisfying in its minimalism, if hardly exceptional; nor is my modest affection based on Dan Curtis' static, largely perfunctory direction (only the third episode manages to wake him up a bit). Rather, it's Karen Black's vibrant performances that keep this thing as afloat as it manages, a testament to the capacity dedicated thespians have to elevate schlock. Indeed, she tears into her roles with a gusto that is exhilarating, not to mention deeply sexy, so that her lead performances coupled with the themes of female sexual repression/awakening that act as the anthology's common thematic thread render this otherwise mediocre triptych borderline transgressive in its barely subsumed kinkiness. Black emotes with her entire body, and, already firmly in MILF territory by this stage in her career, I imagine many adolescent boys not only experiencing nightmares over the dated doll effects of the film's most enduring tale, but their first wet dreams over the image of Black's formerly domineered innocent asserting primal control by hoisting her bare leg up onto the kitchen counter as she struggles to confine the savage toy to her makeshift inferno. And that final shot... I wonder to what degree this film's cult status is predicated on the number of boys it weened into puberty with its initial airing?

[jenniferofthejungle]

I couldn't find what I was going to watch last night so I borrowed The Wolfman instead. I'm on the "meh" side of the fence on this movie. No, it wasn't as bad as I thought it would be (every glimpse of a trailer or leaked photo made me think this was going to be awful), but it doesn't have much to offer either.

I hate thinking movies are just okay, but that's the strongest word I could come up with---it's okay.

There was nothing in this movie that engaged me, and nothing that drew me in or touched me at all. One of the things that made the original such a favorite was the tragedy of the entire situation, and the heartbreaking resolution. This film had none of that. It was like looking at a painting you don't particularly for, even though it's obviously crafted by a capable painter.

Del Toro was miscast.

[Dukefrukem]

That's sorta how I feel about it, but I'd definitely watch it again. I don't see it as bad at all. People were bashing it like it was Cabin Fever or something.

[jenniferofthejungle]

That's sorta how I feel about it, but I'd definitely watch it again. I don't see it as bad at all. People were bashing it like it was Cabin Fever or something.


Freaking Cabin Fever. I hate the shit out of that movie. :lol: You just brought back some happy memories, Duke.

I am going to watch it again in a few days, but that pretty much sums it up.

[Bosco B Thug]

Ooh, not doing to well this weekend. Killer snowman opus Jack Frost was pretty lame.

[Derek]

Ooh, not doing to well this weekend. Killer snowman opus Jack Frost was pretty lame.

Heh, Jack Frost and its sequel do have the honor of producing the most groan-worthy taglines ever: "He's chillin...and killin" and "He's Icin' & Slicin'".

[Raiders]

I greatly enjoy Jack Frost. Bosco seems a too-serious soul to enjoy it, though,

[Bosco B Thug]

Heh, Jack Frost and its sequel do have the honor of producing the most groan-worthy taglines ever: "He's chillin...and killin" and "He's Icin' & Slicin'". And they pioneered the holographic DVD cover trend!


I greatly enjoy Jack Frost. Bosco seems a too-serious soul to enjoy it, though, That's right. Let's be high-flown together and take Piranha's balls in a vise when that comes out.

[Rowland]

Quick thoughts before work:

Nacho CerdÃ*'s Aftermath, along with his underrated The Abandoned, confirms him as a unique genre auteurist who really needs to work more. Anyone else see this thing? It's really something else, and available on Netflix Instant View for those interested.

Also, talk about precipitous drops in quality for both Fruit Chan and Robert Florey, from the stunning Dumplings to Don't Look Up and the delirious Murders in the Rue Morgue to the rightfully forgotten Florentine Dagger. What happened to these guys, yeesh?

[Dead & Messed Up]

Quick thoughts before work:

Nacho CerdÃ*'s Aftermath, along with his underrated The Abandoned, confirms him as a unique genre auteurist who really needs to work more. Anyone else see this thing? It's really something else, and available on Netflix Instant View for those interested.

Added to my queue. Although the plan is to make Werewolf of London my next horror viewing.

[Bosco B Thug]

Quick thoughts before work:

Also, talk about precipitous drops in quality for both Fruit Chan and Robert Florey, from the stunning Dumplings to Don't Look Up and the delirious Murders in the Rue Morgue to the rightfully forgotten Florentine Dagger. What happened to these guys, yeesh? Fuuuuuuuuuuuu.

This is karma for ruining Parasomnia for D&MU. I have Don't Look Up arriving in the mail on Monday.

[Rowland]

Fuuuuuuuuuuuu.

This is karma for ruining Parasomnia for D&MU. I have Don't Look Up arriving in the mail on Monday.There are enough instances of expressive direction so that it's clear the film isn't the product of a hack, but it doesn't approach the lyrical, tactile feel of Dumplings, and depressingly, these intermittent glimmers of an artful sensibility behind the camera are just about all the film has going for it, which infuses it with the air of a frustrated artist hampered by crap material, crap actors, crap special effects, etc. That said, the gulf between this and Dumplings is still large enough that I can't help considering if the absence of Christopher Doyle doesn't perhaps play a role; was his influence as an auteur greater than one may presume from a cinematographer? I haven't seen any of Fruit Chan's other work, so it's difficult to say at this point.

In any case, I look forward to your reaction. Hopefully I've lowered your expectations enough so that you'll enjoy it more than you otherwise may have.

[Bosco B Thug]

There are enough instances of expressive direction so that it's clear the film isn't the product of a hack, but it doesn't approach the lyrical, tactile feel of Dumplings, and depressingly, these intermittent glimmers of an artful sensibility behind the camera are just about all the film has going for it, which infuses it with the air of a frustrated artist hampered by crap material, crap actors, crap special effects, etc. That said, the gulf between this and Dumplings is still large enough that I can't help considering if the absence of Christopher Doyle doesn't perhaps play a role; was his influence as an auteur greater than one may presume from a cinematographer? I haven't seen any of Fruit Chan's other work, so it's difficult to say at this point.

In any case, I look forward to your reaction. Hopefully I've lowered your expectations enough so that you'll enjoy it more than you otherwise may have. Yes, this sounds about what to expect. The trailer looked pretty darn schlocky all around. Eli Roth is a cancer of movie cameo-ing.

Well, it's not like Dumplings is this brand of horror schlock, so maybe all we learn from this is he can't pull off bottom rung commercial filmmaking in a new country. Haven't seen any of his other films either.

[Rowland]

Yes, this sounds about what to expect. The trailer looked pretty darn schlocky all around. Eli Roth is a cancer of movie cameo-ing.You should listen to him in the behind the scenes documentary (quoted from memory):

"After Quentin and I watched Dumplings, we talked about it for hours afterwards. My friend Robert Rodriguez is a huge fan too, the three of us can't get enough of his stuff, so you know Fruit Chan is big with the real movie fans."

"It's a movie about a movie within a movie within a movie... SO Asian."


Well, it's not like Dumplings is this brand of horror schlock, so maybe all we learn from this is he can't pull off bottom rung commercial filmmaking in a new country. Haven't seen any of his other films either.The trailer for The Longest Summer, which I've heard the most about in terms of praise, has been tempting me to pick it up cheap on eBay. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1SOcvrPFiQ

[Rowland]

Oh yeah, I had Stever Miner's Day of the Dead remake on in the background the other day while using the internet, kinda-sorta watched about half of it, and hooooly shit, is it some serious hackwork. Has anyone seen that thing?

[Dukefrukem]

Oh yeah, I had Stever Miner's Day of the Dead remake on in the background the other day while using the internet, kinda-sorta watched about half of it, and hooooly shit, is it some serious hackwork. Has anyone seen that thing?

It's terrible. Like, one of the worst movies I've ever seen in my life. I'd actually rate Cabin Fever above it... and I HATED how they cast Ving Rhames in it.

[Bosco B Thug]

You should listen to him in the behind the scenes documentary (quoted from memory):

"After Quentin and I watched Dumplings, we talked about it for hours afterwards. My friend Robert Rodriguez is a huge fan too, the three of us can't get enough of his stuff, so you know Fruit Chan is big with the real movie fans."

"It's a movie about a movie within a movie within a movie... SO Asian." Gosh, maybe he really is a tool.

[Dead & Messed Up]

Oh yeah, I had Stever Miner's Day of the Dead remake on in the background the other day while using the internet, kinda-sorta watched about half of it, and hooooly shit, is it some serious hackwork. Has anyone seen that thing?

I did, regrettably. It was awful in nearly every capacity. Except that I thought Mena Suvari looked kinda cute in army fatigues.

[number8]

Have you guys seen the original Don't Look Up?

[Bosco B Thug]

Have you guys seen the original Don't Look Up?
Nope. I knew of it as Ghost Actress, though, and didn't realize this was a remake of it. Not on Netflix!

[MadMan]

His Name Was Jason is something I'm glad I simply watched on Instant Viewing, if only because it was merely good. The lack of some more famous cast members was glaring (I wonder why Crispin Glover wasn't involved, for one thing) and it felt rather too short. Otherwise I was rather entertained, and its a enjoyable documentary covering what is probably my favorite horror series (wait no, that would be the Evil Dead trilogy instead), with some notable interviews from most of the folks involved. Also I have to say that the woman who played Reggie in Part 8 is still hot. Too bad the series is about dead (well at least I feel that way-I'm sure most here don't), as the remake wasn't very good and I have no idea if another one will ever be made.

[Dead & Messed Up]

I updated my blog today with a review of 1935 film Werewolf of London (http://horrorfilms101.blogspot.com), the first official werewolf film ever released. I gave it a C+, as it was hardly awful but lacked the style and energy of its obvious influence: Mamoulian's clearly superior Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.

Excerpt:


The performance by Henry Hull as the dispassionate Glendon proves problematic. Lacking the sympathy granted to Fredrich March’s Jekyll, much less the puppy-dog sincerity of Chaney’s Talbot in The Wolf Man, Glendon walks stiffly, declares curtly, and fails to emphasize the tragedy. The drama from transformation stories depends on the disparity between opposing personalities, but Glendon’s natural state proves too neutral. He mutes the dynamic. To be fair, there’s some mild erotic intrigue, as Glendon’s lack of interest in his wife contrasts with his feral attacks on the looser women of London. Indeed, his impotency, emotional and otherwise, becomes clear when he forces a kiss upon Lisa halfway through the picture, trying to prove that their love is real, and, of course, it is not.

I should have another update in the next couple of days, specifically a review of William Malone's Parasomnia.

[megladon8]

His Name Was Jason is something I'm glad I simply watched on Instant Viewing, if only because it was merely good. The lack of some more famous cast members was glaring (I wonder why Crispin Glover wasn't involved, for one thing) and it felt rather too short. Otherwise I was rather entertained, and its a enjoyable documentary covering what is probably my favorite horror series (wait no, that would be the Evil Dead trilogy instead), with some notable interviews from most of the folks involved. Also I have to say that the woman who played Reggie in Part 8 is still hot. Too bad the series is about dead (well at least I feel that way-I'm sure most here don't), as the remake wasn't very good and I have no idea if another one will ever be made.


This has an interview with James Rolfe, doesn't it? (aka the Angry Video Game Nerd)

[MadMan]

This has an interview with James Rolfe, doesn't it? (aka the Angry Video Game Nerd)Oh yeah. His interview was good-hell I didn't even know there was a Jason video game.

[jenniferofthejungle]

Oh yeah, I had Stever Miner's Day of the Dead remake on in the background the other day while using the internet, kinda-sorta watched about half of it, and hooooly shit, is it some serious hackwork. Has anyone seen that thing?


This is going to be a case where I ignore all warnings and watch that crap anyway.


I liked the first Jack Frost, but thought the second one was stupid and tried way too hard to be as "funny" as the first one.

[Dead & Messed Up]

This is going to be a case where I ignore all warnings and watch that crap anyway.

Please don't.

PLEASE.

PLEASE DON'T.

[jenniferofthejungle]

Please don't.

PLEASE.

PLEASE DON'T.

Darn your voice of reason!

You win.


I just threw the European version of Dawn of the Dead so I am off to a good night's sleep.

I watched Scream 3 , and then Scream 2 this evening. I still like those movies. Parker Posey makes me love part 3 more than I should. I kind of adore her. I think the way the story wraps up is a bit far-fetched, but I like what they did with it anyway. I dig the trilogy.

I don't think the titles revolutionized horror or anything (it's what they try to say while promoting their own movies), but I enjoyed them.

[Dead & Messed Up]

Darn your voice of reason!

You win.

It's because I care. :|


I watched Scream 3 , and then Scream 2 this evening. I still like those movies. Parker Posey makes me love part 3 more than I should. I kind of adore her. I think the way the story wraps up is a bit far-fetched, but I like what they did with it anyway. I dig the trilogy.

I don't think the titles revolutionized horror or anything (it's what they try to say while promoting their own movies), but I enjoyed them.

Yeah, some people make the claim that these movies revolutionized horror or changed the face of horror, but I don't see it. For all the talk about how Craven and Williamson pointed out and criticized the genre, they still fell into the same damn traps they chastised, and all that Hollywood producers took from the film was: we can make crappy slashers again! Wahoo!

Thank God the Asians were kicking it into high gear around the same time.

And I enjoyed all three Scream films. The final one's got that nifty subtext about how Hollywood sexualizes and dismisses actresses, and you're right about Posey.

[MadMan]

All of the Scream movies are fun and enjoyable. The first one only scared me because I was younger and had not seen as many horror movies as I have now. I'd say that the first is the best, the second is the funniest, and the third is decent-and also the one I recently rewatched, as the other two are due for one since its been years.

[Dukefrukem]

Session 9 gets a big meh from me.... takes way too long to get going. Might need a second viewing, but I was bored through most of the movie.

[megladon8]

Session 9 gets a big meh from me.... takes way too long to get going. Might need a second viewing, but I was bored through most of the movie.

:|


It's one of the scariest movies of all time. One of the best horrors of the last 30 years.

[Dukefrukem]

:|


It's one of the scariest movies of all time. One of the best horrors of the last 30 years.

I don't even know how that could be close to being possible. The only time it gets remotely scary is within the last 15 minutes of the movie (Totally running time is 90 minutes). The rest of the movie dialog filled and completely uneventful... with a short 5 minute night time shot in the middle...

Not scary at all. The sessions are probably the worst part; Weak attempt at misdirection.

[megladon8]

I don't even know how that could be close to being possible. The only time it gets remotely scary is within the last 15 minutes of the movie (Totally running time is 90 minutes). The rest of the movie dialog filled and completely uneventful... with a short 5 minute night time shot in the middle...

Not scary at all. The sessions are probably the worst part; Weak attempt at misdirection.


Sorry, Duke, unfortunately your team is small on this one. Session 9 is pretty highly regarded.

The tension it builds throughout is amazing. The first time I watched it, when it was over, I was so scared I actually couldn't get off the couch to take the DVD out of the player.

[Scar]

Session 9 has a great build up, and I enjoy it immensely.

[Dukefrukem]

Sorry, Duke, unfortunately your team is small on this one. Session 9 is pretty highly regarded.

The tension it builds throughout is amazing. The first time I watched it, when it was over, I was so scared I actually couldn't get off the couch to take the DVD out of the player.


I know; I've been wanting to watch this for a long time. I'm actually shocked at how much I didn't enjoy it. Dunno, maybe i need to watch it again? That usually isn't how horror movies appeal to me.

[megladon8]

I know; I've been wanting to watch this for a long time. I'm actually shocked at how much I didn't enjoy it. Dunno, maybe i need to watch it again? That usually isn't how horror movies appeal to me.


It could just be a case of it not being your thing. Everyone likes different stuff.

It is slow. But that's part of what I love about it.

[Raiders]

Yeah, Session 9 is mostly fantastic build-up. Not sure that "eventful" has anything to do with being scary. I actually find the final minutes the weakest part.

[Dukefrukem]

Yeah, Session 9 is mostly fantastic build-up. Not sure that "eventful" has anything to do with being scary. I actually find the final minutes the weakest part.

But even the discussions aren't engaging. The wife aspect, the Phil's missing aspect even the discussion about how the asbestos gets into your lungs over time... did not grip me.

[Qrazy]

I know; I've been wanting to watch this for a long time. I'm actually shocked at how much I didn't enjoy it. Dunno, maybe i need to watch it again? That usually isn't how horror movies appeal to me.

Did you watch it alone at night on a big screen with the light off? Because that helps. I was suitably creeped out by it.

[Dead & Messed Up]

So I ended up watching Parasomnia, and while I didn't hate it nearly as much as Bosco (I gave it a C+ on my blog (http://horrorfilms101.blogspot.com/)), there was much disappointment and frustration, only mildly tempered by my love for Malone's imagery. Excerpt:


Parasomnia is not compact. At a hundred minutes long, the film offers too many scenes of characters sitting down and talking, or standing and discussing, or standing and opining. As a writer, Malone doesn’t inspire much confidence. Despite Laura’s youthful mind, it’s too much to see her, freed from endless sleep, chewing on a newspaper and joyfully spreading ice cream on her face. Additionally, Malone doesn’t always trust when to cut, allowing conversations both expositional and incidental to go on too long.

Oh, and Duke's being silly. He needs to watch Session 9 again at a later date.

[Dukefrukem]

Did you watch it alone at night on a big screen with the light off? Because that helps. I was suitably creeped out by it.

The lights were off, but no big screen. And I was sorta multitasking. Bah.

[Qrazy]

Oh, and Duke's being silly. He needs to watch Session 9 again at a later date.

Hrm I don't know, if you're not creeped out by a film the first time around it doesn't seem likely that one would be at a later date. And I can't say that it's a particularly good film other than that it unnerved me... so if it didn't for him...

[Bosco B Thug]

So I ended up watching Parasomnia, and while I didn't hate it nearly as much as Bosco (I gave it a C+ on my blog (http://horrorfilms101.blogspot.com/)), there was much disappointment and frustration, only mildly tempered by my love for Malone's imagery. Excerpt: Well, glad I didn't make you hate it!

Interesting thought, transporting horror directors back to the silent era and seeing how they'd fare then. Malone definitely has the artistic concerns that would suit him for that.

Most would benefit, I'd say, they wouldn't have CRAPPY CGI infecting their films. That reminds me, for a film about a girl trapped in her dreams, those dream sequences of hers are bafflingly inconsequential. "I have this vision: a vast wasteland, filled with shifting mirrors! I was inspired by this late, great foreign artist that I want to really honor! ... Let's CGI it and not do anything interesting with it!"

[Dead & Messed Up]

Well, glad I didn't make you hate it!

If anything, you tempered my expectations.


Interesting thought, transporting horror directors back to the silent era and seeing how they'd fare then. Malone definitely has the artistic concerns that would suit him for that.

He's not a good storyteller. He should be making short subjects somewhere in Europe, hanging out with the Brothers Quay and Jan Svankmajer.


Most would benefit, I'd say, they wouldn't have CRAPPY CGI infecting their films. That reminds me, for a film about a girl trapped in her dreams, those dream sequences of hers are bafflingly inconsequential. "I have this vision: a vast wasteland, filled with shifting mirrors! I was inspired by this late, great foreign artist that I want to really honor! ... Let's CGI it and not do anything interesting with it!"

Yeah. I dug the creatures (which suggest the influence of the mesmerist) and the house in the center (which seemed a distorted representation of her summer house as a child), but I'm not sure what the mirrors were all about. The film's motifs weren't thought out properly.

I'd be curious to see what the movie looks like in black and white. I can guarantee it'd look better. At the least, the poor compositing would look more like deliberate artifice.

[jenniferofthejungle]

Session 9 gets a big meh from me.... takes way too long to get going. Might need a second viewing, but I was bored through most of the movie.


I'm so happy this scared me the first time around (and the sounds and voices creep me out to this day). I love movies I consider slow burns, the ones that build up the mood before attacking.

Sorry it was a disappointment for you.

My first viewing of this is still among my favorite memories. I love being terrified in the safety of my own living room. Session 9 was one of the movies that made me so tense I was literally pushing myself into the couch to get away from it. I pushed myself so far back into the couch I'm surprised I didn't end up behind the damned thing. :lol:


So after watching all 4 versions of the original DOTD I have decided I love the American theatrical release more than any of the others. When I have some free time I will listen to the commentary tracks because they were very interesting.

[Dukefrukem]

I'm so happy this scared me the first time around (and the sounds and voices creep me out to this day). I love movies I consider slow burns, the ones that build up the mood before attacking.

Sorry it was a disappointment for you.

My first viewing of this is still among my favorite memories. I love being terrified in the safety of my own living room. Session 9 was one of the movies that made me so tense I was literally pushing myself into the couch to get away from it. I pushed myself so far back into the couch I'm surprised I didn't end up behind the damned thing. :lol:


So after watching all 4 versions of the original DOTD I have decided I love the American theatrical release more than any of the others. When I have some free time I will listen to the commentary tracks because they were very interesting.

I can usually appreciate the "slow burns"... Black Christmas is masterful in that sense. Not sure why this didn't appeal to me. I'm definitely gonna watch it again now that I've disappointed Jenn. :-/

[jenniferofthejungle]

Aww, no, Duke, don't force yourself to watch something again. You didn't disappoint me at all, no worries. There are plety of movies I don't "click" with, and that's just the way things are.

I'm off the horror trek this week because I am going to gorge myself on seasons 1-3 of Mad Men. I'll still peek in here, but I won't have much to talk about.

[Scar]

If you're going to give it a re-watch, wait awhile. Then make sure to do it while you're not multitasking.

[Dukefrukem]

Yeh I'll definitely wait a bit. I've got some relaxing time tonight to watch some additional horror stuff. Gonna be hard to watch movies as of late; just bought a house and last night I started tearing up the carpet (and not the good kind ;) ). I have two sets of stairs to work on (only did 1 set last night) and two bed rooms. Man oh man it's a lot harder than I thought.

[Bosco B Thug]

There are enough instances of expressive direction so that it's clear the film isn't the product of a hack, but it doesn't approach the lyrical, tactile feel of Dumplings, and depressingly, these intermittent glimmers of an artful sensibility behind the camera are just about all the film has going for it, which infuses it with the air of a frustrated artist hampered by crap material, crap actors, crap special effects, etc. That said, the gulf between this and Dumplings is still large enough that I can't help considering if the absence of Christopher Doyle doesn't perhaps play a role; was his influence as an auteur greater than one may presume from a cinematographer? I haven't seen any of Fruit Chan's other work, so it's difficult to say at this point.

In any case, I look forward to your reaction. Hopefully I've lowered your expectations enough so that you'll enjoy it more than you otherwise may have. So I did kind of enjoy it. There was never a point where I was convinced I was watching a hack at work. On the contrary, I felt there was something in every bit of the film that signaled a truly talented director. And I actually don't think the gulf is that big between this and Dumplings. I just think he was definitely saddled with crap material and a general crap mindset to movie-making in general. I don't know what that is exactly, but it results in bad DTV horror movies like this where all the filmmakers are supposed to do is embrace narrative cliche and extreme horror film inanity.

But the material is shite in every single way, and while Chan infuses it with eccentric, energetic style and often striking mise en scene, he has no greater intentions on actually elevating the material. The film makes no sense and Chan seems to have little sense of the actual story. The film is very irritating sometimes, with shaky performances (not bad, although the DP character is annoying as hell) and a TERRIBLE script in which every quip is like a gallstone trying to come out. Add to all that the film being post-produced to hell with all the gimmicky editing tricks and hyperactiveness of DTV horror, and we've got a bad horror film that's clearly from a good director.

[Dukefrukem]

Any Dracula (1931) fans here?

[megladon8]

Any Dracula (1931) fans here?


I like it but don't love it. It's arguably the "least good" of the Universal monster movies.

The Spanish version of the film is superior in every way except for the actor playing Dracula. If Bela Lugosi had played Dracula in that version, it would have been a masterpiece of horror cinema.

[D_Davis]

Watched The Ruins last night. Not terrible. Liked it a lot more than the book, that's for sure. The acting was surprisingly good.

[Ezee E]

Watched The Ruins last night. Not terrible. Liked it a lot more than the book, that's for sure. The acting was surprisingly good.
Ugh, what an awful book at that.

[Russ]

Watched The Ruins last night. Not terrible. Liked it a lot more than the book, that's for sure. The acting was surprisingly good.
And the gore was surprisingly...gory (in a good way).

[Dukefrukem]

I like it but don't love it. It's arguably the "least good" of the Universal monster movies.

The Spanish version of the film is superior in every way except for the actor playing Dracula. If Bela Lugosi had played Dracula in that version, it would have been a masterpiece of horror cinema.

I just watched it. Do you know if this is one of the first movies that uses the "Dracula" name with a relationship with vampires?



And the gore was surprisingly...gory (in a good way).

Agreed. I have a soft spot for that movie.

[Dead & Messed Up]

Any Dracula (1931) fans here?

Not here.

[MadMan]

Any Dracula (1931) fans here?Nope. Its a merely decent movie at best, and not deserving of its reputation.

[Dukefrukem]

The ending is pretty uneventful. Not sure if they gave up at that point but if I were Dracula and being chased, I'm not sure I would just fall asleep in a coffin and think I was safe.

[number8]

Me, I don't think any movie can be scary if you're busy doing something else other than sitting down, eyes locked on the screen.

[Dukefrukem]

Me, I don't think any movie can be scary if you're busy doing something else other than sitting down, eyes locked on the screen.

Yeh that's my mistake. I don't normally do that.. but I needed to get other things done and I was too stubborn; Won't do that again.

[number8]

At least it's not foreign. Ever put on a movie with subtitles while cleaning the house? Disaster.

[Dukefrukem]

At least it's not foreign. Ever put on a movie with subtitles while cleaning the house? Disaster.

I've attempted that! It was with 2046. DOES NOT WORK.

[number8]

For the first time? Yeah. But I'm at a point where I'd already memorized WKW movies enough so I find them to be excellent background visual/noise. If I had the money for an extra TV I'd probably have it play In the Mood for Love and 2046 on a loop, replacing my window view.

[Dukefrukem]

If I had the money for an extra TV I'd probably have it play In the Mood for Love and 2046 on a loop, replacing my window view.

I think I want to build that (http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/15/winscape-virtual-window-features-wiimote-headtracking-absolutel/).

[number8]

At nights, just for fun, I'll put on Ringu when people are over.

[D_Davis]

And the gore was surprisingly...gory (in a good way).

Yeah - pretty gross.

[Rowland]

Any Dracula (1931) fans here?Not a fan. The first ten minutes are cool, the rest is disposable.

[MadMan]

From Beyond was one disgusting movie. In some ways it was more disturbing than Re-Animator, but I think that Re-Animator is better simply because none of the characters in From Beyond match the greatness that is Combs' Herbert West. Still I liked the characters in this movie, especially (out of severe bias) Ken Foree's police officer, who's reactions to what ends up happening probably reflect the audience's mind more than any other character.
As I've noted before, the 80s seems to have plenty of movies that deal with sex and sexual undertones, raging hormones and such. Which means this movie could almost go on a double bill with Videdrome, among others-I also think its interesting that it came out the same year as David Lynch's sexually charged classic Blue Velvet, which dealt with some similar themes, minus the nasty creatures from another dimension, with the monsters being real people instead.
Also that ending is downright creepy, really. I was surprised that Gordon decided to end with Barbara Crampton going completely insane instead of showing her in a metal institute, pineal gland stalk popping out of her head and all. So I'm glad they just stuck with a simple, haunting ending instead.

[MadMan]

Oh and Phantasm lives up to its cult movie reputation. Watching it at 2 am in a dark room sure upped the creepy factor a lot, but the Tall Man is one eerie bugger anyways. Plus a flying silver ball that kills people, angry dwarf creatures, and another dimension makes for one weird experience. The last act completely left me confused about what was real, and was really a dream, which I guess was the intention. I kind of saw the Tall Man attacking Mike coming, but it still freaked me out when it happened. Nice.

[Grouchy]

The other day a friend saw Dracula (1931) and, like me, did not like it much for pretty much the same reasons. But he had something really funny to say about the ending. When they kill Dracula they all begin to leave and Van Helsing says something to the effect that Jonathan and Mina walk along and that he stays because he has something (unexplained) left to do.

My friend says when the words THE END came out all he could think about was necrophilia.

[jenniferofthejungle]

Oh and Phantasm lives up to its cult movie reputation. Watching it at 2 am in a dark room sure upped the creepy factor a lot, but the Tall Man is one eerie bugger anyways. Plus a flying silver ball that kills people, angry dwarf creatures, and another dimension makes for one weird experience. The last act completely left me confused about what was real, and was really a dream, which I guess was the intention. I kind of saw the Tall Man attacking Mike coming, but it still freaked me out when it happened. Nice.

I really dislike Phantasm. I could never force myself to love that one, no matter how much I was told I was supposed to. The only thing I love about that movie is the damned car.

All this Dracula talk is making me want to watch it again. I haven't seen it since I was a little kid so I don't know if any of you know what you're talking about when you say it's bad.

[megladon8]

I'm indifferent towards Phantasm - it's a textbook 5/10 for me.

For every interesting idea and visual, there is another one that bugs the hell out of me.

The Tall Man is certainly quite the presence, and there are a few moments of true creepiness to be had. But the laughable acting and writing drag it down.

I hear that Phantasm II is the best of the series. I've only seen the first and the fourth (subtitled Oblivion) and the fourth is dreadful.

It also nigh-PROMISED boobies, then went back on its word. That made me mad :evil:

[Dukefrukem]

The other day a friend saw Dracula (1931) and, like me, did not like it much for pretty much the same reasons. But he had something really funny to say about the ending. When they kill Dracula they all begin to leave and Van Helsing says something to the effect that Jonathan and Mina walk along and that he stays because he has something (unexplained) left to do.

My friend says when the words THE END came out all he could think about was necrophilia.

I just watched this and can confirm that they say;

"Aren't you coming with us?"
Helsing; "Not yet, presently, come John."

And I didn't realize that the church bells heard immediately after that as John and Mina are walking up the stairs is to imply they will be married.



All this Dracula talk is making me want to watch it again. I haven't seen it since I was a little kid so I don't know if any of you know what you're talking about when you say it's bad.

I don't think it's bad, just very mediocre, with an awful ending.

[number8]

The Spanish version is so much better.

[jenniferofthejungle]

The Spanish version is so much better.

I have the Universal Dracula set, but never watched it because people always said that the lead guy was dull. I might give it a whirl on a Sunday night.



I did a stupid thing, but it had to be done or I'd forever wonder about it. I watched Jennifer's Body. When will I learn? Probably never.

I knew it would be terrible, but it wasn't quite as bad as I thought it would be. It was just mediocre.

I really don't mind Megan Fox, she is good at playing the bitchy sexpot, and Amanda Seyfried was cute and personable, (though never in a million years could she be mistaken for the dorky, unattractive friend. I'm really sick of glasses thrown on a hot chick to make her seem nerdy and dumpy, whatever, bitches.) and I would like to see her in other roles, but the writing here was utter shit. There is no other way around it. Forget that it wasn't original or engaging--it was just shit.

[megladon8]

I really hate Diablo Cody.

Her "clever" dialogue is just obnoxious and closer to an episode of "Family Guy" than it is to "a female Tarantino" (which I've seen her described as).

I have no desire to ever see that one, Jen.

[jenniferofthejungle]

I really hate Diablo Cody.

Her "clever" dialogue is just obnoxious and closer to an episode of "Family Guy" than it is to "a female Tarantino" (which I've seen her described as).

I have no desire to ever see that one, Jen.

I almost always tell people to watch anything they want in order to judge it for themselves (I have a few bad favorites I love and a movie I hate could be awesome for someone else) but in this case I would say you're right.

Some of the references Cody uses are ridiculous? Ugh, she is terrible. The harder she tried to be funny the worse it got.

[Dukefrukem]

I spit on your grave remake trailer (http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/independent/ispitonyourgrave/)

[Bosco B Thug]

Hey, do people know that Nicolas Roeg was Roger Corman's Director of Photography on The Masque of the Red Death?? I'm tempted to attribute its artsy flourishes to that, although not that I don't find Corman very capable otherwise.

[Dukefrukem]

My Soul To Take Directed by; Wes Craven

Trailer (http://www.aintitcool.com/node/46186)

Doesn't look good.

[megladon8]

My Soul To Take Directed by; Wes Craven

Trailer (http://www.aintitcool.com/node/46186)

Doesn't look good.


I'm convinced that Wes Craven is a complete and utter hack who just happened to have one or two flukes.

95% of his filmography is shit.

[MadMan]

I like Craven, even if he's not really anything more than a solid/decent director. And something of a money whore, although aren't we all? :P

For my next batch of horror rentals, I grabbed The Last Winter, Invasion of the Body Snatchers, The Girl Who Knew Too Much and The Dead Zone.

The Dead Zone, which I watched a couple days ago, was really gripping and very eerie. It wasn't scary, but you got a odd, creepy vibe that underlined the entire movie, and made even the ordinary things about it seem quite surreal. Walken's performance really drives the movie of course, but its Martin Sheen's psychotic, destiny driven madman politician who steals the movie. He's charismatic, violent, egotistic, and a skillful manipulator. In short, what most politicians are (if you go with the Barty take, haha). I think that even if its more "Normal" by Cronenberg standards it still fits into his "Body Horror" style that is by and large a part of his movies.

[megladon8]

I like Craven, even if he's not really anything more than a solid/decent director. And something of a money whore, although aren't we all? :P


Eh, to me he's really not even "solid" or "decent".

A Nightmare on Elm Street is an absolute masterpiece, but like I said before, I think it was honestly a fluke - as insulting as I find that term to be in reference to someone's talents and career.


The Last House on the Left - 3
Swamp Thing - 4.5
A Nightmare on Elm Street - 10
Deadly Friend - 1.5
The Serpent and the Rainbow - 6.5
Shocker - 4
The People Under the Stairs - 7
New Nightmare - 6
Vampire in Brooklyn - 2.5
Scream - 7.5
Cursed - 3.5
Red Eye - 6

I know I saw Scream 2 and 3 but don't remember anything about them.

[Bosco B Thug]

My Soul To Take Directed by; Wes Craven

Trailer (http://www.aintitcool.com/node/46186)

Doesn't look good. I don't know, I'm kind of looking forward to it. This year hasn't exactly been a cornucopia of classical horror offerings, and Craven's at least still trying to give us that instead of shoveling us gritty-xtreme crap or strobe-lighty supernatural haunting films.

Also, Craven's youth-pandering here seems cutely on the right track, going for Gus Van Sant punk culture instead of WB super model mannequins.

Plus, between this and Black Swan, freaky bird creatures anyone? *raised hand*


Complete coincidence, but I've just decided to make myself through the Nightmare on Elm Street series. I've got 1 and 2 ready for tonight.

[Rowland]

I know I saw Scream 2 and 3 but don't remember anything about them.They aren't worth remembering.

[Dukefrukem]

Complete coincidence, but I've just decided to make myself through the Nightmare on Elm Street series. I've got 1 and 2 ready for tonight.

I remember buying the DVD set and watched the whole thing over a weekend. Was awesome.



They aren't worth remembering.

Rowland speaks the truth.

[number8]

Alan Moore Can't Take it Anymore, You Fucking Kids: The Movie.

[Bosco B Thug]

Alan Moore Can't Take it Anymore, You Fucking Kids: The Movie. Haha. I had to google Alan Moore, but I get it.

This movie actually looks way derivative of Shocker.

[MadMan]

Craven:

*Last House on the Left-85
*A Nightmare on Elm Street-85
*The Serpent and the Rainbow-73
*Scream-90
*Scream 2-81
*Scream 3-72

I'd like to finally see Red Eye, and The Hills Have Eyes.

Also Bosco Nightmare on Elm Street 2 is mediocre. But The Dream Warriors (Part III) is quite good. I plan to continue watching the series.

[Bosco B Thug]

Also Bosco Nightmare on Elm Street 2 is mediocre. Oh you got that right, and then some.

Nightmare 1 surprised me a little bit. It builds a surprisingly affecting portrait of a girl who can't depend on anyone or her sunny suburbia, and so has to define things for herself. I love how Freddy is conquered by her literally doing just that, and the final scene actually carries real poigance (and eventual terror). Ronnee Blakley is haha weeeiird as her boozy, Drama Queen mother.

Nightmare 2, now... Sorry defenders, but that was preeetty darn baaaaaaad. Okay the director has little to no idea how to make a scary movie (Freddy's poolside rampage? Really??), but even his dorky dance sequence is an embarrassment. The gay subtext is also weak-willed, the best evidence going towards that being Jesse feeling compelled to put on an halfway-buttoned silk shirt every time he needs to get into the Freddy/killing mood. Only occasionally did the film take things to the needed extreme, such as the bloody towel whipping.

[MadMan]

Oh you got that right, and then some.

Nightmare 1 surprised me a little bit. It builds a surprisingly affecting portrait of a girl who can't depend on anyone or her sunny suburbia, and so has to define things for herself. I love how Freddy is conquered by her literally doing just that, and the final scene actually carries real poigance (and eventual terror). Ronnee Blakley is haha weeeiird as her boozy, Drama Queen mother.Well I'm sometimes right about some things ;)

And your mini-review is right on the money. It does set up the classic horror cliche of "People refuse to believe there's a killer on the loose!," and in some ways it created it, although Halloween (1978) and others kind of did it previously. Plus now that I think about it Nightmare was partly responsible for making me think of the 'burbs as rather creepy.

Plus John Saxon being freakin' awesome John Saxon.


Nightmare 2, now... Sorry defenders, but that was preeetty darn baaaaaaad. Okay the director has little to no idea how to make a scary movie (Freddy's poolside rampage? Really??), but even his dorky dance sequence is an embarrassment. The gay subtext is also weak-willed, the best evidence going towards that being Jesse feeling compelled to put on an halfway-buttoned silk shirt every time he needs to get into the Freddy/killing mood. Only occasionally did the film take things to the needed extreme, such as the bloody towel whipping.This one could have been good had they just ran with the homosexual undertones and cut out the stupid Jason type pool rampage. I had no idea the movie even has defenders-but if they exist, I would love to hear them say why its a good movie. Sure there are some good moments, but they get overshadowed by the weak ones.

Watch The Dream Warriors Bosco. Its entertaining, creepy, and has some key players that come back. A worthy sequel, and one of the few third movies in a series that's actually good.

[Bosco B Thug]

Well I'm sometimes right about some things ;)

And your mini-review is right on the money. It does set up the classic horror cliche of "People refuse to believe there's a killer on the loose!," and in some ways it created it, although Halloween (1978) and others kind of did it previously. Plus now that I think about it Nightmare was partly responsible for making me think of the 'burbs as rather creepy.

Plus John Saxon being freakin' awesome John Saxon. Yeah, it's probably the "Why won't anyone believe me?" horror franchise. Halloweens and Friday the 13ths don't really do it that much.

Haha, John Saxon. Nancy has the weirdest looking parents ever.


This one could have been good had they just ran with the homosexual undertones and cut out the stupid Jason type pool rampage. I had no idea the movie even has defenders-but if they exist, I would love to hear them say why its a good movie. Sure there are some good moments, but they get overshadowed by the weak ones. Well, the people picking it up as a cult film or LGBT, camp gem for one. I didn't even find it that much fun because I was too distracted by how bad an actor the guy playing Jesse was. He was a stunning black hole of charisma.

[Rowland]

Nightmare on Elm Street scared the hell out of me when I was 12, so it's always had this nostalgia value that has made me overlook many of its flaws. I laughed at the second film around that age too, so it didn't even work for an easily scared kid; and yeah, I still remember the pool party scene being a notably WTF scene. The third is good but overvalued, the fourth I haven't seen in many years but recall feeling it's underrated (I like Harlin when he lets loose), never seen the fifth, and New Nightmare is solid but tainted by many niggling flaws.

[Dukefrukem]

Craven:

*Last House on the Left-85
*A Nightmare on Elm Street-85
*The Serpent and the Rainbow-73
*Scream-90
*Scream 2-81
*Scream 3-72

I'd like to finally see Red Eye, and The Hills Have Eyes.

Also Bosco Nightmare on Elm Street 2 is mediocre. But The Dream Warriors (Part III) is quite good. I plan to continue watching the series.

That Scream 3 rating seems way overinflated. Refresh my memory; Is that the movie that Jamie Kennedy made an appearance via VHS?

Also looking at the Scream 3 imdb, Jay and Silent Bob were in it too? I don't remember that cameo.

[Dukefrukem]

Oh you got that right, and then some.

Nightmare 1 surprised me a little bit. It builds a surprisingly affecting portrait of a girl who can't depend on anyone or her sunny suburbia, and so has to define things for herself. I love how Freddy is conquered by her literally doing just that, and the final scene actually carries real poigance (and eventual terror). Ronnee Blakley is haha weeeiird as her boozy, Drama Queen mother.

Nightmare 2, now... Sorry defenders, but that was preeetty darn baaaaaaad. Okay the director has little to no idea how to make a scary movie (Freddy's poolside rampage? Really??), but even his dorky dance sequence is an embarrassment. The gay subtext is also weak-willed, the best evidence going towards that being Jesse feeling compelled to put on an halfway-buttoned silk shirt every time he needs to get into the Freddy/killing mood. Only occasionally did the film take things to the needed extreme, such as the bloody towel whipping.

All of the Nightmare movies are mushed together in my brain. The only ones that stand out are the first, New Nightmare and (i think) Dream Warriors, where Freddy controls one of the kids like a puppet.

[Dukefrukem]

Couple of neat things this morning.

Sam Raimi is directing a web-series on fearnet.com called Zombie Roadkill... looks to be about human eating animals.

here is a teaser (http://www.aintitcool.com/node/46210) with Thomas Haden Church.

also, a trailer for an indy horror movie called ABSENTIA... looks kinda neat.

GojvSL4w0Ps

[number8]

Also looking at the Scream 3 imdb, Jay and Silent Bob were in it too? I don't remember that cameo.

It's when they're in the studio backlot and a bunch of tourists walk by. Two of them are Jay and Silent Bob. It's because of this that Kevin Smith put Wes Craven in Jay & Silent Bob Strike Back.

[Dukefrukem]

It's when they're in the studio backlot and a bunch of tourists walk by. Two of them are Jay and Silent Bob. It's because of this that Kevin Smith put Wes Craven in Jay & Silent Bob Strike Back.

Ah yes. Thanks for the reminder.

[Dukefrukem]

CNSaurw6E_Q

[Ezee E]

They should've waited a little more before putting up the website, because those were some great reactions.

[Philosophe_rouge]

When I went to Fantasia they recorded the audience reaction to the film. I doubt they'll use it somehow, but if they took this approach because that didn't quite meet their expectations, good on them. I agree with Ezee that they should have held out a few more seconds for the website, but it's still really ingenious viral marketing.

[number8]

http://www.cracked.com/article_18683_7-scientific-reasons-zombie-outbreak-would-fail-quickly.html

[Bosco B Thug]

Crocodile (Hooper, 2000) * Man, I could have told you this.

[megladon8]

More often than not you can just make the assumption Tobe Hooper movie = *.

Especially anything he's done in the last decade.

[Bosco B Thug]

More often than not you can just make the assumption Tobe Hooper movie = *.

Especially anything he's done in the last decade. Boooo.



Seriously, though, even Mortuary is a damn respectable movie.

[megladon8]

Boooo.



Seriously, though, even Mortuary is a damn respectable movie.


Blech. The only half decent thing he's done this decade was Toolbox Murders, and even that was pretty bad.

He hasn't really done anything particularly good since Poltergeist, and even that is argued to be mostly attributable to Spielberg.

Hooper just isn't very good at all. Similar to Wes Craven, I feel like he had a fluke masterpiece near the beginning of his career and he's been riding that ever since.

[Bosco B Thug]

Blech. The only half decent thing he's done this decade was Toolbox Murders, and even that was pretty bad.

He hasn't really done anything particularly good since Poltergeist, and even that is argued to be mostly attributable to Spielberg.

Hooper just isn't very good at all. Similar to Wes Craven, I feel like he had a fluke masterpiece near the beginning of his career and he's been riding that ever since. To each his own, because yes, Hooper doesn't exactly make "great" movies per se, but I find Hooper's directing refined and delicate, even as it is applied to the schlockiest of material.

But Crocodile doesn't count.

[megladon8]

Oh I forgot about one - The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2 was very good.

I often forget that Hooper did that one as well, because it's just so damn different from the first.

[Rowland]

Man, I could have told you this.If I were using a scale adjusted exclusively for SyFy movies, it'd be upper tier stuff. So there's that.

Speaking of Hooper, The Funhouse is damn good but frequently goes unmentioned in discussions of the man's work.

[megladon8]

Speaking of Hooper, The Funhouse is damn good but frequently goes unmentioned in discussions of the man's work.


Agreed.

Aw, what the hell...

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre - 10
Eaten Alive - 3
Salem's Lot - 6
The Funhouse - 7
Poltergeist - 7
Lifeforce - 4
The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2 - 6.5
Spontaneous Combustion - 2
The Mangler - 3.5
Toolbox Murders - 5
Mortuary - 2.5

[Bosco B Thug]

If I were using a scale adjusted exclusively for SyFy movies, it'd be upper tier stuff. So there's that. Naturally.


Speaking of Hooper, The Funhouse is damn good but frequently goes unmentioned in discussions of the man's work. It's his best film. It's not as virtuosic as TCM, but it's much more ringing in meaning. I find it a really rich film, despite occasional missteps.

[Rowland]

Ti West has improved a bit with each successive effort, with his debut The Roost being a strong **½, his follow-up Trigger Man a minor ***, and his latest House of the Devil a solid ***. I hope the pattern continues, he's one of the more promising genre upstarts out there right now.

[D_Davis]

Oh I forgot about one - The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2 was very good.

I often forget that Hooper did that one as well, because it's just so damn different from the first.

Absolutely brilliant film. I love it. So much fun.

[Dukefrukem]

creepy!

o_XvsvCZuBg

[Rowland]

[re. Survival of the Dead] It's not as slick, but its allegory is more esoteric and existentially evocative, and its fun is more infectious.Agreed. I suspect so many critics have been overly harsh on this one because its tone is more slippery and its subtext thornier than perhaps any entry in the series; it's certainly flawed, especially as its reach in the third act exceeds its grasp (though I'll take only partly realized ambition over a complete lack thereof any day), but it's also richer, more amusing, and most surprising, more tenderly felt than I anticipated. Also, its filmmaking isn't THAT pedestrian. Maybe my expectations were just really low, but I felt most of it was finely made.

[Dukefrukem]

Speaking of Survival of the Dead, I just read that George wrote that movie as the first movie in a trilogy. Depending on how much it makes will determine whether or not the next two get made.

[Bosco B Thug]

Agreed. I suspect so many critics have been overly harsh on this one because its tone is more slippery and its subtext thornier than perhaps any entry in the series; it's certainly flawed, especially as its reach in the third act exceeds its grasp (though I'll take only partly realized ambition over a complete lack thereof any day), but it's also richer, more amusing, and most surprising, more tenderly felt than I anticipated. Also, its filmmaking isn't THAT pedestrian. Maybe my expectations were just really low, but I felt most of it was finely made. Yessss. Glad you liked it. Exploding CG zombie heads might have been the worst of it, but this being his lowest budget, non-high concept zombie film, you have to admit it's his most Syfy Original Movie-ish.

I wish I had said more about it when it was fresh in my mind, but yes, it goes in really rich directions. I remember biting my tongue during the film's escalating climax for thinking previously that Romero had seriously jumped the shark with the whole

twin sister revelation, but it ends up providing the film's most surprising dynamics.

[megladon8]

Speaking of Survival of the Dead, I just read that George wrote that movie as the first movie in a trilogy. Depending on how much it makes will determine whether or not the next two get made.


Ugh...

I love Romero, but come on dude.

[Bosco B Thug]

Cont. from FDT:

Hey Bosco, tell me what you think about A Nightmare On Elm Street 3: The Dream Warriors. I think you'll dig it as much as I did. Really, you think so? :)

It's an often inspired and generally competent horror film, so I see where it gets its support, particularly within its own series, but I'm sure you and even its following have to admit, overall, it's a hapless, generally harebrained film. If a single concept was ever thoroughly explained, it would've seemed like a miracle, and have soothed my brain from all the whats, hows, and hurrhs? running through my mind at every sentence out of anyone's mouth. It was hard to stay invested sometimes. This also made me finally understand those annoyed with ghost movies without any logic, but this film also piles on medical science without logic, a psychiatric ward without protocol, and Heather Langenkamp without sense of the (already pretty confounding) words coming out of her mouth.

On the plus side, lots of cool bits and good kills, and a somewhat satisfying climax. John Saxon also gets to have a lot more fun here than in the original. Also, like the original Nightmare, this also contains a shockingly poignant mother-daughter relationship. Good job, slasher franchise.

[megladon8]

The Last Exorcism was crap.

Which is really too bad, because the first half hour or so showed some real promise. The character of Cotton Marcus was surprisingly rich and interesting - if only he'd been surrounded by a better movie.

And that ending!!! :frustrated:

[megladon8]

I am truly puzzled by the semi-decent reviews this movie is getting.

It was bad.

[megladon8]

Did anyone else see The Last Exorcism?

[Dukefrukem]

I've been whoring up my netflix lately so I haven't been the movies in a bit.

[Philosophe_rouge]

Did anyone else see The Last Exorcism?

I did. I'm quite fond of it. Except the ending, not even the direction they take as much as the half-assed execution.

Speaking of "found footage" films, also rewatched Cloverfield and Blair Witch. I didn't see either of them in theatres when they were initially released, something I regret, because I feel as though they would really benefit from an audience experiencing them for the first time with little knowledge of their style or what they are really about, Blair Witch in particular.

I've never been particularly fond of Cloverfield (this is my second viewing). At the hear of my dislike for the film are very flimsy characters. Though this is more about concept then character growth, the silly motivations for the character's actions and reactions really sell it short. Not to mention that most down-time is filled with inane chatter. The cameraman especially is ridiculously obnoxious, and his superficial concerns at the height of chaos.

The film does evoke a special brand of 21st century post-september 11th quite well. A lot of it is very obviously lifted from images that were ingrained in our mind, especially associated with that day. They work on that basis, as it is difficult to be emotionally distanced from such traumatic images and memories. I am not sure if this is clever or exploitive; I'm leaning towards the latter, if only, because they are very obvious and lack any kind of internal commentary on our relationship with them... well except for the whole experiencing the event through a camera. This is explored in other films though, even Blair Witch, though this is the first time it is really working with a real event. Taking that into account, it's a pretty shallow work.

Cloverfield still has some great scenes. I still love the subway attack and what follows, especially relating to Lizzy Caplan's character. At the same time though, I'm not sure if it works for this film. Though probably the most obvious about it's ties to September 11th, I'm not sure it's even the best horror to touch on those notions. Even something like 28 Weeks Later, at least in it's imagery, has a stronger sense of paranoia and politics in it's composition.

I think Blair Witch really stands the test of time better. There are a lot of similarly annoying touches, but overall I think it is far stronger. I've seen it three or four times at this point, and though the scares become less... scary, I can't help appreciating the construction of the Blair Witch mythos within the universe of the film.

A lot of the horror and buzz about this movie's technique is related to the fact that we don't actually SEE anything. This is most obvious on a surface level, but I think it is underrated in how it is handled via the script. Early on there is a montage of people discussing what they heard about the Blair Witch. Some stories seem like tangents, relating to the town's history: the story of the child murderer and the massacre of the initial settlers by the Amerindians. They are however integrated into the filmmaker's experience in the woods.

This contributes to the confusion they experience, though I'm not sure they are aware of that. It is never clear if the horror has one source or many. Is it just a man? Or is it an overriding supernatural force? The latter seems to have more ground, and that is surprisingly more frightening in this case. Whatever is in control clearly has immense power, one that is beyond normal comprehension.

This also works in the exploration and deconstruction of legend and myth. Multiple, sometimes contradicting, storylines coming together to create an incomplete picture that works solely to inspire fear and unease. So much of the real world is rationalized through this force. It doesn't matter whether or not it's real, the blair witch is an explanation for why Mary is crazy and why that man murdered those children.

Conceptually though, psychologically the Blair Witch representing our desire for answers is underscored by the idea that she may be real. Human monsters are often the most terrifying and irrational kind of monsters, but somehow in this film, the Blair Witch represents an almost Lovecraftian horror... something overwhelming and incomprehensible.

I am going around in circles at this point.

[megladon8]

I found the character of Cotton Marcus genuinely intriguing. His rather slimey profession was made, well, somewhat understandable, and I thought he was rather sympathetic and likable considering.

Similar to The Exorcist and its character of Damien Karras, Cotton Marcus' crisis of faith was the most interesting aspect of the film.

But then it went all Rosemary's Baby at the end, and I really resented what felt like a cheap gimmick to have the film end with a (literal) bang. It betrayed everything that had come before, and seemed to think it was much more clever than it was.

And the film was, frankly, quite boring. The first half-hour of developing Cotton Marcus as a character was very intriguing. But it kind of starts to go downhill once they get to the house and begin with the first exorcism.

Ashley's plight was a lot more interesting when the film was ambiguous as to whether or not there was anything supernatural occurring. Which is, again, a big part of why the ending sucked so much.

[Philosophe_rouge]

I found the character of Cotton Marcus genuinely intriguing. His rather slimey profession was made, well, somewhat understandable, and I thought he was rather sympathetic and likable considering.

Similar to The Exorcist and its character of Damien Karras, Cotton Marcus' crisis of faith was the most interesting aspect of the film.

But then it went all Rosemary's Baby at the end, and I really resented what felt like a cheap gimmick to have the film end with a (literal) bang. It betrayed everything that had come before, and seemed to think it was much more clever than it was.

And the film was, frankly, quite boring. The first half-hour of developing Cotton Marcus as a character was very intriguing. But it kind of starts to go downhill once they get to the house and begin with the first exorcism.

Ashley's plight was a lot more interesting when the film was ambiguous as to whether or not there was anything supernatural occurring. Which is, again, a big part of why the ending sucked so much.
I liked it a lot more then you did. We at least agree on Cotton Marcus, who is extremely fascinating, a brilliant performance. I never found it boring, I thought the comedy worked slightly better then the horror though, still had me jumping a few times in terror.

My problem with the ending:

Not so much what direction they take it in, I like those freak-out endings like here, Rosemary's Baby and House of the Devil. At this point, it's actually more of a risk. I think the problem is though, it feels so rushed. They throw it on as almost an afterthought. Even that doesn't bother me nearly as much the execution. It went too blair witch when before the filmmaking was relatively restrained. The involvement of the camera people irked me a bit too. I thought the rest of the film looked good, the compositions were more nuanced then you usually get in fake documentaries, and for that reason when they go for the running in the woods with the camera pointed to the ground it feels cheap and uninteresting.

I think whether or not Ashley is possessed, her evolution is disturbing. People who think they are possessed is terrifying, but so is the idea that possession can be real. I don't think horror that points to the idea that evil exists only within us, or that reality is always more frightening is true, or even the most effective. Regardless, she is meek, quiet and sweet... the fact that something, internal or external, is corrupting her is really disturbing.

[megladon8]

I liked it a lot more then you did. We at least agree on Cotton Marcus, who is extremely fascinating, a brilliant performance. I never found it boring, I thought the comedy worked slightly better then the horror though, still had me jumping a few times in terror.

I was actually surprised that the movie was merely 100 minutes long. I honestly felt like I had been sitting there for more than 2 hours. The number of times they left the house, then came back, left the house, then came back really irked me. It got repetitive, the same way that Paranormal Activity began to become repetitive with the day/night cycle.



My problem with the ending:

Not so much what direction they take it in, I like those freak-out endings like here, Rosemary's Baby and House of the Devil. At this point, it's actually more of a risk. I think the problem is though, it feels so rushed. They throw it on as almost an afterthought. Even that doesn't bother me nearly as much the execution. It went too blair witch when before the filmmaking was relatively restrained. The involvement of the camera people irked me a bit too. I thought the rest of the film looked good, the compositions were more nuanced then you usually get in fake documentaries, and for that reason when they go for the running in the woods with the camera pointed to the ground it feels cheap and uninteresting.

I enjoy these types of endings, too. I was an enormous fan of The House of the Devil. But here it just felt cheap, tacked on - an afterthought, as you said.

Not to mention that the CGI fire was just atrocious.

And yes, the cameraman running away with the camera pointed at the ground lasted way too long.



I think whether or not Ashley is possessed, her evolution is disturbing. People who think they are possessed is terrifying, but so is the idea that possession can be real. I don't think horror that points to the idea that evil exists only within us, or that reality is always more frightening is true, or even the most effective. Regardless, she is meek, quiet and sweet... the fact that something, internal or external, is corrupting her is really disturbing.

I found it more disturbing in concept than in execution.

And, that Cotton and the others were still questioning whether or not she was possessed after the scene in the barn was just ludicrous.

I thought the film was at its creepiest when it had subtle moments like her split-second smile before her bedroom door closed.

What do you think of the speculation/interpretation that...

...her brother is actually the Devil himself? He was hostile towards Cotton and the others because he was protecting his baby, who would effectively be the Anti-Christ. Then, he becomes accepting of Cotton when he sees Cotton performing the fake exorcism - he says "we don't have a problem anymore, we're good".

[Philosophe_rouge]

I was actually surprised that the movie was merely 100 minutes long. I honestly felt like I had been sitting there for more than 2 hours. The number of times they left the house, then came back, left the house, then came back really irked me. It got repetitive, the same way that Paranormal Activity began to become repetitive with the day/night cycle.




I enjoy these types of endings, too. I was an enormous fan of The House of the Devil. But here it just felt cheap, tacked on - an afterthought, as you said.

Not to mention that the CGI fire was just atrocious.

And yes, the cameraman running away with the camera pointed at the ground lasted way too long.




I found it more disturbing in concept than in execution.

And, that Cotton and the others were still questioning whether or not she was possessed after the scene in the barn was just ludicrous.

I thought the film was at its creepiest when it had subtle moments like her split-second smile before her bedroom door closed.

What do you think of the speculation/interpretation that...

...her brother is actually the Devil himself? He was hostile towards Cotton and the others because he was protecting his baby, who would effectively be the Anti-Christ. Then, he becomes accepting of Cotton when he sees Cotton performing the fake exorcism - he says "we don't have a problem anymore, we're good".
Strange, after walking out I thought it went by really quickly. i thought it was shorter then it was.

The fire didn't bother me. The shot at the ground though, ugh. So stupid.

It is more disturbing in concept, if only because we know it can be done better. The exorcist is far more successful at exploring those ideas.

I've never heard that before. I'm not sure if I'm feeling it, though it can work. It's been a few weeks since i've seen it, does the brother appear at any point in the final few scenes?

[megladon8]

I've never heard that before. I'm not sure if I'm feeling it, though it can work. It's been a few weeks since i've seen it, does the brother appear at any point in the final few scenes?


Yes.

He is who the cameraman ran into. The boy had a sickle and (you assume) cut the cameraman's head off.

[MadMan]

That Scream 3 rating seems way overinflated. Refresh my memory; Is that the movie that Jamie Kennedy made an appearance via VHS?

Also looking at the Scream 3 imdb, Jay and Silent Bob were in it too? I don't remember that cameo.Yes, yes, and yes. Jamie Kennedy was the best thing about the scream movies. I was pissed that they killed off Randy in Scream 2.


Cont. from FDT:
Really, you think so? :)

It's an often inspired and generally competent horror film, so I see where it gets its support, particularly within its own series, but I'm sure you and even its following have to admit, overall, it's a hapless, generally harebrained film. If a single concept was ever thoroughly explained, it would've seemed like a miracle, and have soothed my brain from all the whats, hows, and hurrhs? running through my mind at every sentence out of anyone's mouth. It was hard to stay invested sometimes. This also made me finally understand those annoyed with ghost movies without any logic, but this film also piles on medical science without logic, a psychiatric ward without protocol, and Heather Langenkamp without sense of the (already pretty confounding) words coming out of her mouth.

On the plus side, lots of cool bits and good kills, and a somewhat satisfying climax. John Saxon also gets to have a lot more fun here than in the original. Also, like the original Nightmare, this also contains a shockingly poignant mother-daughter relationship. Good job, slasher franchise.Look, I acknowledge that its not a great movie. But I think its good fun, has some original and awesome kills, and its characters are quite strong for the most part. Plus it dives into Freddy's background without being annoying, or starting something stupid like Michal Myers' Thorn cult (ugh). The psychiatric bits are somewhat silly, but I didn't really mind since they served a purpose. I liked Nancy coming back, just because it made sense and she's one of the best horror movie female heroes ever, really.

John Saxon having a bigger role is just tops. He should have played more of a part in the first movie. Mother-daughter relationships are rarely touched upon in horror movies-probably because its the bad guys mom/dad issues that get more attention for some reason.

Well now I'm motivated to actually see The Last Exorcism. For the time being I'm rather mixed on whether it looks good or not.

[Philosophe_rouge]

Shameless self-promotion.

We did our show tonight on Found Footage Horror, we discuss Blair Witch, Cloverfield and The Last Exorcism:

http://www.soundonsight.org/sound-on-sight-radio-224-the-found-footage-horor-genre/

[Dukefrukem]

Yes, yes, and yes. Jamie Kennedy was the best thing about the scream movies. I was pissed that they killed off Randy in Scream 2.


It's a close tie between him and Matthew Lillard for me. Kennedy has the edge for making it into the sequels. But after they started spouting more movie talk and rules through the next two movies it got pretty tiring.

[number8]

The whole "rules to surviving a horror movie" thing was clever in the first one. But it was absolutely retarded that he had a "rules for surviving a trilogy" in Scream 3. What kind of thing is that?

[Ezee E]

The whole "rules to surviving a horror movie" thing was clever in the first one. But it was absolutely retarded that he had a "rules for surviving a trilogy" in Scream 3. What kind of thing is that?
Think the new one will have rules to surviving "torture horror"?

What would they even be?

[MadMan]

The whole "rules to surviving a horror movie" thing was clever in the first one. But it was absolutely retarded that he had a "rules for surviving a trilogy" in Scream 3. What kind of thing is that?You'd think that he'd even have rules for surviving a horror movie series. Seeing as Randy was right about horror trilogies being rare-they usually don't stop at #3, but just keep right on going.

[jenniferofthejungle]

I had a little Fulci craving last night and I threw on The Beyond. I wish I understood what that man was trying to say at any given point in his movies. He just doesn't seem to give a damn that he makes no sense at all. There always seem to be clever moments, and great shots, surrounded by the worst dubbing imaginable, and muckity muck.

[MacGuffin]

Meh. The Beyond is an excellent Fulci exercise in grimy atmosphere.

[Dukefrukem]

I had a little Fulci craving last night and I threw on The Beyond. I wish I understood what that man was trying to say at any given point in his movies. He just doesn't seem to give a damn that he makes no sense at all. There always seem to be clever moments, and great shots, surrounded by the worst dubbing imaginable, and muckity muck.

This is exactly how I feel. I don't think I'd ever watch any of his movies again with the exception of Zombie and the infamous eye scene.

[D_Davis]

Fulci never made a single film worth a damn. One of the absolute worst filmmakers to have a following I've ever encountered. The worst offense isn't that his films are bad, it's that they are dull.

[MacGuffin]

I never understood the hate. I think Grouchy likes a few films of his also.

[Rowland]

My favorite Fulci is Don't Torture a Duckling, which is actually a damn good giallo of sorts, anchored with surprisingly coherent, forcibly explored themes. His early western Four of the Apocalypse is solid as well, and as for his more notorious later work, I'm partial to the underestimated City of the Living Dead, which has his most arresting array of surreal sights and dream logic without veering into absolute incoherence until its memorable finale. The Beyond has many moments, but is also bogged down by crap scenes like the person being eaten by spiders for ten minutes, Zombie is grimy fun that surprises with how straightforward its narrative is compared to most of his stuff from that period, and House by the Cemetery, which I just rewatched recently, is really dull, incompetent stuff, outside of a few memorably laughable moments.

As for critical defenses of Fulci, I know at least Bosco will recognize Fernando F. Croce, who's a big proponent of the guy. Here are some of his capsule-sized reviews:

Zombie (http://www.cinepassion.org/Reviews/z/Zombie.html)
Lizard in a Woman's Skin (http://www.cinepassion.org/Reviews/l/LizardWomanSkin.html)
House by the Cemetery (http://www.cinepassion.org/Reviews/h/HousebyCemetery.html)
The Beyond (http://www.cinepassion.org/Reviews/b/Beyond.html)
Don't Torture a Duckling (http://www.cinepassion.org/Reviews/d/DontTortureDuckling.html)
Perversion Story (http://www.cinepassion.org/Reviews/p/PerversionStory.html)
A Cat in the Brain (http://www.cinepassion.org/Reviews/c/CatBrain.html)
City of the Living Dead (http://www.cinepassion.org/Reviews/c/CityLivingDead.html)

[number8]

My favorite Fulci is Don't Torture a Duckling, which is actually a damn good giallo with surprisingly coherent themes.

Yes!!!

[Dukefrukem]

Thought you guys would be interested in this; Made my top 100 Horror Films list last night. Let me know what you think.

*removed list for thread*

[Bosco B Thug]

As for critical defenses of Fulci, I know at least Bosco will recognize Fernando F. Croce, who's a big proponent of the guy. Here are some of his capsule-sized reviews:

Zombie (http://www.cinepassion.org/Reviews/z/Zombie.html)
Lizard in a Woman's Skin (http://www.cinepassion.org/Reviews/l/LizardWomanSkin.html)
House by the Cemetery (http://www.cinepassion.org/Reviews/h/HousebyCemetery.html)
The Beyond (http://www.cinepassion.org/Reviews/b/Beyond.html)
Don't Torture a Duckling (http://www.cinepassion.org/Reviews/d/DontTortureDuckling.html)
Perversion Story (http://www.cinepassion.org/Reviews/p/PerversionStory.html)
A Cat in the Brain (http://www.cinepassion.org/Reviews/c/CatBrain.html)
City of the Living Dead (http://www.cinepassion.org/Reviews/c/CityLivingDead.html) Haha, what a weirdo. If it's an old movie and he capsules it, it means he's got something purpley to say about it. And sure, Fulci's alright. He's got visual artistry, but he's also a sensationalist and it doesn't go much deeper than that. Despite patented Euro-schlock strangeness, Argento's got the genuine esoteric mind.

[megladon8]

I like it, Duke.

It's especially cool to see Tales from the Crypt: Demon Knight get some love. That'd probably make my list, too.

[MadMan]

I've seen 47 off your list, Duke. I don't agree with all of your choices (although The Thing being #1 is cool, I guess) but its still an interesting list. Some commentary would explain most of your picks, and why they're ranked so high or so low.

[Dukefrukem]

I've seen 47 off your list, Duke. I don't agree with all of your choices (although The Thing being #1 is cool, I guess) but its still an interesting list. Some commentary would explain most of your picks, and why they're ranked so high or so low.

Hmmm. That might call for another thread. I can definitely provide some commentary.

[Grouchy]

I never understood the hate. I think Grouchy likes a few films of his also.
Actually, it sounds strange even to me, but I've never seen a Fulci film. Not even Zombie 2.

[MacGuffin]

A movie called The Uninvited Guest (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0436374/) has just been sitting in my Netflix queue for a while now and I added it there based solely on the promise of its premise: Man A invites Man B into home to use phone, Man A leaves room for a moment and Man B disappears leaving Man A to figure out if he is still in the house or let himself out. I've never heard of any of the cast or crew. Either way, it seems interesting and it's gotten good Netflix reviews. How often have you rented a movie you know next to nothing about? Has it worked out for you?

[Rowland]

Salem's Lot (Hooper, 1979) **½

Loaded with enough plot holes, continuity gaffes, underdeveloped subplots, and character actions that strain credibility to render much of this 180 minute opus nigh-incoherent, it's amazing this works as well as it does. Most of the credit belongs to Hooper, whose fluid camerawork and evocative atmospherics are highly uncharacteristic of most made-for-television dreck, skillfully employed in the service of several tense set-pieces. Most of his large ensemble provide compelling performances as well, often beyond what the screenplay provides them, effectively communicating the tightly knit nature of the rural community along with Hooper's willingness to let the film's first half breathe (often at the unfortunate expense of character development it should be noted). The location scouting and production design are very fine as well, so it's just such a shame that, besides some amusingly loopy dialogue, this is such a poorly written adaptation, failing even to adequately flesh out a subtext hinted at early on of vampirism as a reflection of societal moral rot, which was surely more prevalent in the novel but here is quickly discarded. I can only imagine how ludicrously the 110 minute cut must play, which is already unnecessary enough since this cut rarely drags, overstuffed as it is. Also, stylish-if-arbitrary allusions to Psycho reveal Hooper's inner film brat. For what it's worth, as I've acquainted myself with more of the man's work, it seems less and less far-fetched that his directorial presence behind Poltergeist may have been stronger than the persistent rumors suggest.

[EyesWideOpen]

A movie called The Uninvited Guest (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0436374/) has just been sitting in my Netflix queue for a while now and I added it there based solely on the promise of its premise: Man A invites Man B into home to use phone, Man A leaves room for a moment and Man B disappears leaving Man A to figure out if he is still in the house or let himself out. I've never heard of any of the cast or crew. Either way, it seems interesting and it's gotten good Netflix reviews. How often have you rented a movie you know next to nothing about? Has it worked out for you?

I just did it with The Snake. Dvdtalk had mentioned that Patton Oswalt had been raving about it. Here's the premise:

"To get beautiful bulimic Talia in bed with him, incorrigible womanizer Ken becomes the only male member of her body image support group, which includes a feminist, a lesbian, an advertising executive, a divorcée and a gay rights activist."

It was terrible.

[Bosco B Thug]

Salem's Lot (Hooper, 1979) **½

Loaded with enough plot holes, continuity gaffes, underdeveloped subplots, and character actions that strain credibility to render much of this 180 minute opus nigh-incoherent, it's amazing this works as well as it does. Most of the credit belongs to Hooper, whose fluid camerawork and evocative atmospherics are highly uncharacteristic of most made-for-television dreck, skillfully employed in the service of several tense set-pieces. Most of his large ensemble provide compelling performances as well, often beyond what the screenplay provides them, effectively communicating the tightly knit nature of the rural community along with Hooper's willingness to let the film's first half breathe (often at the unfortunate expense of character development it should be noted). The location scouting and production design are very fine as well, so it's just such a shame that, besides some amusingly loopy dialogue, this is such a poorly written adaptation, failing even to adequately flesh out a subtext hinted at early on of vampirism as a reflection of societal moral rot, which was surely more prevalent in the novel but here is quickly discarded. I can only imagine how ludicrously the 110 minute cut must play, which is already unnecessary enough since this cut rarely drags, overstuffed as it is. Also, stylish-if-arbitrary allusions to Psycho reveal Hooper's inner film brat. For what it's worth, as I've acquainted myself with more of the man's work, it seems less and less far-fetched that his directorial presence behind Poltergeist may have been stronger than the persistent rumors suggest. Salem's Lot is pretty frustrating for me. Moment by moment, Hooper's work is elegant and his staging crisp, but the thing is so shapeless and thematically indifferent. Hooper ekes out a small town atmosphere and a number of effective moments between his characters - lovers, spouses, father and son - but the anemia of its picture of small town rot or anxieties is baffling, and Hooper's camera suddenly becomes inert and non-pro-active. Some very good set pieces, though, definitely, scattered throughout. The men transporting the big crate and Susan's entrance into the evil mansion stand out for me, I recall them being the two most elaborate sequences.

[Bosco B Thug]

I liked Nightmare on Elm Street 4: The Dream Master. I think I liked it better than Part 3. It has the most style and polish, albeit Harlin's ateroidal, garish style. It's pretty blah for the first half, but once we realize what Freddy's plans are and how surprisingly frightening his exploitation and abuse of our heroine is, the suspense and stakes finally ratchet up, one thing 'Dream Warriors' failed to create.

[MadMan]

Duke I'll have to check out your thread and post some thoughts. I have been offline too much this week/weekend.

The Dream Master is next up for me when it comes to the NOES series. I wonder how I'll respond to that one-I don't really mind Harlin, although he's a bit too campy and his latest movie is something I lack interest in seeing.

Having read the book, I intend to view both versions of 'Salem's Lot, and compare the two.

[Bosco B Thug]

The Dream Master is next up for me when it comes to the NOES series. I wonder how I'll respond to that one-I don't really mind Harlin, although he's a bit too campy and his latest movie is something I lack interest in seeing.

Having read the book, I intend to view both versions of 'Salem's Lot, and compare the two. You'll enjoy Dream Master and Dream Child. I mean, I did. They're fast and silly and colorful and over-the-top. There is a steady decrease in scariness and violence, though. Part 5 feels more like a Goosebumps book than a slasher film.

Salem's Lot with Rob Lowe is kind of bad, if I remember correctly. Salem's Lot 79 is kind of boring. Don't watch them too close together. :P

So I decided to railroad in 'Nightmare 5' yesterday because, in actuality, I'm not really getting the kick out of them I was expecting to. Despite being objectively better films, I feel I'd be having a much more rejuvenating time marathoning the junkier, sleazier Friday the 13th films.

'Nightmare 5' is not bad at all, though. It's the most visually striking and elegantly put together one so far (in that "I could go on to direct an A-list killer lion flick!" way - the flick was directed by Ghost in the Darkness director Stephen Hopkins), but hand-in-hand it's the cheesiest and most constantly misguided. It has a blatant emotional viewpoint and blatant moral compass bordering into Christian, pro-Life hogwash. Like the others, still as dumb as nails.

[Rowland]

You might wanna skip Nightmare 6.

[Bosco B Thug]

You might wanna skip Nightmare 6.
The way I'm going, I just need to get it over with. It's probably the main reason I feel I just need to have it watched by the end of the next week. The caution is heeded, though, although not really!

[megladon8]

Your rating for Dream Warriors makes baby Jesus cry.

[jenniferofthejungle]

I forgot to mention I listened to some of the commentary by John Carpenter and Kurt Russell on The Thing. I laughed when they spoke about the ending and how they had to scrap he idea because they didn't think anyone would like the idea of the two survivors torching each other. :lol:

I skipped around, but it seems like a great commentary.

[Bosco B Thug]

Your rating for Dream Warriors makes baby Jesus cry. It's definitely the only other Nightmare flick that approaches being actually scary, outside of the original.

I hate to be so wired up to tepid slasher convention, but the high-fantasy approach of the last two entries is a real buzzkill to Freddy.

[megladon8]

It's definitely the only other Nightmare flick that approaches being actually scary, outside of the original.


I didn't think it was even close to being scary. It's just awesome.

[Dukefrukem]

Your rating for Dream Warriors makes baby Jesus cry.

Is that the one where the kid gets played like a puppet? If so, his grade should be lower.

[megladon8]

Is that the one where the kid gets played like a puppet? If so, his grade should be lower.


Yep, that's the one.

And you're nuts. It's a great movie. Second strongest entry in the series (behind the first).

[jenniferofthejungle]

I just finished watching The Gift for the first time in years. It's so strange to see the Raimi touches in what I consider a relatively subdued film.

This is such a good movie. I remember it was the first time I'd ever seen Cate Blanchett in anything, and I thought she was a very good American actress.

[Scar]

When it comes to Freddy, I'll take the first one and New Nightmare. The rest are just filler.

[MacGuffin]

Those 80s slasher posters are amazing.

http://img259.imageshack.us/img259/3363/nightmare4.jpg

[Dukefrukem]

Those 80s slasher posters are amazing.

http://img259.imageshack.us/img259/3363/nightmare4.jpg

I have this one in 3D

http://www.impawards.com/1984/posters/nightmare_on_elm_street.jpg

http://www.blister.jp/images-item-big/ref5-5039.jpg

[D_Davis]

I love the core trilogy - Nightmare 1, 3, and 7 are all good. The rest are practically unwatchable.

[MacGuffin]

Oh man, The Ruins was awful. It's actually terribly boring and formulaic, surprise surprise, with the main structure being a gore scene followed by a scene where the characters proceed to scream and panic for five more minutes until the director throws the next obstacle at them. There doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason to the madness, and to make matters worse, the director seems to think the audience cares about his cardboard cutouts, with each performance interchangeably awful. I'm at a loss here. I went in expecting some cool adventure-horror movie vaguely reminiscent of The Descent; what I got was a film I'm surprised even got released.

[Dukefrukem]

Noooooo It's not that bad. The drama feels more real than any other stranded horror movie. I liked the panic and I also liked the gore a lot.

[D_Davis]

I liked The Ruins. It's about a million times better than the book, but that's not really saying much. I actually think its an effective little film. I enjoy the limited location, the feeling of dread was tense and immediate, and overall the actors did a great job with the material.

[MadMan]

I forgot to mention I listened to some of the commentary by John Carpenter and Kurt Russell on The Thing. I laughed when they spoke about the ending and how they had to scrap he idea because they didn't think anyone would like the idea of the two survivors torching each other. :lol:

I skipped around, but it seems like a great commentary.That commentary is one of the best I've ever listened to. The only problem I have with commentaries is that I end up listening to them, and then I don't watch the movie since I can't hear what's going on on-screen. Its why I often don't watch movies with the commentary on, even if its my millionth or so viewing.


You'll enjoy Dream Master and Dream Child. I mean, I did. They're fast and silly and colorful and over-the-top. There is a steady decrease in scariness and violence, though. Part 5 feels more like a Goosebumps book than a slasher film.Interesting. I'll find out this Halloween season whether or not I agree with you on those.


Salem's Lot with Rob Lowe is kind of bad, if I remember correctly. Salem's Lot 79 is kind of boring. Don't watch them too close together. :POh but I will (against better judgement and counsel, of course).

Bosco so far I actually like the Jason series better, even if A Nightmare on Elm Street 1 and 2>most of the series (except for Jason Lives *runs*).

[MacGuffin]

I wish I saw the same movie you guys both did. What I saw could have easily been released on the Sci-Fi channel.

[D_Davis]

I wish I saw the same movie you guys both did. What I saw could have easily been released on the Sci-Fi channel.

You saw the same movie, but through a different set of eyes.

;)

[D_Davis]

The best of all of them is Freddy Vs. Jason. God I love that movie.

I'd rate my favorites:

FVJ
Nightmare 1
Jason Goes to Hell
Nightmare 3
Jason X
New Nightmare

[Dukefrukem]

New Nightmare is too low!!

[Dukefrukem]

E70Gr5Z3ixo

best scene in all of Freddy movies

[Rowland]

I like the idea of A New Nightmare more than I actually like it.

The Ruins was pretty solid.

I watched Dracula 2000 last night, which wasn't half as bad as its 15% on RT led me to anticipate. Still not particularly good, but between this and My Bloody Valentine 3D, I like Lussier's style.

[MacGuffin]

The Ruins was pretty solid.

I knew you would be one of its defenders. Seems like a movie you'd like.

[Rowland]

I knew you would be one of its defenders. Seems like a movie you'd like.I gave it two stars, said it was pretty solid, which is different from liking it.

I hope that wasn't a veiled insult. :P

[MacGuffin]

I gave it two stars, said it was pretty solid, which is different from liking it.

I hope that wasn't a veiled insult. :P

It wasn't. :cool:

[bac0n]

I forgot to mention I listened to some of the commentary by John Carpenter and Kurt Russell on The Thing. I laughed when they spoke about the ending and how they had to scrap he idea because they didn't think anyone would like the idea of the two survivors torching each other. :lol:

I skipped around, but it seems like a great commentary.

Their commentary on Big Trouble Little China is even better. At one point they forget they're supposed to be commenting on the movie and start talking about their kids, what they've been up to since they saw each other last, etc.. This goes on for something like 15 minutes. Hysterical.

[Rowland]

Posted these in the Random Screenshot thread, thought they'd work here as well. A bunch of screenshots from Zombie's lyrical, deeply haunted remake sequel:

Halloween 2: Director's Cut (Zombie)

http://img709.imageshack.us/img709/9836/h27jg.jpg
http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/4764/h28x.jpg
http://img830.imageshack.us/img830/5953/h29i.jpg
http://img811.imageshack.us/img811/4963/h210.jpg
http://img826.imageshack.us/img826/6278/h21y.jpg
http://img691.imageshack.us/img691/4527/h214.jpg
http://img17.imageshack.us/img17/7670/h211t.jpg
http://img823.imageshack.us/img823/8821/h22f.jpg
http://img831.imageshack.us/img831/459/h212.jpg
http://img831.imageshack.us/img831/9657/h23f.jpg
http://img843.imageshack.us/img843/9545/h213.jpg
http://img444.imageshack.us/img444/7725/h24t.jpg
http://img844.imageshack.us/img844/1959/h25.jpg
http://img838.imageshack.us/img838/2737/h215.jpg
http://img409.imageshack.us/img409/4025/h26s.jpg

[Bosco B Thug]

Posted these in the Random Screenshot thread, thought they'd work here as well. A bunch of screenshots from Zombie's lyrical, deeply haunted remake sequel: Shoo'. So does watching the theatrical version, then Zombie's original ending on YouTube count as watching the Director's Cut?

[Rowland]

Shoo'. So does watching the theatrical version, then Zombie's original ending on YouTube count as watching the Director's Cut?Not really, as there lots of small additions and subtractions throughout that make for a more cumulative difference, as well as what seemed to me like a more consistently avante garde editing/sound design scheme, but that may have just been because I was more attuned to them this time around. Also, looked up an old post of yours about the ending on Youtube where you mentioned that you preferred the "within-the-shack light-show and phantasmagoria" of the theatrical cut, which actually is in the DC; that Youtube clip just began afterward.

Anyway, I may be leaning towards this being his most fully realized work yet in terms of emotional honesty, expressive aesthetic, and articulation of his auteurist obsessions. The film is by no means perfect, but it's a bit insane in a really appealing way to me, and it's infused with a melancholy and humanism, even in its puerility and extraordinary brutality, that is deeply felt.

[Bosco B Thug]

Not really, as there lots of small additions and subtractions throughout that make for a more cumulative difference, as well as what seemed to me like a more consistently avante garde editing/sound design scheme, but that may have just been because I was more attuned to them this time around. Okay then. Eventually I'll revisit H2, and the DC it is.


Also, looked up an old post of yours about the ending on Youtube where you mentioned that you preferred the "within-the-shack light-show and phantasmagoria" of the theatrical cut, which actually is in the DC; that Youtube clip just began afterward. Hmm. A bit confused, but okay... But I know

Loomis' death is different, and I far prefer his bloodier demise in the theatrical cut.


Anyway, I may be leaning towards this being his most fully realized work yet in terms of emotional honesty, expressive aesthetic, and articulation of his auteurist obsessions. The film is by no means perfect, but it's a bit insane in a really appealing way to me, and it's infused with a melancholy and humanism, even in its puerility and extraordinary brutality, that is deeply felt. I can dig it. It may not be saying anything absolutely astute, but a serious, expressive work is definitely contained within it.

[Grouchy]

I also liked The Ruins. Effective little gore film.

[MacGuffin]

I'm gonna have to take another look at Rob Zombie's earlier movies. I'll check out Halloween this weekend.

[Bosco B Thug]

Yeah, Village of the Damned is not a good movie. Easily Carpenter's worst. Horrid horrid screenplay. It's good to finally see the film that inspired "The Bloodening" from The Simpsons, though, and there's nothing to despise the movie for. It's just plain silly, though, with little worthwhile aspects.

[Rowland]

Yeah, Village of the Damned is not a good movie. Easily Carpenter's worst. Horrid horrid screenplay. It's good to finally see the film that inspired "The Bloodening" from The Simpsons, though, and there's nothing to despise the movie for. It's just plain silly, though, with little worthwhile aspects.Does it feature one of Carpenter's chugging rock scores?

[Bosco B Thug]

Does it feature one of Carpenter's chugging rock scores? YES it does. I'm not one to be critical of or put off by dated or campy soundtracks, but Carpenter's thudding synth bass with added electric guitar this time, it's just... not good. That describes the whole movie, a puddle of not good and unintentionally comical.

[number8]

I can't really decide if it was intentional or not for Cronenberg to make the first 7 minutes of The Fly a set-up to a serial rapist movie.

[number8]

"She's pregnant and she wants to have an abortion."
"In the middle of the night?"
"We have reason to believe that the child may be deformed."
"Yeah, but in the middle of the night?"

[MacGuffin]

Speaking of deformed children and horror movies, has anyone seen Larry Cohen's It's Alive?

[Bosco B Thug]

I can't really decide if it was intentional or not for Cronenberg to make the first 7 minutes of The Fly a set-up to a serial rapist movie. There's a framing device in The Fly? For the life of me I can't remember how the movie begins...

In any case... whuzzuh?


Speaking of deformed children and horror movies, has anyone seen Larry Cohen's It's Alive? Yep, I think it's great. Right now I peg it as Cohen's most fully-realized, best film.

[number8]

There's a framing device in The Fly? For the life of me I can't remember how the movie begins...

In any case... whuzzuh?

It starts with Jeff Goldblum, as an awkward creepy looking guy, trying to chat up Geena Davis at a party. She's not interested and ditches him, but Goldblum follows her through the party and confidently convinces her that he's got something she has to see and invites her to his lab. Inexplicably, she agrees. They get on her car and he starts shaking. She asks if he's okay and he asures her that he is, instructing her to keep going. They get to a dark, creepy and abandoned-looking warehouse. Goldblum gets out of the car heaving. Geena Davis looks unsure and asks, "This is it?" Goldblum then smiles and assures her that the inside is much better. They go inside to his lab, he tells her to go in first, then shuts the sliding gate behind him. Goldblum then hops on a piano and starts playing creepy music. Geena Davis looks even more unsure and says it's a mistake and she should leave. Goldblum smiles and says she's seen his work, so if she leaves, he'll have to kill her. Davis says she hasn't seen anything, to which Goldblum points out the telepods, then asks her if she has anything personal on her. She takes off her stocking, with Goldblum leering at this.

It's only after at this point that we realize he's actually showing her a teleporter.