|
The Ape of Naples posted:It must be on youtube. It's definitely on archive.org: https://archive.org/details/PhantasmagoriaTheater-NightOfTheLivingDead1968321
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2013 03:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 00:08 |
|
|
Lutha Mahtin posted:Is that exclusive new horror show supposed to be any good? Hemlock Grove? gently caress No.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2013 03:53
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:Hemlock Grove? gently caress No. I would just like to second this with a double gently caress no. There are a couple people here that defend it as good cheesy schlock, and like one person who actually thinks it is good, but no. If you want corny tween horror, watch the Teen Wolf series. It's on Netflix and it is substantially better.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2013 04:20
|
|
|
mr. mephistopheles posted:I would just like to second this with a double gently caress no. I'll third it. I gave it a try and I think I made it to the middle of the second episode before I slapped some sense into myself.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2013 05:15
|
|
|
Lutha Mahtin posted:This is the perfect derail baitpost, even though I don't think you meant it that way. Conflating the public domain, Creative Commons, and the Berne Convention is like lighting up the sky of the entire northern hemisphere with the Hah, yeah didn't mean it that way. Legitimately thought it would work as shorthand without having to elaborate something along the lines of... "despite the continued extension of copyright lengths seemingly strangling the availability of works that should have entered the public domain, luckily some creators are voluntarily choosing to bypass certain provisions with their own modified creative commons licenses which they may choose to stipulate that..." and so on. To avoid a paragraph I wrote a couple sentences when a few words would have worked best: man Romero got hosed. TychoCelchuuu posted:Eh, all that stuff you say about the movie would've been much clearer if it hadn't focused so much on being a lean mean thriller machine. When two people disagree about what happened, maybe it's time to go talk to a third one instead of using clever back and forth cutting between accounts to undermine one of the two people. I don't want to be manipulated into thinking one thing or another when there are obvious ways to clear all this poo poo up. Like, is the mother lying about her resistance to the blood test or about the polygraph stuff? How about we just interview some other involved people?! That might sort that poo poo right up. But no, it's got to be an intricate narrative about the willingness of people to deceive themselves, even if that means leaving out obvious things that would corroborate one person's story vs. the other's. Manipulating your viewpoint is a necessary aspect of the film's brilliance though. The narrative is constructed to place you along a certain path to realize the ultimate message of the film. At first the viewer's natural reaction is how can these people fall for this and be fooled by this man. Then it warps your expectations with the allure of all the answers in a murder mystery plot with a rogue detective and FBI, so the audience too suspects there might be more. Yet in the end it's a game played on the investigators and audience alike. Despite the ludicrousness of the family's mistake, we're taken along their path and end up believing the con artist taking the bait we want for closure. The final words, their final acts--all these make the documentary's viewpoint clear. The imposter dances along as the clumsy naive private detective keeps digging his hole and finding what was there all along: nothing. Without manipulating you along the way this work would be... less than. Perhaps just as irrelevant as the details of a news report, a story told of a story told. The presentation is what makes this documentary into art. Not to sound like a cryptic twat (although I might not be able to help it), but you're looking for truth in the form of verisimilitude instead of looking for meaning, which is a lot more likely to reveal truths beneath the work. This approach applies to highly stylized works like The Imposter as much as it does to the best constructed "factual" documentary, and I'd argue the approach is even more useful when watching the latter. EvilTobaccoExec fucked around with this message at 07:29 on Oct 26, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2013 07:17
|
|
signal.
|
EvilTobaccoExec posted:Manipulating your viewpoint is a necessary aspect of the film's brilliance though. The narrative is constructed to place you along a certain path to realize the ultimate message of the film. At first the viewer's natural reaction is how can these people fall for this and be fooled by this man. Then it warps your expectations with the allure of all the answers in a murder mystery plot with a rogue detective and FBI, so the audience too suspects there might be more. Yet in the end it's a game played on the investigators and audience alike. Despite the ludicrousness of the family's mistake, we're taken along their path and end up believing the con artist taking the bait we want for closure. The final words, their final acts--all these make the documentary's viewpoint clear. The imposter dances along as the clumsy naive private detective keeps digging his hole and finding what was there all along: nothing. EvilTobaccoExec posted:Without manipulating you along the way this work would be... less than. Perhaps just as irrelevant as the details of a news report, a story told of a story told. The presentation is what makes this documentary into art. Not to sound like a cryptic twat (although I might not be able to help it), but you're looking for truth in the form of verisimilitude instead of looking for meaning, which is a lot more likely to reveal truths beneath the work. This approach applies to highly stylized works like The Imposter as much as it does to the best constructed "factual" documentary, and I'd argue the approach is even more useful when watching the latter. You can huff and puff all you want about how my approach is incorrect (I suspect at the very least the family of the missing kid might agree with me) but I don't see what makes it the case. My approach is different - what makes it wrong?
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2013 08:12
|
|
|
TychoCelchuuu posted:I definitely agree that the movie had to be manipulative to tell the story in the way it told it. I was simply reporting that I do not tend to like documentaries that are manipulative in this manner. Well it's not a documentary about a child that went missing, it's a documentary about how people fall victim to believing what they want to be true when pure logic should tell them otherwise. I'm pretty sure neither of us is in any place to speak for the family, but the difference between a hard reading of the situation is that the audience still asks themselves "how could they not know it wasn't their kid" and this documentary puts the audience in a position where they are manipulated along the same lines and can better understand "how". The very goal seems far more sympathetic than any hard reading of the "facts" could ever be. By talking about how you were approaching documentary I was trying to help you better help you understand this film. The entire art of documentary is all about shaping selected facts to prevent a biased narrative, whether its done with blunt hammer or a fine razor, it is inescapable. I think the key to unraveling works both subtle and obvious is to look for the inherent manipulation and derive meaning from there. Your approach is your approach, that's fine. The only thing I argued was flat out wrong was your interpretation of the film's stance, which is contradicted by the text. Don't mean to give off any huff and puff impression. EvilTobaccoExec fucked around with this message at 09:04 on Oct 26, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2013 08:57
|
|
|
Noticed earlier that Killing Zoe is up on Netflix. It's written and directed by Roger Avery (cowriter of Pulp Fiction, True Romance). The title is a bit of a joke, although its layered with meaning. While "Zoe" is the name of the female lead, it's also the word "life" in Greek. And "Killing Life" is a far more apt description of the sort of daze these characters experience, as well as setting the tone for the type of film this is. Basically it's the story of an American who takes a business trip to France where he makes a connection with an escort; his business is robbing a bank with an old friend and his crew addicted to drugs and danger. Killing Zoe is more of a movie with a heist in it than it is a "heist movie". Even then it's pretty slow (not slow like Heat, something different I can't quite describe). The first act is alluring with its charm. The second drags a bit with more repetition than necessary and a night that seems to last forever. But these character interactions are rewarded in the third act which also ramps up tension with the heist. I wouldn't say it's a great movie (although I'll admit parts of it went past me when I was younger, and some still do now), but fans of the heist genre should probably give it a go. And I'd especially recommend it to fans of slower introspective romantic works. EvilTobaccoExec fucked around with this message at 12:09 on Oct 26, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2013 11:39
|
|
|
From a page back, but Night of the Living Dead is on Crackle (free but with commercials) and Amazon Prime, FYI.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2013 14:15
|
|
|
mr. mephistopheles posted:If you want corny tween horror, watch the Teen Wolf series. It's on Netflix and it is substantially better. Yeah, I actually kind of liked Teen Wolf. Human Tornada posted:From a page back, but Night of the Living Dead is on Crackle (free but with commercials) and Amazon Prime, FYI. Of course it's on Youtube, it's public domain. It's on Youtube in color, it's on Youtube in 1080P.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2013 14:26
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:Yeah, I actually kind of liked Teen Wolf. Not everybody can stream Youtube to their TVs.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2013 14:34
|
|
|
Human Tornada posted:Not everybody can stream Youtube to their TVs. If you can get Crackle or Amazon Prime to your TV, I'd say Youtube is a given.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2013 14:36
|
|
|
Sarchasm posted:If you can get Crackle or Amazon Prime to your TV, I'd say Youtube is a given. Not with a Roku box. I mean it's possible but it's not an official channel and certainly not a "given" for people who don't feel like figuring out a workaround. I was just pointing out other places people could watch a movie.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2013 15:00
|
|
|
Human Tornada posted:Not with a Roku box. I mean it's possible but it's not an official channel and certainly not a "given" for people who don't feel like figuring out a workaround. Youtube isn't supported by Roku boxes but Crackle is? That's bizarre. Even PS3s and XBoxes have Youtube channels.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2013 15:06
|
|
|
If you have a Roku check out Pub-d-hub. It's on there. There are few other public domain roku channels that it is on also.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2013 15:45
|
|
|
Night of the Living Dead has a color version? This changes everything.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2013 16:04
|
|
|
I'm late to the Hellraiser discussion but I finally got around to watching it last night. The first hour was standard 80's slow crawling plot but the last half hour was great, looking forward to II.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2013 16:08
|
|
|
Shima Honnou posted:Night of the Living Dead has a color version? This changes everything. It looks very sickly, appropriate enough but I'm not a fan.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2013 17:53
|
|
|
Fat Kid Rules the World, Matthew Lillard's first feature length, is on Netflix and it's not too bad. It pretty well captures the teenage experience the way a John Hughes film would, but it's obviously not quite as good as those. If you were a goony nerd in high school, which is at least 90 percent of the people reading this sentence, you'll find the main character rather relatable. It's a fun little movie if you're into silly coming-of-age flicks.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2013 18:25
|
|
|
Shima Honnou posted:Night of the Living Dead has a color version? This changes everything. It's pretty awful looking, but if you're a 9 year old that can't watch black and white movies it works I guess.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2013 18:40
|
|
|
I've seen the black and white version a lot of times, without ever even knowing there was a colorized version. It'll be interesting to see what whomever colored the film thinks everything should look like.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2013 18:44
|
|
|
Shima Honnou posted:I've seen the black and white version a lot of times, without ever even knowing there was a colorized version. It'll be interesting to see what whomever colored the film thinks everything should look like. I remember when Ted Turner was colorizing old movies. What an awful idea.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2013 19:50
|
|
|
The Ape of Naples posted:I remember when Ted Turner was colorizing old movies. What an awful idea. Didn't he even apologize for that at one point?
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2013 19:52
|
|
|
Ugh. I meant to edit my post not quote it. Anyway. I'm not sure if he did. Back in '86 when he started to do it he was pretty defiant about it.Ted Turner posted:"The last time I checked, I owned the films that we're in the process of colorizing," said Ted Turner. "I can do whatever I want with them, and if they're going to be shown on television, they're going to be in color."
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2013 19:53
|
|
|
Oh, Ted.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2013 19:57
|
|
|
Shima Honnou posted:I've seen the black and white version a lot of times, without ever even knowing there was a colorized version. It'll be interesting to see what whomever colored the film thinks everything should look like. It looks like someone rigged up a Holga or Diana F to take video, and shot the movie with that. Plus the color version I've seen looks like it was done from the worst possible print they could find. Like someone stole a reel that had been left out in George Romero's car for a few years.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2013 20:19
|
|
|
I wish I could find a good comparison of all the versions, just out of curiosity. Wikipedia says there were three colorized versions, one in 1986: One in 1997 I can't find a shot of, and another in 2004:  The original for comparison: 
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2013 20:41
|
|
|
I'll have to give that (another?) watch someday. I'm not quite sure if I've actually seen the film or just some of the many, many films it inspired. Side question. How do they go about colorising a film?
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2013 21:33
|
|
|
Film stock and a really tiny set of colored pencils is what I imagine.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2013 21:47
|
|
|
Nowadays, After Effects.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2013 21:59
|
|
|
I know that in the first colorized version all the ghouls were green, which of course totally ruins the surprise of the first attack.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2013 00:31
|
|
|
To Disney's credit, they have spent an absurd amount of money on restoring and preserving their library. Every single film owned by Disney made before at least 1960 has been fully preserved on film and with a 4K master on the shelf. Even Song of the South is fully preserved. Not all copyright holders take this good care of their holdings, but it does provide an incentive.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2013 02:36
|
|
|
Egbert Souse posted:To Disney's credit, they have spent an absurd amount of money on restoring and preserving their library. Every single film owned by Disney made before at least 1960 has been fully preserved on film and with a 4K master on the shelf. Even Song of the South is fully preserved. Not all copyright holders take this good care of their holdings, but it does provide an incentive. To this end I feel all should watch THESE AMAZING SHADOWS, a documentary about the National Film Registry. Educational with a perfectly infectious sense of wonder and joy. VVVVV Random Stranger posted:All the talk in the thread made me rewatch it tonight for the first time in about fifteen years. I forgot what a terrific film it is. There's obvious rough edges that come from being a low budget horror film but it's sharper than a monster movie has any right to be. http://herocomplex.latimes.com/movies/clive-barker-to-pen-hellraiser-remake-with-doug-bradley-as-pinhead/ cvnvcnv fucked around with this message at 04:00 on Oct 27, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2013 03:17
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:Hemlock Grove? gently caress No. I watched every god damned second of this poo poo and good god drat was it horrible. However it did add the phrase "STUPID-rear end BIRDS" to my vocabulary.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2013 03:25
|
|
|
spencer for hire posted:I'm late to the Hellraiser discussion but I finally got around to watching it last night. The first hour was standard 80's slow crawling plot but the last half hour was great, looking forward to II. All the talk in the thread made me rewatch it tonight for the first time in about fifteen years. I forgot what a terrific film it is. There's obvious rough edges that come from being a low budget horror film but it's sharper than a monster movie has any right to be. I think it would make a terrific double feature with In the Mouth of Madness (which I'm 90% sure is up on Netflix; if it isn't it definitely is on Amazon Prime). I'd call it the last good John Carpenter film and he essentially decides to make an H.P. Lovecraft film without actually using H.P. Lovecraft. A private detective is hired to find a missing horror author who is a thinly disguised Stephen King. The search takes him to a little town in New England where his stories were set and they may all be true. It's got a creepy atmosphere that goes completely insane in the final act (rather like Hellraiser in that regard). [I double checked after posting. It's no longer on Netflix Instant but as I said it is on Amazon Prime.] Another edit: I'm being unfair to John Carpenter. I forgot about his piece for that Masters of Horror series a few years ago titled Cigarette Burns. Of course, it was about a 75% remake of In the Mouth of Madness with an evil movie instead of an evil series of books. That's another one that I watched on Netflix Instant but it's no longer available for streaming on any service. But Amazon will sell it for your streaming pleasure at $2... Random Stranger fucked around with this message at 04:03 on Oct 27, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2013 03:52
|
|
|
Just watched Maniac and it certainly was a movie. The thing that interested me most was the POV style which was so, so effective at unsettling and slightly sickening me. Any other films shot in a similar style that people would recommend? But man that car park scene. As soon as he hit the ground I was hoping and hoping he wouldn't go after the tendon. Fat loving chance. And Martin you were just tough as nails you poor bastard. It was nice to see that Elijah Wood grows the same lovely, spotty beard as me. ^^^^^ I really need to see In the Mouth of Madness so thanks for reminding me. Flython fucked around with this message at 05:31 on Oct 27, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2013 05:29
|
|
|
I've been watching Trailer Park Boys, and while I'm enjoying it, I'm not sure I'd call it funny? It's endearing, sure, and weirdly compelling, but I'd hesitate to call it a straight comedy. Weird. I'm wondering, is there an appropriate time to watch the movies or are they basically independent of the series?
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2013 06:35
|
|
|
Trailer Park Boys really grows on you. It is a weird show and I can't remember ever laughing out loud at it, but I got a big kick out of the same recurring gags and themes that kept popping up. And it's impossible to not like the characters. It's a great show to drink to.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2013 06:40
|
|
|
Flython posted:Just watched Maniac and it certainly was a movie. The thing that interested me most was the POV style which was so, so effective at unsettling and slightly sickening me. Any other films shot in a similar style that people would recommend? Enter the Void is shot from that POV and it's definitely unsettling. It took me 3 sessions to get through.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2013 14:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 00:08 |
|
|
Flython posted:Just watched Maniac and it certainly was a movie. The thing that interested me most was the POV style which was so, so effective at unsettling and slightly sickening me. Any other films shot in a similar style that people would recommend? I guess it's also somewhat amusing how Wood was also cast as Kevin in Sin City.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2013 15:51
|
|
