Jill Sandwich
the turds of Optimus Prime
What do you mean, 'you people?'
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
31 Days of Horror 2 |OT| The October Movie Marathon
- Thread starter ThirstyFly
- Start date
What do you mean, 'you people?'
pseudomyxoma
Member
I think he meant sane people, but we shouldn't derail this topic
Napoleonthechimp
Member
The ones with a stick up their ass about Prometheus.
I wouldn't say so; it's definitely much more of a hard sci-fi film, despite some fairly intense scenes.
#7 The Bone Snatcher
You know that bit of Indiana Jones with the ants? Basically a whole film of that. It doesnt do much for me early on as ants arent exactly terifying to me but maybe someone else might enjoy that. In the second half of the movie it moves into more interesting territory with the folklore that describes it as a demonic entity that incorporates the bones of the dead to give it structure. Watchable and entertaining enough just not really especially good.
*** out of *****
You know that bit of Indiana Jones with the ants? Basically a whole film of that. It doesnt do much for me early on as ants arent exactly terifying to me but maybe someone else might enjoy that. In the second half of the movie it moves into more interesting territory with the folklore that describes it as a demonic entity that incorporates the bones of the dead to give it structure. Watchable and entertaining enough just not really especially good.
*** out of *****
5. "Slither" - An interesting monster/zombie film, rather slow start but I enjoyed it.
6. "Dark Shadows" - While not a typical scary horror film it does have horror elements, so I'll throw it in my list. Wasn't really expecting much from the movie, Johnny Deep and Tim Burton usual stuff. It surprised me with how much I enjoyed the plot and how it rose to the eventual conflict. Little giggles here and there were had and I liked the style of the movie. Would watch again sometime later with the BF whenever he gets back from a work thing.
Blue Submarine No. 6
Member
I was living in a band house when these were released... The bass player and I were horror/sci-fi movie fans so we saw both in the theater on release, then refered to them ever after as "Leviacrap" and "Deep Star Sux"...
I dunno... I thought it pretty clearly decided to be a bad sci-fi horror movie...
Jill Sandwich
the turds of Optimus Prime
Careful, you'll be accused of having a stick up your ass. I didn't find Prometheus scary at any point. Maybe the
abortion
John Rabbit
Banned
day 4. movie 3. the last house on the left (1972)
--
i'm not sure what i expected out of this film given it's age. i went in having read about graphic depictions of rape and violence, bans around the world, and being one of the pivotal releases in the horror genre.
what i got was a mixture of wooden acting, poor direction, and the worst soundtrack i've ever heard. still, i wasn't at any point bored or not entertained. as an artifact of it's time, the last house on the left is a glimpse into the then still relatively undefined genre of the slasher-horror movie; it could be said this film is proto-torture porn. for that fact alone the film deserves some credit. but it's hard to go beyond that.
short plot synopsis: two girls go out for to attend a concert "in the city". while looking to buy some marijuana, they are tricked and captured by a quartet of recent prison escapees. they then spend the next 24 hours being tortured, raped, but mostly led aimlessly around the woods near one of the girl's homes (this never makes any sense at any point in the film and was so large a contrivance i didn't even bother to get upset about it).
given it's 84 minute run time, there is maybe 8-10 minutes of any real violence or nudity. just about every single instance of actual violence is implied, hidden, or happens off-screen with audio accompaniment. i'm assuming this is because of the censorship laws in 1972 not being what they are in 2012, or even the mindset of it's creators, but even granting the film this allowance, there isn't much to really sell the film. i don't mean to come off as a gore-hound or a deviant who can only enjoy a horror film if it's wall-to-wall guts and breasts; but there's (almost) nothing in the film that shocked or surprised me.
perhaps it's just a simple case of what was shocking 40 years ago is now easily seen on cable television. there are floating out there some deleted scenes that, given their re-insertion back into the film, would have definitely made a larger impact. as it stands the story seems to be that their removal was because wes 'hellraiser' craven and sean 'friday the 13th' cunningham thought it might have been going too far.
there are a few moments (specifically the
) that got under my skin a little bit, and this was almost entirely because of sandra cassel's performance. her screams and cries are genuinely jarring and upsetting. you believe these things are happening to her.
but then of course there is the music. the baffling, completely inappropriate, and altogether distracting music. from what i understand the film is not supposed to be funny. but you have tracks like:
some of which (like the 2nd one) play over the aftermath of one of the worst scenes in the film. they not only ruin the mood; they smash it to fucking pieces with a hammer. it's only been made worse that after viewing, i came to find out all the music was performed by david hess, who plays the leader of the gang (krug) and aside from cassell, the only other actor in the film who does a decent job. it's just...stupid all around.
the less said about the idiotic sub-plot of the two bumbling cops the better. their "comic relief" is actually less funny than the terrible music, and one scene involving a black woman and a truck of chickens might be one of the worst scenes in cinema history.
the camera-work is poor but that actually helps the film in a strange way. craven said he was attempting to emulate the quality and style of footage from Vietnam he was seeing every night on the news, and for the most part he accomplished this. however, given the complete lack of cohesion between scenes, actors, and even dialogue, the film plays like a disjointed series of vignettes that eventually culminate in the least motivated (character-wise) ending i've watched in recent memory. this too is apparently remedied by a deleted scene that is included on the special edition release of this film (i did not watch this version).
so, all in all, the film is objectively poor. at times i was wishing mike and the robots would suddenly pop up at the bottom of the screen and start riffing, it's that kind of bad. the music is terrible, the acting is wooden, the editing is sloppy, and the premise is paper thin; however as a piece of horror-movie history the film stands on it's own and i would recommend at least a watch to anyone interested in the roots of the genre, or anyone who just wants to watch a truly baffling piece of riff-bait.
also, this must be said, the following things distracted me the whole film:
the last house on the left - 5/10
good(?) for historical significance, a few effective scenes of torture/rape; bad in literally every way a film can be
--
i'm not sure what i expected out of this film given it's age. i went in having read about graphic depictions of rape and violence, bans around the world, and being one of the pivotal releases in the horror genre.
what i got was a mixture of wooden acting, poor direction, and the worst soundtrack i've ever heard. still, i wasn't at any point bored or not entertained. as an artifact of it's time, the last house on the left is a glimpse into the then still relatively undefined genre of the slasher-horror movie; it could be said this film is proto-torture porn. for that fact alone the film deserves some credit. but it's hard to go beyond that.
short plot synopsis: two girls go out for to attend a concert "in the city". while looking to buy some marijuana, they are tricked and captured by a quartet of recent prison escapees. they then spend the next 24 hours being tortured, raped, but mostly led aimlessly around the woods near one of the girl's homes (this never makes any sense at any point in the film and was so large a contrivance i didn't even bother to get upset about it).
given it's 84 minute run time, there is maybe 8-10 minutes of any real violence or nudity. just about every single instance of actual violence is implied, hidden, or happens off-screen with audio accompaniment. i'm assuming this is because of the censorship laws in 1972 not being what they are in 2012, or even the mindset of it's creators, but even granting the film this allowance, there isn't much to really sell the film. i don't mean to come off as a gore-hound or a deviant who can only enjoy a horror film if it's wall-to-wall guts and breasts; but there's (almost) nothing in the film that shocked or surprised me.
perhaps it's just a simple case of what was shocking 40 years ago is now easily seen on cable television. there are floating out there some deleted scenes that, given their re-insertion back into the film, would have definitely made a larger impact. as it stands the story seems to be that their removal was because wes 'hellraiser' craven and sean 'friday the 13th' cunningham thought it might have been going too far.
there are a few moments (specifically the
chest carving and rape scene
but then of course there is the music. the baffling, completely inappropriate, and altogether distracting music. from what i understand the film is not supposed to be funny. but you have tracks like:
sadie and krug/baddies theme
now you're alone (this is actually audio from the film so toward the end there's random sound effects)
now you're alone (this is actually audio from the film so toward the end there's random sound effects)
some of which (like the 2nd one) play over the aftermath of one of the worst scenes in the film. they not only ruin the mood; they smash it to fucking pieces with a hammer. it's only been made worse that after viewing, i came to find out all the music was performed by david hess, who plays the leader of the gang (krug) and aside from cassell, the only other actor in the film who does a decent job. it's just...stupid all around.
the less said about the idiotic sub-plot of the two bumbling cops the better. their "comic relief" is actually less funny than the terrible music, and one scene involving a black woman and a truck of chickens might be one of the worst scenes in cinema history.
the camera-work is poor but that actually helps the film in a strange way. craven said he was attempting to emulate the quality and style of footage from Vietnam he was seeing every night on the news, and for the most part he accomplished this. however, given the complete lack of cohesion between scenes, actors, and even dialogue, the film plays like a disjointed series of vignettes that eventually culminate in the least motivated (character-wise) ending i've watched in recent memory. this too is apparently remedied by a deleted scene that is included on the special edition release of this film (i did not watch this version).
so, all in all, the film is objectively poor. at times i was wishing mike and the robots would suddenly pop up at the bottom of the screen and start riffing, it's that kind of bad. the music is terrible, the acting is wooden, the editing is sloppy, and the premise is paper thin; however as a piece of horror-movie history the film stands on it's own and i would recommend at least a watch to anyone interested in the roots of the genre, or anyone who just wants to watch a truly baffling piece of riff-bait.
also, this must be said, the following things distracted me the whole film:
- the character of junior looks like a creepy love-child of patrick klepek and andy samberg
- the actor fred lincoln (a softcore porn director apparently) looks like a bizarro version of tom cruise's vincent in collateral
- martin kove (kreese from karate kid) is in this movie
the last house on the left - 5/10
good(?) for historical significance, a few effective scenes of torture/rape; bad in literally every way a film can be
Main list.
I've seen the remake, but never the original. I don't remember the remake in great detail though, other than the very memorable scares. For instance, i can't remember if it was non linear, like this was, or if it was boiled down to a more conventional narrative.
I found this film very creepy. It really gets under your skin. There's just something about it, that i don't think is a simple as how scary the ghosts, sound design and so on are. I think for me, it's the feeling of isolation. Despite the film taking place quite often in public places and featuring plenty of characters. There's always a feeling of detachment and uneasiness throughout it.
Definitely enjoyed this one.
Couldn't help but laugh at just how cheery the credits music is. Talk about contrast.
- Film 02 Day 05
Ju-on (Takashi Shimizu - 2002)
I've seen the remake, but never the original. I don't remember the remake in great detail though, other than the very memorable scares. For instance, i can't remember if it was non linear, like this was, or if it was boiled down to a more conventional narrative.
I found this film very creepy. It really gets under your skin. There's just something about it, that i don't think is a simple as how scary the ghosts, sound design and so on are. I think for me, it's the feeling of isolation. Despite the film taking place quite often in public places and featuring plenty of characters. There's always a feeling of detachment and uneasiness throughout it.
Definitely enjoyed this one.
Couldn't help but laugh at just how cheery the credits music is. Talk about contrast.
#6 - Chernobyl Diaries
Trailer
Very glad I didn't skip it. The horror elements are about as weak as it gets and the cast is utterly forgettable, but the glorious location was enough to hold my interest for the duration. Combined with the claustrophobic direction - the camera never leaves the cast, so the viewer has a real sense of being in the thick of it - I felt the film succeeded as a form of dramatic tourism despite failing at everything else. I wouldn't recommend it to a horror fan, but I think it's worth the gamble for anyone with an interest in Chernobyl who's still curious after seeing the trailer and reading the almost universally negative reviews.
MattyH
Member
#4 Candyman - This is one of my all time favorites as a huge fan of clive baker this to me is a perfect adaptation. Tony Todd is still to this day unnerving plus the music is phillip glass is haunting
#5 Hocus Pocus - the girlfriend fancies something light hearted tonight so we are gonna watch hocus pocus
#5 Hocus Pocus - the girlfriend fancies something light hearted tonight so we are gonna watch hocus pocus
Oct. 5: The Sorcerers/Witchfinder General (both, dir. Michael Reeves)
Although you can find yourself easily tripping over horror films that take themselves rather seriously these days, they really weren't all that common before the late 60s/70s. A lot of that had to do with the fact that the genre was never taken very seriously by anyone, critics, audiences, and the filmmakers themselves. In his all-too-brief career, Reeves tried to do something about that, and while he never got the opportunity to truly dazzle in the ways we associate someone like Cronenberg with achieving, his trajectory was certainly heading in the right direction.
Right off the bat, The Sorcerers promises a very different film than the typical Boris Karloff vehicles were in that period. One of the most famously modest horror actors when it came to his looks, Karloff looks every bit of the nearly-80 years of age that he was at the time, he is shown not in some kooky laboratory or dingy dungeon, but arguing with a shopkeep over an advertisement that should be hanging outside. He and his wife (a very game Catherine Lacey) are disgraced hypnotists who have happened upon a breakthrough in hypnosis that allows people to live vicariously through the hypnotized, here represented by the burned-out Mike (future Saint star Ian Ogilvy, who also was a close friend of Reeves, starring in all of his other films). Karloff's intentions are noble: he intends for the process to help the elderly be able to experience the sensations that they are no longer able to, but his wife's pent up rage over the 30 years of humiliation that they've had to endure proves to be a far more controlling interest over Mike. Her disinterest in experiencing the mod scene is palpable, and soon turns over to baser desires; robbery, speeding, and eventually murder. Hobbled by a miniscule budget and an insufficient runtime, The Sorcerers speeds along when it should be taking more time to breathe, but the capable performances of the three leads are strong enough to forgive such flaws.
Witchfinder General thankfully doesn't suffer from the same issues, and it's a much stronger film for it. Ian Ogilvy stars again as a soldier in Cromwell's army during the English Civil War, who finds himself unintentionally caught in the crossfire of our title character, played with a surprisingly low-key but nastily effective manner by the legendary Vincent Price. In a lot of ways, it feels like the British equivalent of The Wild Bunch, where the disturbing violence is exceeded by the contempt that the populace have for the heinous injustices being committed, best exemplified during a late scene involving a group of children cooking potatoes in the very same bonfire used to burn witches. An unsparing film for all the players, Reeves manages to kill any illusions of the romanticism of the period, having even our heroes do horrible things for seemingly noble purposes. Not an easy film to watch for anyone hoping for some kind of respite, but immensely rewarding for those up to the challenge.
A shame it is that Reeves died so young (an accidental overdose of barbiturates that he was taken to help quell some health issues he developed while in pre-production on what would have been his next film, The Oblong Box), because it was clear that he was shaping up to be a bright talent in the world of filmmaking.
Day 6 preview: Although we're done with our appreciation of British horror films, we're not quite done with Britain itself, as the very location-specific The Living Dead at Manchester Morgue can attest to. The sole zombie film of this year's marathon, the film is hailed as one of the best of its kind. As someone that's been recently bored to death of anything zombie-related, I can hope that it lives up to such lofty expectations.
Although you can find yourself easily tripping over horror films that take themselves rather seriously these days, they really weren't all that common before the late 60s/70s. A lot of that had to do with the fact that the genre was never taken very seriously by anyone, critics, audiences, and the filmmakers themselves. In his all-too-brief career, Reeves tried to do something about that, and while he never got the opportunity to truly dazzle in the ways we associate someone like Cronenberg with achieving, his trajectory was certainly heading in the right direction.
Right off the bat, The Sorcerers promises a very different film than the typical Boris Karloff vehicles were in that period. One of the most famously modest horror actors when it came to his looks, Karloff looks every bit of the nearly-80 years of age that he was at the time, he is shown not in some kooky laboratory or dingy dungeon, but arguing with a shopkeep over an advertisement that should be hanging outside. He and his wife (a very game Catherine Lacey) are disgraced hypnotists who have happened upon a breakthrough in hypnosis that allows people to live vicariously through the hypnotized, here represented by the burned-out Mike (future Saint star Ian Ogilvy, who also was a close friend of Reeves, starring in all of his other films). Karloff's intentions are noble: he intends for the process to help the elderly be able to experience the sensations that they are no longer able to, but his wife's pent up rage over the 30 years of humiliation that they've had to endure proves to be a far more controlling interest over Mike. Her disinterest in experiencing the mod scene is palpable, and soon turns over to baser desires; robbery, speeding, and eventually murder. Hobbled by a miniscule budget and an insufficient runtime, The Sorcerers speeds along when it should be taking more time to breathe, but the capable performances of the three leads are strong enough to forgive such flaws.
Witchfinder General thankfully doesn't suffer from the same issues, and it's a much stronger film for it. Ian Ogilvy stars again as a soldier in Cromwell's army during the English Civil War, who finds himself unintentionally caught in the crossfire of our title character, played with a surprisingly low-key but nastily effective manner by the legendary Vincent Price. In a lot of ways, it feels like the British equivalent of The Wild Bunch, where the disturbing violence is exceeded by the contempt that the populace have for the heinous injustices being committed, best exemplified during a late scene involving a group of children cooking potatoes in the very same bonfire used to burn witches. An unsparing film for all the players, Reeves manages to kill any illusions of the romanticism of the period, having even our heroes do horrible things for seemingly noble purposes. Not an easy film to watch for anyone hoping for some kind of respite, but immensely rewarding for those up to the challenge.
A shame it is that Reeves died so young (an accidental overdose of barbiturates that he was taken to help quell some health issues he developed while in pre-production on what would have been his next film, The Oblong Box), because it was clear that he was shaping up to be a bright talent in the world of filmmaking.
Day 6 preview: Although we're done with our appreciation of British horror films, we're not quite done with Britain itself, as the very location-specific The Living Dead at Manchester Morgue can attest to. The sole zombie film of this year's marathon, the film is hailed as one of the best of its kind. As someone that's been recently bored to death of anything zombie-related, I can hope that it lives up to such lofty expectations.
#9 - The Loved Ones (2006)
Like a John Hughes high-school movie gone wrong. I liked this a lot, such a lovely little horrormovie. It borrows, steals from- and nods towards a bunch of classic horrors but manages to very much come into its own by putting an original spin on it. The music was nice, the acting was solid all around and I loved the relationships in Lola's family plus the dark history they share. The subplot (which I also liked) was a nice change of pace, but was otherwise totally disconnected from the main plot and therefor I'm not sure what its purpose was. A very pleasant surprise, recommended. 8/10
I moved to a new place so I'm falling behind but I will catch up! On to movie number 3.
3. Near Dark
The older the vampire, the bigger the explosion.
Did I do that? Near Dark is a good example of a vampire movie where there is no big plot, no ancient evil soon to be risen from the dead, or model looking club going vampires. Basically you have a group of drifters traveling cross country looking to keep fed, and alive. This seems to work for them until one of there own turns a guy named Caleb into a vampire. I have to say the combo of Lance Hendriksen and Bill Paxton really makes this movie as the rest of the acting can be a bit hit or miss yet I find it rarely distracted me. Stand out scene would have to be the bar, but also I liked how they showed the typical vampire powers throughout the movie. Beyond that the movie is just fun with occasional bits of tension to round it out. I enjoy vampire movies of all types but Near Dark is one I think I'm going to be coming back to in the future since it's nice to see a more likely take on vampires then what we usually get.
3. Near Dark
The older the vampire, the bigger the explosion.
Did I do that? Near Dark is a good example of a vampire movie where there is no big plot, no ancient evil soon to be risen from the dead, or model looking club going vampires. Basically you have a group of drifters traveling cross country looking to keep fed, and alive. This seems to work for them until one of there own turns a guy named Caleb into a vampire. I have to say the combo of Lance Hendriksen and Bill Paxton really makes this movie as the rest of the acting can be a bit hit or miss yet I find it rarely distracted me. Stand out scene would have to be the bar, but also I liked how they showed the typical vampire powers throughout the movie. Beyond that the movie is just fun with occasional bits of tension to round it out. I enjoy vampire movies of all types but Near Dark is one I think I'm going to be coming back to in the future since it's nice to see a more likely take on vampires then what we usually get.
BattleMonkey
Member
Ok been watching alot while doing other things but here is a mega catch up on my Shloktoberfest. The theme of this series: "Schools out!"
#6 Final Exam (1981)
- This was a pretty shitty slasher flick. Besides the starting kill, the movie goes almost 1 hour before anything happens again. Rest of the movie is largely just some bad wanna be animal house or something when suddenly late in a killer starts knocking everyone off. Director wanted to be different so there is little gore, but without any scares or much suspense, you just have a crappy below below average slasher film. Nor does the movie even attempt to go into the killer either. Who is it? Motive? Nothing, just guy shows up and kills folks the end. Awful
#7 House on Sorority Row (1983)
- This is not as obscure of film and even garnered a remake recently. This was a decent slasher flick about a prank gone wrong. Movie moves at a fairly brisk pace with some ok kills, but nothing to memorable about it. Decently done with a creepy killer reveal that would have been nice to have had earlier in the film. It's nothing special but it's not bad either.
#8 Slumber Party Massacre 2 (1987)
- Alright so the original SPM was a pretty generic slasher with some fun aspects about it, but it originally was supposed to be more of a genre parody when written, yet the movie ended up being far more serious than was intended. With the sequel which follows up the original, things go bat shit crazy. 2 is just alot of fun with the the survivor from the first film having crazy visions and dreams, and the appearance of the rock and roll driller killer. The Driller Killer even snaps his fingers and has a musical number in the middle of his massacre! Oh this was lot of fun after the meh first entry to the series..... too bad for....
#9 Slumber Party Massacre 3 (1990)
- After the goofy 2nd installment, the series goes back to being "serious" with this awful awful sequel that has nothing to do with the previous movies either. As expected, there is a slumber party and a killer with a drill. But everything about this movie was bad with only some T&A being a redeeming factor... and not that much really. The killer in this one is probably worst and it's funny that the uncut version of this movie essentially adds in a ton of "plot" and dialogue.... which are god awful and some of the worst acting I've seen in a while. Bad actresses talking about their personal lives for long periods of time? Yes it should have stayed on the cutting room floor... not my idea of a directors cut. Shit movie all around, some guy even gets killed with a backhand to the face apparently. Now there was a Slumber Party Massacre 4 technically recently called Cheerleader Massacre (it's on Netflix). The name was changed yet the movie still has a cameo from a character from the first SPM along with flashback footage from that movie... so it technically still is the 4th in the series. Haven't seen it yet, but it's supposed to be the worst.... can't imagine worse than 3.
#10 Sorority House Massacre 2 (1987)
- After the first movie which was a total dud, I expected this too suck hard.... but nope, this was good!.... well sorta.... it's still a bad movie, but a damn fun one. So this while references the first movie, has little to do with it outside of being set in the same house. The fun part of this though that gave me a good laugh, the flashback scenes for the killings in this movie all are from Slumber Party Massacre 1. Wait what? Yea apparently Roger Corman who is the kind of recycling decided to just have them toss in footage from that movie into this one as it was more interesting and they didn't want to have to shoot new footage. This movie was also filmed in only 7 days. Anyways what makes it so fun besides just how cheap it is, is that it truly feels like a parody of the genre where others failed so often at doing. The girls get naked for no reason all the time, take showers at stupid moments, and they even decide to play with a Ouija board! The blood flows are over the top (you can see the guy off camera bottle squirting it even), and it just seems like they probably made up the dialogue as they went. It's actually kinda charming how such a cheap movie made probably did a better job at making a bad movie than others which spent months in filming. It's like they had a clipboard of all the genre cliches and went down the list to not forget anything. It's a bad movie but I think they clearly knew it.
Man what a ton of shit I watched.... but that is my main goal this year! lol
#6 Final Exam (1981)
- This was a pretty shitty slasher flick. Besides the starting kill, the movie goes almost 1 hour before anything happens again. Rest of the movie is largely just some bad wanna be animal house or something when suddenly late in a killer starts knocking everyone off. Director wanted to be different so there is little gore, but without any scares or much suspense, you just have a crappy below below average slasher film. Nor does the movie even attempt to go into the killer either. Who is it? Motive? Nothing, just guy shows up and kills folks the end. Awful
#7 House on Sorority Row (1983)
- This is not as obscure of film and even garnered a remake recently. This was a decent slasher flick about a prank gone wrong. Movie moves at a fairly brisk pace with some ok kills, but nothing to memorable about it. Decently done with a creepy killer reveal that would have been nice to have had earlier in the film. It's nothing special but it's not bad either.
#8 Slumber Party Massacre 2 (1987)
- Alright so the original SPM was a pretty generic slasher with some fun aspects about it, but it originally was supposed to be more of a genre parody when written, yet the movie ended up being far more serious than was intended. With the sequel which follows up the original, things go bat shit crazy. 2 is just alot of fun with the the survivor from the first film having crazy visions and dreams, and the appearance of the rock and roll driller killer. The Driller Killer even snaps his fingers and has a musical number in the middle of his massacre! Oh this was lot of fun after the meh first entry to the series..... too bad for....
#9 Slumber Party Massacre 3 (1990)
- After the goofy 2nd installment, the series goes back to being "serious" with this awful awful sequel that has nothing to do with the previous movies either. As expected, there is a slumber party and a killer with a drill. But everything about this movie was bad with only some T&A being a redeeming factor... and not that much really. The killer in this one is probably worst and it's funny that the uncut version of this movie essentially adds in a ton of "plot" and dialogue.... which are god awful and some of the worst acting I've seen in a while. Bad actresses talking about their personal lives for long periods of time? Yes it should have stayed on the cutting room floor... not my idea of a directors cut. Shit movie all around, some guy even gets killed with a backhand to the face apparently. Now there was a Slumber Party Massacre 4 technically recently called Cheerleader Massacre (it's on Netflix). The name was changed yet the movie still has a cameo from a character from the first SPM along with flashback footage from that movie... so it technically still is the 4th in the series. Haven't seen it yet, but it's supposed to be the worst.... can't imagine worse than 3.
#10 Sorority House Massacre 2 (1987)
- After the first movie which was a total dud, I expected this too suck hard.... but nope, this was good!.... well sorta.... it's still a bad movie, but a damn fun one. So this while references the first movie, has little to do with it outside of being set in the same house. The fun part of this though that gave me a good laugh, the flashback scenes for the killings in this movie all are from Slumber Party Massacre 1. Wait what? Yea apparently Roger Corman who is the kind of recycling decided to just have them toss in footage from that movie into this one as it was more interesting and they didn't want to have to shoot new footage. This movie was also filmed in only 7 days. Anyways what makes it so fun besides just how cheap it is, is that it truly feels like a parody of the genre where others failed so often at doing. The girls get naked for no reason all the time, take showers at stupid moments, and they even decide to play with a Ouija board! The blood flows are over the top (you can see the guy off camera bottle squirting it even), and it just seems like they probably made up the dialogue as they went. It's actually kinda charming how such a cheap movie made probably did a better job at making a bad movie than others which spent months in filming. It's like they had a clipboard of all the genre cliches and went down the list to not forget anything. It's a bad movie but I think they clearly knew it.
Man what a ton of shit I watched.... but that is my main goal this year! lol
avengers23
Banned
4. The Last Exorcism
This is a movie that is made by its ending, but it's definitely worth the journey. It treats its protagonist's crisis of faith with respect.
For some reason, the found footage conceit in this film really bugged me. If the movie ends the way that it did, how was the footage recovered? Who is broadcasting it? Why are we seeing it at all? At least The Blair Witch Project, Cannibal Holocaust, The Poughkeepsie Tapes, the Paranormal Activity movies and even Apollo 18 frame the found footage with an explanation of how the footage was recovered and why we, the viewer, can see it. The Last Exorcism does not.
Of the movies I've seen for this marathon so far, this was the first to spook me enough that I wanted some light around me after I finished watching it.
I'm still resolving what the movie is trying to say. Are we supposed to learn that our modern cynicism toward religion (which makes this a surprising companion to the previous movie I watched, The Masque of the Red Death) is ultimately misguided? Are we supposed to fear that there are old things whose origins are lost to time and and from memory, and that we mock our sacred rituals at our own peril? Are we supposed to gleam that we ultimately need protection from what we don't understand?
Horror is usually a conservative genre, and movies like this reinforce the idea that we forget the history and our fear of the dark at our own peril. It rejects the rational for the supernatural. The movie is structured to show the protagonist getting his comeuppance, but he lost his faith because he realized that he was potentially doing more harm than good by performing these exorcisms, which have had lethal results for their subjects. The protagonist embraced modernity, and then he was shown at the end that he chose incorrectly. Between the ideas the film is exploring and the setting (Baton Rouge, steeped in local history where different customs and religious customs and interpretations of the ephemeral co-exist somewhat uncomfortably), the film is almost Lovecraftian.
this is quite a nag, but the number of posts in here with a broken embed of a movie poster with no title found anywhere else in the post is pretty silly. I recommend that, if you simply must include a movie poster, don't just grab whatever's first on google images. find one that's reasonably sized and then rehost it on imgur or something.
now I better go watch a movie, I'm already a day behind due to schoolwork. weekend should rectify that.
now I better go watch a movie, I'm already a day behind due to schoolwork. weekend should rectify that.
ThirstyFly
Member
#8 Slumber Party Massacre 2 (1987)
- Alright so the original SPM was a pretty generic slasher with some fun aspects about it, but it originally was supposed to be more of a genre parody when written, yet the movie ended up being far more serious than was intended. With the sequel which follows up the original, things go bat shit crazy. 2 is just alot of fun with the the survivor from the first film having crazy visions and dreams, and the appearance of the rock and roll driller killer. The Driller Killer even snaps his fingers and has a musical number in the middle of his massacre! Oh this was lot of fun after the meh first entry to the series..... too bad for....
It's PARTY TIME!
AgentOtaku
Member
Goddammit, I still wanna see the flick for those gifs alone!
ThirstyFly
Member
There's that and so much more! Doooo eeeeeeeeeeeeet~
Movie #21 - Ravenous, dir. Antonia Bird (1999)
I've been meaning to watch this film for the longest time, having heard numerous people recommend it to me, and I found myself walking away from the film completely pissed that I had not experienced it sooner. What a brilliant little film. I'm not quite sure I agree with the belief that the film was intended to be a black comedy. Despite the fact that there are sprinkles of humor through out, I thought the film to be little more than proper horror, albeit with some rather apparent social commentary regarding consumption and manifest destiny.
I'll just regurgitate IMDB's premise, because it's honestly ideal to go into this film with as little exposure to the narrative as possible (although if you haven't seen the film, it'd probably be better not to read the rest of my review). Influenced by the famous Donner Party, Ravenous details "Captain John Boyd's promotion to a fort in California where a rescued man tells a disturbing tale of cannibalism."
Robert Carlyle is simply amazing within his film. The emotional reach of his performance is nothing short of spectacular, starting the film as an emotionally broken mess, transitioning over into a complete psycho until coming to rest as the calm yet twisted Col. Ives who almost comes off as professorial in his intelligence and demeanor. All of the other performances are serviceable as well, and unlike many other movies I've watched over this marathon, despite the fact that there was one notable performance, the bottom ground in terms of acting is actually quite high.
The soundtrack behind this film was pretty damned amazing. There were a few instances where I felt the music embedded within the background didn't mesh quite as well as in other parts (that's actually an understatement), but overall, it was so damn melodic, eerie and atmospheric. Although when I think about it, the schizophrenic nature does correlate nicely with almost bi-polar emotional range of Carlyle's character. Some may find this type of music unfitting for a film taking place in the 19th century considering much of its is undoubtedly modern in its sensibilities, but this soundtrack's ability to create such a potent feeling of mood and suspense was a worthwhile trade off for historical authenticity. The scene where the party revisits the caves described in Robert Carlyle's story, in particular, was some of the more tense examples of filmmaking I've seen within in film, thanks in great part to the brilliant score draped over the visuals.
The visuals aren't quite as ground breaking as the soundtrack, but they're serviceable none the less. The California countryside is filmed rather beautifully, and the sets and costume work look authentically cluttered and worn, an oppositional breath of fresh air from the overly clean and tidy nature of modern costumes and sets. I can't be the only one who misses the days where things looked like they were actually used?
The film is actually a lot more intelligent than one might thing. This was such an interesting way to critique Westward Expansion, and the morality of the "eat, or be eaten" mindset that stemmed from it. I have to say though, I wasn't too thrilled with the anti-meat leanings of the film. I'm assuming the writer or director is a vegetarian, considering the fact that the boundaries between simple omnivorism and cannibalism were blurred to make what I feel is a rather stupid comparison.
I think my only true critique of the film is the fact that most characters are refused character development. Just when viewers begin to feel some attachment to a character and it seems like some depth is going to be added, they're killed off, completely refusing us to further interact with what seemed like an interesting handful of characters. I'm not against killing off characters, I just find it more valuable from an emotional standpoint to do so once they've garnered some sympathy from the audience. Most of the deaths in Ravenous felt empty due to its relatively flat side characters.
All in all, I absolutely loved this film. If I had to describe the film, it's almost a dark vampiric take on Highlander, with an appreciable macabre tone through out.
Rating: **** out of ****
Not quite sure what to watch next. I'm deciding between Cemetary Man, And Soon the Darkness and the original Fright Night.
NekoFever
Member
#5 Island of Lost Souls (Oct 5)
"What is the law?"
"Law no more!!"
I remember the first time I saw the original King Kong, which actually came out a year after this, being amazed at how well it held up. Obviously the effects were somewhat dated, but it held up incredibly well, not feeling in the least bit old. This was much the same. It's got none of the melodrama and stagey direction that puts people off older movies.
I loved Charles Laughton's performance as Dr Moreau in particular. Bela Lugosi's in it and he'll always be Dracula, but Moreau reminds me of that character, a genial and gracious host on the outside with something sinister beneath. When he explains what he's done and stares directly into the camera as he does it, it's a masterclass in both acting and cinematography.
The film might disappoint those who come into a horror thread looking for scares and gore because it doesn't have either of those, but it's still a hearty recommendation.
Also, kudos to Criterion on a great restoration job. The Blu-ray looks great considering this movie is 80 years old and really lets you appreciate the aesthetics of the film and the wonderful makeup work.
5/5
"What is the law?"
"Law no more!!"
I remember the first time I saw the original King Kong, which actually came out a year after this, being amazed at how well it held up. Obviously the effects were somewhat dated, but it held up incredibly well, not feeling in the least bit old. This was much the same. It's got none of the melodrama and stagey direction that puts people off older movies.
I loved Charles Laughton's performance as Dr Moreau in particular. Bela Lugosi's in it and he'll always be Dracula, but Moreau reminds me of that character, a genial and gracious host on the outside with something sinister beneath. When he explains what he's done and stares directly into the camera as he does it, it's a masterclass in both acting and cinematography.
The film might disappoint those who come into a horror thread looking for scares and gore because it doesn't have either of those, but it's still a hearty recommendation.
Also, kudos to Criterion on a great restoration job. The Blu-ray looks great considering this movie is 80 years old and really lets you appreciate the aesthetics of the film and the wonderful makeup work.
5/5
avengers23
Banned
5. Don't Be Afraid of the Dark (2011)
Well, at least the movie started off brutally enough. But the rest of the film never seemed to match that first scene's sense of desperate energy. The film never seemed to have a good grasp of any of the characters. The girl, who is supposed to be 8 years old, acts and talks like an adult, only smaller. Guy Pearce's character operates from two states: not believing his daughter and caring more about his financial future than his daughter's distress. Katie Holmes tries her best to play a warm and sympathetic adult to the girl. Ironically, she states early in the film that she does not think that she can ever be a mother only to become a mother figure to the ash goblins that haunt the mansion.
If The Last Exorcism was arguably about ignoring our traditions and history at our own peril, Don't Be Afraid of the Dark could be said to make the same exhortation about listening to our children.
It's a nice attempt to recapture what made Pan's Labyrinth great (a young girl struggles to navigate her way to safety while trying to convince adults that she's not vindictive, a liar, or going crazy), but it didn't feel particularly effective.
And while the score uses whispers and woodwinds nicely, it feels overbearing by the end. Similarly, I wish that we didn't see so much of those goblins/pixies. Less would have been more there.
If you guys are looking for a recent film that's pretty solid, I actually quite enjoyed The Awakening when I watched it a few months back. The film's tone and pace are quite reminiscent of The Others, and while it's certainly not as good as that film, there are worst ways to spend 107 minutes.
I agree completely. This was a really enjoyable film that I watched on a whim, and was pleasantly surprised by its quality.
I forget exactly how specifically they tied the revelations in the story to Christian philosophy, but I think I remember them being pleasantly nebulous - as you say, more about the grim irony of the skeptic throwing the baby out with the bathwater by dismissing the supernatural in its entirety, rather than simply rejecting the specific aspect he knows to be false.
This leads to catastrophe, and evil is unleashed upon the world. Having said that, we never see how effective the protagonist is when he strides off to confront the evil at the end of the film, and perhaps the fact that the viewer is still alive to watch the recovered tapes is supposed to indicate that the priest's knowledge of Christian mysticism defeated the threat. In that case, we must then infer the found footage exists as 'evidence' for Christian philosophy.
Generally, western films that deal with characters confronting supernatural phenomena while struggling with their religious convictions couch their metaphysics in one of two contexts. They're either written from a very specifically Christian perspective (any paranormal events are evidence of the veracity of Christian philosophy, and will therefore obey Biblical rules); or they postulate that while various characters may be Christian, Christianity is only one way in which humans interpret supernatural phenomena: their experiences may be utterly unrelated to the Christian metaphysical worldview. If I'm remembering it correctly, The Last Exorcism seemed to successfully straddle the line between these two positions, and I can't think of many other films that manage to maintain that ambiguity with a similar level of success.
Edit: I don't think there's anything super-spoilerish in there, but added the tags just in case.
This is on my list. Good to know it's stylistically comparable to The Others, even if it isn't quite as strong.
- Film 02 Day 05
Ju-on (Takashi Shimizu - 2002)
I've seen the remake, but never the original. I don't remember the remake in great detail though, other than the very memorable scares. For instance, i can't remember if it was non linear, like this was, or if it was boiled down to a more conventional narrative.
I found this film very creepy. It really gets under your skin. There's just something about it, that i don't think is a simple as how scary the ghosts, sound design and so on are. I think for me, it's the feeling of isolation. Despite the film taking place quite often in public places and featuring plenty of characters. There's always a feeling of detachment and uneasiness throughout it.
Definitely enjoyed this one.
Couldn't help but laugh at just how cheery the credits music is. Talk about contrast.
Great movie.
I found Ju-on The Curse even more unsettling as that one was the first one I watched of the series.
Despite it's super low budget and direct to video status, or perhaps just because of it.
Very hard movie to find on DVD though.
John Rabbit
Banned
last exorcism is one of my favorite horror movie endings in recent memory. i wish the film had gone on another 10 or so minutes with the new twist/element added in the end, but i respect the "less is more" approach by letting me make up whatever terrible things i want after the film's conclusion.
4. The Last Exorcism
This is a movie that is made by its ending, but it's definitely worth the journey. It treats its protagonist's crisis of faith with respect.
i just really want to see a balls-out amazing
occult
Would you recommend all the sequels. If so, just watch them in chronological release order?
Funny thing: I didn't care for Blair Witch at all when I first saw it. I wasn't spooked, I was thoroughly bored and didn't understand what all the fuss was about. In fact I preferred the sequel, which is a more typical, conservative teen horror flick and generally regarded as terrible. I only came to appreciate the original BWP years later, though even then it was more a case of recognizing the legitimate creepiness of the ending while remaining unimpressed by the film as a whole. Yet I love the genre it spawned, and I think I'll still be on the lookout for found footage movies when that horse has become a unrecognizable puddle comprised of foul-smelling oily liquid and bootprints.
8BitsAtATime
Member
Yup it took me awhile to track them down but Curse 1 and 2 are worth it. Katasumi and 4444444444
8BitsAtATime
Member
I would! The Grudge 3 is the only one i dont own.
Katasumi and 4444444444 (takes place during the Curse)
Ju-On The Curse
Ju-On The Curse 2
Ju-On The Grudge
Ju-On The Grude 2
The Grudge: Old Lady In White
The Grudge: Girl In Black
The Grudge
The Grudge 2
Tales from The Grudge (takes place during Grudge 2)
The Grudge 3
#8 Cast a Deadly Spell
1980s film done in the 1940s hard boiled detective style. It's lovecraftian and centered around the necronomicon with a load of monsters from the mythos. Set in an alternate history version of earth where magic is real and used by most people. It's a pretty fun watch and has some creative and imaginative deaths and good monsters. It's all a bit silly and tongue in cheek though
*** out of *****
1980s film done in the 1940s hard boiled detective style. It's lovecraftian and centered around the necronomicon with a load of monsters from the mythos. Set in an alternate history version of earth where magic is real and used by most people. It's a pretty fun watch and has some creative and imaginative deaths and good monsters. It's all a bit silly and tongue in cheek though
*** out of *****
Jill Sandwich
the turds of Optimus Prime
#5 - The Last House On The Left
I can't really add anything to what John Rabbit said above. It's absolute crap, with music and comedy relief that makes no sense. Why it's so notorious is beyond me.
I can't really add anything to what John Rabbit said above. It's absolute crap, with music and comedy relief that makes no sense. Why it's so notorious is beyond me.
Alright, here's what I've done so far. Zero rewatches. Going through the Friday the 13th, Nightmare, and Halloween franchise films I haven't seen in the order that they were released. Five-star scale
1) Friday the 13th Part III 10/1
The first Friday the 13th movie is odd to me because of how necessarily separate it is from the rest. Tagging it just in case anyone's trying the series for the first time this month:
So the first is more generally enjoyable, I think, but the further simplicity of Part II and III worked better for me. Especially III. III has some of the coolest kills in the series so far (handstand, fire poker, spear gun). It's also unintentionally hilarious in the ways it tries to use 3D. There's like, a full two minutes of a character yo-yoing at the camera. The longer it went the more I was cracking up. That humor isn't always there, intentional or not. Some of the film is overly static and the characters are certainly weak. Good film to waste time with.
**
2) Friday the 13th: The Final Chapter 10/2
This one's almost like the idea of the third taken to yet another level. Jason's even more unstoppable, the acting is even campier, and the bloodshed is even higher while still being fairly creative. Final Chapter's also interesting because of the angles it goes at perversion, though. The first three mostly just have teens trying to bone. But this one has some weird possibly homoerotic fighting over sex proficiency between Ted and Jimmy (Crispin Glover, whose eccentricity in this is spectacular, he reads lines in a bonkers way similar to River's Edge and dances to glam metal) and sexual competition between identical twins who are shown to be too attached. These movies are already devious, but making the targets just a bit more twisted helps the fourth installment out a lot. Coming to the climax the film stumbles in a few places. One death is ridiculous in a bad way and the lead up to the final confrontation is sloppy. But that confrontation is worth it.
Oh, and did I mention that this entry has by far the most nudity out of the first five films? Far and away. So, if that's what you're looking for, turn to The Final Chapter.
** 1/2
3) Friday the 13th: A New Beginning 10/3
"Why do people always talk about how bad slasher sequels get? That isn't happening at all[watches Friday V] ohhhhhhh okay." I mean, the premise here, that winning a battle with Jason has made Tommy crazy, is pretty great. That Jason could hurt people mentally from beyond the grave just by being so evil is compelling. But that's wholly squashed. The kills are boring, the characters barely exist, the acting is bad, and it's horribly plotted. The reveal before the ending is all too sudden and carries no weight, and the twist after that is nonsensically done. It wasn't even that fun to laugh at, though I guess that weird music girl was idiosyncratic enough to enjoy. I would be completely down on even continuing if I hadn't read that they kind of ignore a lot of what happened in this entry.
*
4) Dracula (1931) 10/5
Hm. Really liked both the 1922 Nosferatu when I watched it last week and the 1931 Frankenstein when I saw that a couple months ago. This did not work as well for me. The 1922 German version of this story hasn't aged quite as much due to its actually okay special effects (which were minimally used anyway) and wonderfully intricate staging and makeup. And Frankenstein from the same year still has a pitch-perfect emotional core. Dracula has neither. The stages look to mostly be classical Hollywood ones with cob webs. The make-up isn't striking. The props and effects are incredibly dated (holy shit bats on wires). Editing is laborious and each cut seems just slightly off, throwing the pacing off. And worst of all, there's very little of substance. We're supposed to be scared just of the idea of a vampire, but not connecting that to an interesting emotional conflict of any kind leaves the entire rest of the film pretty devoid of tension. There's still enough to enjoy, like Lugosi's performance. His mannerisms are iconic, and the Count's dialog is too. Yet I wasn't wowed.
**
Tonight, at least Friday VI and maybe another.
1) Friday the 13th Part III 10/1
The first Friday the 13th movie is odd to me because of how necessarily separate it is from the rest. Tagging it just in case anyone's trying the series for the first time this month:
that the killer is Pam really separates it. the other films are more about how Jason is this unstoppable manifestation of absolute evil.
**
2) Friday the 13th: The Final Chapter 10/2
This one's almost like the idea of the third taken to yet another level. Jason's even more unstoppable, the acting is even campier, and the bloodshed is even higher while still being fairly creative. Final Chapter's also interesting because of the angles it goes at perversion, though. The first three mostly just have teens trying to bone. But this one has some weird possibly homoerotic fighting over sex proficiency between Ted and Jimmy (Crispin Glover, whose eccentricity in this is spectacular, he reads lines in a bonkers way similar to River's Edge and dances to glam metal) and sexual competition between identical twins who are shown to be too attached. These movies are already devious, but making the targets just a bit more twisted helps the fourth installment out a lot. Coming to the climax the film stumbles in a few places. One death is ridiculous in a bad way and the lead up to the final confrontation is sloppy. But that confrontation is worth it.
Savini got to kill the character he helped create, and he did it in a gruesomely cool way.
** 1/2
3) Friday the 13th: A New Beginning 10/3
"Why do people always talk about how bad slasher sequels get? That isn't happening at all[watches Friday V] ohhhhhhh okay." I mean, the premise here, that winning a battle with Jason has made Tommy crazy, is pretty great. That Jason could hurt people mentally from beyond the grave just by being so evil is compelling. But that's wholly squashed. The kills are boring, the characters barely exist, the acting is bad, and it's horribly plotted. The reveal before the ending is all too sudden and carries no weight, and the twist after that is nonsensically done. It wasn't even that fun to laugh at, though I guess that weird music girl was idiosyncratic enough to enjoy. I would be completely down on even continuing if I hadn't read that they kind of ignore a lot of what happened in this entry.
*
4) Dracula (1931) 10/5
Hm. Really liked both the 1922 Nosferatu when I watched it last week and the 1931 Frankenstein when I saw that a couple months ago. This did not work as well for me. The 1922 German version of this story hasn't aged quite as much due to its actually okay special effects (which were minimally used anyway) and wonderfully intricate staging and makeup. And Frankenstein from the same year still has a pitch-perfect emotional core. Dracula has neither. The stages look to mostly be classical Hollywood ones with cob webs. The make-up isn't striking. The props and effects are incredibly dated (holy shit bats on wires). Editing is laborious and each cut seems just slightly off, throwing the pacing off. And worst of all, there's very little of substance. We're supposed to be scared just of the idea of a vampire, but not connecting that to an interesting emotional conflict of any kind leaves the entire rest of the film pretty devoid of tension. There's still enough to enjoy, like Lugosi's performance. His mannerisms are iconic, and the Count's dialog is too. Yet I wasn't wowed.
**
Tonight, at least Friday VI and maybe another.
#5 - The Last House On The Left
I can't really add anything to what John Rabbit said above. It's absolute crap, with music and comedy relief that makes no sense. Why it's so notorious is beyond me.
Understanding why The Last House on the Left was such a big deal back in the day needs some proper context. While horror films aren't exactly known for being sunshines and rainbows, they were all at least rooted in the principle of entertaining audiences. Even the films at the birth of the New Horror movement in 1968 weren't trying to alienate audiences by being too repulsive or discomforting. Then comes Wes Craven with the crazy idea on the first feature film that he ever directed to do just that, and it caused quite the scene, particularly when it was getting surprisingly decent reviews from well established critics, particularly Roger Ebert.
It's a supremely dated film, thanks to the concessions that Craven and Sean Cunningham made to make it somewhat palatable to the average moviegoer (Cunningham himself actually edited the film's more violent scenes down for the more religiously inclined markets) with the awful comic relief cops and the notoriously bad soundtrack, but it still has some of the old power left in it, and I say that as someone who finds Craven to be the single most overrated horror director of all time. I think the best way to treat the film these days is recognizing that it's an important film moreso than it is a great one.
BuddyJoeHooker
Member
#5 Children of the Corn
Wow, I actually enjoyed this movie. The massacre at the beginning was pretty horrifying. The antagonist duo Malachi and Issac were so terribly bad. Stephen King includes all his supernatural themes in the story. Kids with powers and some real evil entity.The protagonist were fine, it has Sarah Conner! Onto the next.
#7 - Grave Encounters 2
Trailer
I loved the first Grave Encounters. It wasn't perfect, but it was fairly creative and pushed its fiction further than is typical for films of its type. I was excited to see the sequel. Then I read some off-putting write-ups on iTunes, and lowered my expectations. Not far enough. In a nutshell, the movie isn't scary, is poorly acted, is horribly written, and all the horror beats are copy-pasted from the first film; to the detriment of both movies. Like all the worst sequels to good properties, Grave Encounters 2 successfully makes its predecessor less good; expanding on an entertaining story as it leeches the life from it like a malignant tumour.
Released on iTunes a couple of days ago, RT has this film at 50% fresh right now. I expect the scale to tip toward rotten very quickly. If you enjoyed the first film and are still curious, think of this like a less egregious Mass Effect 3 ending. You might have to experience it in spite of everything you've heard, but you'll still probably wish you hadn't.
I found Last House on the Left's dated and dubious qualities to kind of contribute to how off-putting it's supposed to be. It's like hippie torture porn, about characters who are the sociopathic embodiment of all the fears about long-hair jds. They simply don't give a shit and neither does the movie--it's so deadpan and uncaring. Eerily empty. It's better to enjoy it more as an artifact than a movie, I guess.
October 5 - Movie # 3 - [REC]
The greatest weakness of [REC] is also its greatest strength, the found footage conceit. The movie starts with no credits, not even a title, with no indication of where it's going, and that proves to be a wonderful, tension-inducing feeling, as the movie pulls you into a chaotic situation and refuses to let go. The way it ratchets up tension while returning again and again to genre touchpoints is very effective--it's that feeling of "oh shit, I know what this means" that you get time and again, aware of what will probably happen in the next minute (and sometimes you're wrong) but never knowing what will be happening ten or fifteen minutes from now. The result is a claustrophobic, economical sub-90-minute rush through a particular subgenre's greatest hits. The government paranoia is a great touch and the final sequence of the movie is clever as hell, truly excellent. Despite some shakycam issues and some thin characterization, the movie is quite scary, and feels very real--right up until the last few moments, when some extraneous voice-over is added and then there are credits with rock music. Had me wishing the movie had simply cut off and ended, a true piece of footage found, sans context, clues, or relief from the fear it inspires. Still, it's well worth your time.
October 5 - Movie # 3 - [REC]
The greatest weakness of [REC] is also its greatest strength, the found footage conceit. The movie starts with no credits, not even a title, with no indication of where it's going, and that proves to be a wonderful, tension-inducing feeling, as the movie pulls you into a chaotic situation and refuses to let go. The way it ratchets up tension while returning again and again to genre touchpoints is very effective--it's that feeling of "oh shit, I know what this means" that you get time and again, aware of what will probably happen in the next minute (and sometimes you're wrong) but never knowing what will be happening ten or fifteen minutes from now. The result is a claustrophobic, economical sub-90-minute rush through a particular subgenre's greatest hits. The government paranoia is a great touch and the final sequence of the movie is clever as hell, truly excellent. Despite some shakycam issues and some thin characterization, the movie is quite scary, and feels very real--right up until the last few moments, when some extraneous voice-over is added and then there are credits with rock music. Had me wishing the movie had simply cut off and ended, a true piece of footage found, sans context, clues, or relief from the fear it inspires. Still, it's well worth your time.
John Rabbit
Banned
sorry to steal your thunder.
thats why, although i spent the majority of my review explaining how terrible the film is, i still give it a 5/10. basically 4 points for being an important piece of cinema history, and another point for cassell's performance.
i trashed it, but i have to say it's been on my mind all day; so obviously it worked on me on a less obvious level than i figured. it's nice that i have it in my repertoire of "moves i've seen" but i don't plan to ever watch it again, unless i need something to yell at, maybe.
i feel like our tastes in horror are pretty similar so this is especially worrisome for me as this was probably going to be one of the films i watched this weekend. but like you remarked about apollo 18, i feel the same way about GE2. i liked the original so much i think i'm going to have to watch the sequel regardless.
oh well. :/
also, is this really bothering anyone else?
time, for me. I check how long each feature on dvds/blus I buy is and watch all the ones I feel like watching, but unless I LOVE the flick I'm not going to watch a 49 minute behind-the-scenes doc. would rather watch another movie. oh, and I rarely do commentaries too. that I regret more, they're often really illuminating. but I can't bring myself to do it when I could just watch a different new-to-me movie
ThirstyFly
Member
I try to watch most extras. Only watch the commentary if I find the movie really interesting, or I think it'll be a fun track (like the movie was just god awful and they know it). Problem is, during last year's marathon I didn't have time for a movie a day and all the extras, so I set those aside to watch the extras later and that pile is still sitting on my shelf, waiting to be watched. It's only going to grow bigger now
YES! I don't care if there's a similar scene in the movie, but they're using that for marketing? Really?
Plasticine
Member
#5 Creepshow (October 5)
You see that crap? All that horror crap? Things coming out of crates and eating people? Dead people coming back to life? People turning into weeds, for christ sake?
Five tales of the macabre directed by George A. Romero and written by Stephen King. Each story is told in a broad, campy EC Comics style. The cast is loaded with great actors getting into the spirit and delivering uniformly hammy performances. The wonderful comic art bookends for each tale, comic book styled panels framing for various scenes and garish colors splashing across the grisly punchlines all serve to hammer home the point. Romero and King managed to create not only a loving tribute to the comics of their youth, but also the gold standard for horror anthology movies.