British Monsoon
Member
This one's probably more 'bad' than 'under-appreciated', but I enjoyed it nonetheless and think others would too if only they'd heard of it;
Strafer said:It scared the shit out of me the first time I saw it.
![]()
Glass Joe said:Really? I guess I assumed they were like the standard horror sequels so I never even thought to check them out. Phantasm II just hit my watch list, thanks!
KernelPanic said:![]()
Both were pretty good IMHO (1st is more of a thriller suspense .. been a while).
I agree, I loved this one and you never really see anyone else talk about it. They should make a Trick 'r Treaterjoeyjoejoeshabadoo said:Modern:
![]()
Cactus said:Dead Alive / Braindead (aka Peter Jackson's best movie)
http://www.best-horror-movies.com/images/braindead-dvd-cover.jpg[IMG]
It's a cult classic, but I really think it would be more highly regarded if more people were aware of its existence.[/QUOTE]
Funniest thing about the Jackson early works are the countless copies you can find at used-DVD shops. Just imagine the scene that follows when a dummy buys DEAD ALIVE or BAD TASTE for the family, just because the cover says "from the director of LOTR!"
joeyjoejoeshabadoo said:Modern:
![]()
Discotheque said:Some of his horror stuff is apparent in the lotr trilogy (most notably 1) just like that doc ock scene in spiderman 2 was straight up evil dead from raimi
I loved the first half of Martyrs but I sorta lost interest after that.
Sylver said:Who Can Kill a Child?
http://i.imgur.com/oisqD.jpg
Count Dookkake said:Funniest thing about the Jackson early works are the countless copies you can find at used-DVD shops. Just imagine the scene that follows when a dummy buys DEAD ALIVE or BAD TASTE for the family, just because the cover says "from the director of LOTR!"
Volimar said:If you didn't finish Martyrs, you missed out. It's very "WTF did I just watch?"
Discotheque said:no no no I finished it, I just didn't like it after...
icarus-daedelus said:but it's pretty horrifying, right?
I also agree that it's a little too broad and maybe unfairly limits the potential audience for certain films.
And also best when knowing as little as possible going in, moreso than most.
I remember a q&a or an interview where the director recounted that he told the actress they were going to lose 20% of the audience during those scenes (you know...). I honestly think he was probably underestimating as I'm sure much more of the audience would have jumped ship there, though I love the movie myself and wouldn't change a thing.![]()
Is it me I see a no hotlinking image?LovingSteam said:This was recommend to me by a GAF'er and I wholeheartedly recommend it to all of you
![]()
that NEVERMORE performance was fucking fantasticCount Dookkake said:I met him and Jeffrey Combs at a performance of NEVERMORE. Both were very nice. Got them to sign the Mondo poster for the event. Hangs above my fireplace.
Cosmic Bus said:![]()
The Silent House - Another tiny budget horror flick that was far more effective than I ever expected. Laura and her father are enlisted to clean up an old house in the woods that an acquaintance is looking to get rid of, and (naturally) terrible things happen during their first night there.
The entire thing is done in a single, seemingly continuous shot - I say that with some question as there are a couple of spots where cuts could've happened, but as a whole, it's edited quite well - lit only with natural light or halogen lamps, and although the steadicam style is definitely getting played-out, the visual and audio techniques used here make for a more interesting experience than most, giving a participatory element to the events.
I've got some issues with the plot, and that it shares some aspects with a popular horror movie from several years ago means that I can't really go into much detail without giving things away, but regardless, the tension and atmosphere is exceptional provided you allow yourself to get caught up in it. Fair warning: there's a lengthy additional scene after the credits that explains and/or dumbs down what went on.
Ducarmel said:Is it me I see a no hotlinking image?
Volimar said:Martyrs Spoilers
Am I the only one who was surprised there wasn't any kind of real sexual torture? Given what the group was trying to do... Maybe I'm too used to movies like Hostel, but I was surprised at the decision to exclude it. I wonder if it was story based, or if it was a decision to do it purely to separate Martyrs from films like Hostel.
Ridley327 said:To the posters that mentioned the original Black Christmas and The Burning: you're good people.
To Cosmic Bus, who sadly had to brave possible ridicule with a film people judge without actually seeing it by picking Psycho 2: you're good people, too.
My current pick for the topic:
NEW YORK RIPPER[IMG]
Generally doesn't get talked about a great deal when discussions on Fulci come up, and a lot of it has to do that despite some rather insane plot details (the killer randomly quacks and sounds a bit like Mickey Mouse when speaking and the motive is a bit contrived), it's fairly grounded in reality and it doesn't have the usual comic book-like feel of his other films. Its violence is detailed, explicit and genuinely disturbing, and the sexual elements match the same level of unpleasantness. It's a relentlessly bleak film that features some of Fulci's sharpest filmmaking and it offers no quarter to any of its participants. If you can stomach the sex and violence (yes, it features an eye injury and it's brutal as all get out), then it's certainly worth your time.[/QUOTE]
Excellent film. Truly sleazy. Worth watching, but be prepared to be sickened.
[QUOTE=sefskillz]that NEVERMORE performance was fucking fantastic[/QUOTE]
Sitting front row center, I was repeatedly spattered with Combs's spittle.
Also, it scared the shit out of me when [spoiler]he fell off the stage[/spoiler]. I looked over to Gordon to make sure it wasn't real.
I doubt its ambitions were anywhere near what either The Driller Killer or Maniac accomplished as far as depicting a psychosis surrounded by urban decay, and does NYC make for such a good setting for that kind of look and feel, but it feels like the logical conclusion of that sort of analysis.Count Dookkake said:Excellent film. Truly sleazy. Worth watching, but be prepared to be sickened.
icarus-daedelus said:I like The Beyond more but honestly I think New York Ripper is better made than any of Fulci's other films, from what I've seen.
Plus, I must confess to a weakness for movies with scenes set in subways. Is that weird?
MightyHedgehog said:Maybe my most disliked of Fulci's films.
Clear said:Los Sin Nombre - Early Jaume Balagueró movie that is sadly underrated and underseen.
Bootaaay said:This one's probably more 'bad' than 'under-appreciated', but I enjoyed it nonetheless and think others would too if only they'd heard of it;
![]()
I take it you frequent Scarecrow Video? The best film class I ever took was spending hours browsing their selections...Cosmic Bus said:I dig this quite a bit, too, and it manages to hold up unlike a fair number of others in this vein.
A couple of goodies that have so far managed to go without US releases: Day of the Beast, which is more comedic horror, and Possessed, with the always enjoyable Udo Kier.
![]()
![]()