|
Ape, you're arguing a visceral reaction to lack of necessary information being shown on screen and added supernatural elements, by apologizing ways in which it could have possibly happened and at the same time, combining it with supernatural elements from a combination of 7 different movies. I'm saying, "it was distracting and felt weird because there was a huge supernatural jump that wasn't established before, and didn't match the prior movie or what Myers was shown to do in a singular movie in the old series, and taking away one of his most recognizable traits." You're responding by combining the whole of the previous movies, and then coming up with ways where it possibly couldn't be supernatural (which would take extreme luck/logic jumps in themselves since there's really no feasible way a non driving Michael Myers that didn't break into any records offices could follow Laurie around in her car around town, and somehow know where she's staying beforehand). The very reason why Halloween 2,4, and 7 all took great pains to show how Michael ran across info on his victim was so you didn't have this exact supernatural jump, and it maintained that he had the intelligence to track people down as opposed to a magical radar. This movie jettisoned that, but it was a surprise, and seems to be for the worse for a subset of the crowd as I heard audible complaints about it, and have seen plenty across the web.
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2009 19:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 06:37 |
|
|
Darko posted:Rob Zombie's Halloween 2: Michael Myers sees a white horse and wanders back to Haddonfield. He then inexplicably goes to a party where Laurie is with no way for him to have run into her on the way as she was driving around Michael kills her isolated friend at the concert and then goes to her house. Maybe he couldn't find her at the concert or it was too crowded. She is blitzed and carrying on and he's never been a crowd kind of guy. In either case, going to her house has a purpose, which is to get Danielle Harris who is not only a survivor but also the close friend of Laurie's. He then remains for Laurie to arrive home, not only to get her last remaining friend but to get her as well. There, I provided you an entirely plausible and mundane method for Michael to know when and where to be. And it's all footage in the movie and I only saw it once. Are you satisfied? It's completely non-supernatural. You criticize me for apologizing for this series while you handwave away supernatural elements from 1,2,4,and 7. I think both the first and second Zombie movies are more grounded than any two of the original films. I think Michael's strength is toned down (countered with an amped up aggression) and less damage is dished out to him and far fewer critical wounds (like bullets to the eyes or axes to the chest. Also, where is he given supernatural strength? I recall that he throws a guy on some horns, stabs many people many times, forces his way through doors (but with several whacks to get through), and pulls a girl out of a window. He stomps a guy's face into mush but that's after several foot stomps. I really don't think he's edging outside of boundaries. Is he even as strong as the non-blue Watchmen at this point? quote:The very reason why Halloween 2,4, and 7 all took great pains to show how Michael ran across info on his victim was so you didn't have this exact supernatural jump This movie was 10 minutes longer than the previous films and I think it was paced very briskly.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2009 22:49
|
|
|
I feel out of place in my own thread, stupid UK release date. Oh well, Sorority Row next week, lets hope that takes up the conversation. Anyone see the original? It's one of my favorite 80s slasher flicks. I remember recording it off the TV and watching it but my brother recorded over it  .It took me years to track it down due to it being retitled House Of Evil over here and I could never find anything under that title. I remember reading a review for it on Videograveyard.com and they noted the alternate title and I was finally found it  Another one was The Initiation (Wonder when Hollywood will get around to reduxing that one) I saw the last hlaf hour on TV but never caught the title. Years later I made a gamble and posted on a message board discribing the ending and someone pointed me towards it, was so happy. Anyway, might rewatch House On Sorority Row tonight, it's a nice little gem. The remake doesn't seem to be sticking to much to it. The original movie involves the sorority girls playing a prank on their house mother and she ends up dead. Later that night the body vanishes and the girls find themselves being picked off one by one by a killer, but who it is? If you guess you deserve a prize.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2009 23:44
|
|
|
Hey Slasherfan my post got lost in the debate over Michael Myers' newfound supernatural abilities but out of curiosity, did you see Red Mist? I quite liked it, and found it to be strong with the spirit of '80s slashers.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2009 02:54
|
|
|
Darko posted:The very reason why Halloween 2,4, and 7 all took great pains to show how Michael ran across info on his victim was so you didn't have this exact supernatural jump, and it maintained that he had the intelligence to track people down as opposed to a magical radar. This movie jettisoned that, but it was a surprise, and seems to be for the worse for a subset of the crowd as I heard audible complaints about it, and have seen plenty across the web. Ah man, how does a giant guy in a white mask and blood stained overalls, manage to wander round suburban areas without being stopped by the police even once? Why, once he starts killing doctors and policemen are a whole army of police mobilized to stop him? How come people just don't notice a hulking monster, who probably smells like the inside of a slaughterhouse, until he decides it's time to reveal himself. How does he find where everything is when he never speaks? Does he just listen to the radio all day hoping some vital piece of information pops up? Man, this series is so realistic in every other way, you know, just like all horror movies that spawn 10 odd sequels. I just can't get my head around the fact that a bogey man somehow appears behind someone, having managed to find them without extensive use of a local A-Z and a gps reciever, Man, horror movies can be confusing sometimes. It's almost like I'm autistically focussing on one singular element of a movie, without paying attention to the tropes and themes of the movie (and the genre) as a whole. If you have the answers then why not help me poo poo up an otherwise interesting thread for another 60 pages. Spermanent Record fucked around with this message at 03:09 on Sep 4, 2009 |
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2009 03:05
|
|
|
Payndz posted:I actually wrote one of them (Death Of The Senses), but it never made it to the shelves because of a production gently caress-up - they put the wrong author's name on the spine and had to recall it, then found that the cost of reprinting would make it impossible to break even, so cut their losses. I still got paid and a box of (now extremely rare) copies, though, and I've had my own novels published since then, so it was hardly the end of the world. Missed this in the Halloween discussion as well but thats awesome. Are the publishers considering releasing it as an e-book on Amazon because its an interesting premise (Someone not scheduled to die interrupts death's design) and it sounds like a fun read. I cant imagine how hard it would be to describe how the sequence of events unfolds though. For all the moaning about FD4's plot. The action was really well done and the background felt more like a character than the people in it. It sorta reminded me of Snakes on a Plane (Suprise, another Ellis film) where the plane and the snakes were as much characters as the disposable fodder on the plane and Jackson. So I can see how hard it might be to potray a series that relies a lot on its visuals than words. How did you approach it yourself?
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2009 03:44
|
|
|
UncleMonkey posted:He's also the doctor in Deadwood. Brad Dourif rocks. And let us not forget him as the Baron Harkonnen's twisted mentat, Pieter DeVries. A Final Destination question. I just finished seeing it and I think that the plot forgot about the 2 boys, children of the MILF character that gets offed. Did I forget something or were they not supposed to die as well?
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2009 06:22
|
|
|
Sex Vicar posted:Missed this in the Halloween discussion as well but thats awesome. Are the publishers considering releasing it as an e-book on Amazon because its an interesting premise (Someone not scheduled to die interrupts death's design) and it sounds like a fun read. I thought the MILF's kids were on Death's list as well, but thinking back they were never seen to die in the premonition, and nor was the husband. Having the stadium collapse and potentially kill dozens more people probably confused things.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2009 08:02
|
|
|
Ape Agitator posted:There, I provided you an entirely plausible and mundane method for Michael to know when and where to be. And it's all footage in the movie and I only saw it once. Are you satisfied? It's completely non-supernatural. He doesn't drive. Rob Zombie specifically stated this when he made the first movie. Laurie does; it establishes her as driving from place to place.  frozenpeas posted:Ah man, how does a giant guy in a white mask and blood stained overalls, manage to wander round suburban areas without being stopped by the police even once? Why, once he starts killing doctors and policemen are a whole army of police mobilized to stop him? How come people just don't notice a hulking monster, who probably smells like the inside of a slaughterhouse, until he decides it's time to reveal himself. Shut up, Ape and I are talking, if you don't like it, don't read it. Darko fucked around with this message at 13:48 on Sep 4, 2009 |
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2009 13:45
|
|
|
IceNiner posted:And let us not forget him as the Baron Harkonnen's twisted mentat, Pieter DeVries. I don't think it ever showed them die in the premonition.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2009 13:46
|
|
|
bad movie knight posted:Hey Slasherfan my post got lost in the debate over Michael Myers' newfound supernatural abilities but out of curiosity, did you see Red Mist? I quite liked it, and found it to be strong with the spirit of '80s slashers. I saw it at last years Frightfest and hated it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2009 13:48
|
|
|
Slasherfan posted:I saw it at last years Frightfest and hated it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2009 14:40
|
|
|
Darko posted:He doesn't drive. Rob Zombie specifically stated this when he made the first movie. Laurie does; it establishes her as driving from place to place. And somewhere, Slasherfan sits impassively like Bruno in Strangers on a Train as he can't watch the ball get hit back and forth because it hasn't been released over there yet.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2009 15:42
|
|
|
Ape Agitator posted:There is an undetermined period of time between when Laurie's friend goes for some van sex and Laurie and her friend decide they're too blitzed to stay at the concert and want to go home. Time enough to walk to Laurie's house. Haha, yes I realize this. But you keep missing something (and the only reason I keep going back over this is because it's an entertaining debate - it's been an amusing back and forth with you on my end and all in good fun). Say Myers arrives in town that morning, or even the day before. Say he happens to see Laurie in town. Say he stalks her. The sheriff's house is pretty secluded, as established by the running away scene, right? And we see Laurie having to get into a car and drive to town from the sheriff's place, and from her friend's house, and from the place she works. So, without a supernatural element, how is Myers 2.0 able to stalk her to know where her house is, for instance? If it was Myers 1.0, he just follows her around in his car. But this is the new, improved, Rob Zombie 2.0 who doesn't drive because people who have been in mental institutions since they are 6 wouldn't know how to drive (which is fine in itself). So he sees Laurie in town pull up her car and go into stores, and then get into her car and...he runs after the car following her home? There just isn't any reason for him to know exactly where she lives. She's nowhere near where she used to live, in a non related Sheriff's house. That makes the "he beats her home while at a party" thing nonsensical or supernatural, and that's why I called him 'Candyman.' As for many of your other statements with other movies, no, I don't really like how Halloween 4 cheats so much, and it brings the movie down for me, and I always thought him getting both eyes shot out in 2 was pretty dumb, but those, in my head at least, are contained to their own singular movie. With Halloweens, at least, I separate them movie by movie in my head, mainly due to the hugely varying quality between them (especially since I view the first as an excellent, standalone movie, and its immediate sequel as dumb). I kind of lump the Ft13ths together, though. So Michael's silly feats don't really add up in my mind, while, let's say, Jason's do.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2009 16:45
|
|
|
Here's how I'd play it out if there were deleted scenes. Michael is spurred into action because Halloween is approaching again this year. He goes to Haddonfield because it's his Woodstock. He goes to the town square, looking like a hobo so he can move among the populace. In the town square, he sees Laurie and it's like fate. He's been dreaming about her (and she him) and this is meant to be. She's been going into an out of a store she works in and is hanging out with two girls. I'm an angry Michael and the first time was personal so this time it's even more personaler. Maybe I do my window trick (a hallmark of the series) and hear them talk about the concert. Maybe I find out she lives with the sheriff, whatever. Laurie never changed her name and lives in the same town. Maybe an olde timey phone booth is in town with a white pages and Laurie Strode is in it. Maybe I just see her drive out of town and know that a deserted farmhouse is that way. Doesn't matter really because I know two things: Danielle Harris was the sheriff's daughter and was Laurie's friend. She's on the list. Either way, I know I'm hitting a concert not just because I'm a hipster but because the revenge starts there. I see the same girl from the store going out to the parking lot. She's dressed as a man so perhaps I'm exploring my conservative values against transvestitism and implied homosexuality like girl on man pegging. The van is a-rocking so I come knocking. Then I need to have a chat with Danielle Harris. So I go walkabout to the sheriff's house. Perhaps I hear it over a police car radio that's idling nearby as the sheriff sets up protection for his daughter, whatever. I go to the house and solid snake the deputy in the yard. While I'm inside, I see photographs of Laurie... jackpot. Not only did I catch the fish I was after, I find out the Lock Ness Monster is in the same lake. I stick around the house and Laurie shows, runs away, and gets waylaid by a good samaritan who should know better than to stop for bloody, scared, breathless teenage girls. So I take Laurie to an old shack I know about from my childhood. Haddonfield doesn't strike me as a ballooning metropolis so they didn't demolish it to make way for a parking lot and it's still there. Good times until stupid Loomis shows up and talks  so it's stabby stabby time.But that's all stuff that is part of all of the other Halloween movies. Lots of carjacking, looking up street names in a Thomas Guide, waiting by windows and ducking down like a prankster before anyone sees me stifling a laugh, being a shy kid and hoping people will go off alone because being with a friend really does prevent stranger danger. I didn't think Zombie's Halloween 2 was perfect and the lack of a plot and logical connection was notable. If he'd focused more on the Halloween 4 punchline I think it would have been better supported. But I like seeing people take flyers in movie making and being somewhat progressive in making a remake is worth giving attention to. I noticed that there was no explicit thread connecting the concert and sheriff's house to Myers' travels but at not time was I asking "who is this girl he's killing" or "why is Myers killing this girl". The girls were established well, their connection to Laurie was demonstrated, and this version of Michael was all about anger so busting down everything close to Laurie made innate sense to the character presented. I thought the film was paced tightly so I never had to check my watch. So if this represents a progression in storytelling which is "you know the who, you know the why, I'll skip the how and get to what we're all here for" I can roll with it. Plotless horror movies aren't really a problem for me because it should be an emotional experience. I've thought for some time that there's a great horror movie that isn't so caught up on mechanics or logic but rather the emotional core of the horror experience (David Lynch is getting closer to this front). I think if some sections of the middle of this film were slightly refocused and the entire finale was rebuilt to support a Halloween 4-ish killing of Loomis at Laurie's hand, I'd almost celebrate the lack of traditional plot mechanics as being unnecessary. So perhaps I'm arguing from a perspective of a film that I think it was close to being or from the perspective of a progressive style of filmmaking that it's approaching, but the same reasonings I'd be willing to approach that perspective apply to the criticism of this film. I'm never lost about who is onscreen or their relationship to Laurie. When Michael is about to kill someone, I know why (which is itself pretty focused compared to the times in other Halloween films where he kills some people at random). How Michael gets from place to place doesn't really bother me because I'm never presented with two scenarios that break my concentration: he never teleports from one second to another second behind a locked door and he never knows the secret code that nobody else knows. Passage of time is given and Laurie isn't exactly living a secluded life under another name in some mountain town with 10 digit keypads that require SomethingAwful 25 digit passwords with the alphabet of the Deep Ones. He doesn't have to crack the DaVinci Code to find Laurie Strode living under the name Laurie Strode in the same town living with the only other survivor from the first film so the lack of explicit connection is notable but not an obstacle in my book. Darko posted:With Halloweens, at least, I separate them movie by movie in my head, mainly due to the hugely varying quality between them (especially since I view the first as an excellent, standalone movie, and its immediate sequel as dumb). I kind of lump the Ft13ths together, though. So Michael's silly feats don't really add up in my mind, while, let's say, Jason's do.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2009 17:38
|
|
|
I'm perhaps the opposite. When watching horror films, I like to place myself in the perspective of the situation and ruminate about "what would I do" in that situation. Much of that would probably be tied to my childhood in the 80's where we would talk about slasher movies at school and say "well if Freddy came into my dream, I would..." You'll note that I have a similar problem with Romero's zombie movies - I find the most annoying thing in horror when a villain has to take shortcuts or break established rules to kill a victim. The deaths or the brutality aren't as important to me as the scenario to reach that point. So for me, in horror films, the most important thing is probably the clear progression of events being shown that sets up the killings. No I don't need to see every single thing happening. But still, there should be at least a BASE a,b,c progression. When there's not, I start to question the movie - as I'm still looking at it from my younger self's eyes in constantly thinking what the characters should be doing or should have done to avoid the situation. I watch horror movies to see villains outsmarting the heroes or the victims screwing up, more than to see people die. Since Myers is a mostly human villain, you can normally think situationally on how to get out of being killed by him, even if you're on his list. Halloween 4 annoyed me similarly because they did things right, and yet, somehow he was able to teleport into schools or under cars. But not quite as bad to me since the first half was a lot of buildup. So I go into this movie wondering how Laurie would slip up so that Myers discovers where she lives...only for her not to do it and he just knows. That makes it hugely disappointing for me. You'll note that I love the Final Destination movies - it's mainly because the entire movie is based around this concept - a path being set up to cause the victims' deaths, and the victim trying to see and avoid it. The movies get right down to the concept that I love about horror movies; and I wish that 4 got more into it as opposed to just 'hinting' to it like the prior movies. Halloween 2 was nowhere near the worst offender, but we started talking about it, so here we are. My least favorite stupidity in a horror/suspense movie in the last few years was probably The Invasion. You have a city full of pod people, and yet only the ones that originally were chasing the 3 people left in the city will chase them once a chase starts? That was such a horrible leap of logic that it bothered me more than the rest of the problems in the movie, especially since the other Body Snatcher movies before that clearly showed that running would draw the attention of ALL. But then again, the humans lost at the end of those, too.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2009 18:22
|
|
|
I think the real question we'll be asking ourselves is how they'll bring back Loomis for #3, because we know they'll have to.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2009 19:07
|
|
|
timeandtide posted:I think the real question we'll be asking ourselves is how they'll bring back Loomis for #3, because we know they'll have to. Brackett is the Loomis of Zombie's films. And there's strong word right now that the next installment won't follow from Zombie's films, effectively leaving his take as a contained story.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2009 19:17
|
|
|
Deadpool posted:And there's strong word right now that the next installment won't follow from Zombie's films, effectively leaving his take as a contained story. I haven't seen Halloween II yet, but if there's one thing I like about Rob Zombie, it's that he does duologies instead of trilogies. gently caress trilogies.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2009 20:00
|
|
|
I saw HII today and thought it was okay. The concert/party scene suddenly made me realize something though. You guys seen that Walmart commercial where the woman picks up steaks and says something about how they don't eat steak that much but since Walmart's got cheap steaks she'll buy it? Then her husband thinks he missed her birthday or something stupid like that? I kept thinking she looked very familiar. I'm pretty sure the wife is the same gal who played "TIIIIIINAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!" In Halloween 5.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2009 22:56
|
|
|
bad movie knight posted:Dear God, why? I just found it compleatly flat. The version I saw at Frightfest was like an unedited preview though and I did think it could of been improved with editing. The version I saw was about 2 hours. Haven't seen the DVD cut so I don't know if anything changed. I just think it was badly directed, the suspence falls flat and doesn't work at all. The idea was good enought but I felt it was totally wasted. Cool ideas thrown in but never used to full extent. Would of been great if they has a scene of the final girl running around and everyone she bumps into, their nose starts bleeding. I remember liking the ending though. I don't remeber it to well now but didn't Kennith possess the lead girl and have her kill her boyfriend and she goes down for the crime.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2009 23:44
|
|
|
Slasherfan posted:I just found it compleatly flat. The version I saw at Frightfest was like an unedited preview though and I did think it could of been improved with editing. The version I saw was about 2 hours. Haven't seen the DVD cut so I don't know if anything changed. And the movie now clocks in around 90 minutes. You should see the new version. I wouldn't say it's suspenseful, but it is a fun horror flick, and Paddy Breathnach is one of my new favorite indie horror movies because of this and Shrooms.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2009 23:50
|
|
|
bad movie knight posted:Yes. I loving hate Shrooms. Fangoria has an early Sorority Row review up. http://www.fangoria.com/reviews/2-film/3808-sorority-row-film-review.html Summit Entertainment is criticized for 'watering down horror' with their TWILIGHT franchise. Those critics will eat their words when they see SORORITY ROW, a full-on '80s slasher throwback with a high body count and black sense of humor.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2009 23:57
|
|
|
Slasherfan posted:I loving hate Shrooms. I'm flabbergasted. Why didn't you like Shrooms? It was fun and mildly creative.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2009 00:06
|
|
|
bad movie knight posted:Well, Slasherfan... Boring, dull, no suspence, no gore, guessed the twist endnig very early on.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2009 01:21
|
|
|
Darko posted:I'm perhaps the opposite. When watching horror films, I like to place myself in the perspective of the situation and ruminate about "what would I do" in that situation. While I feel tension in the scenes where Michael is driving behind an oblivious Laurie in Original Recipe Halloween I feel more tension when Michael is standing behind Danielle Harris in Extra Crispy Halloween 2. It's because it's the emotion of the environment and the character all coming together. It's not a character who hangs back for the better part of a day observing the situation and waiting til its cool. He's not staring in a window only to duck back down to make you think your mind is playing tricks on you. He's there to kill you and there's no movie tricks getting in the way. One of the things I responded most strongly to in the new wave of early 00s hard R horror was the mobile home scene in the Hills Have Eyes remake. Outside, the men are distracted by the father burning alive and the women are being raped and a child terrorized inside. The men don't realize what's going on behind them and so the entire thing is the most concentrated form of living nightmare ever put to film. Everyone is helpless, nobody can help, nobody deserved what happened, and the whole thing plays on expectations. There's no logic to the scene and taken objectively, there's no way a scenario like that could be expected to play out, especially if conceived by some whacked out mutants. But it does and it's horrible and it doesn't even have the now expected cinematic relief of exploitation-styled titilation or gory demonstration so you can laugh. It's just concentrated nightmare. And I see that same expression in this. Seeing a guy stalk someone for days is a logical expression of fear and as masters of our own destiny we feel like we can do something. Stranger danger, lock your doors, carry your car keys in your hands - they're all things you can do to ward off disaster. But the scene where the only response is "Run" is something that strikes me very strongly and harder than elements of the former. I'm not dead to the slow build type of horror but for the kind of film he's making, I think the latter plays into it. This Myers doesn't strike me as the kind to play the games his predecessor did. He's even different from Zombie's first interpretation of him, which I don't think stood well on its own as a horror icon (and where I think he succeeded beautifully in conception here). Without getting the total makeover like the Jason remake made, running and climbing all over the place, this one felt far more direct and to the point in doing things. So what if you and your stripper girlfriend are together, he's not waiting until you're separate and alone. You've got a deputy guarding the house? He's not going to wait in a chair until you discover the body to strike. Instead he goes right upstairs and sees her as she's in the genre's favorite location of vulnerability: the bathroom. It's all those things that I can feel a connection with the characters because it belies the American notion of self determination. Just like I don't believe that poor people deserve their fate, I don't really connect with a A to B to C progression of horror death. Such and such is a slut and drinks and goes skinny dipping so they die. So and so goes down in the basement and then they die. Maybe it's because of all the stories I've encountered of tragedy and death that have no defined cause that influences it but while I recognize and feel the scenarios presented it isn't where I find the power of horror films reside. They're just the framework on which to hang that element of emotion onto. In skilled hands it builds an emotional wave that finishes during the escape (or lack of escape in the case of a side character) but by and large it's by-the-book time filler. I also love Final Destination and Final Destination 2, but primarily as an extension and distillation of the Scream concept. It completely internalizes all of the genre's trappings and then plays with them to a hilarious extreme. But in the end, it doesn't matter what you do. Death will always get you. Scream and Scream 2 toyed with the idea that knowledge was preservation and so being clued in would leave you alive. I was overjoyed when they killed off Randy because not only were his phophetic warnings not matched by events (Sydney has sexy time and lives, numerous people go off to explore alone and live) but the very movie aware nature of the killers should have made him catnip to them for killing. What I think is genius about Final Destination is that they boiled away all the fat from the horror movie concept. No motivation, perfect knowledge, and gratuitous obsession with the kill. They dare the main character to live by telling him how everyone will die and then letting him flail away trying to put knowledge into practice. He's given a plot to follow, that somehow doing such and such will lead to a long life, and then it's snatched away from him. The main characters block themselves in a padded life and yet get a brick in the head and an explosion for their troubles. The killer doesn't even stalk them so much as show off how many ways they could be killed before one is settled on. The dentist's office scenario from FD2 is one of my favorites because it's just a mass collections of options for death to toy with him. Electrocution, drugging, choking, sharp objects... there's no way to not be in danger, no outlet or proper door for Monty to open, just a smorgasboard of delicacies for Death to choose. That's what I love about the Final Destination series- it's all armrest squeezing and gory release without the fluff of motive, opportunity, or anything but the illusion of escape. It's fun to watch the Guinea Pigs scamper around the maze for the exit but we all know that they're never getting out to star in G-Force 2: The Goddamn Inevitable Sequel. They're all just so much future chunky salsa (yes, you heard it here first. Chunky salsa is made of guinea pigs. Soylent Pig).
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2009 03:11
|
|
|
Shrooms is absolutely terrible for all the reasons detailed in the frontpage review and more.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2009 19:31
|
|
|
Trick R' Treat is being show tomorrow at a theatre here, is it worth all the commotion I hear about it?
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2009 19:42
|
|
|
It went down well at this year's FrightFest. I gather it's something to see with audiences. Holy poo poo Giallo was bad, how bad? John Landis walked out after 10 minutes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2009 23:21
|
|
|
DrVenkman posted:
Did he? Didn't even notice. Giallo is awful though. One thing I learned from Frightfest, never EVER accept popcorn being given to you or let them photo you eating it :,-(
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2009 23:51
|
|
|
Slasherfan posted:
Can you explain this?
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2009 04:17
|
|
|
Rob Zombie is a mediocre film maker who's films just wear outlandish outfits. None of what he has done has been particularly shockingly original , or even that great. The Halloween movies after the first one were not particularly original or even that great. It's appropriate that Zombie remade them.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2009 05:08
|
|
|
Well, I saw FD 4 and I had a really good time. That was the first 3D movie I've seen in theaters and I was really impressed. Still, that said, I doubt the movie will hold up on DVD. The 3D gimmick was all it really had going for it, and I'm not sure it will look as good on DVD. We'll see, though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2009 23:43
|
|
|
Hmm, so that new film from Japan, Grotesque How about it then? I'll tell you. It's utter shite. Nothing there at all. It looks like a cheap DV movie. The gore effects are rubbery and terrible and there is nothing there at all. Nothing. No plot, no character development, no tension. Nothing. It doesn't even have the good manners to be funny, until the final couple of minutes. The biggest problem is that it's all up there on the screen. You don't care about anyone involved so you don't feel fear, or anything much. It's pure Grand Guignol. It's the director laughing in your face for 70 mins. Seriously. The whole point of the movie was to push boundaries and in that sense it is pretty much the logical conclusion of the torture porn genre, At least until someone else tops it. But the director is surprisingly prudish considering what he's filming. It's the film a very polite psychopath would make for his first year student film project. Also as far as Japanese torture porn goes it's not THAT extreme anyway. It feels like a collection of the violent scenes everyone remembers from other movies. Zombi, Hostel, Texas Chainsaw etc... Stuff you've already seen, but now in close up. Thanks for that, movie. That's kind of the point though as a movie it will retain interest until someone tops it, and as a piece of merchandise it's a pure cry for attention; a cash grab. A corpse of a movie with no inspiration but to recycle other people's ideas, and to profit from their juxtoposition, rather than their effectiveness. The only reason this film is notable is because the BBFC just banned it. There really was no need for that. There's nothing dangerous here, as is always the case with censorship of this kind, it doesn't matter that it was banned as the film had no worth, but people are intelligent enough to work that out for themselves. Without the publicity from the banning nobody would have even heard of it. I suppose it's more honest that stuff like Final Destination, at least. Films like this do serve a role in exposing the hypocrisy behind tasteful or humorous violence, but in order to get that (extremely obvious) message you'd have to waste an evening watching it. Spermanent Record fucked around with this message at 10:25 on Sep 7, 2009 |
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2009 10:13
|
|
|
Trick R Treat was awesome, it's basically a fun slasher that plays with the genre conventions pretty nicely, was expecting a scarier experience but end up having fun either way.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2009 13:02
|
|
|
DrVenkman posted:Holy poo poo Giallo was bad, how bad? John Landis walked out after 10 minutes. Maybe he was finally going to go pick up his royalty check for Thriller? (Ugh, is there an expiration date on MJ jokes now?)
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2009 17:50
|
|
|
I just watched Kill Theory and Amusement, both of which were built on neat concepts but fell short of their potential. Still, considering the mountain of crappy horror movies at your local video store, one could do worse than watch either of these.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2009 18:16
|
|
|
Dark Horizons is reporting that Patrick Lussier, Wes Craven's personal editor and the genius director behind such horror classics as My Bloody Valentine 3-D, Dracula 2000, Dracula II, Dracula III and White Noise 2, is the mystery man who has been tapped by The Weinstein Company to helm Halloween 3-D.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2009 18:17
|
|
|
MBV 3D was, directorally, a solid film and makes him a good choice for a 3D sequel.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2009 19:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 06:37 |
|
|
Blast Fantasto posted:Can you explain this? Watch these,splany. http://www.dreadcentral.com/news/33412/adam-green-and-joe-lynchs-road-frightfest-american-douchebags-london Off to see Sorority Row tomorrow
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2009 22:26
|
|