Edit - Next werk, Monday, I will make a new thread. As well as add more genres. So we can also discuss which genres should be added (or removed) for the next round. Also, if someone wants to take control over the next thread, I wouldn't opposed to it.
Looks like I'll be in the minority who enjoyed this movie despite it's missteps. It's been a long time since I read Dracula, but for the most part I believe they stayed pretty close to the source material. All that was added to the plot was romance, which I thought gives a bit of depth to Dracula. The ending was drastically changed too, not sure how I felt about Mina becoming Dracula's minion and what not but I don't think it really harmed the overall film.
Of course, the film plays out like you would expect from a Coppola flick. The costumes and visuals were well done for the most part. A lot of it looks like it was shot on a sound stage which is kind of unfortunate, some decent location scouting could have helped it look a whole lot better. I also thought the music was well done and helped to build tension.
And I'm going to take a lot of shit for this one, but I actually think Keanu's terrible acting kind of works. The book is a bit of a dry read so his dumb, monotone delivery really doesn't feel out of place.
I'm giving it a 4 stars. It could have been a lot better, but I thought Coppola made a pretty good gothic film.
Lastly, young Gary Oldman looks eerily like my dad. Watching him make his O face for 2 minutes made me pretty fuckin uncomfortable.
Can agree with a lot of this. Read the book before the movie originally released so long ago(and I barely remember much now), but I do recall being super bummed by certain changes in the early 90's. (Not as much as Branagh's Frankenstein, but a dumb cynical teen wanting a perfect adaptation)
Now? It's still an enjoyable watch with a bit of cheese here and there(and maybe too much emphasis on the yearning angle) but never hokey enough that it detracts. Keanu does kind of work despite his occasionally cringe-inducing performance next to the clearly superior ensemble. I had fun revisiting it.
I'm not too sure about what we could add as having 8 separate categories really makes for a nice turnover every 2 months. Maybe split up indie and foreign. Then add music/musicals, documentaries and one other?
The acting is all over the place and it almost feels like they never had a coherent script. People do all sorts of stupid stuff for no reason. I just feel like this was a missed oppertunity. A chance to do something great but they settled on mediocrity.
A lot of it looks like it was shot on a sound stage which is kind of unfortunate, some decent location scouting could have helped it look a whole lot better.
I really slogged through this one. I paused the movie multiple times to do something else. It had the potential to be good and in some ways hit the right keys, but overall didn't come together for me. It's difficult for me to put into words why it was off, since it succeeded at being eerie and frenzied, which fed into the madness. I think the most off-putting element was Mina's sudden devotion to Dracula. Did he put a spell on her, did she just fall for him or was she the resurrection of his former wife? Winona played both parts.
I am surprised I disliked it so much since I had low expectations.
Someone could correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe 2 is like a remake of the 1st one. Just slightly more comedic elements. So it isn't necessary to watch the first one.
Someone could correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe 2 is like a remake of the 1st one. Just slightly more comedic elements. So it isn't necessary to watch the first one.
Someone could correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe 2 is like a remake of the 1st one. Just slightly more comedic elements. So it isn't necessary to watch the first one.
The opening of the movie is basically a remake of the first with less characters. It then picks up where the first left off so you don't really miss anything plot wise if you have not seen the first.
I mean dude if you've seen both of them you might agree with the remake comment. They're very similar but like the other poster said, 2 amps up the comedy quite a bit.
Dat chin! Yea just watch it, the first wasn't much different and had little to add....or watch both...profit? Now do I watch the Netflix version or my Necronomicon version? Hmm sounds like an Evil Dead weekend to me
Agree on the sentiment you don't need to watch the first film. I actually prefer the trilogy in reverse order. Army of Darkness > Evil Dead 2 > Evil Dead.
Evil dead 2 is a remake of sorts. They intended to use footage from the first movie to get people up to speed at the begginging of the film, but Raimi couldn't get the rights. So the first act is kinda of reimagined remake.
IMO, you aren't going to miss Too much if you skip the first one. In fact, I think you only really have to concern yourself with seeing two before three, but that really doesn't matter. They all stand well on their own, with the first one being tonally very different.
Seriously, you'd probably understand it more if you never watched the first one. The series is riddled with continuity errors although you can argue that the first 7 minutes or so of the second movie is a remake of the first one and then it continues. It really doesn't matter. The third one adds even more confusion if you watch it right after the second one. They're just fun movies. Nothing serious to worry about in terms of plot.
To address concerns about watching Evil Dead sequels without seeing the previous entries: all four* Evil Dead films can be seen separately (*five, if you want to count Within the Woods). Since they couldn't use the footage from the previous films, Evil Dead 2 and Army of Darkness (The Medieval Dead) briefly retells the previous story and continues on from that retelling's ending. So it's like a remake + sequel. Even the 2013 reboot is set up to where it can be viewed as another sequel of sorts. Also each film is tonally unique which helps them stand on their own even further (ED-Horror, ED2-Dark Comedy, AoD- Adventure Comedy, ED'13-Grounded Horror). So you can watch the 2nd film, then go back to watch the original and feel like you haven't spoiled anything. I'm kind of hoping the recently announced Ash vs The Evil Dead continues with this tradition.
late 80's-early 90's Tim Burton was probably heavily inspired by Evil Dead 2. From horror to slapstick comedy to even some action. The movie is sooo good and has a lot different elements of film.
I always thought Coppola's Dracula worked best as a black comedy. When Van Helsing first tells the three suitors that the supernatural my be involved with Lucy's illness his descriptions are pretty insulting, but offscreen you can subtly hear Dracula growling before a giant bat flies through the frame and disappears. That's probably the closest the movie comes to being true to Stoker's novel. Dracula was never a big part of the book; it was his presence and the feeling that he was probably watching the characters that created suspense.
If anyone is interested most of the film's bonus features were uploaded to youtube and are worth a watch. Seeing how everything was filmed on a set and the effects done in camera is remarkable. There's also a decent behind the scenes footage of Oldman and Coppola arguing. It's weird to see Gary in full makeup speaking with his regular quiet voice.
I'm actually about to just finish reading Dracula and you are pretty spot on. While I enjoy the Oldman film it's very different from the book. Dracula is barely in it. There is no love story with him. Lucy's character is different. Mina is different. Heck all the characters are really. Even Renfield.
Watched some horror/suspense movies I thought I'd comment on.
13 Sins: Standard regular guy gets a mysterious phone call that asks him to complete obscene challenges for money this has been done before and I dunno. There's some memorable scenarios for some of the challenges set for the main protagonist. Yet there's also some weird scenes and odd pacing that don't do anything for the film.
For instance there's a scene where the protagonists father asks his sons fiancee to zip up his pants in a bathroom and it has zero impact on the overall plot, and another where the protagonists is given the challenge to make a child cry in a park. Instead of knocking over a kids ice cream or taking their toy he decides to show a little girl his penis.
Mark Webber and Ron Perlman give good performances but otherwise this ones worth avoiding unless you're bored.
The Taking of Deborah Logan: Story about a elderly woman with Alzheimer's where something supernatural might be going on. This is a found footage film and I actually really liked the first 20 minutes of this film. The FF style works surprisingly well in trying to depict a woman going through the disease and rather or not she wants to go through with having a film crew show her deteriorate. There's some great performances by Jill Larson who plays the elderly woman and Anne Ramsay who plays her daughter trying to take care of her. It's a shame that the supernatural elements are implemented because it really kicks some of the more interesting mundane subplots to the curb. It's a shame because I think this could have been a really good film if it didn't have supernatural elements.
Housebound: This is a good quirky comedic horror movie set in New Zealand. It's worth checking out but it drags on a bit in the middle. Definitely worth checking out but I really wish it had been cut to around 90. I'll edit to write more later.
I watched it yesterday. This is my first time watching this.
Man, this is one campy film. I knew going in, that it would be campy, but even then, it exceeded my expectations. Not that it is a bad thing, I have a soft spot for these type of films.
The movie is filled with over-the-top scenes. The horror elements were great. I jumped on more than one occasion. I think for the most part, the humor is well-done. What I really loved is the amount of gore. Especially
when the one dude is dragged into the cellar by the witch and a waterfall of blood comes out.
That scene had me dying.
Overall, I really enjoyed it. I think I liked the sequel over the first one. Groovy.
It seriously is the best movie ever made. I rarely laugh at a movie when I watch it by myself but I was in tears during some of the scenes. This movie and its sequel made Bruce Campbell my favourite actor. Sure, he doesn't have acting skill but Christ, does he sell the shit out of the goofy crap happening in this movie. There's very few movies that can mix horror and comedy as well as this one. The Dead Snows series is the closest thing that exists right now. Anyway, time for gifs. Skip over it if you care about spoilers:
Probably my favourite scene. The movie was basically an Evil Dead 1 remake up to that point and maintained essentially the same tone. Bruce turning to the camera as if he's telling the audience that now is the time to stop taking this seriously is really great.
Evil Dead 2 (and the entire series) is a rare example of a film that masterfully tiptoes the line between stupid and hilarious. Can't add much to discussion this week since I've seen the film so many times there's not much else to say.
I would like to add one of the other reasons Evil Dead stands out from all the other horror series in the 80s definitely has to do with Raimi's directing, specifically the shots. A lot of the shots are just so creative and fun to look at. Some are so over the top it compliments the silliness of the film.
Wow Evil Dead 2 was so amazing I watched Evil Dead last year for the first time and that affected my expectation for 2. It was so amazing to come to the realization that 2 was not the same genre as 1 and how it was executed was amazing. This movie will definitely be on my list of favorite movies and I am definitely going to pickup Army of Darkness soon.
For this weeks movie I am going to nominate Young Detective Dee: Rise of the Sea Dragon.
Despite those saying here watching the original was not required, I did so anyway. I would say it's a better crafted movie, but less memorable than Evil Dead 2. I really disliked the retcon/summary of the first film because it goes way too fast to care about Linda. Since they couldn't get the rights to use footage from the original, I think they should have done a voice summary after they talked about the book instead with something along the lines of "Having lost his sister, friends and girlfriend by the evil dead in the night, Ash prepares to escape" then pick up from the final scene in the original.
All the new characters sucked and the movie has some weird shots that distort the video. That said, the house laughing and the hand scene were great. The blood was funny and Ash's transition to badass seemed fair after the events of the first movie where he had been much more reserved.