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 31, 2023 1:11:46 GMT -5
THE BODY SNATCHER (1945) This Universal RKO Picture stars Boris Karloff as a medical grave robber, inspired by Burke & Hare. It is based on a short story by Robert Louis Stevenson of Jekyll & Hyde fame. It’s directed by Robert Wise of Star Trek: The Motion Picture fame (of his wide range of movies I'm choosing that one just to provoke PG Cooper). And Bela Lugosi makes an appearance. By the way, I’m still waiting for SnoBorderZero to watch Son of Frankenstein. Anyhoo, it has come to my attention that I haven’t really watched any movies (or even interviews) in which Karloff speaks. Did he really sound like the Grinch in real-life? If so, Universal wasted this guy’s time and career. Yeah, Frankenstein is great and all, but you also have the goddamn Grinch. What an amazing voice we really only got to enjoy in the Grinch — and here! Karloff is phenomenal in this role. The movie is okay. It’s just Burke & Hare. Go watch the John Landis movie if you’re interested in that subject. Dude’s an expert in dead bodies (too soon, Doomsday?). But Karloff eats up the screen in all his Grinch-like glory. Who won the Oscar that year? And why wasn’t it Karloff? But a more pressing question is, when is SnoBorderZero gonna watch Son of Frankenstein?
|
|
Dracula
CS! Gold
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 26,103
Likes: 5,731
Location:
Member is Online
|
Post by Dracula on Oct 31, 2023 7:42:12 GMT -5
Film Thirty-One: The House That Jack Built (2018) I’m a pretty big Lars Von Trier fan, especially in this late phase of his career, so it’s maybe a bit odd that I waited something like five years to see his most recent film. I was holding out to see the unrated version, which proved to be harder to find than I expected it would be through streaming and the like (the edited version is everywhere). That probably wasn’t really that necessary (the difference between the two is something like a single minute), but I am glad I finally crossed this one off just the same though my opinions of it are a bit mixed, which is fine because this is… uh… not a movie that invites uncomplicated enjoyment. In terms of structure this seems to be acting as a companion piece to Von Trier’s previous film Nymphomaniac in that both are structured as a conversation/debate between its central character and someone else about the life they’ve led to that point, but this one is about a person whose life has been defined by violence rather than sex. The difference of course is that there are rational ways to argue about the morality of the life of the lady from Nymphomanic, there are no such rational arguments to had about the sociopathic serial killer from this film so these “debates” mostly serve to explore this guy’s self-conception and maniacal ego. In some ways a movie getting into the mind of a killer like this has been done before, most notably in American Psycho, but Lars Von Trier is obviously going to add his own edgelord flavor to thing and man… even for him this thing is assaultive. In many ways it seems like the work of someone trying to burn all his bridges and it’s going to be a bit depressing if this turns out to be his last feature film (which is possible given the director’s health concerns). Still, Von Trier is not one to half ass things and there’s definitely some audacious work on display here and whatever’s off-putting about it is decidedly intentional. His visual style is as strong as ever and he puts some pretty audacious stuff into the film like the final reveal of who he’s talking to this whole time and why. The film can also be read as something of a metaphor for filmmaking, an interpretation that’s probably confirmed by Von Trier’s use of clips from his past movies in one sequence, which seems like a particularly self-loathing statement from Von Trier. Parts of the movie like that feel exhilarating, but other parts feel a little indulgent. I don’t think this needed to be two and a half hours and I’m also not sure that Matt Dillon is really the right person to cast as “Jack.” This is a character who’s supposed to exude a certain kind of pretension and I don’t think Dillon really does that. Frankly I suspect that he’s here more because he was the biggest “name” who Von Trier could find who’d be willing to associate themselves with such material. Overall I have to admire the audacity of all of this but out of Von Trier’s last four films I would say I definitely prefer Antichrist, Melancholia, and Nymphomaniac. This one would see to be that style brought to its limit, maybe even past its limit, and if Von Trier is able to return to filmmaking this would probably be the place to re-invent himself even if the last phase was fruitful. ***1/2 out of Five
Happy Halloween!
|
|
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 31, 2023 9:59:32 GMT -5
DAY THIRTY-ONE: The Nightmare Before Christmas (1993) - 30th Anniversary
Thirty years of The Nightmare Before Christmas, huh? It almost seems hard to believe, and yet, here we are. So, as someone who grew up as pretty big Tim Burton fan, one would think that this movie would be one of my all-timers. Well, not really, no. Don't misconstrue that as me saying that I dislike this movie -- that couldn't be farther from the truth -- it's just that I've always simply found this movie to be good, not great. And yet, curiously, the sort of infectious cultural impact it's had in the years since its release has very much infected me. Just this year, for instance, I got a special t-shirt off of Teepublic that's a takeoff on the Blue Moon beer label, but in Nightmare Before Christmas style, it's become Halloween Moon beer, made by the Halloweentown Brewing Company label. So, what is it, exactly, about a movie I find to be good and not great that it's able to still have such a hold over me? The answer's simple: vibes. This is very much a movie where the tone, vibes, and overall air of creativity on display is able to carry a lot of it, and successfully so. Because, let's be honest, Jack Skellington and Sally aren't the most vividly-defined characters with complicated arcs; the characters and story of this movie are very simple and straightforward; that's what happens when a movie just runs about 71 minutes. And yet, they still work because of this movie's infectious vibes. From the opening tune of This Is Halloween, this movie envelops you in its world and atmosphere and charms you with its various quirks and eccentricities. The stamp of Tim Burton is clearly all over this thing, and effectively so. Both he and Henry Selick work together to make sure that the filmmaking is strong enough to carry us through the simple story so that the experience feels fulfilling. The visuals and general ideas on display do a lot of heavylifting there, but of course, the songs are all bangers, too. So, again, it's all about the vibes with A Nightmare Before Christmas. Not to discount anybody who legitimately loves the characters, because they absolutely have their charms. But you combine those with the infectious enthusiasm on display with the visuals and overall filmmaking, and it's not hard to see why this Nightmare is still haunting after thirty years.
***/****
Happy Halloween!
|
|
Doomsday
Administrator
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 23,300
Likes: 6,767
Location:
Member is Online
|
Post by Doomsday on Oct 31, 2023 18:07:20 GMT -5
And now the final installment of this year's series of Doomsday watching horror movies he's never seen before for Halloween......
Don't Look Now (1973)
Talk about a movie that had me invested and on the edge of my seat for reasons that I don't think I've ever experienced. I knew this was some sort of cinephile horror classic, a movie people would reference to put their moviegoing credentials on display online. This time I did it right and I went in knowing nothing which in this case was a very good decision. The first scene shows John and Laura Baxter hard at work in their home while their children play outside. Moments later John gets a peculiar feeling and rushes outside to find his daughter drowned. Months later John and Laura are in Venice, Italy where John is restoring a church when they have odd run-ins with a psychic set of sisters as well as visions of a young child wearing the same red coat their daughter was wearing before she died. The really cool thing about this movie is that you don't know where this movie is going until literally the very end. You sit there guessing, wondering what the psychics might predict. You wonder what their intentions are. What about the mysterious figure in red? Is that related? How are the police involved? It's not uncommon to have twists and turns especially in horror films but I can't recall any where the entire story and direction are hidden leaving the viewer wondering but also transfixed. And the final image of the reveal of the person in the red coat was legitimately disturbing. Considering some of the junk I watched for Halloween this month, this was a nice way to go out. That sex scene was something else though. It was awkward, a little loopy, at one point was Julie Christie having sex with Donald Sutherland's armpit? Ah well, creative liberties I suppose. A so says Doomsday Now everybody get back to the film club, all of you. Oh so you can rewatch a bunch of slasher movies for this thread but don't have the cajones to get a recommendation from Drac or Coop? Get with it!
|
|
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 31, 2023 18:26:20 GMT -5
Now everybody get back to the film club, all of you. Oh so you can rewatch a bunch of slasher movies for this thread but don't have the cajones to get a recommendation from Drac or Coop? Get with it! Lol, somehow, I just knew you were gonna say something like this at some point this month.
|
|
Dracula
CS! Gold
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 26,103
Likes: 5,731
Location:
Member is Online
|
Post by Dracula on Oct 31, 2023 18:38:24 GMT -5
How it started... How about any of the old timers, IanTheCool Nilade thebtskink We basically ignore time limits these days so if you want in there won't be much in the way of deadlines. How it's going... Now everybody get back to the film club, all of you. Oh so you can rewatch a bunch of slasher movies for this thread but don't have the cajones to get a recommendation from Drac or Coop? Get with it!
|
|
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 31, 2023 20:05:31 GMT -5
At least Doomsday had the foresight to include a movie that'd fit for this series in my latest recommendations. Two birds, one stone. So, that's me done for this round.
|
|
IanTheCool
CS! Gold
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 21,493
Likes: 2,864
Location:
Last Online Nov 23, 2024 18:14:57 GMT -5
|
Post by IanTheCool on Oct 31, 2023 21:35:24 GMT -5
October 31 Halloween Selection Sleepy Hollow
Tim Burton seems like a great choice for the big screen adaptation of Ichabod Crane and the Headless Horseman. It certainly looks good and is evocative of a certain mood and place. The headless horseman effects work well also.
But I have to admit that the movie itself sort of comes off as flat. It feels stilted in a way, like its really just putting this story onto the page without becoming its own living, breathing film. It was fine, but only that.
6/10
Bonus Selection The Legend of Sleepy Hollow
After we decided to throw in this Disney classic short. Its funny how you only remember the good parts of these things when you are a kid, because I forgot how long it takes to get to the good part. The animation of the horse chase is still solid though.
|
|
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 31, 2023 22:23:46 GMT -5
PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN (2003) / THE HAUNTED MANSION (2003) 2003 was 20 years ago. We were blessed with Kangaroo Jack. Ben Affleck and Jennifer Garner fought in a playground. Will Ferrell went streaking. Chris Rock ran for President. Adam Sandler and Jack Nicholson were in anger management. Nightcrawler attacked the White House. We got not one but two Matrix sequels. Jim Carrey played God. We searched for Nemo. Shrek played the Hulk. Arnold Schwarzenegger told us to talk to the hand. Shit got real in Bad Boys II. Tobey Maguire broke his back on Seabiscuit. Freddy fought Jason. Bill Murray and Scarlett Johansson got lost in translation. Sean Penn lost his daughter. Uma Thurman got her revenge. There was... two... three... Christmas classics. Mike Myers brought a Dr. Seuss classic to life while Jack Black taught us how to rock. Tom Cruise was the last samurai. Ewan McGregor caught a really big fish. And of course... Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King had a 0% chance of winning Best Picture at the Academy Awards. This was also the year in which Disney released two movies based on their theme park rides to wildly different results. I'm not gonna shit on Eddie Murphy's Haunted Mansion. Honestly, it's a perfectly fine. I didn't care too much for its Bram Stoker's Dracula inspired plot, but the scenes involving the mansion itself were a lot of fun and I think kids will (and have) enjoyed it. But... to compare it to Pirates of the Caribbean is almost a joke. One feels like a Disney Channel Original Movie while the other is a genuine Hollywood blockbuster. PhantomKnight and I are the only ones here that like these movies, so I won't say much except that the original (the only one I rewatched for this thread) still holds up. Johnny Depp is awesome as Jack Sparrow. I do enjoy Orlando Bloom and Keira Knightly. The supporting cast is great. The music is awesome. The action scenes are great. It is a ghost story -- so you can enjoy it on Halloween too. That's mostly it for this year. Hope you all had a fun Halloween. See ya next year. It'll still be the 31st for a few more hours on the west coast. Maybe I'll squeeze in an extra movie or two for Doomsday and SnoBorderZero. Ciao.
|
|
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 31, 2023 23:16:29 GMT -5
October 31 Halloween Selection Sleepy Hollow
But I have to admit that the movie itself sort of comes off as flat. It feels stilted in a way, like its really just putting this story onto the page without becoming its own living, breathing film. It was fine, but only that.
6/10 I'd hardly call it flat. I'd say Burton's passion for the story is all over it.
|
|
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 Mar 12, 2024 16:41:03 GMT -5
31 DAYS OF HALLOWEENSALEM'S LOT (1979)Salem's Lot is the story of a small town invaded by vampires. In America, it was released as a 3-hour TV mini-series and in Europe it was a 2-hour theatrical film. Baby Boomers and Generation X seem to favor the TV mini-series since it's a better adaptation of its source material - a Stephen King novel. Millennials, however, may gravitate towards the European Cut. The vampire scenes are awesome, but the small town drama is like watching paint dry. Most younger viewers aren't gonna tolerate a 3-hour version of this story and the 2-hour version isn't that great either. Salem's Lot, really, just seems to be a generational thing. RETURN TO SALEM’S LOT (1987)Gen X adores the original Salem’s Lot (although it was boring shit) and detest this sequel/soft-reboot. Foreshadowing of things to come? I actually didn’t mind this one at all. It wasn’t particularly scary (not that it needed to be) or thrilling, but I did find myself invested in the story. This guy and his son move into a small town that’s almost fully populated by vampires. Instead of attacking them, they welcome them into their society. They want to move away from human blood because of AIDS and the crack epidemic (I’m serious) and have moved to animal blood. So they want to form a truce with the humans. That’s all fine and dandy until the dad realizes that there’s other ulterior motives. As I said, the movie is pretty good. It has an interesting take on vampires. There is one glaring flaw, however, and that’s the acting. It’s atrocious. But oh well. Some may find that amusing. 1godzillafan, the new Salem Lot wasn’t worthy of a theatrical release, according to David Zaslav, so it going straight to Max this year.
|
|
Dracula
CS! Gold
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 26,103
Likes: 5,731
Location:
Member is Online
|
Post by Dracula on Mar 12, 2024 17:04:23 GMT -5
At least it's not a tax write-off...
|
|
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 Mar 28, 2024 16:12:17 GMT -5
Film Twelve: Pacific Heights (1990) Yuppie Horror Installment 3: While The Stepfather predated Fatal Attraction and Dead Calm was different enough that it didn’t really need to live in its shadow, Pacific Heights is the first of the yuppie horror films to be pretty obviously inspired by the success of that Adrian Lynne film in 1987. Here we are once again treated to a pair of upper middle class people (albeit a little younger this time) who find their lives turned upside down when a crazy person shows up in it. This time we look at a young couple (Matthew Modine and Melanie Griffith) are the new owners of an apartment building that they have purchased at great risk by taking out a mortgage that they can only pay if they collect all their rent payments promptly. The plan is upended when a man named Carter Hayes (Michael Keaton) becomes one of their first tenants and promptly begins acting strangely. He makes noise all through the night but never answers the door and his rent payments haven’t shown up either and when these inexperienced landlords try to evict him he finds a number of ways to dodge the orders. The film is in certain ways a 1990s answer to Cape Fear (it was made a year before Martin Scorsese’s remake) in that it’s about a psychopath who terrorizes a family without ever really breaking any laws and occasionally making them look like the bad guy. Unlike Cape Fear, Carter Hayes’ motivations are never entirely clear. Sometimes he comes off like he’s merely a con man who hopes to profit from what he’s doing, other times he seems like he just gets off on causing mischief, and sometimes he seems like a straight-up psycho. The goal of the movie is to put you in the shoes of these landlords who suddenly find themselves in the middle of this kafka-esque spiral of trouble. However, the movie sort of undercuts this by making its protagonists (but particularly the Matthew Modine character) almost impossible to relate to or sympathize with. The Modine character is a flat out impulsive moron who brings most of his problems on himself by getting ridiculously aggressive and making mind-bogglingly stupid decisions at every turn and never fucking learns. He makes the boyfriend in Paranormal Activity look calm and collected by comparison. The Melanie Griffith character is a bit more likable and proves to be more capable than she looks by the end, but she’s also under-developed and Griggith’s performance isn’t much better than Modine’s. Michael Keaton obviously gives the standout performance here, but I still don’t know that I’d really call Carter Hayes a particularly good villain. In fact I strongly suspect that earlier versions of the script (or perhaps early cuts of the film even) had Hayes being less of a dangerous psychopath and more of a jackass trying to rip people off and that this was changed at the last minute by a studio note that demanded that the film play more like a thriller and that a bunch of shots of Keaton behaving like a sinister creep be added which don’t really get followed through on. There’s a really bizarre scene with Hayes right at the very beginning of the film that seems to be completely incongruous with everything that comes after and I can’t help but wonder if this is a residual piece of that alternate version of the film. Who knows, at the end of the day this just isn’t nearly as good of a film as it could have been. It’s certainly beneath the dignity of director John Schlesinger (who seemed to have fallen off in a big way during the 80s) and is generally just kind of forgettable. ** out of Four31 DAYS OF HALLOWEENPACIFIC HEIGHTS (1990)Life after The Joker wasn't too kind to Bob the Goon.I'm a sucker for a good 1990's thriller and Pacific Heights is no except. It stars Michael Keaton, in his post-Batman role, as a mysterious rich guy who moves into an apartment in San Francisco and turns his landlord's lives into a living nightmare. They're played by Matthew Modine and Melanie Griffith. These type of movies usually involve characters that make stupid decisions and Pacific Heights is no exception. First, they let this guy move into the apartment without making a deposit. Then, they start a pissing contest when he begins to annoy his neighbors. And finally, the Matthew Modine character gets so enraged that he beats up the Michael Keaton character and gets a restraining order. Can you imagine being kicked out of your own property - by your tenant? Crazy! But that's what makes the movie so much fun to watch. It's like an absurd version of real life. Or at least it's supposed to be. If you go to the IMDb boards for Pacific Heights, you'll see a thread with landlords sharing their own horror stories. That sounds... incredibly bad. Really, that's the plot? I always thought it was like Cape Fear but in an apartment... which also is a shitty concept. But yeah, I'd totally rent to Michael Keaton as long as he stays in Birdman character at all times. I do like the Jennifer Lawrence gifs though. It's making it very difficult to concentrate at work. Woah. Did DeSantis do something… good?? www.wptv.com/news/state/florida-gov-ron-desantis-signs-law-squashing-squatters-rights
|
|
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 Jun 20, 2024 13:01:04 GMT -5
Film Seventeen: Don’t Look Now (1973)I think I sort of got off on the wrong foot with this movie when I first saw it, in part because I’d been given the wrong expectations. The movie had been billed to me as one of the greatest horror movies of all time (emphasis on horror) and instead of seeing one of the scariest movies what I got was five minutes of horror at the end preceded by two hours of Donald Sutherland moping around Venice. That was a somewhat immature reaction and I had a much better time with the movie now that I can go in knowing that it’s meant to be this sort of arty meditation on grief that just so happens to have a light supernatural element and one scene of violence at the end. The film’s strengths are readily apparent, the cinematography is really beautiful and there are a handful of real standout scenes like the tragic opening, the famous sex scene, the scene where the protagonist finds himself dangling from a scaffolding, and of course the film’s climax which seems both like a slasher scene but also like a man’s metaphorical facing of his demons. On the other hand, the film stars Donald Sutherland and I really don’t like that guy for reasons that are entirely unreasonable. Dude has a rat-like face and dumb looking hair-doo. Also the film can be a little slow at times and while like the film’s editing a lot it does occasionally go down some odd paths that don’t really make sense to me. ***1/2 out of Four Don't Look NowDon't Look Now is perhaps Nicolas Roeg's most famous film, and one I was very excited to finally cross off my list. Following the death of their child, a married couple (Julie Christie and Donald Sutherland) travel to Venice, where they are visited by two elderly sisters who claim to be clairvoyant and to have seen the pair's dead daughter. I'd heard Don't Look Now described as a drama which more fully embraces horror in its final 20 minutes, and I suppose there's truth to that. The film certainly offers a powerful and very well-acted story of grief, and I guess there's little overt horror until the final act. That said, Roeg is still able to create an atmosphere of intense dread and anxiety through his surreal visuals and disorienting editing. I don't think Don't Look Now hit me quite as hard as Roeg's Walkabout, but this is still a striking piece of filmmaking. Julie Christie and Donald Sutherland are both excellent here, and the exploration of grief is quite powerful, weaving beautifully with the film's horror. Roeg also feels fully in control of his style. As disorienting as Don't Look Now can be, I always felt like I was in good hands. A- You son of a...
DAY FIFTEEN: INVASION DOUBLE FEATURE!
INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS (1978)
There can often be a rather scary and/or creepy quality at the heart of science fiction, and no story perhaps exemplifies that as best as Invasion of the Body Snatchers, because it's such an eerie concept. And that inherent eeriness is something that director Phillip Kaufman utilizes rather well. This is another movie that does a nice job of creating an ominous tone almost immediately and just turning up the dial on it with each subsequent scene. He effectively creates a sense of mounting paranoia in both his characters and the film's environment by subtly establishing a feeling of wrongness to everything at first, and then hitting you with the bigger reveals and moments at just the right times. Setting this in a city proves to be a good decision, too, because it amplifies the tone and atmosphere that Kaufman is going for, to see this "disease" of sorts spread throughout the city. I know that many have already drawn parallels between this and the climate of the post-Watergate era, but also, there's some interesting comparisons to be made between the way the body snatchers spread through society and how a virus would do the same. The cast, ranging from Donald Sutherland to Jeff Goldblum and even Leonard Nimoy all turn in solid work. In terms of the effects and set pieces, they deliver for the most part. A lot of the second half takes place at night, which allows Kaufman to make use of lighting and shadows in cool ways. Plus, in terms of gore and nudity, there were times where I was reminded that this was a 1970's-era PG rating. Although, there was a truly WTF moment with a human head on a dog's body that just came off more as silly than scary. Also, now I finally know which movie that infamous still of Donald Sutherland comes from.
Overall, Invasion of the Body Snatchers walks the line between sci-fi and horror rather delicately and offers up an effective mixture of both.
***/**** DAY TWO: DON'T LOOK NOW (1973)
Don't Look Now is an interesting beast, in that it's described as a horror movie, yet it doesn't really embrace that moniker until near the very end. In actuality, this film is mostly a meditation on grief and how people deal with it, in this case a couple who have lost a young child. Donald Sutherland and Julie Christie play said couple and do so rather compellingly. The script gives them the opportunity to really sink their teeth into the material and explore this kind of emotional trauma in both subtle and overt ways, each of which proves to be engaging. But just as engaging is the direction here, which is the aspect of the film that struck me the most. Director Nicolas Roeg approaches all of this in a very unique way, employing an editing style that really aids the overall effectiveness of the film. Roeg plays around heavily with sequencing and time in telling this story which, coupled with his editing style here, creates a very disorienting and uneasy atmosphere and that certainly aids the film as it gets closer and closer to its climax. There's also a definite purpose behind the film's recurring motif of red (maybe as a foreshadowing of what's to come?) throughout. Overall, I found Don't Look Now to be pretty engaging. It almost feels like an A24 horror film way before A24 was a thing. It's more subtle in its approach, resulting in a more prolonged build-up to the truly horrific stuff, but when it does eventually get there, it packs a real punch because of that. And because the film does such a good job exploring its themes and characters by the time it reveals its hand. I think this one's going to stay with me a bit.
***1/2 /****
And now the final installment of this year's series of Doomsday watching horror movies he's never seen before for Halloween......
Don't Look Now (1973)
Talk about a movie that had me invested and on the edge of my seat for reasons that I don't think I've ever experienced. I knew this was some sort of cinephile horror classic, a movie people would reference to put their moviegoing credentials on display online. This time I did it right and I went in knowing nothing which in this case was a very good decision. The first scene shows John and Laura Baxter hard at work in their home while their children play outside. Moments later John gets a peculiar feeling and rushes outside to find his daughter drowned. Months later John and Laura are in Venice, Italy where John is restoring a church when they have odd run-ins with a psychic set of sisters as well as visions of a young child wearing the same red coat their daughter was wearing before she died. The really cool thing about this movie is that you don't know where this movie is going until literally the very end. You sit there guessing, wondering what the psychics might predict. You wonder what their intentions are. What about the mysterious figure in red? Is that related? How are the police involved? It's not uncommon to have twists and turns especially in horror films but I can't recall any where the entire story and direction are hidden leaving the viewer wondering but also transfixed. And the final image of the reveal of the person in the red coat was legitimately disturbing. Considering some of the junk I watched for Halloween this month, this was a nice way to go out. That sex scene was something else though. It was awkward, a little loopy, at one point was Julie Christie having sex with Donald Sutherland's armpit? Ah well, creative liberties I suppose. A so says Doomsday Now everybody get back to the film club, all of you. Oh so you can rewatch a bunch of slasher movies for this thread but don't have the cajones to get a recommendation from Drac or Coop? Get with it! R.I.P. Donald Sutherland
|
|
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 Aug 15, 2024 10:39:03 GMT -5
THE FLY (1958)The Fly has a clever concept. It's about a scientist who invents a teleportation device, but while testing the machine, a fly gets in and their DNA's combine. His human body ends up with the fly's head and the fly's body ends up with his head. Unfortunately, the execution is very boring. All the characters are forgettable and poorly acted. The story is awkwardly told through flashback as his wife is in danger of being locked up in a mental institute. And the movie looks like a play. It's very UN-cinematic. I say skip this version and stick to the David Cronenberg remake. THE FLY (1986)The Fly is David Cronenberg's masterpiece. It tells the story of Seth Brundle (Jeff Goldblum), a scientist experimenting on a machine that can teleport people, animals, and objects. But one night, a fly gets into the machine while Seth is testing it and the computer struggles to tell the difference between the two of them so it ends up merging their DNA. Then overtime, Seth slowly turns into a monster. But instead of running around the city and causing trouble like in a cheap exploitation movie, Cronenberg focuses on how the transformation has affected Seth's relationship with his girlfriend (Geena Davis). So even though The Fly features Oscar-winning make-up effects and a few entertaining action set-pieces, it is ultimately a tragic drama with characters that the audience can get emotionally invested in. And that's why it's such a brilliant cinematic achievement. THE FLY II (1989)There's an episode of Rick & Morty where they create a Cronenberg world. It's debatably a reference to The Fly II even though Cronenberg had nothing to do with this lousy sequel. An overly paid executive at Fox decided it was a good idea to follow Cronenberg's masterpiece with a bland monster movie directed by the guy who did the special effects for the first one. The story follows an evil corporation trying to replicate Jeff Goldblum's science to hilarious results. There's various Cronenberg-esque creatures that are fun to look at but add very little to this very boring movie that was somehow co-written by Frank Darabont. We can add The Fly II to the list of movies we can forget existed. [/quote]
|
|
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 Aug 16, 2024 7:18:05 GMT -5
Can’t wait for Doomsday to introduce his kids to the Police Academy movies. Best part of this video is the revelation that Police Academy and The Fly were shot in the same location. Now we know what PG Cooper and IanTheCool do on their Friday nights.
|
|
Doomsday
Administrator
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 23,300
Likes: 6,767
Location:
Member is Online
|
Post by Doomsday on Aug 16, 2024 9:48:34 GMT -5
Can’t wait for Doomsday to introduce his kids to the Police Academy movies. Best part of this video is the revelation that Police Academy and The Fly were shot in the same location. Now we know what PG Cooper and IanTheCool do on their Friday nights. Believe it or not I've never seen a Police Academy movie.
|
|
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 Aug 16, 2024 12:56:46 GMT -5
Believe it or not I've never seen a Police Academy movie.
|
|
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 Sept 1, 2024 18:26:46 GMT -5
|
|
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 Sept 6, 2024 21:45:26 GMT -5
|
|
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 Sept 28, 2024 17:29:03 GMT -5
|
|
Batman
Gaffer
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 153
Likes: 34
Location:
Last Online Oct 4, 2014 18:54:10 GMT -5
|
Post by Batman on Oct 1, 2024 2:00:07 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 1, 2024 8:28:47 GMT -5
Day One: Late Night with the Devil (2024)
I was kind of floored by this movie. Now, to be upfront, Late Night with the Devil doesn't exactly do anything new with its portrayal of demonic possession, or at least, anything we haven't seen before in movies with similar subject matter. But this is a case where it's all in the execution, because this still feels like a very fresh take on it. To an extent, the structure/format and trappings of making a horror movie in the form of a late night talk show from the 70's may seem gimmicky, but filmmaking duo Colin and Cameron Cairnes clearly know what they're doing here. Just aesthetically, the style here feels vividly realized, from the production design and especially the storytelling style itself. Not only is it a refreshing and unique take on how to tell a horror story, but the way it still manages to ratchet up the tension throughout is nothing short of impressive. It's incredibly tight storytelling that manages to communicate so much in terms of character while staying within its trappings -- and it's also a great showcase for well-worn character actor David Dastmalchian, who doesn't squander in the least his chance to shine in the spotlight this time. But back to the horror, this is one of those movies that seems to recognize what's truly skin crawlingly scary. Because some of the things this movie does really do work because the atmosphere is pretty masterfully sustained the more the film goes on, and when it indulges in its most horrific imagery and scenes, the impact really hits because all aspects of the filmmaking collide together in some truly unsettling ways. And the payoff is absolutely worth it. Late Night with the Devil is a movie that left me feeling pretty giddy by the end, and I love that feeling. One of the most clever, creative and effective horror films I've seen in recent memory.
****/****
|
|
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 1, 2024 8:36:37 GMT -5
1979 BATTLE OF THE COUNT'S NOSFERATU (1979)I am a bit puzzled by Werner Herzog's take on Nosferatu. The man basically shot this in his backyard. It'd be like if SnoBorderZero went back to San Francisco and made a vampire movie in the Full House neighborhood. Interesting? Sure. But have you seen the trailers for the new Nosferatu? It's like, "c'mon, Herzog. What we doing here?" You have the iconic German Expressionist original. The Hollywood remake. You're gonna be the weirdo no-budget one in which Klaus Kinski gropes Isabella Adjani? It's a choice, I guess. DRACULA (1979)Let me start out by saying that I love John Williams' score. It's on heavy rotation throughout the month of October. And watching the movie, it does do a lot of the heavy lifting. This is a Universal film, so naturally, it's gonna be based on the Lugosi version. That's detrimental cause the movie comes across very tired. Like yeah, we're just going through the motions. But... the John Williams score is great and Frank Langella is a really good Dracula. It has a lot more energy than Lugosi's Dracula. It has a lot more production value than Christopher Lee's Dracula. Some of the James Bond people worked on the movie. You could make an argument for this being the Dracula, but unfortunately for the movie, we do live in a world in which Francis Ford Coppola's Dracula exists. So this movie is really riding on that John Williams score. LOVE AT FIRST BITE (1979)To the surprise of absolutely no one, this is my favorite of the three Dracula movies that came out in 1979. George Hamilton and Arte Johnson as Dracula and Renfield are on par with Leslie Nielsen and Peter MacNicol in Dracula: Dead and Loving It. The Mel Brooks movie, being a parody, has aged better. This is more of a regular comedy, and it being from 1979, some of the jokes might not fly in 2024. Be warned. But also know it's a lighthearted and silly take on Dracula. It's about Dracula moving from Transylvania to New York City to romance the latest incarnation of his wife. Growing up, I recall Francis Ford Coppola's Dracula being criticized for having a love story. Even now, people still bring that up. But having greater perspective on Dracula's portrayal over the past century, this reincarnation theme is a trope. And even when there isn't a reincarnation plot, you're still gonna get Dracula falling in love with Mina or Lucy. Also, why do filmmakers go back and forth on these characters? Can we settle on one character being the love interest and one character being the vampire that gets her head chopped off? Anyhoo, Dracula in love is just part of the character at this point. Strangely enough, he's a romantic lead. Making a romantic comedy starring Dracula makes a lot of sense. You wouldn't do this with Frankenstein or the Wolfman. Sure as hell you wouldn't do this with the Invisible Man. Deep down, Dracula isn't a scary guy. He's a romantic. He's a lover not a fighter. The movie does a good job showing Dracula in the right light. We've judged Dracula too harshly since the 1890's. George Hamilton's Dracula is a step in the right direction.
|
|
Doomsday
Administrator
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 23,300
Likes: 6,767
Location:
Member is Online
|
Post by Doomsday on Oct 1, 2024 10:56:51 GMT -5
And now, Doomsday continues his ongoing series of watching horror movies he's never seen before for Halloween......The Fog
I've been on a bit of a John Carpenter kick lately so I thought I would start the Halloween season off with one of his horror flicks that I hadn't seen already. Regardless of whether or not it turned out to be good, there's no way it could be worse than the movie I chose to start 2023's Halloween season, Hubie Halloween. I'm still sore about that piece of shit. Anyways, since Carpenter is pretty well known for his horror films like The Thing and that other movie whose name I forget, it stood to reason that The Fog should be competent at the very least. Well, it's competent. Yep, competent. In the town of Antonio Bay, a mysterious Fog rolls in on the 100th anniversary of the town's founding. As it turns out, a dastardly priest tricked a clipper ship full of lepers to crash their ship onto the rocks, killing them all. Now a century later they're back for revenge. Hot on the Fog trail is Jamie Lee Curtis, a hitchhiker who immediately jumps into bed with the first guy to pick her up, Nick Castle. Some guys have all the luck I tell ya. We also see Father Malone who discovers the secrets of the Fog and a city employee played by Janet Leigh who's hell bent on planning the anniversary party. For starters, John Carpenter certainly knows how to set a feel and tone. There are some nice establishing shots of a beach head and rolling waves against a gray horizon. It very much gives you the cold northwest feel and as cliche as it sounds, it would be nice if more movies these days took the time to do that. Speaking of which, the pacing is actually pretty good. At least, it would have been had the movie been 2 hours rather than 89 minutes. It makes me wonder if there just wasn't enough of a supernatural idea to justify a 2 hour runtime? It definitely stretches out the setup and atmosphere-building to a fault so it's the resolution that feels very quick. The leper ghosts themselves aren't all that impressive. They mainly show up and kill people but for some reason they knock on your door hoping you'll open it. If you don't they just break down the door. I'm not quite sure why ghosts who float along the ocean aren't able to go through walls but I didn't write the movie. They also hint at the victims being submerged in salt water or even having their dead corpses possessed and reanimated but we only scratch the surface with those. Again, 89 minute runtime, we gotta get to the point. The Fog has some good ideas and like I said, John Carpenter really knows how to build tension and atmosphere. Unfortunately it doesn't quite capitalize on its foundation.
|
|