|
Oh man, Mausoleum. That movie's so great. It has a very goetse looking VHS cover too, as I recall.
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2013 20:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 15:22 |
|
|
LtKenFrankenstein posted:Oh man, Mausoleum. That movie's so great. It has a very goetse looking VHS cover too, as I recall. It cannot be unseen: 
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2013 21:16
|
|
|
I just watched Kill List and I feel like it's the kind of movie that needs explaining through a sequel even though I have no idea how they would make one What was the point of Fiona inscribing the cult sign in the mirror? Why did the victims thank Jay before he killed them? Why was his wife laughing at the end? What was up with the part where Jay sees Fiona in the field? I'm tired of horror movies that leave you with a bunch of unanswered question and few hints. I literally just finished it though so maybe I'll rewatch it in a week or two. My friend who recommended it to me warned me that it was incredibly disturbing but other than the final scene and the child porn bit it didn't unsettle me as much as I anticipated.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2013 23:59
|
|
|
Slackerish posted:I just watched Kill List and I feel like it's the kind of movie that needs explaining through a sequel even though I have no idea how they would make one I think they thank him because he is some sort of revered figure to the cult, which is also the same reason Fiona marks his house and takes the tissues with his blood on them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2013 00:03
|
|
|
A sequel that explained Kill List would be a terrible idea. Like the whole vibe of that movie is that it's a miserable, psychotic movie where you're never really sure what's going on and the best you can do is maybe piece little bits together. It's a movie where the main character has no idea what's going on and neither do you. Explaining it further would make it a completely different movie.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2013 00:06
|
|
|
The hammer scene is completely hosed up and one of the most disturbing things I've ever scene. Kill List is a nightmare.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2013 00:12
|
|
|
axleblaze posted:A sequel that explained Kill List would be a terrible idea. Like the whole vibe of that movie is that it's a miserable, psychotic movie where you're never really sure what's going on and the best you can do is maybe piece little bits together. It's a movie where the main character has no idea what's going on and neither do you. Explaining it further would make it a completely different movie. See and from that perspective, it's pretty cool, but I also feel like that's a cop-out to a degree. Don't get me wrong, I didn't hate the movie or anything, I just expected something different. EDIT: Also, if you folks could recommend me bizarre/hosed up/surreal horror movies in the vein of Kill List, I'd much appreciate it. Slackerish fucked around with this message at 00:14 on Apr 12, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2013 00:12
|
|
|
Slackerish posted:EDIT: Also, if you folks could recommend me bizarre/hosed up/surreal horror movies in the vein of Kill List, I'd much appreciate it. Berberian Sound Studio comes to mind, though it might not be available if you're in the States. If you want to go way more bizarre/hosed up/surreal, I'd suggest The Oregonian which there's a huge chance you'd hate, but I liked quite a great deal. The director of that has another movie coming out called The Rambler, which is similar but WAY more coherent.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2013 00:22
|
|
|
Re: Kill ListSlackerish posted:See and from that perspective, it's pretty cool, but I also feel like that's a cop-out to a degree. My take on it was that the protagonist was chosen by the cult to take on sort of a sacred ritual executioner role. Fiona's carving the symbol served to consecrate him, she hung around to make everything went according to plan, and the victims were sacrifices in roles of ritual significance (hence the intertitles referring to "the Priest", "the Librarian", etc., as if each one of these had some symbolic significance). His wife laughing at the end I interpreted as a hysteric reaction to just how hosed they were. I also don't think a sequel would be a good idea. Well, in general I think sequels to horror movies are bad ideas, but I think Kill List gets a lot of its power from being an incomplete picture of events, and a sequel would just ruin that. It's not explicitly a horror movie, but Snowtown (a/k/a The Snowtown Murders in the U.S.) has the same sense of suffocating dread and is pretty much just as brutal as Kill List. Very much the same vibe.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2013 00:33
|
|
|
Slackerish posted:EDIT: Also, if you folks could recommend me bizarre/hosed up/surreal horror movies in the vein of Kill List, I'd much appreciate it. If you haven't seen it, the original Wicker Man (not the Nick Cage one!) is fantastic and was a big influence on Kill List.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2013 00:37
|
|
|
The original Wicker Man was my favorite scary movie as a child. It was the one that really got me "into" horror in general.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2013 01:10
|
|
|
Wicker Man is fantastic and anyone who likes the Kill List will like it, probably.... but if you can't handle the ending of Kill List because it didn't explain enough, "bizarre and surreal" might not be the tags you're looking for in your future movie viewing.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2013 05:39
|
|
|
I just watched Poltergeist for the first time. That's where the Insidious Ghost Team and the 3D Dimension Simpsons Treehouse episode came from, right?
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2013 17:59
|
|
|
Skywalker OG posted:I just watched Poltergeist for the first time. That's where the Insidious Ghost Team and the 3D Dimension Simpsons Treehouse episode came from, right? Insidious yes, but Simpsons was more directly inspired by the Twilight Zone episode "Little Girl Lost," which was massively influential on Poltergeist as well.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2013 18:04
|
|
|
Any opinions on Hellraiser and its sequels? I have been watching a lot of 80s/early 90s horror and I hear some good things about this, but I have also heard that Clive Barker has made some lovely things.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2013 18:54
|
|
|
There was a lot of hate going on for Hellraiser a while ago in this thread and I just don't get it. I think the movie is fantastic. From story to effects I think it got everything right.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2013 18:58
|
|
|
RebBrownies posted:Any opinions on Hellraiser and its sequels? I have been watching a lot of 80s/early 90s horror and I hear some good things about this, but I have also heard that Clive Barker has made some lovely things. Just watch one and two and then stop.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2013 19:31
|
|
|
Volume posted:There was a lot of hate going on for Hellraiser a while ago in this thread and I just don't get it. I think the movie is fantastic. From story to effects I think it got everything right. I was among the people talking poo poo about Hellraiser, but I watched 2 yesterday and it's a way, way better movie. I'm actually pretty confused as to how anyone can prefer the first one.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2013 19:52
|
|
|
schwenz posted:Just watch one and two and then stop. And watch three if you want to see a CD demon throw CDs at people.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2013 19:57
|
|
|
DeimosRising posted:I was among the people talking poo poo about Hellraiser, but I watched 2 yesterday and it's a way, way better movie. I'm actually pretty confused as to how anyone can prefer the first one. Not to rehash the previous argument, but my head is still reeling over SMG posting that The 2011 Thing is better than the 89 one, and I'm beginning to feel that the a lot of the impact of certain films has to do with WHEN and HOW you originally saw it. I'm not exaggerating when I say that I had a very similar reaction to seeing Hellraiser in the theaters as when I saw Jurassic Park. Visually it was something that I couldn't imagine seeing, I just couldn't comprehend it. It was so sexual, and violent, and dark in a way that I had never seen before. Hellraiser II is a better movie than one, but it can't recreate the initial impact of one for me. I'm wondering if SMG's reaction to The Thing may be because he saw the 89 version after those kind of practical effects lost their edge and started to really look dated. SMG? e; quoted the wrong quote
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2013 20:13
|
|
|
schwenz posted:Not to rehash the previous argument, but my head is still reeling over SMG posting that The 2011 Thing is better than the 89 one, and I'm beginning to feel that the a lot of the impact of certain films has to do with WHEN and HOW you originally saw it. I saw Hellraiser at a free midnight preview screening when I was in high school, and having been raised mostly on slashers and some classic horror up to that point, it was transformative. I had genuinely never seen anything like it before. Oh, sure, the effects work hasn't aged well at all, but I think it's one of the few times that referring to someone's "vision of horror" has actually meant something. It's a pity, though - Clive Barker writes these great horror and dark fantasy stories, but the movie adaptations are almost always a letdown in one way or another.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2013 20:19
|
|
|
Drunkboxer posted:And watch three if you want to see a CD demon throw CDs at people. I feel like I should only watch 3 now.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2013 20:21
|
|
|
RebBrownies posted:Any opinions on Hellraiser and its sequels? I have been watching a lot of 80s/early 90s horror and I hear some good things about this, but I have also heard that Clive Barker has made some lovely things. The first Hellraiser has a great visual feel and is certainly worth checking out. It's not very deep, but it's an interesting horror film that examines temptation, obsession, and understanding your own limitations and their consequences. It's also painfully obvious that Barker had recently discovered the BDSM community when he wrote it. Hellraiser II is also good, but some of the effects look unintentionally hilarious now and it's really just a re-churning of the original. If you enjoy the first one you should definitely watch the second. If the first doesn't grab you, the second isn't worth examining at all and it won't convert you. After that, you only really watch the movies for camp value. I've actually seen them all and they range from punishing to moderately OK. There is the aforementioned CD spitter and of course the cenobites in space.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2013 20:22
|
|
|
Its a good point about the effects in movies like The Thing or Return of the Living Dead, or something like The Blob. If you grew up during that time theres just something about those techniques that its hard to let go of, I think to us they just feel more real because for such a long time its all we knew. No matter how good CGI gets its always the "classics" from my 80's childhood that I go back to again and again. Definitely a very personal and subjective thing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2013 20:27
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:Its a good point about the effects in movies like The Thing or Return of the Living Dead, or something like The Blob. If you grew up during that time theres just something about those techniques that its hard to let go of, I think to us they just feel more real They feel real because they were actually real. Stuff might look silly, but it was always an actual thing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2013 20:33
|
|
|
Jesus, A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010) is absolutely horrid. Anyone who was disappointed by the Evil Dead remake should revisit this as a reminder of how much worse it could have been. It kind of tries to put its own spin on the original by going for a much darker tone, but on the other hand nearly every major scene is lifted straight from the Craven version, but done way less effectively. I mean really, why not just take the Freddy character, and make a totally new movie with him? With new characters, new deaths, and everything? What the hell is the point of just doing the same exact scenes again? It's disappointing, too, because when such a horrible remake like this comes out, it pretty much means we likely won't be getting another good Freddy movie for a long time.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2013 20:40
|
|
|
I saw it opening weekend in theaters and I remember absolutely nothing about it except Freddy's claw hand rising up from that girl's bath water. The Friday The 13th remake was a hell of a lot better. Rageaholic fucked around with this message at 20:46 on Apr 12, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2013 20:43
|
|
|
Mr. Boogie posted:It's disappointing, too, because when such a horrible remake like this comes out, it pretty much means we likely won't be getting another good Freddy movie for a long time. Robert Englund is Freddy though, and anybody else who tries to play the character now ends up just looking silly. The remake made this abundantly clear. I think the series is done and should remain untouched (and we should pretend the remake doesn't exist).
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2013 20:51
|
|
|
Mr. Boogie posted:Jesus, A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010) is absolutely horrid. Anyone who was disappointed by the Evil Dead remake should revisit this as a reminder of how much worse it could have been. It kind of tries to put its own spin on the original by going for a much darker tone, but on the other hand nearly every major scene is lifted straight from the Craven version, but done way less effectively. I mean really, why not just take the Freddy character, and make a totally new movie with him? With new characters, new deaths, and everything? What the hell is the point of just doing the same exact scenes again? It's the same - but worse. Basically that's all that film is. Come and marvel at all those original scenes you loved, now with bad CGI!
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2013 20:54
|
|
|
The worst part of the Nightmare remake is that they thought of an excellent "twist" to set it apart from the originals and make it a different sort of story, but instead decided that it would be better to use the idea of Freddy being innocent to set up the shocking revelation that he's guilty instead. The audience would never see that coming.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2013 21:11
|
|
|
InfiniteZero posted:The first Hellraiser has a great visual feel and is certainly worth checking out. It's not very deep, but it's an interesting horror film that examines temptation, obsession, and understanding your own limitations and their consequences. It's also painfully obvious that Barker had recently discovered the BDSM community when he wrote it. I'm not sure what you mean when you say that Hellraiser isn't deep, then point out all the stuff it deals with. The problem with Hellraiser isn't a lack of depth, it's a lack of focus and coherence. Julia's arc is the only one that makes sense, because she's in a spiral of increasing decadence and self-absorption for which the ultimate end is the Hell of the Cenobites, a place of pure, transcendent experience. Frank, in theory, has already gone down this path, but when he shows up he's a pedestrian vampire who doesn't even seem to enjoy being a skinless monster - what the gently caress kind of BDSM villain doesn't enjoy that? Kirsty doesn't even have a personality, and her solving the puzzle box doesn't make any sense because it reduces a thing that is symbolic of obsession and self-mastery and transcendence into...a really lame rubik's cube, I guess? That's why the second film works so much better. Julia is foregrounded, Kirsty is given something to obsess about, the new villain is likewise fascinated by the body and its pleasures and pains and squishy bits, and Frank barely appears. Even the seemingly cheesy stuff with the Cenobites at the climax makes sense, because it juxtaposes being a human with being a vessel for an obsession (or perhaps more appropriately, a fetish). I totally disagree about it being a rehash or something not worth viewing if you didn't like the original. I hadn't seen either since I was a little kid, and I found the second vastly superior. I might even say that it "converted" me. Craig Spradlin posted:I had genuinely never seen anything like it before. Oh, sure, the effects work hasn't aged well at all, I think it looks great. The skinless vampires in both films look tremendous, the Cenobites look great, the matte paintings are stunning. The lightning-bolt unsummon magic doesn't look too hot and the super-demon thing in the first one looks pretty bad, but otherwise it holds up really, really well. schwenz posted:I'm wondering if SMG's reaction to The Thing may be because he saw the 89 version after those kind of practical effects lost their edge and started to really look dated. SMG? I don't want to speak for SMG but I'm going to speak for SMG: No. He's written at length about how the great things about the 2011 prequel to The Thing (it's not a remake) have to do with its more optimistic and thoughtful worldview and excellent control over what a prequel is and how it relates to its predecessor. I don't agree that it's better than Carpenter's 82 version (not 89) but even if it were, it certainly wouldn't be because of the SFX. The Thing '82 is a masterpiece in that regard.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2013 21:21
|
|
|
DeimosRising posted:I'm not sure what you mean when you say that Hellraiser isn't deep, then point out all the stuff it deals with. The problem with Hellraiser isn't a lack of depth, it's a lack of focus and coherence. Your criticism is more valid than mine and more coherent. I'm not being sarcastic. You're entirely correct -- the lack of focus and coherence is what I was referring to, you just expressed it better. When you say that the effects hold up, the effect I'm specifically thinking of as sort of laughable are the maze sequences in Hellbound. I haven't seen that in a bit though, so maybe that sequence is in a different sequel? I also entirely agree with you that the effects on the skinless people are amazing. In my opinion those sequences hold up perfectly with anything you see today. Really remarkable. It might be a mistake for me to attempt to add to your review, but another salient recommendation for Hellraiser might simply be that Pinhead as played by Bradley is a great horror villain. The first film is worth watching just for him really.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2013 21:50
|
|
|
DeimosRising posted:I don't agree that it's better than Carpenter's 82 version (not 89) but even if it were, it certainly wouldn't be because of the SFX. The Thing '82 is a masterpiece in that regard. Yeah I saw the the 82 version for the first time a few years ago. There's nothing not effective about those effects.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2013 21:59
|
|
|
DeimosRising posted:Kirsty doesn't even have a personality, and her solving the puzzle box doesn't make any sense because it reduces a thing that is symbolic of obsession and self-mastery and transcendence into...a really lame rubik's cube, I guess? Except that her primary desire at the time, the thing she's completely fixated on, is sending the Cenobites away. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2013 22:09
|
|
|
InfiniteZero posted:When you say that the effects hold up, the effect I'm specifically thinking of as sort of laughable are the maze sequences in Hellbound. I haven't seen that in a bit though, so maybe that sequence is in a different sequel? I also entirely agree with you that the effects on the skinless people are amazing. In my opinion those sequences hold up perfectly with anything you see today. Really remarkable. The matte painting shots of the maze look amazing. The set design for shots inside the maze is pretty cheesy and looks like a low budget TV show.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2013 22:14
|
|
|
I watched Hellraiser 1 and 2 back to back recently, completely blind. I had no knowledge of the universe, no idea what the films were about besides featuring some guy with pins in his face. I watched them alone, in the dark, on my couch. The perfect setting. Hellraiser 1 creeped the poo poo out of me and I loved it. 2 felt like a direct to dvd sequel. I wanted to watch the whole series but 2 killed my interest. DeimosRising's right, the character motivations and focus feels better in the second one, so maybe on that level it works, but it still didn't do anything for me at all. What really grabbed me about the first one was how mysterious everything remains. You only get glimpses into the Cenobite realm and how it operates, who these creatures are, what the point of it all is, and I found that far more interesting and creepy than anything in 2, when it takes you right into the realm and explains poo poo. Everything felt so over the top and campy in 2, the atmosphere didn't feel nearly as oppressive. Even when character motivations in the 1st one didn't quite make sense the atmosphere of dread was so much better. Characters felt like they could bite it anytime, you weren't sure who was going to live. You had no idea who these creepy people were. You had no idea when they would strike. I didn't get that feeling of oppression from 2, it seemed obvious from the get go who would live, who would die, and generally how it would all go down. I never felt tension. tie that up with the goofy sets and the over the top villians and I just was not impressed with 2 at all. The atmosphere in 1 completely made the movie for me. I couldn't take 2 seriously. Atmosphere is usually what makes a horror flick for me, and 2 just didn't have it. but then again, I'm not everyone, so your experience may vary. just sharing what I got out of it. Febreeze fucked around with this message at 23:53 on Apr 12, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2013 23:50
|
|
|
I'd rate the Hellraisers this way: 1: Yes, even though it oozes the 1980's 2: Yes, for the lunacy 3: No 4: No, but if you must watch another one, might as well. Nice ideas, poor execution 5: Yes, but not really a Hellraiser story, more of a Twilight zone episode (it's called Hellraiser:Inferno) 6: No, really similar to 5 but not executed as well 7: No 8: No 9+: I don't even know how many there are at this point, but no Problem is the cenobites become villians after 2. That just doesn't work. I also dislike one of the final scenes of 2 for this very reason. They work much better as forces of nature, who show up to do their job, and it is done. No backstory. No one-liners.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2013 08:29
|
|
|
Hellraiser: Inferno is pretty good in a Jacob's Ladder sort of way.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2013 18:49
|
|
|
Yeah, Hellraiser Inferno is surprisingly decent (though not amazing), but it's really not a Hellraiser movie. As the above posters have said it's pretty much Jacob's Ladder (with Cenobites replacing the nameless horrible stuff) combined with the Twilight Zone (with Pinhead as Rod Serling).
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2013 19:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 15:22 |
|
|
What's the thread's opinion on Mama? I thought it looked really interesting and the ghost mom in the short was wrong in all the right ways, but I hear the movie itself fails to live up to its potential.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2013 20:19
|
|
