|
flashy_mcflash posted:Is the DVD version significantly different? I've never had even the slightest inkling to re-watch it but Netflix has allowed me to be not at all selective about what I watch lately. I would say so. At the very least, the theatrical cut deletes the most genuinely scary scene from the movie. Also it cuts a little bit of gore and a bunch of ancillary plot stuff that just makes the movie flow much better. I wanna say its about ten minutes longer. Here is a full description of the changes, with pictures (spoiler alert, obviously).
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2011 16:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 07:51 |
|
|
Can someone direct me to where there's already been a pro vs cons discussion of Lake Mungo. I thought it was a waste of time, and I'm not looking to have my opinion changed. I'm simply interested if there was a discussion about this movie since I see it so often recommended and really cannot understand why.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2011 01:51
|
|
|
Streaming In Memorium from Indieflix.com tonight at work; first 10 minutes or so seem like a generic PA set-up, but there's something off about the acting. I'll post my thoughts once I complete the whole thing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2011 02:04
|
|
|
C2C - 2.0 posted:Streaming In Memorium from Indieflix.com tonight at work; first 10 minutes or so seem like a generic PA set-up, but there's something off about the acting. I'll post my thoughts once I complete the whole thing. Please let us know how this is.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2011 02:17
|
|
|
Mouser.. posted:Can someone direct me to where there's already been a pro vs cons discussion of Lake Mungo. I thought it was a waste of time, and I'm not looking to have my opinion changed. I'm simply interested if there was a discussion about this movie since I see it so often recommended and really cannot understand why. You should start by articulating your opinion so we can have that discussion, right now.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2011 02:20
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:You should start by articulating your opinion so we can have that discussion, right now. The movie presented itself as if it were the type of special that you would see on Syfy. This works in a 45 minute episode with commercials. But to take an hour and then just as subtly present your audience with a twist. That is something that you could get away with 20 minutes into the syfy special. To continue on for an additional 30 minutes to finally get to your payoff is just padding. I do not believe that this would be well recieved in theaters. Perhaps a private viewing, but I cannot imagine that this would last more than a half hour without someone screaming "Get on with it already!" I respect that the director did not resort to rattling cabinets and unnecessary jump scares. I would not expect that. What I would expect is a documentary that presents its facts and does not linger on red herrings. The ending was more satisfying than a man standing in the corner and cut to black. But it is very risky to wager that your audience will stick around to find out when you reveal that what they've witnessed so far is a hoax In short, It is simply too long for the story it was attempting to tell.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2011 03:25
|
|
|
Despite it's flaws, one thing I found with Mungo is that it's real payoff scare was really god drat effective and, while not terrifying, was creepy on a really deep level. I give it that at least.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2011 03:41
|
|
|
So, I have the In Memorium stream available to me for the next 30 days. I might watch it again, but probably not. Notes while watching it tonight: -Bad acting (overacting, underacting) -Bad writing (plot is thin and there's a red herring that's silly as gently caress) -Bad directing (the main character GETS ANGRY! a couple of times for no reason and out of nowhere) -Bad everything So, sure, I might've gone into this expecting something; call it being influenced by PA or just a certain expectation about found footage films. But guess what? It's not found footage. It's a standard film with found footage spliced into it. This was irksome, to say the least. The continuity felt messed up to me due to this film-making decision. The acting was pretty sub-standard. I suppose you could expect that from an amateur film, but at least in PA, the actors seemed a bit more natural. In IM, they were at times either overly-dramatic or subdued to the point of being dull. The two main characters (a guy and his girlfriend) were unsteady enough, but there's another character, the guy's little brother, who was outright maddening. Part Jeff Spiccoli, part mall rat, all infuriating. His scenes were really distracting because he hammed up the "little stoner brother" a bit too much. The plot was supposed to develop over time; you were supposed to be a bit surprised when it was revealed. Except they directly keep hinting at the plot (not subtly at all) so much that you're not taken aback at all. In fact, you might feel insulted that the writer/director/whomever thought they were being clever when they weren't at all. The red herring I mentioned in the notes wasn't terribly implausible, but it led to a silly denouement comprised of another batch of really, really bad acting on the part of the woman who plays the landlord in the movie (the guy & his girlfriend are new tenants in a sub-let home). The main character seems like, for most of the film, the most level-headed individual within the story. But, he just flies off the handle a couple of times for no apparent good reason and with no resolution as to why he acted that way. The "scares" are far and few in between and even then, they're telegraphed so badly that you might find yourself shaking your head in disbelief. The sound effects are absolutely ridiculous and I think that, given about 12 hours or so, I could've done a better job by just Googling "scary noises" and inserting them into the audio track. Over 2/3 of the "found footage" that's supposed to be interesting is actually intermittent static and feedback with only quick glimpses at what's supposed to be happening. Toward the end of the film, there's a montage scene composed of stuff we've already seen in the film that's pointless and is just another disruptive element of the film. I could waste more time breaking the film down and pointing out its flaws, but I won't. It just seems like too much effort. Instead, I'll end it with this: I thought Paranormal Entity (for those of you who have seen it) was clearly the superior film of the two. That ought to tell you something. ***DISCLAIMER*** I'm a neophyte film lover. I tend to think I have decent taste, but it's only a hobby. I haven't ever seriously reviewed a film. So, with that in mind, I should tell you that you can go to Indieflix.com and stream the movie for about $5. This also entitles you to have access to watch the movie for 30 days. Some of you might find that a small pittance to pay to find out if it's really as bad as I'm portraying it to be.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2011 05:45
|
|
|
C2C - 2.0 posted:
Oof. RE: Mungo - the slow burn didn't bother me or anyone I was watching it with. In fact the pace being deliberately slowed down only helped to increase tension in the room which made the payoff, when it finally came, unbelievably rewarding and unsettling.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2011 12:30
|
|
|
Have we talked about this PA Japanese knock-off? http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1728179/ I'm curious to watch it because Japanese knock-offs of US flicks are usually fun to watch.
Honest Thief fucked around with this message at 13:32 on Nov 4, 2011 |
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2011 13:30
|
|
|
Honest Thief posted:Have we talked about this PA Japanese knock-off? http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1728179/ I'm curious to watch it because Japanese knock-offs of US flicks are usually fun to watch. For what it's worth, I enjoyed it way more than I did PA2. It's more of a remake of the first PA, though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2011 14:05
|
|
|
Yeah it's worth a watch. It's mostly a remake but adds some neat twists.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2011 15:25
|
|
|
girlfriend and I watched The Descent two nights ago (her first time seeing it) and she loved it. So much so that she said we had to watch The Descent 2 last night. Man was that ever horrible. Talk about a total formula ripoff with nothing redeeming about it. I think the thing that got to me the most about it was that the lighting was so completely off the whole time. Like they'd break a glowstick and all of the sudden the room would be flooded with green light from above and the shadows wouldn't move when they moved the light source. It was also really really bright so there was no real sense of dread or fear of the dark. It didn't manage to capture any of the tension and claustrophobia that the first one captured so incredibly well. definitely recommend skipping that one if you haven't already seen it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2011 16:57
|
|
|
I finished watching The Shrine and I'm going back and forth between thinking it was hilarious and applauding the ending. The "scares" in the second half are sooooo lame whichever way I go, however. I wouldn't call it a waste of time, but don't go out of your way to see it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2011 17:07
|
|
|
MMD3 posted:girlfriend and I watched The Descent two nights ago (her first time seeing it) and she loved it. So much so that she said we had to watch The Descent 2 last night. Man was that ever horrible. Talk about a total formula ripoff with nothing redeeming about it. I think the thing that got to me the most about it was that the lighting was so completely off the whole time. Like they'd break a glowstick and all of the sudden the room would be flooded with green light from above and the shadows wouldn't move when they moved the light source. It was also really really bright so there was no real sense of dread or fear of the dark. It didn't manage to capture any of the tension and claustrophobia that the first one captured so incredibly well. The Descent is one of my favorite horror films of the decade. The Descent 2 could probably make a bottom 10 of the decade list. Much like with the American Ring, just ignore a sequel exists.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2011 17:32
|
|
|
DeseretRain posted:Saw I-VI Everyone makes fun of me for this but I love Jeepers Creepers. I like that it doesn't focus directly on the monster but he's always making sounds offscreen or hanging out in the background (no jump scares either). I guess I just have some compartmentalizing abilities since I can enjoy Silent Hill's atmosphere while ignoring the dialog and acting. I've found horror a hard genre to be picky with.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2011 22:44
|
|
|
Insidious was the movie of choice on Halloween night. The first I guess 2/3 of the movie were really, really great at ramping up tension, the jump scares were well placed and effective, the atmosphere was edge of your seat tense. The last third or so just turned silly though. As soon as the ghost hunters and the medium showed up, I had a hard time taking it seriously, especially with the series of cartoon characters in the place they go to. I honestly didn't even mind the astral projection as an explanation, but all the characters involved in it were just so goofy. It's worth watching, but little payoff for an excellent setup. And not that they could've done anything in this story, but why the hell does nobody call the police? The way it starts, it could've easily been a break-in.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2011 07:05
|
|
|
Scissorfighter posted:Everyone makes fun of me for this but I love Jeepers Creepers. I like that it doesn't focus directly on the monster but he's always making sounds offscreen or hanging out in the background (no jump scares either). Honestly, when I first saw the movie I liked it. Nothing more. And literally the only reason I can't watch that movie anymore is because I can't separate the director from his work. To some that might be an irrational or hypocritical reason because I'll still watch a Polanski on occassion, but at least he's actually made incredible cinema. Scissorfighter posted:I guess I just have some compartmentalizing abilities since I can enjoy Silent Hill's atmosphere while ignoring the dialog and acting. Silent Hill's atmosphere completely negated its terrible parts for me too. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2011 08:58
|
|
|
I didn't care for Jeepers Creepers the first time around but it grew on me mostly because I like Justin Long. They're also making a part III.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2011 09:04
|
|
|
Scissorfighter posted:Everyone makes fun of me for this but I love Jeepers Creepers. I like that it doesn't focus directly on the monster but he's always making sounds offscreen or hanging out in the background (no jump scares either). I am a complete sucker for any horror movie that takes an innocuous, catchy song and turns it into something creepy. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2011 12:38
|
|
|
EgillSkallagrimsson posted:I am a complete sucker for any horror movie that takes an innocuous, catchy song and turns it into something creepy. Have you seen Fallen? It's not exactly horror, but it's a creepy movie that does this quite well.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2011 12:40
|
|
|
User-Friendly posted:Have you seen Fallen? It's not exactly horror, but it's a creepy movie that does this quite well. I'll second this recommendation. It's one of the only films I've ever seen that handled a body-jumper without a single defined actor well enough to make it convincing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2011 16:52
|
|
|
Mouser.. posted:The movie presented itself as if it were the type of special that you would see on Syfy. This works in a 45 minute episode with commercials. But to take an hour and then just as subtly present your audience with a twist. That is something that you could get away with 20 minutes into the syfy special. To continue on for an additional 30 minutes to finally get to your payoff is just padding. I do not believe that this would be well recieved in theaters. Perhaps a private viewing, but I cannot imagine that this would last more than a half hour without someone screaming "Get on with it already!" Since you don't want your mind changed, I feel less bad about saying "you watched it wrong," supposing that anyone would care about the qualitative difference between television shows and types of television shows. Lake Mungo is nothing like anything you'd see on current SyFy, least of all something like Ghost Hunters, which I assume you're referring to. As far as televisual mockumentary movies go, it's to 48 Hours what Without Warning and Special Bulletin are to television news. Understandably, the choice of medium is a turn-off for many, but it's not like it's a mistake to present it that way. The television magazine/television novel tells you a story, with audio and visuals not always in concert. It's not a "documentary" about "facts," and the mode of the television magazine has never been that. (See the episode of Disappeared: The Last Truck Stop for an exemplar of the mastery of this format.) Like so many similar films, Lake Mungo dumps its theme right in your lap at the beginning of the film. The point of the spirit photography and the V.O. (which I'm not crazy about) is that it's not a horror movie. It's a family drama about a ghost. Like the best genre films, the best use of the "thing", be it sparkling vampire or running zombie or haunted videotape or whatever, is the outward manifestation of our character's inner dimensions and feelings. If the characters aren't important, neither is the "thing." In this type of film, with this type of presentation, what makes it work for me is that they can get away with a lot of terse characterization - the benefit of "naturalistic" acting is that you can pack character pretty densely while "wasting time" with exposition. If you are just listening and watching to collect information, you see the majority of the characters behaving irrationally and illogically: Ray keeps from the family that he knew Alice (another important Twin Peaks parallel), June sleepwalks into other people's homes and Russell questions whether he's actually seen Alice's body. These "red herrings," like the hoax that Mathew perpetrates, tell you about the characters, the whole point of the piece. Russell's obsession with "getting on with it," Mathew's inability to articulate why he played a cruel trick on his parents and Lucy's cold relationship with Alice despite the observation that they were both "very similar" are all completely relevant to the film's climax (and only actual scare) at Lake Mungo itself, which it entirely earns. Which is why I wonder why someone would ask to "get on with it" in a movie that's less than 90 minutes long. Get on with what, seeing a ghost? You see multiple ghosts in the first two minutes of the film - the film is about why these people create a fiction about someone who was so important in their lives and why acceptance is so hard. This haunting story, like basically all haunting stories, is about the emotional lives of the haunted. Hence the favorable comparison to Twin Peaks. Here's what I said before about Lake Mungo (I wish I had archives to check out the original thread): quote:Alice, for a lack of a better description, is Laura Palmer. Also refer this to SubG's great post about why Twin Peaks works: quote:Without getting into a lot of details, I think one of the central conceits of Twin Peaks is that everybody's Hell is of their own making. Twin Peaks (the town) is this idyllic American-themed paradise which experiences a whole bunch of falls from grace, all of which end up tied in one way or another to the death of Laura Palmer, who in turn was murdered after her own loss of innocence, which is detail in its increasingly spectacular depravity as the series goes on. Parallels are implicitly drawn between this and the Black Lodge and the White Lodge which, I think, are intended to be exactly the same thing---the only difference being who is the person entering it. The thing about "personal hells" is especially relevant.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2011 18:25
|
|
|
Wilhelm Scream posted:The Indian segment is just fine, The Raft and The Hitcher segments are a lot better. All three are far better than The Father's Day and Something to Tide You Over segments from the first one. Father's Day...maybe. Something to Tide You Over is great though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2011 19:21
|
|
|
TheBigBudgetSequel posted:Father's Day...maybe. Something to Tide You Over is great though. Eh I don't know.. I loved Tide You Over, but I enjoyed the Father's Day story too. Dude just wanted his cake!
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2011 19:27
|
|
|
Father's Day rules just for Ed Harris dancing. It's a little throwaway but a nice introduction to the EC short story formula. The only thing it doesn't have is cuckolding. Something To Tide You Over is awesome and perfectly cast. You couldn't ask for a better sardonic villain than Leslie Nielsen.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2011 19:29
|
|
|
They should do a sequel to Something to Tide You Over about zombie Leslie Nielson taking revenge on zombie Ted Danson, and then another sequel about zombie-zombie Ted Danson taking revenge on zombie-zombie Leslie Nielson, and so on and so on.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2011 19:33
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:Intelligent response This is a fair view of the movie. While the movie did not appeal to me, It does provide the points I was interested in reading about as to the appeal of it. I did not view it the way you did, but everything that you stated I can see your interpretation of. During the time that you had taken to respond, I went ahead and looked back into the archives myself. I have seen many people state the same things that I did, so I believe that it's always going to be received with a polarized response. It's entirely possible that this is one of the ones that I just didn't "get". I've watched Day Night Day Night, which I believe you had recommended before and I read the majority of people writing that it is a boring and drawn-out movie that ends with a resolution that many would be disappointed with. I liked that movie and feel that it was a intriguing character study, that is only diminished by reading a synopsis of the plot before watching the film. EDIT: If it's any indication into the type of pace I'm looking for lately. I just watched Ils (Them) and thought it was a terrific, tensely paced horror movie. It's also only 77 minutes long which goes along with what I was stating is that sometimes I like when a movie trims all of the fat and doesn't feel like it is necessary to hit the 90 minute mark. Mouser.. fucked around with this message at 21:00 on Nov 5, 2011 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2011 20:51
|
|
|
For what it's worth, I wasn't really into Lake Mungo either. For pretty much entirely subjective reasons, though: I didn't think it was scary. It was certainly competently made and everything, but nothing about the story engaged me or creeped me out. It doesn't help that I must've blinked/looked away/got distracted right at the big scare moment and I had to rewind it to see what I missed. Probably lessened the impact considerably. Edit: Mouser, I assume you've seen The Texas Chainsaw Massacre? The original one. It's pretty much the textbook definition of a horror movie with zero fat on it. For a more recent one, House of the Devil fits the bill kinda. It's got a lot of wandering around but it's very purposeful wandering around. Uncle Boogeyman fucked around with this message at 21:08 on Nov 5, 2011 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2011 21:00
|
|
|
Even though I like the extreme French horror stuff (Inside, Shaitan, Haute Tension, Frontiers) I was always too scared to watch the cheesy Friday the 13th stuff. After I saw one I realized every film after is just the same thing over and over.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2011 21:04
|
|
|
LtKenFrankenstein posted:For what it's worth, I wasn't really into Lake Mungo either. For pretty much entirely subjective reasons, though: I didn't think it was scary. It was certainly competently made and everything, but nothing about the story engaged me or creeped me out. The reasons you like or dislike a movie is always subjective. Even if you don't like the aspect ratio of a film, your reasons for that are certain to be subjective. Anyway, to the extent that the characters or story didn't engage you isn't much of a discussion but why they do or don't is. VVV That's my point, why someone finds something scary or funny (or not scary or not funny) is the interesting thing, not whether or not you find something scary or funny. Opinions always vary greatly, like you say. VVV HUNDU THE BEAST GOD fucked around with this message at 22:14 on Nov 5, 2011 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2011 21:51
|
|
|
Yeah, but am I wrong in saying that 'what's scary' is really subjective? 'What's scary' and 'what's funny' are pretty much the two film criteria that vary the most from person to person.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2011 22:02
|
|
|
LtKenFrankenstein posted:For a more recent one, House of the Devil fits the bill kinda. It's got a lot of wandering around but it's very purposeful wandering around. I'm not sure I get the House of the Devil praise. From what I remember, the entire first half didn't have any kind of foreshadowing or eeriness except the guy needing a house sitter was ugly and the fact that you know it's a horror movie. I think there were 3 separate '80s dance montages that did a lot to kill the tension for me in the 2nd half.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2011 23:53
|
|
|
Mouser.. posted:EDIT: If it's any indication into the type of pace I'm looking for lately. I just watched Ils (Them) and thought it was a terrific, tensely paced horror movie. It's also only 77 minutes long which goes along with what I was stating is that sometimes I like when a movie trims all of the fat and doesn't feel like it is necessary to hit the 90 minute mark. I need to give this movie another shot. It was the first movie I watched on netflix instant, right when released it on the 360 and the connection was so awful that it had to buffer like every 30 seconds and really killed the movie for me. I also need to give Lake Mungo another shot as well. I rented it at my former apartment and the other tenants made movie watching really tough sometimes 
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2011 00:11
|
|
|
User-Friendly posted:Have you seen Fallen? It's not exactly horror, but it's a creepy movie that does this quite well. Yeah, I've seen it and liked it quite a lot, too. By the way, anybody planning to go see 11-11-11?
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2011 00:48
|
|
|
TUS posted:I need to give this movie another shot. It was the first movie I watched on netflix instant, right when released it on the 360 and the connection was so awful that it had to buffer like every 30 seconds and really killed the movie for me. I also need to give Lake Mungo another shot as well. I rented it at my former apartment and the other tenants made movie watching really tough sometimes That would ruin things considering the last 40 minutes does not let up until the end. I remember hearing in commentaries every once in a while that directors would insert dialogue and light-hearted moments after tense scenes so that the audience would have time to sip their soda and take a breath. I didn't see any of that in this movie and thought it benefited from it. I'm sure that there could have been 15 minutes of the couple bantering how they'll have a baby if they ever get out of this, or having some long dialogue with the antagonists but it would have negated the good thing it had going for it. It really is more like Funny Games without the glib teenagers winking at the audience or Straw Dogs without having to show a reason for someone to be terrorizing this couple. I don't think there always must be a reason why bad things happen to good people in movies. There's hardly a good enough explanation why it happens in life often times. I will say there's one decision made near the end that reminded me a little too much of Wolf Creek and ever so slightly bittered my enjoyment. The last time I saw something like this was Burning Bright. I guess I'm a sucker for simplicity. Burning Bright posted:A thriller centered on a young woman and her autistic little brother who are trapped in a house with a ravenous tiger during a hurricane. What more do you need to know ? Mouser.. fucked around with this message at 01:18 on Nov 6, 2011 |
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2011 01:13
|
|
|
Mouser.. posted:Burning Bright I'd file this under "suspense" rather than horror. I watched it with a friend who's not really into these kind of movies (prefers action and comedy) and she thought it was entertaining/suspenseful. It's definitely an ok way to spend 90 minutes, even though you can see the climax coming a mile away.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2011 01:42
|
|
|
Has anyone watched Victim? It is streaming now and am curious.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2011 04:10
|
|
|
Doomsday Jesus posted:Has anyone watched Victim? It is streaming now and am curious. quote:A young man is kidnapped and subjected to unspeakable mental and physical torture Haven't seen it but with a description like that, anything less than pure revulsion on my part would be disappointment. Eh gently caress it, it's only 74 minutes... I'll let you know. Edit: don't bother. I'm only 46 minutes in but it injects quite a bit of contrived and cliched but unnecessary plot elements. The concept is interesting... but the execution sucks. Surgeon takes revenge on scumbag who kills his daughter by kidnapping and giving him a sex change. wormil fucked around with this message at 07:14 on Nov 6, 2011 |
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2011 06:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 07:51 |
|
|
Seems a little short for a movie where someone forces a guy to watch marmaduke over and over and over... Maybe it's time lapse?
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2011 06:34
|
|
