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

[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 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 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.

[Dukefrukem]

Those 80s slasher posters are amazing.

I have this one in 3D

[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.