Neverending
CS! Platinum
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 65,777
Likes: 8,648
Location:
Last Online Nov 23, 2024 20:24:15 GMT -5
|
Post by Neverending on Oct 24, 2023 3:20:29 GMT -5
I don't know about any of you but I've never seen people go out for Halloween as hard as they do in movies. In almost every Halloween-themed movie I've seen, entire cities just go ballistic for Halloween, everyone goes so hard for their costumes, houses adorned with thousands of dollars worth of decorations, festivals and parades for as far as the eye can see. Is there any place in the country that does this? Halloween is a Christian/Pagan holiday, but I guess in America, it’s just Guy Fawkes Day. Supposedly, in the early days, Halloween was just young boys destroying property and setting bonfires (which is what Guy Fawkes Day is in England). So in the early 20th century, infuriated adults got together and created the modern Halloween to keep their kids out of trouble. The idea was to keep them busy with other activities and tire them out before they thought of setting the city on fire. So I guess there was a time in history in which Halloween was like in the movies. Now if you’re wondering which candies kids ate in the early Halloween’s, the answer is in this video. You can also make it at home with the wife and kids if you’re feeling inspired this year. |
|
Dracula
CS! Gold
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 26,103 
Likes: 5,731
Location:
Last Online Nov 24, 2024 3:47:04 GMT -5
|
Post by Dracula on Oct 24, 2023 14:35:01 GMT -5
Film Twenty-Four: Eyes Without a Face (1960)
 The year 1960 was plainly a landmark for the crossover between horror cinema and the more “respectable” world of cinema. It was the year Alfred Hitchcock made Psycho, Michael Powell made Peeping Tom, Ingmar Bergman made The Virgin Spring, and that Georges Franju made Eyes Without a Face. That later film may well have been the one whose creation shocked people the most because the attitude in French cinema, at least among the establishment, was that such genre work was beneath the dignity of a real artist. Franju kind of broke through that though with a film that does a very good job of walking that line between being a proud genre film and still having that feel of fine pre-New Wave French cinema. Essentially a mad scientist film, the movie concerns a doctor who kidnaps women in order to try to provide a face transplant for his disfigured daughter, a set of actions that kind of highlight the degree of selfishness that the parental urge to protect can sometimes serve to justify. The very image of the daughter with her face obscured by a white mask is kind of inherently freaky in its way and has reverberated through cinema in movies like The Skin I Live In and Vanilla Sky. And the film is also pretty willing to show some bloody images for its time in a way that does stand out. The whole thing’s just pretty well made but also not full of itself: it’s unashamed of being pulp despite the skill of its construction. I wouldn’t exactly call the movie “scary” but it’s a work that’s very willing to shock the sensibilities of those who watch it and that’s something that’s reverberated in everything from Santa Sangre to Martyrs.
**** out of Five
Bonus Film: The Eyes of Laura Mars (1978)  “The Eyes of Laura Mars” is a pretty snappy and eye catching (no pun intended) title with a perfectly selected fictional name to really make it work. It also fits the story, which is about a high end photographer who starts to get these visions of murders which turn out to actually be occurring and she’s seeing them through the point of view of a killer. The film has been called something of an American/Hollywood take on the giallo, and this premise kind of gives an in world excuse to indulge in the genre’s “murders through the eyes of a killer” trope. However a lot of the weirdness and dreaminess of the giallo is kind of sucked out of this and the violence isn’t anywhere near as bloody and visceral, and that’s kind of a problem. In a lot of ways this is more interesting for the story behind the scenes. The film was actually written by John Carpenter before he had Halloween credibility in Hollywood. The script was actually purchased by everyone’s favorite arachnid enthusiast Jon Peters thinking it could be a vehicle for Barbara Streisand, which seems like a strange fit and while that never happened Streisand did contribute a very out of place song to the soundtrack. Nonetheless Peters did produce and hired someone named David Zelag Goodman to re-write the script and Irvin Kershner to direct (two years before he’d make The Empire Strikes Back). The final film starred Faye Dunaway (who’s fine) and Tommy Lee Jones, who is just very jarring to see under the age of forty. The movie has enough 70s wackiness and backstory to be an entertaining watch but on its surface it’s not the impressive. *** out of Five |
|
PhantomKnight
CS! Gold
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 20,528
Likes: 3,130
Location:
Last Online Nov 23, 2024 12:33:37 GMT -5
|
Post by PhantomKnight on Oct 24, 2023 21:00:02 GMT -5
DAY TWENTY-FOUR: Halloween II (1981)
It almost seems a given that slasher movies inevitably get sequels...maybe too many sequels. And eventually, or pretty quick, those sequels just get worse and worse. So, I really wasn't quite sure what to expect out of Halloween II, but y'know...this honestly wasn't half-bad. One of the first things that can be said for it is that director Rick Rosenthal, taking over for John Carpenter, does a pretty good job of consistently recreating the atmosphere that Carpenter did with the first film. Halloween II honestly does feel very much apiece with the first film, from the camera movements, sense of dread and deliberate pacing. More importantly, it never feels like Rosenthal is just lazily aping Carpenter's style, either. Much like with Richard Franklin's work on Psycho II, Rosenthal's work here respects the original and understands why it was so effective on that level. But is it as successful? Bottom line, no, but I would still say this movie is a fairly respectable effort in its own right. The movie kept me mostly interested in what was happening, save for some pacing issues that occasionally make this 91-minute movie drag a bit in a few places. On the other hand, it has more than a few genuine moments of suspense and effective kills. However, there's also the issue with Laurie Strode in this. Since this takes place immediately after the first movie, that means Laurie spends the majority of this movie confined to a hospital bed as Michael takes out victims left and right to get to her (whoa, Halloween Kills really wasn't all that different structurally from this movie, huh?), which just seems like a waste of Jamie Lee Curtis. And then there's the big elephant in the room: the revelation that Michael and Laurie are brother and sister. This...is honestly a stupid plot twist, unnecessary, even...and the movie feels like it barely does anything with it. So...why? Plus, the fact that John Carpenter and Debra Hill co-wrote the script again makes the decision even more confounding. And yet, I don't think it weighs the movie down completely. Halloween II still has its strengths -- the atmosphere, the kills and a still very much enjoyable Donald Pleasance as Dr. Loomis -- but it's certainly not up to the quality of the first, entertaining as it may be most of the time.
**1/2 /****
|
|
thebtskink
CS! Silver
Join Date: Jul 2000
It puts the lotion on its skin or else it gets the hose again.
Posts: 19,462
Likes: 4,984
Location:
Last Online Nov 23, 2024 23:42:06 GMT -5
|
Post by thebtskink on Oct 25, 2023 9:31:54 GMT -5
|
|
PhantomKnight
CS! Gold
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 20,528
Likes: 3,130
Location:
Last Online Nov 23, 2024 12:33:37 GMT -5
|
Post by PhantomKnight on Oct 25, 2023 12:26:16 GMT -5
DAY TWENTY-FIVE: Hotel Transylvania 2 (2015)
The first Hotel Transylvania wasn't exactly high art, but it was still fairly charming and surprisingly kind of fun overall, from its likable characters to the energetic animation. Hotel Transylvania 2, stylistically, is very much cut from the same cloth...but this may also be a case of somewhat diminishing returns. The things I enjoyed about the first one are still here: the likable characters, the zany animation style, the overall atmosphere that taps into the Halloween spirit quite well. But, on the other hand, the..."kiddiness" of these movies feels a bit more pronounced this time, which honestly kind of gets in the way. I'm not saying I'm surprised that an animated movie primarily targeted towards kids feels very kiddy. I'm just saying that the particular brand of humor here this time feels like it overpowers the other, more enjoyable aspects of this franchise a bit too much. Adam Sandler, who returns to voice Dracula, is one of the two credited screenwriters on this one, and I have a more than sneaking suspicion that he's mostly to blame for that. While still far from awful, Hotel Transylvania 2 feels like it panders in ways that the first one managed to be a bit more restrained with. And while I still enjoyed seeing these characters continue on from the first...man, are a lot of these jokes misses. Some of them land, to be fair, and director Gendy Tartakovsky's sense of visual comedy remains very much intact and still one of these movies' stronger aspects, but this one feels a bit more juvenile than the first, and in ways that make you roll your eyes. I genuinely like this new family unit between Dracula, Mavis and Jonathan and the latter two's new son Dennis; it's honestly kind of endearing, but the sitcom-style plot they're given feels more tired-out than it does fun. And the thing is, I can see that plotline with Dracula and Mavis having conflicting ideas about how to raise Dennis working, if only it wasn't weighed down so much by mostly mediocre jokes and lame needledrops. Hotel Transylvania 2 is still far from a complete wash, though, and like I said, it has its redeeming elements. But this sequel feels closer to what I feared the first movie would be, which makes me sort of fearful of the trajectory for the other two sequels.
**/****
Bonus Film: We Have a Ghost (2023)
We Have a Ghost was a mostly welcome reminder for me of the supernaturally-tinged family adventures that were a bit more regular in the 80s and 90s. And I largely enjoyed my time with it. Writer/director Christopher Landon proved with his Happy Death Day movies and Freaky that he knows how to mix tones, and largely succeeds at doing that here, too. This is a charming combination of playful and fantastical, with a big part of its success riding on its surprising amount of heart. David Harbour deserves a lot of credit here because he's able to do so much with an (if I remember right) entirely dialogue-free performance. He creates a fun and even sympathetic character, and the relationship he strikes up with the main family anchors the film well. Where it sort of loses points is making a secret CIA program a part of the plot (yes, for real) and everything related to that, which feels like it belongs in a different movie. But overall, We Have a Ghost is probably better than it had a right to be, and a nice/pleasant-enough way to pass two hours.
**1/2 /****
|
|
Neverending
CS! Platinum
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 65,777
Likes: 8,648
Location:
Last Online Nov 23, 2024 20:24:15 GMT -5
|
Post by Neverending on Oct 25, 2023 18:25:42 GMT -5
I want a Basic Instinct remake but with the genders reversed. That will go amazingly well. What'cha think, Doomsday ?  |
|
PG Cooper
CS! Silver
Join Date: Feb 2009
And those who tasted the bite of his sword named him...The DOOM Slayer
Posts: 16,647
Likes: 4,062
Location:
Last Online Nov 23, 2024 23:40:43 GMT -5
|
Post by PG Cooper on Oct 25, 2023 18:44:29 GMT -5
Days 24 and 25: Insidious Catch-UpInsidious: Chapter 3 I enjoyed the first two Insidious movies but fell off the series when it entered its prequel era. But with a new film in theaters marking the directorial debut of Patrick Wilson after holding a leading role in the series, I thought what the hell let's catch up. Insidious: Chapter 3 takes place a few years before the first movie and focuses on a teenager named Quinn who meets with Elise (the demonologist from the original films) to communicate with her dead mother. Elise is hesitant, having walked away from her supernatural powers, but eventually becomes pulled in when Quinn begins being haunted by a demonic presence. The thing about this movie is that it sort of works in spite of itself. The script is undeniably week, with certain characters outright disappearing, and the whole is built on the usual clichés of haunted house movies made in the 2010s. Even so, I did find myself getting reasonably invested. That Quinn spends much of the film wheelchair bound adds a unique dimension to the formula and the climax does a pretty good job tying together the story and horror. The real ace in the hole though is obviously Lin Shaye, who really puts in the work. It's also just cool to see a woman in her 70s be the heroic lead of a big budget horror franchise, and Shaye delivers. C+Insidious: The Last Key Insidious: The Last Key should be an improvement over Chapter Three. The story more fully concentrates on Elise's past and includes a genuinely unexpected twist. But the movie never really coalesces its various elements into one streamlined story. It feels more like the A and B plot of a TV episode rather than a movie. New director Adam Robitel is also a stepdown in director, the set-pieces here falling well-short of what Leigh Whannel did in the last movie and James Wan's work on the original films. There's enough here that I didn't dislike The Last Key but it's undeniably weak and it's probably for the best the franchise took a few years to regroup. C-
|
|
Doomsday
Administrator 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 23,300
Likes: 6,767
Location:
Last Online Nov 24, 2024 5:31:09 GMT -5
|
Post by Doomsday on Oct 25, 2023 18:47:18 GMT -5
I want a Basic Instinct remake but with the genders reversed. That will go amazingly well. What'cha think, Doomsday ? To my everlasting shame, I've never seen Basic Instinct. Only the spoof scene from Loaded Weapon 1. |
|
Neverending
CS! Platinum
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 65,777
Likes: 8,648
Location:
Last Online Nov 23, 2024 20:24:15 GMT -5
|
Post by Neverending on Oct 25, 2023 19:31:26 GMT -5
To my everlasting shame, I've never seen Basic Instinct. Only the spoof scene from Loaded Weapon 1. |
|
Dracula
CS! Gold
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 26,103
Likes: 5,731
Location:
Last Online Nov 24, 2024 3:47:04 GMT -5
|
Post by Dracula on Oct 25, 2023 20:00:29 GMT -5
Film Twenty-Five: Cobweb (2023)  Cobweb is a movie that was kind of dumped into theaters by Lionsgate before being swiftly jettisoned to streaming in time for Halloween and while it has just enough creativity that I want to defend it the fact of the matter is that it got treated this way for a reason. This is a modern horror movie that acts as a metaphor for trauma… yeah, another one of those. In this case it’s meant to be something of a metaphor for situations in which a child seems to getting abused at home and you’re never quite sure what to do about that. The film kind of splits its point of view kind of awkwardly between the kid in question and his teacher while also kind of making both parties (and the audience) kind of unclear on what’s really going on. As you can probably tell from the title there is something of a spider theme to the ultimate horror stuff that emerges in the film and eventually that does lead to some interesting images late in the film but it’s a little too little too late. The intervening film just isn’t very suspenseful or scary and the drama isn’t really good enough to stand on its own outside of any scares. In fact this whole basic concept was done much more concisely in the second short from the 1995 horror anthology film Tales From the Hood. Don’t get me wrong, this isn’t a terrible movie or anything and it did keep my attention for the most part, rather this is just a movie that kind of just isn’t good enough to stand out or really impress in any major way. I’m about as indifferent towards it as I possibly can be. **1/2 out of Five |
|
PhantomKnight
CS! Gold
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 20,528
Likes: 3,130
Location:
Last Online Nov 23, 2024 12:33:37 GMT -5
|
Post by PhantomKnight on Oct 25, 2023 20:31:19 GMT -5
To my everlasting shame, I've never seen Basic Instinct. Only the spoof scene from Loaded Weapon 1. I don't even like Basic Instinct, so...yeah. |
|
Dracula
CS! Gold
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 26,103
Likes: 5,731
Location:
Last Online Nov 24, 2024 3:47:04 GMT -5
|
Post by Dracula on Oct 25, 2023 20:59:47 GMT -5
Basic Instinct sucks. It's something like three good scenes that everyone remembers surrounded by a whole lot of stupid.
|
|
PhantomKnight
CS! Gold
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 20,528
Likes: 3,130
Location:
Last Online Nov 23, 2024 12:33:37 GMT -5
|
Post by PhantomKnight on Oct 26, 2023 9:17:04 GMT -5
DAY TWENTY-SIX: Maniac (2012)
Is there a line between recognizing/respecting the artistic approach of a certain movie and just not liking it? I would say there is some of the time, and a film like Maniac is proof positive. Yes, I recognize that this movie is designed to make you feel repulsed, extremely uncomfortable and like you need to take a shower afterward...but does that mean I need to give it a gold star because it does exactly that? Not by my estimation, because this thing still repelled me, and even if that is the intention (and it's clear to see that it is), whatever credit I can give to it has to be very limited. So, I can respect and even commend Elijah Wood's performance -- he effectively comes across as unhinged and disturbed, and the fact that for so much of it, we're not even seeing his face...that really is impressive. After a certain point, I legitimately did not want to spend any more time with this guy, which gets back to my overall opinion on this movie: yes, it gets its job done well, but so what, if it just makes me want to walk away? Also, the cinematography of the whole film is just as impressive, despite it coming across as a bit too video game-y some of the time. But the flip side there is that there are a few chase scenes in this movie that become more than a little monotonous and predictable because they ironically lack suspense, so a lot of the time, we're just waiting around for the inevitable here. But above all else, look past the slick sheen of cinematography and the hook of the central performance, and this movie feels pretty empty-minded, and that's what gets me more than anything else. Sure, you've got an aesthetically-impressive film here, but what's the psychological insight? That serial killers are maniacs and creeps? Gee, how deep... And that's what it ultimately comes down to for me. Maniac wastes its style on a shallow gorefest that doesn't even have one-tenth of the smarts that something like Silence of the Lambs does, so why should I care that the presentation is so unique? The answer: I don't. I really, really don't.
*/****
|
|
PG Cooper
CS! Silver
Join Date: Feb 2009
And those who tasted the bite of his sword named him...The DOOM Slayer
Posts: 16,647
Likes: 4,062
Location:
Last Online Nov 23, 2024 23:40:43 GMT -5
|
Post by PG Cooper on Oct 26, 2023 10:03:25 GMT -5
Day 26: The Amityville Horror (1979) There's a lot of supposed horror classics where you have to ask, is this really a classic, or is it just an old horror movie that spawned a bunch of sequels and rip-offs? The Amityville Horror is most certainly the latter. There are a couple of chilling moments here and there and it is interesting how this film predates The Shining by a year (although that's an excellent example of slow and steady winning the race) but large stretches are pretty dull, with the ending in particular just kind of whimpering out. I also think Poltergeist just three years later completely puts this to shame, not just in horror set-pieces, but in how well developed and defined the central family is. I'm glad I saw The Amityville Horror as a much referenced piece of horror but I can't say I was particularly impressed. D+
|
|
Doomsday
Administrator
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 23,300
Likes: 6,767
Location:
Last Online Nov 24, 2024 5:31:09 GMT -5
|
Post by Doomsday on Oct 26, 2023 13:21:25 GMT -5
And now, Doomsday continues his ongoing series of watching horror movies he's never seen before for Halloween......
Cat People (1942) Lovestruck Oliver meets the European Irena at a zoo, as is the story for most great romances. She's sketching the big cats and he just wants to get laid. They wind up getting married but Irene is skeptical to let Oliver get some, mainly because she's afraid she's going to turn into a big cat and kill him. Oliver, like any sensible man, then moves onto his coworker who clearly wants to bag him while Irena starts seeing a psychiatrist to treat her cat-like identity issues. The ending answers the questions about her jealousy and whether she indeed turns into a cat, unfortunately even for a 72 minute movie this movie is kind of oddly paced. Some of it feels rather lumbering, other parts feel forced like some important chunks of the movie were left on the cutting room floor, and while the end of the movie was rather interesting there wasn't much in the way of buildup to get there. I suppose it was interesting not knowing whether or not Irena's fantasies were legitimate and not seeing much of anything made it more psychological than a visual horror but it didn't feel like it got to that point very effectively. You would think there would have been a more effective buildup because watching a sexually repressed man face the prospect that his new wife might be a cat lady could have been interesting but it mostly feels like a story that wasn't as fleshed out as it could have been. Also, Oliver bought Irena a cat immediately after they met? That's giving off some psycho Pippi Hedren in The Birds vibes right there. B- so says Doomsday
|
|
Dracula
CS! Gold
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 26,103
Likes: 5,731
Location:
Last Online Nov 24, 2024 3:47:04 GMT -5
|
Post by Dracula on Oct 26, 2023 16:34:51 GMT -5
Film Twenty-Six: Kill, Baby, Kill (1966)  The eye catching title of this 1966 Mario Bava movie promises a certain kind of experience, though the actual film is a bit more restrained than what that would suggest. This is not a giallo, and was instead made a bit earlier and is more of a gothic ghost story that has kind of the look and feel of a Hammer film. It’s set around the turn of the century in some tiny village in the Carpathians and follows a doctor who was sent there to do an autopsy on someone who was mysteriously murdered and finds himself trying to solve the mystery of what’s been killing people over the years in this town. Spoiler: it’s the ghost of a small child who’s out vengeance. The movie isn’t particularly gory but there are “kills” in it and when the ghost kid shows up it’s usually done pretty well. Some of the talkier scenes in-between are less compelling but the film does give off legitimate atmosphere while also having that cozy “60s horror shot on a backlot” kind of feel. Honestly if I do think that title and the movie’s poster kind of set me up for a bit of disappointment with my expectations, but taken for what it is there’s fun to be had with this one. *** out of Five
Bonus Film: The Psychic (1977)  This is a Lucio Fulci movie that you don’t hear get talked about very much, and I suspected that was because it had a kind of shockingly dull title for an Italian Horror movie. Then I started playing it and saw that its real title was “Murder to the Tune of the Seven Black Notes” and immediately said to myself “now that’s more like it!” Unfortunately the more boring title probably would have suited this movie better because the actual film is quite dull. Fulci is known for making movies that were outrageously violent but his movies weren’t all like that but seeing a tamer Fulci movie like this makes a good argument that maybe they should all be outrageously violent because that’s what the dude was clearly good at and there isn’t a lot left after you remove that. This is a giallo, sort of, but one that takes itself a bit too seriously as a mystery and involves a woman having psychic visions that help her crack the case in question. I really don’t have terribly strong opinions about it, it has some kind of interesting editing here and there in order to convey these visions but otherwise the whole thing is pretty forgettable.
** out of Five
|
|
Neverending
CS! Platinum
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 65,777
Likes: 8,648
Location:
Last Online Nov 23, 2024 20:24:15 GMT -5
|
Post by Neverending on Oct 26, 2023 18:55:18 GMT -5
R.I.P. Anthony HickoxWhat are other people's thoughts on this movie/franchise? It's taken me something like a decade to get around to II, so I probably won't be watching the rest any time soon. It also has a cenobite that kills people by shooting CDs at them You're just making me love it more.  The two Waxwork movies are in a peculiar category I’d describe as a glorified demo reel for the director. In this case, that being Anthony Hickox. The premise for both movies revolves around Zach Galligan (of Gremlins fame) and his girlfriend visiting a wax museum that is really a portal to other dimensions. What are these dimensions? Well — other horror movies. Did you ever watch that movie that John Ritter (of Three’s Company) made called Stay Tuned. It’s the one in which the devil (played by Jeffrey Jones) transports Ritter and his wife (Mindy from Mork & Mindy) into their TV set and they have to fight for their souls as they travel through different TV channels. That’s basically the Waxwork movies but with horror instead of satire. It also gives director Anthony Hickox an excuse to showcase his talents through different horror genres. Both are fun, but the sequel is better executed. There’s an Evil Dead and Evil Dead II vibe going on as one movie is ultra low budget and the other is regular low budget, but the director is more seasoned. Zach Galligan, like Bruce Campbell, seems to be having way more fun in the sequel and appears to be more in on the joke. Bruce Campbell actually shows up in the sequel. Speaking of which… SUNDOWN: THE VAMPIRE IN RETREAT (1989) A desert town in the southwest United States is populated by vampires that feed on whomever is unlucky enough to be passing through. It stars David Carradine, Bruce Campbell and M. Emmet Walsh. Deborah Foreman (April Fool’s Day) co-stars. She played the girlfriend in the first Waxwork (her role was recast in the sequel). Overall, this was a lot of fun. It’s basically a western, but with vampires. There’s nothing unique about that. But with this cast and this director, you’re getting a solid B-movie. Richard Stone (of Tiny Toons and Animaniacs fame) did the music. If you need any further convincing, Bruce Campbell plays Van Helsing and David Carradine plays Dracula. If 1godzillafan were still alive (I think he went out like Carradine), he’d be forcing Doomsday to watch this. WARLOCK: THE ARMAGEDDON (1993) Let me start out by saying that the first Warlock is terrible. Steve Miner (of Friday the 13th and Halloween H2O fame) directs what is basically a shitty version of the Terminator. Don’t bother with it. Anthony Hickox, who directed this Warlock, agreed. This Warlock is a re-do of the first one. The premise is simple. Julian Sands plays the titular Warlock. He’s “born” in between a lunar eclipse and solar eclipse. By born, I mean he comes out of the vagina as a fully grown adult. It’s like Jim Carrey coming out of the rhino’s ass in Ace Ventura. It’s hilarious here too. So our heroes (one of them played by the Captain from the Lethal Weapon movies — he’s Richard Donner’s cousin) have six days in between eclipses to stop him or else he’ll unleash Satan on Earth. Both Warlock’s have weak scripts. Their budgets don’t match the premise at all. But whereas the original is a snoozefest, this one is at least campy and fun. Anthony Hickox is basically a store brand Sam Raimi, but he makes fun movies too. I’d say give it a chance.
|
|
Doomsday
Administrator
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 23,300
Likes: 6,767
Location:
Last Online Nov 24, 2024 5:31:09 GMT -5
|
Post by Doomsday on Oct 26, 2023 19:00:10 GMT -5
If 1godzillafan were still alive (I think he went out like Carradine)  |
|
thebtskink
CS! Silver
Join Date: Jul 2000
It puts the lotion on its skin or else it gets the hose again.
Posts: 19,462
Likes: 4,984
Location:
Last Online Nov 23, 2024 23:42:06 GMT -5
|
Post by thebtskink on Oct 26, 2023 19:33:25 GMT -5
If 1godzillafan were still alive (I think he went out like Carradine) Murdered by an angry Thai pimp and framed for autoerotic asphyxiation? |
|
PhantomKnight
CS! Gold
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 20,528
Likes: 3,130
Location:
Last Online Nov 23, 2024 12:33:37 GMT -5
|
Post by PhantomKnight on Oct 27, 2023 10:03:16 GMT -5
DAY TWENTY-SEVEN: Ghost Stories (2017)
Ghost Stories is one of those movies that I happened to find out about through happenstance by way of randomly coming across the trailer, and boy, am I glad I did, because this movie is a nice little gem of a horror film. It's a British production that functions as a sort of anthology, wherein a paranormal investigator who's made a career out of disproving claims of the supernatural is given three cases by his former idol to investigate, because the latter claims them to be ones that he could never solve himself. The film then takes the anthology approach as we see these cases reenacted as the subjects recount their stories to the main character, who becomes increasingly disturbed by each. This is actually based on a stage play written by the star and co-director, and if that play was half as effective as this movie is, I would've loved to have seen it. Because this movie exudes a certain confidence in craft and storytelling that really help bolster it and make everything extra creepy. Storywise, each of the three tales are built around scenarios and tropes that are pretty familiar, but it's the execution that really counts here. Co-directors Andy Nyman and Jeremy Dyson pretty clearly have an understanding of what makes the horror genre tick, and so they're able to inject some genuine dread and atmosphere into each of these three little tales. Nyman also portrays the lead character with a certain believable quality that further draws us in as well. Are each of the three stories equally as strong? Well, maybe the middle one is sort of the weakest link here, but it rebounds with the third, which features a pretty compelling Martin Freeman performance, too. By the end, the movie makes a decision to tie everything together in a way that's certainly nifty, but necessary? I'm not quite sure there. But what I AM sure of is that Ghost Stories pleasantly surprised me with just how effectively entertaining it all was -- so much so that I bought the Blu Ray almost immediately after. This doesn't transcend the genre as much as it just reinforces what makes a good ghost story so chilling every now and then, and that's gotta be worth something.
***1/2 /****
|
|
Dracula
CS! Gold
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 26,103
Likes: 5,731
Location:
Last Online Nov 24, 2024 3:47:04 GMT -5
|
Post by Dracula on Oct 27, 2023 17:45:04 GMT -5
Film Twenty-Seven: The Hands of Orlac (1924)  For my silent horror movie of the year I took a look at a famous little work of German Expressionism called The Hands of Orlac, which would later be remade in Hollywood by Karl Freud (himself a former cinematographer in German Expressionism) as the movie Mad Love. Strictly speaking Orlac is more of a psychological thriller than it is a horror movie, especially when we get to the ending which, spoilers, provides a “logical” albeit far-fetched explanation for everything that has transpired in the film. However, there’s still something rather horrific to its premise that a man who has his hands transplanted after an accident has received the hands of a murderer and that they are causing him to commit murders. The opening train accident that sets off the plot is pretty well rendered. I think the crash itself is just stock footage but the aftermath wreckage seems to be a pretty impressive set for the time. The rest of the film is some German Expressionist goodness. It’s certainly not as abstract as director Robert Wiene’s magnum opus The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari or as noteworthy as that film generally and that ending plot revelations is… kind of an implausible copout, but it’s still a cool move with a cool performance at its center. ***1/2 out of Five
Bonus Film: The Man Who Could Cheat Death (1959)  This is a pretty early stand alone Hammer Horror film and is a pretty good example of what would go on with that studio when they were really not on their A-game. The film is set in the 1890s and seems to kind of be trying to invoke the likes of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde or The Picture of Dorian Gray, but this instead adapts this play that hasn’t really withstood the test of time about a guy who appears to be in his 40s but who is actually 104 years old and he got that way by murdering people and transplanting their glands, giving him eternal youth. The film was originally supposed to star Peter Cushing, but he had to drop out due to “exhaustion” and was replaced by the character actor Anton Diffring who is no Peter Cushing. Like most Hammer movies this was shot in “vivid Technicolor” but the version I saw was not so vivid. I’m not sure if this movie has just always been ugly or if it’s in desperate need of restoration or if the kinda janky streaming service I watched it on just has a bad transfer but the film did not impress visually. When the actual horror starts up we are supplied with a neat image or two but for the most part it’s just not very impressive.
** out of Five
|
|
Neverending
CS! Platinum
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 65,777
Likes: 8,648
Location:
Last Online Nov 23, 2024 20:24:15 GMT -5
|
Post by Neverending on Oct 27, 2023 23:51:20 GMT -5
|
|
PhantomKnight
CS! Gold
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 20,528
Likes: 3,130
Location:
Last Online Nov 23, 2024 12:33:37 GMT -5
|
Post by PhantomKnight on Oct 28, 2023 12:44:40 GMT -5
DAY TWENTY-EIGHT: Three 3's for 2023
Friday the 13th Part III (1982)
Three movies in, now, and I'm honestly struggling to see/understand just how the Friday the 13th series lasted as long as it has. Because let me tell ya...it ain't cause of anything outside of the kills. Part III is even worse than Part II. As much as I don't generally tend to care for the whole slasher movie formula on average, it at least seems like the kind of movie that should be pretty easy to get right. But Friday the 13th Part III is proof that it's even easier to just crap out whatever you can think of and move on to the next. Because, oh my God, everything about this movie that's not Jason going around and killing people -- from the characters, to the writing and directing -- are absolutely terrible. And even the kill sequences with Jason are pretty damn lackluster and not a whole lot of fun, There's just hardly anything in these Friday the 13th movies for me to latch onto, and I know the whole point/appeal of them is just supposed to be the kills, but even then, this movie doesn't offer up anything of value to me. It's just some of the longest, most boring and unengaging 95 minutes I've ever sat through (taking entirely too long to get to the main Jason stuff), with hardly any redeeming qualities I can think of.
1/2 /****
A Nightmare on Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors (1987)
 Well, the first thing to be said for A Nightmare on Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors is that it's certainly better than its predecessor. But does that make it good? Eh... What can be said for this movie is that it sure shows a lot more creativity than Freddy's Revenge when it comes to the dream sequences. Here, those things have a much more interesting look and aesthetic that pretty directly distinguishes them as unique in comparison with the real world scenes, as opposed to the last film, where the difference was hardly distinguishable. I think a lot of this is owed to director Chuck Russell (who would go on to make movies like The Blob remake and The Mask) and Wes Craven, who returns to co-write the script. Russell makes this movie more visually interesting through aesthetic and the special effects than the second movie, while Wes Craven's script shakes up the formula in an interesting way by setting the action inside an institution for troubled teens who also have sleeping issues. It all helps establish fresher dynamics than the first two, but it all still feels held back. Mainly because both the characters are pretty uninteresting despite some decent personalities, and a lot of the dialogue and acting here are pretty bad. Like...I know that slasher movies in the 80's and whatnot weren't necessarily known for their high-caliber writing and/or performances, but man...a lot of those aspects here induce more than a few groans. Also, this movie brings back Nancy from the first, and...I just don't think the movie/franchise up to this point has earned the choice to try to close off her story -- especially when it's done in a pretty meh way here. I don't know, Dream Warriors is still a definite improvement from the second movie, but I was honestly hoping for something more enjoyable, what with the general praise this installment seems to get. Oh well, a guy can dream.
**/****
Halloween III: Season of the Witch (1982)
Halloween III: Season of the Witch is notoriously the outlier in the franchise, in that it is the only one to not be tied in/related in any way to the story of Michael Myers. In fact, it apparently takes place outside of that reality, since the original movie is shown on a TV at one point here. So, this movie really has the freedom to do whatever the hell it wants -- something that it embraces rather enthusiastically, and I do admire it a lot on that level...but, man, I really wish this thing worked more fully for me. So, on the one hand, you've got the increasingly bonkers central plot about a Halloween mask manufacturing company whose masks possess some supernatural power to turn the kids wearing them into heartless murderers. Throw in agents of said company going around murdering people who try to expose their scheme, the occult, robots and an earworm of a commercial jingle, and you've got something here where I legitimately could not tell where this movie was going most of the time. And I have to give it credit for just how truly bonkers it gets, while providing a number of entertaining sequences to boot. It's also heavy on the Halloween holiday vibes, which is a welcome touch. But on the other side of all that, this movie is centered on a main character whom I really didn't give a shit about, and whose positioning as the main character simply feels odd. It's a doctor character who has a brush with this nefarious company after an agent enacts a murder-suicide at the doctor's hospital, but this character's role as the main protagonist just feels pretty random, as does a lot of the story progression a lot of the time. So, following this guy sort of feels disappointing when you consider all the crazy stuff around him. And that serves to really frame my overall thoughts on this movie: I think a lot of it is so cuckoo that I can't help but respect and even be entertained by a good portion of it, but its choice of framing device is kind of a letdown and makes me wish I liked this movie more than I ultimately do.
**1/2 /****
|
|
Dracula
CS! Gold
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 26,103
Likes: 5,731
Location:
Last Online Nov 24, 2024 3:47:04 GMT -5
|
Post by Dracula on Oct 28, 2023 15:31:28 GMT -5
DAY TWENTY-EIGHT: Three 3's for 2023
Friday the 13th Part III (1982)
Three movies in, now, and I'm honestly struggling to see/understand just how the Friday the 13th series lasted as long as it has. Because let me tell ya...it ain't cause of anything outside of the kills.
Short answer: timing and marketing. There had been grimey slasher movies before Friday the 13th but most of them were disreputable grindhouse movies while Friday the 13th was released with the full institutional power of Paramount Pictures, which brought this genre into the multiplexs and interested the normie kids who shop at the mall. From there inertia carried them forward and Jason becoming something of an icon solidified them. Also, the kills. |
|
Doomsday
Administrator
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 23,300
Likes: 6,767
Location:
Last Online Nov 24, 2024 5:31:09 GMT -5
|
Post by Doomsday on Oct 28, 2023 15:31:57 GMT -5
Friday the 13th Part III (1982)
|
|
