Justin
Script Supervisor
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 739
Likes: 355
Location:
Last Online Oct 17, 2017 12:05:25 GMT -5
|
Post by Justin on Sept 12, 2016 20:23:29 GMT -5
I know it's November, but fuck it! Inferno (1980) Dubbed a somewhat sequel to Dario Argento's biggest hit Suspiria, I was pleasantly surprised by how Inferno begins. While Suspiria I'm sure was initially devised as a stand-alone piece, Inferno opens on the mythology of the Three Mothers, three witches from the 11th Century who have been housed around the world. In Suspiria, we deal with the first of those witches, and Inferno centers on a second witch who has taken residence in an old apartment building in Manhattan (hey, it was New York in the '80s, it's not really a stretch). I liked this opening sequence of placing actual context to the situation, which Argento is not very strong with most of the time. And a scene where a woman goes into the cellar in the beginning and plunges underwater was actually quite chilling and very well executed. The rest of the film doesn't quite live up to the first 15 minutes, and like Argento's films (I've only seen 3 now but none of them have any semblance of a credible plot) doesn't make a shred of sense when you really start digging into it. But if you look at like Suspiria-lite, you might walk away from it entertained. Apparently Argento was sick for most of this film, and actually Mario Bava directed the majority of it. Which you can believe because there's a great display of vivid colors of striking blues and reds that Argento basically adopted from Bava, and some decent death sequences as well. It all essentially boils down to a "final boss" plotline similar to Suspiria but with more exposition, which doesn't work as well but I didn't feel it detracted from anything since this film definitely delves into the mythology much more than Suspiria did. It's silly, it's nonsensical, but there's some terrific lighting and production design on display that makes it worth a look. 7/10 Re-Animator (1985) This is a movie I've known about since childhood but only got to watching it just last night. The film centers around Dan Cain, a medical student who has everything going for him. He's among the top of his class, he's banging the dean's hot daughter, and he has a new roommate to help pay rent. Unfortunately that roommate is Herbert West, who is obsessed with the study of death and has fine-tuned a serum that can "re-animate" the dead and turn them back into the living. Naturally, none of this goes as planned and what follows is a good gory, fun time. For a low-budget effort, the film is better than I thought it would be plot-wise. I honestly thought it was just about West having a lab and re-animating a bunch of people, but there's definitely more going on than that. There's some witty dialogue and the actors do a solid job. Plus the gore and blood effects, which the movie is known for, are really strong and there's definitely some sequences that will make you laugh and cringe all at once. When you get down to the plot, it can be easy to nitpick a lot of the movie, and I wish they had spent another 5-10 minutes shoring up the plot because I could've gone with a lot more of the film if they had. For example, how is West even in the United States and in medical school when in the first sequence he's re-animated his professor? No one looked into this, he's not under criminal investigation? Even if the charges were dismissed, a mention would've sufficed. Also, they don't make it believable why Cain even gets involved in West's experiments in the first place. I mean, it's one thing to be interested in what West is doing, but he goes from being horrified to the experiment on the cat to the very next sequence getting into a full-blown, excited conversation about it with the Dean. Why even bring it up? Obviously these quips are secondary to what the film was looking to accomplish, but it just seemed out of character that a guy who's a straight arrow is now breaking West into the morgue and conducting experiments on bodies. But, the last 20 minutes are good, nasty fun and Stuart Gordon as Herbert West is a ton of fun to watch. The film plays out essentially how you think it will, but it's very effective as a horror/comedy and if you're not disgusted by it, it's hard not to walk away from the film with a guilty smile on your face. 7/10 Inferno is pretty good. It's not Argento's best work, but it's very watchable. Re-Animator is a shit ton of fun too.
|
|
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 Sept 12, 2016 20:47:14 GMT -5
Yeah, I watched Nightmare on Elm Street a year or two ago and thought I'd throw in another schlock horror movie for fun. Right, not sure if you're aware but Nightmare 2 is one of the least liked of all slasher movies and is pretty much forgotten outside of its bizarre homoerotic subtext. If you're looking for something that's fun in the way the first Nightmare is fun you might want to skip to part 3, which Wes Craven co-wrote and which I think completely ignores 2. Interesting, iiiiiiinteresting indeed. I just may do that. Or maybe I'll watch both back to back, you guys know what it's like to be a completist as well as I do.
|
|
IanTheCool
CS! Gold
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 21,493
Likes: 2,864
Location:
Member is Online
|
Post by IanTheCool on Sept 12, 2016 21:59:05 GMT -5
Yeah, I watched Nightmare on Elm Street a year or two ago and thought I'd throw in another schlock horror movie for fun. Right, not sure if you're aware but Nightmare 2 is one of the least liked of all slasher movies and is pretty much forgotten outside of its bizarre homoerotic subtext. If you're looking for something that's fun in the way the first Nightmare is fun you might want to skip to part 3, which Wes Craven co-wrote and which I think completely ignores 2. You just won Doomsday over with "bizarre homoerotic subtext".
|
|
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 12, 2016 22:11:26 GMT -5
Right, not sure if you're aware but Nightmare 2 is one of the least liked of all slasher movies and is pretty much forgotten outside of its bizarre homoerotic subtext. If you're looking for something that's fun in the way the first Nightmare is fun you might want to skip to part 3, which Wes Craven co-wrote and which I think completely ignores 2. You just won Doomsday over with "bizarre homoerotic subtext". Doomsday will come for the gay and stay for the gay.
|
|
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 Sept 12, 2016 22:15:28 GMT -5
Bizarre homoerotic subtext is the name of my band.
|
|
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 Sept 30, 2016 10:58:22 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 30, 2016 23:01:48 GMT -5
31 DAYS OF HALLOWEENFRANKENHOOKER (1990)Just when you thought you had seen every possible angle to the Frankenstein story, there comes along Frankenhooker. It's exactly what you think it is. A mad scientist brings his dead fiancee back to life by attaching her head to a body constructed from dead prostitutes and using electricity to resurrect it. Then things go exactly as you'd expect. Frankenhooker lives up to his premise - and more.
|
|
Deexan
CS! Silver
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 18,196
Likes: 2,995
Location:
Last Online Nov 13, 2021 19:23:59 GMT -5
|
Post by Deexan on Oct 1, 2016 0:15:42 GMT -5
I feel like you're just googling "Franken" at this point.
|
|
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 1, 2016 0:20:24 GMT -5
How dare you, Deexan
It has an endorsement from Bill Murray!
The second best Murray brother!
|
|
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 1, 2016 1:21:58 GMT -5
And now, Doomsday continues his ongoing series of watching horror movies he's never seen before for Halloween...... A Nightmare on Elm Street 2: Freddy's Revenge
Last year in my brief write-up for the Halloween remake I mentioned how one of the things that turns me off to most contemporary horror franchises is how there doesn't seem to be many rules, things just happen. Villains come back from the dead every movie making them virtually invulnerable, they acquire random new powers each time and the movies seem to be made solely so we can watch the new ways the filmmakers came up with to kill off horny teenagers. I watched A Nightmare on Elm Street for the first time last year and it followed that formula more or less. It had some fun moments but it didn't make be relish watching more of them, let alone 7 more of them or however many they've made. Although I didn't love it, I can see how some people might dig that kind of thing. When making my list of Halloween movies this year I decided to put Nightmare on Elm Street 2 on there for two reasons, a) to take another crack at this pretty popular franchise and b) to add a little bit of 80s horror goodness to my list. I think A Nightmare on Elm Street 2 helped deliver on one of those. When I talk about horror movies making it up as they go, Freddy's Revenge is a perfect example. In the original it's established that the baddie Freddy Krueger kills you in your dreams and therefore in real life. At the end Nancy isn't afraid of Freddy anymore, she defeats him and the movie ends in a silly little reveal that Freddy isn't quite gone after all. In Freddy's Revenge the movie is about Freddy returning so he can possess the body of a new guy Jesse who just moved into Nancy's old house. Throughout the movie Jesse becomes more controlled by Freddy who eventually turns into his physical form through Jesse, complete with claws coming out of his fingers, and can still control things in the real world as if he were in a dream. What? How did this happen? What's the point of being in the dreams then? I don't know, I don't think it's worth it spending too much time trying to figure it out but that isn't the movie's biggest crime. The main flaw is that it's boring. It's not scary, much of it is downright campy like the possessed and exploding parakeets, and like I said none of it makes much sense. Freddy as a character is still paper thin and I seriously doubt he has more than 10 lines in the whole movie. He just shows up, laughs a bit, cut to next scene. It's maybe 50 minutes into the 85 minute movie when the first kill happens and even that's off-screen. I did however like the makeup and effects with Freddy when Jesse 'molts' into him. That was at least something visual I could take away from it and enjoy. I might be thinking too much into this movie but at the end of the day it's bad but not for reasons I was expecting, it's bad because it's boring. Good lord, this is an 80s slasher movie, why is it so dull? Why do only a couple people get killed? What's with the stupid barbecue scene with everyone running around while Freddy knocks stuff off tables? Seriously, that's what he does, he runs around smacking glasses. This feels like a movie made by a college student. Not a great start to my Halloween watching but we'll see if my next pick makes up for 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 Oct 1, 2016 2:20:07 GMT -5
DoomsdayDon't give up yet. Dream Warriors is a billion times better. If you have any reservations, just remember it was written by Frank Darabont and directed by the guy who did Jim Carrey's The Mask.
|
|
Deexan
CS! Silver
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 18,196
Likes: 2,995
Location:
Last Online Nov 13, 2021 19:23:59 GMT -5
|
Post by Deexan on Oct 1, 2016 3:42:57 GMT -5
edit
|
|
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, 2016 12:07:46 GMT -5
31 DAYS OF HALLOWEENFRANKENHOOKER (1990)Just when you thought you had seen every possible angle to the Frankenstein story, there comes along Frankenhooker. It's exactly what you think it is. A mad scientist brings his dead fiancee back to life by attaching her head to a body constructed from dead prostitutes and using electricity to resurrect it. Then things go exactly as you'd expect. Frankenhooker lives up to his premise - and more. How do you even find these movies?
|
|
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, 2016 12:50:16 GMT -5
31 DAYS OF HALLOWEENTHE LITTLE GIRL WHO LIVES DOWN THE LANE (1976)In 1976, Jodie Foster received an Academy Award nomination for Taxi Driver. She played a teenage hooker who crosses paths with a psychotic Vietnam veteran. It was a fine performance, but really, her best role that year was in a Canadian thriller called The Little Girl Who Lives Down the Lane. It's about a 13-year-old living by herself in a small town in Maine. Her landlady and the town pervert, played by a young Martin Sheen, suspect she's alone because her father is never seen or heard. They snoop around, and well, you already know where this is going. The Little Girl Who Lives Down the Lane is a thriller in the most superficial way possible because that's the hook to get people watching, but really, it's a very well-done drama with Jodie Foster at its core. Foster was in fact 13 when she made the movie and delivers one of the best child-actor performances I've ever seen. She's totally believable as an emotionally broken, but self-reliant, young person trying to act normal in society while hiding big secrets. You can get so invested in her performance that it's easy to ignore some of the more uncomfortable elements of the story. A sub-plot involves her falling in love with an older boy from the neighborhood and the movie, which WAS made in the 1970's -- let's keep that in mind, is perhaps a bit too frank about sex. They have the 13-year-old Jodie Foster share a bed with a 20-year-old actor and then throw in shots of a nude body double, played by Jodie Foster's sister, because, you know, that's exactly what this movie needed - nudity. Jodie Foster's sister was also a body double in Taxi Driver. What an odd arrangement: "Here's my talented daughter. If you need a nude scene, I have an older daughter." The 70's, man. What can I say? Anyway, if you can dig up a copy of this movie, definitely watch it. It's very raw. It's very real - at least for the 70's. And Jodie Foster, and Martin Sheen too, are great in it.
|
|
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 1, 2016 12:56:14 GMT -5
Let's get this started! Day One: A Roman Polanski 1960s Double FeautreThe Fearless Vampire KillersThe Fearless Vampire Killers is a horror-comedy revolving around two bumbling vampire slayers seeking those fierce creatures of the night. The film is directed by Roman Polanski, who is the last person I'd expect to helm something like this. I suppose some of his films do have some dark comedic undercurrents at points, but this is just straight up farcical. I can't say I found the film funny at all and the story is pretty boring too. What saves the film are the visuals. Polanski has a great eye and here he's applying it to the Hammer Horror film style. The sets look great and some of the cinematography, particularly in the snow, can be really striking. There are also a few decent moments and a genuinely dark ending. Had Polanski just made a straight up Hammer style vampire movie we probably would have been better off. D+Rosemary's BabyPatience is a virtue and that's just as true in filmmaking as it is in life. Rosemary's Baby is one of the best horror films ever, but it isn't one that gives up the goods early. Polanski spends a lot of time slowly introducing the characters, setting, plot and numerous little details which gradually develop into a more sinister plot. It's actually a remarkably clever screenplay if you really pay attention. Even the smallest and seemingly minor details are set up in advance. The slow burn is worth it because this movie pays off huge in the third act. The film features some brilliantly suspenseful moments, from subtle moments to more overt horror set-pieces, it's incredibly gripping the whole way through. The performances are also excellent. Mia Farrow is great as the lead and the supporting turns from Ruth Gordon and Sidney Blackmer are highly memorable too. Roman Polanski may have honed his horror skills with films like Repulsion, but it is with Rosemary's Baby that the man mastered his craft. Excellent movie. A+
|
|
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 1, 2016 14:06:03 GMT -5
Film One: The Lost Boys (1987)
Huh? That was different than I thought it would be. This movie largely earned its reputation on its teenage cast and I was expecting it to be this sort of angsty movie about the intersection of teenage rebellion and vampiric decadence and for about a third of its running time the movie does play out along those lines, but then it ends up being something more like a slicker version of Fright Night with these slightly corny twelve year olds saving the day from vampires that their parents don’t believe them about. The movie is clearly what you’d call a “product of its time” with its cast and soundtrack being very intrinsically 80s but I will say that the cinematography in this movie is pretty sweet, definitely in line with the look that was being developed around this time by people like Tony Scott, Michael Mann, and David Fincher and some of the kills at the end are pretty well done too (there were definitely some ideas in this that Tarantino and Rodriguez borrowed for From Dusk Til Dawn). However, the tone really is all over the place and I wish they had either stuck with the older brother’s storyline or gone all in on the younger brother’s kids vs. vampires idea because the two storylines just do not mix well at all. **1/2 out of Five
|
|
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 1, 2016 14:19:24 GMT -5
And now, Doomsday continues his ongoing series of watching horror movies he's never seen before for Halloween...... A Nightmare on Elm Street 2: Freddy's Revenge
Last year in my brief write-up for the Halloween remake I mentioned how one of the things that turns me off to most contemporary horror franchises is how there doesn't seem to be many rules, things just happen. Villains come back from the dead every movie making them virtually invulnerable, they acquire random new powers each time and the movies seem to be made solely so we can watch the new ways the filmmakers came up with to kill off horny teenagers. I watched A Nightmare on Elm Street for the first time last year and it followed that formula more or less. It had some fun moments but it didn't make be relish watching more of them, let alone 7 more of them or however many they've made. Although I didn't love it, I can see how some people might dig that kind of thing. When making my list of Halloween movies this year I decided to put Nightmare on Elm Street 2 on there for two reasons, a) to take another crack at this pretty popular franchise and b) to add a little bit of 80s horror goodness to my list. I think A Nightmare on Elm Street 2 helped deliver on one of those. When I talk about horror movies making it up as they go, Freddy's Revenge is a perfect example. In the original it's established that the baddie Freddy Krueger kills you in your dreams and therefore in real life. At the end Nancy isn't afraid of Freddy anymore, she defeats him and the movie ends in a silly little reveal that Freddy isn't quite gone after all. In Freddy's Revenge the movie is about Freddy returning so he can possess the body of a new guy Jesse who just moved into Nancy's old house. Throughout the movie Jesse becomes more controlled by Freddy who eventually turns into his physical form through Jesse, complete with claws coming out of his fingers, and can still control things in the real world as if he were in a dream. What? How did this happen? What's the point of being in the dreams then? I don't know, I don't think it's worth it spending too much time trying to figure it out but that isn't the movie's biggest crime. The main flaw is that it's boring. It's not scary, much of it is downright campy like the possessed and exploding parakeets, and like I said none of it makes much sense. Freddy as a character is still paper thin and I seriously doubt he has more than 10 lines in the whole movie. He just shows up, laughs a bit, cut to next scene. It's maybe 50 minutes into the 85 minute movie when the first kill happens and even that's off-screen. I did however like the makeup and effects with Freddy when Jesse 'molts' into him. That was at least something visual I could take away from it and enjoy. I might be thinking too much into this movie but at the end of the day it's bad but not for reasons I was expecting, it's bad because it's boring. Good lord, this is an 80s slasher movie, why is it so dull? Why do only a couple people get killed? What's with the stupid barbecue scene with everyone running around while Freddy knocks stuff off tables? Seriously, that's what he does, he runs around smacking glasses. This feels like a movie made by a college student. Not a great start to my Halloween watching but we'll see if my next pick makes up for it. You are correct that this movie is very bad at following the series internal logic but, uhhh, that is not the most interesting direction from which to approach the film...
|
|
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, 2016 14:41:59 GMT -5
DoomsdayThe gayness of this movie is its defining feature. Even if you ignore that, it's still an interesting role reversal. Females, by and large, are the targets in slasher films. Here's one with guys.
|
|
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 2, 2016 0:25:19 GMT -5
31 DAYS OF HALLOWEENTHE PROWLER (1981)Joseph Zito is the man who gave us the best Friday the 13th and Chuck Norris in Missing in Action. The Prowler isn't those two movies. It's notorious for its violence (provided by special effects master Tom Savini), but it's largely a boring by-the-numbers slasher film. The story is about a WWII soldier who murders his ex-girlfriend in 1945 and then returns three decades later to murder more people. Okay? The kills are good and one scene features a nice pair of tits, but none of that matters when the movie is a piece of shit.
|
|
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 2, 2016 1:10:10 GMT -5
As suggested by Dracula and Neverending.... A Nightmare on Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors
Nightmare on Elm Street 3 picks up where the first left off, thankfully skipping the events of #2. The movie reintroduces the character of Nancy, now working as a psychiatrist and newly assigned to a mental hospital where some teenage patients reside. Nancy finds out that the patients are all plagued by nightmares with Freddy Krueger and that one of the new patients Kristen (Patricia Arquette) can actually pull people into her dreams. By joining forces Nancy and the patients work together to defeat Krueger once and for all. Right out the gate this is a much better movie than Freddy's Revenge if only due to the movie having actual characters rather than actors who are merely reacting to things happening to them. Dream Warriors moves the setting from high school and the suburbs to a mental hospital which instantly gives the movie a much darker and more serious tone. With a neat setting and some characters you can actually get behind we're already a mile ahead of the previous installment. It actually tried to be a creepy, suspenseful slasher flick. While it did have some good things about it I still felt that it was playing that same game of making things up as it went along. Rather than possess somebody, this time Freddy kept to the dreams which is fine although now his bones can come back from the dead and he can control things in the real world. Freddy is still a pretty uninteresting character at this point despite the fact that he was finally given a pretty gruesome backstory. He basically shows up when the kids fall asleep and he tries to kill them. There's not much else to it. In fact that seems to be the direction the series is going which doesn't give me much hope. Does that change as the series progresses? I guess I'll find out if I watch any others next year. Dream Warriors is definitely a step up from Freddy's Revenge but I still feel this is a pretty cheesy franchise even by the schlock 'it's so bad it's good' standard. The main character is iconic but isn't very deep or even that scary. As I said previously, it's more of a showcase as to HOW he kills people more than anything else. Not a bad watch though and because it actually tried to be an 80s horror movie (like having tits) it helped get the taste of Freddy's Revenge out of my mouth.
|
|
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 2, 2016 1:46:59 GMT -5
this is a pretty cheesy franchise even by the schlock 'it's so bad it's good' standard.
|
|
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 2, 2016 6:36:33 GMT -5
As suggested by Dracula and Neverending .... In fact that seems to be the direction the series is going which doesn't give me much hope. Does that change as the series progresses? Not really. I would say it's mostly downhill from here. The next three sequels are pretty perfunctory, and the only thing that really changes is that Freddy gets increasingly quip-y and irreverent and the series basically descends into self-parody at a certain point.
|
|
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 2, 2016 9:00:19 GMT -5
IV is the most fun of the remaining ones, for the pure creativity of the kills.
New Nightmare is best of the remaining.
|
|
IanTheCool
CS! Gold
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 21,493
Likes: 2,864
Location:
Member is Online
|
Post by IanTheCool on Oct 2, 2016 10:09:47 GMT -5
I should watch Rosemary's baby this year. I already have a few other's queued up, some I've seen others I havent.
|
|
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 2, 2016 10:17:44 GMT -5
Film Two: Final Destination 3 (2006)I had a general distaste for the first two Final Destination movies but with this one I’ve really truly come to loathe this series. During the 2000s filmmakers like Eli Roth and Rob Zombie got a lot of shit for making violent horror movies but at least those guys had the balls to be provocative in their sadism. Meanwhile this franchise managed to thrive with minimal controversy while seemingly serving no purpose whatsoever except to let its audience revel in one gory death scene after another and barely even pretending to want any of them to survive. The slasher movies of yore could also be accused of doing this but at least when you’re being chased by Jason or Michael Myers there’s a chance of escape and thus a sense of suspense and excitement, but here it’s pretty much impossible to escape your fate except by dumb luck and the result is really not much different than something like Faces of Death. There was maybe enough of an interesting idea to this to sustain the first film and that first film at least had some veneer of interest in watching the characters realize what’s happening. The second film also set up some interest by incorporating a character from the first film and maybe trying to find some new way to cheat death but there’s none of that here. Hell, even if I didn’t find this series to be repulsive I would still probably hate this third installment simply for basically being a complete retread of the first movie but without any pretense of being anything other than a total exploitation effort. * out of Five
|
|