|
The following films frit the poo poo out of me and I'm looking for more in the same vein if anyone can recommend The woman in black 1 and 2 (not kidding, i saw her every where I went for weeks after) The Pact Session 9 Oculus The Last House on Cemetery Lane had a good start but went to poo poo fast, and Haunt and Mama started well but holy CGI batman! Which ruined it for me
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 12:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 00:01 |
|
|
Maybe House of the Devil or The Innkeepers?
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 01:55
|
|
|
Insidious 1 and 2 has some questionable moments, but overall I enjoyed them. That's the first thing that came to mind. Looking forward to part 3.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 02:04
|
|
|
Did you try the original Woman in Black? It's filmed in a style very similar to Poirot and other mystery shows on PBS. I'd easily consider it one of the eeriest ghost story movies I've seen, but not sure how it compares in tone to the remake. Insidious is awesome, haven't seen any of the sequels.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 04:21
|
|
|
The original Woman In Black is phenomenal.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 04:22
|
|
|
For some reason I feel compelled to also suggest Absentia. It's a bit more low key (and definitely lower budget) but I guess it stuck with me because here I am recommending it months later.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 04:28
|
|
|
Utz posted:Well, I had a good laugh at the end and enjoyed the movie. Dang, I haven't thought about The Reflecting Skin since the 90s. It was one of those movies I rented as part of a batch from the 2-for-a-dollar racks at Family Video back in high school. If I remember correctly, they used overgrown fields very effectively; oppressive golden walls of grain, undulating in the wind..
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 21:51
|
|
|
Insidious fell apart for me in the third act and I didn't like how the sequel followed in that direction, I think I would've enjoyed it more had it been kinda goofy from the word go.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 23:37
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:The original Woman In Black is phenomenal. The 1989 one? Or the Daniel Radcliffe one?
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2015 00:14
|
|
|
original əˈrɪdʒɪn(ə)l,ɒ-/ adjective adjective: original 1. present or existing from the beginning; first or earliest.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2015 01:41
|
|
|
Yaws posted:The 1989 one? Or the Daniel Radcliffe one? The Daniel Radcliffe one is... not good. But it's like a study in jump scares. It's like the best movie you could make if you had to use only jump scares to tell your story. It uses every variation. Jump scares where it was just a bird, jump scares where it was just a bird AND THEN A GHOST, and where it acts like there will be a jump scare, and then nothing happens. It's got a couple of neat visuals, but it's definitly not good. I will have to watch the original sometime. edit: Horns was pretty good though, if you are interested in post-Potter Radcliffe.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2015 16:27
|
|
|
Horns was one of those weird movies where I felt like it was only half an hour long when I finished it. Plus it's obvious who killed his wife but I think in the book there are chapters from his perspective so it's no surprise there either.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2015 21:53
|
|
|
I wouldn't say the movie does a good job of "tricking" the viewer, but I also don't think that's a negative. To me the plot and titular gimmick of Horns were mostly mechanisms to look at human nature. I haven't read the book.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2015 22:19
|
|
|
To me, Horns felt like it was 5 hours long.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 01:25
|
|
|
yeah Horns adds some additional hosed up pacing issues to a book that was already riddled with pacing issues. very disappointing to see something that shoddy come out of an Alexandre Aja/Joe Hill collab.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 04:40
|
|
|
Uncle Boogeyman posted:yeah Horns adds some additional hosed up pacing issues to a book that was already riddled with pacing issues. very disappointing to see something that shoddy come out of an Alexandre Aja/Joe Hill collab. I enjoyed it. Although I probably drank as much as Radcliffe's character while I was watching it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 04:44
|
|
|
Radcliffe was actually surprisingly good. weird example of a movie that's way less than the sum of its parts.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 04:45
|
|
|
That latest film Unfriended that they've been advertising on YouTube? Not the worst film. Actually works quite well.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 06:26
|
|
|
See, I loved Daniel Radcliffe's Woman in Black, and by loved I mean it terrified me and stayed with me. Repeated viewings have dulled the impact but I still find it wonderfully atmospheric. Maybe it is just that ghosts frighten me, and a pure ghost story is in short supply these days. I've got Insidious on, and it feels very 'kitchen sink' with astral projection AND ghosts AND demons.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 15:49
|
|
|
My favorite part of Insidious is the exposition from the medium followed closely by the gas mask seance. I know movies tend to hit their mark when the characters don't have to provide detailed verbal interpretations, but the look on her face when she told the parents about the son's abilities just freaked me out, very Zelda Rubenstein-esque.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 23:50
|
|
|
ServoMST3K posted:My favorite part of Insidious is the exposition from the medium followed closely by the gas mask seance. I know movies tend to hit their mark when the characters don't have to provide detailed verbal interpretations, but the look on her face when she told the parents about the son's abilities just freaked me out, very Zelda Rubenstein-esque. I like that they cleverly got around the PG-13 rating by having the swears from the demon be written, not spoken.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 01:49
|
|
|
Yeah, it seems creepier too having the written word shown as threatening in that scene. My least favorite narrative device in almost any movie is showing a journal or a diary while the character reads it melodramatically.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 12:26
|
|
|
Saw a few horrors worth a mention lately. They do contain some body horror. Coincidentally, all three are about the slow transformation of the female lead. Spring Possibly the only Romance / Horror / Sci-fi I have seen. Great one to watch with the GF. Honeymoon Stars Rose Leslie (you know nothing Jon Snow) If you like the genre but thought Antichrist was "a bit too much" you'll like this one. Starry Eyes Has a nice 70's horror vibe to it, with a dash of stereotypical teens and heavy handed metaphors from modern films.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 03:01
|
|
|
I'm not sure if it counts for this thread, but I'd love to recommend The Taking of Deborah Logan as a great docudrama. It starts out as a documentary about a woman with Alzheimer's. Anything more is a spoiler, but if you like slow buildup, a crazy run for the finish, and a lot of great imagery, this is a good movie to watch. It's a supernatural movie.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 06:24
|
|
|
ServoMST3K posted:Did you try the original Woman in Black? It's filmed in a style very similar to Poirot and other mystery shows on PBS. I'd easily consider it one of the eeriest ghost story movies I've seen, but not sure how it compares in tone to the remake. Insidious is awesome, haven't seen any of the sequels. The original Woman in Black also has one of the best and earliest jump scares I had ever remembered as a kid. It might be considered a bit goofy now but that scene alone made me sleep with my lights on for months after. Also, the Woman's expression is just phenomenally menacing and her presence incredibly eerie. It's pretty old but easily my favorite ghost story TV/movie ever. Really, every horror fan should at least watch it once. I think it's up on YouTube in it's entirety somewhere.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 06:46
|
|
|
Does A Scanner Darkly count? I recently rewatched it, then heard the fantastic audiobook narrated by Paul Giamatti (it's on audible, seriously, do yourself a favor and go listen). I think the rotoscoping of the film lends itself to Bob Arctor (Keanu Reeves) character explain why he left his wife and changed his entire life. He says (paraphrasing) that when he was a straight, every day was the same. It's like a little sailboat that goes on and on and one day just ends -- but now that he is on all of these crazy drugs, little awful and sometimes beautiful things happen to him all the time. Every frame of this movie is intensely watchable just because of the visuals, in the same way Bob finds the mundane interesting under the influence. I love Philip K. Dick, and this is probably the closest adaption of one of his works, I think. If you haven't seen it in a while, go back and check it out. I honestly think it was the way it was advertised that may have killed it. They kept showing the surreal alien from between dimensions from that one scene, as I remember, and I guess people were expecting a lot more visual hallucinations instead of somber inner monologue about what it means to seek pleasure/escape and be punished hard. Firstborn fucked around with this message at 05:39 on May 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 23, 2015 05:34
|
|
|
Firstborn posted:Does A Scanner Darkly count? I recently rewatched it, then heard the fantastic audiobook narrated by Paul Giamatti (it's on audible, seriously, do yourself a favor and go listen). I think the rotoscoping of the film lends itself to Bob Arctor (Keanu Reeves) character explain why he left his wife and changed his entire life. He says (paraphrasing) that when he was a straight, every day was the same. It's like a little sailboat that goes on and on and one day just ends -- but now that he is on all of these crazy drugs, little awful and sometimes beautiful things happen to him all the time. Every frame of this movie is intensely watchable just because of the visuals, in the same way Bob finds the mundane interesting under the influence. Yeah, I saw it back when it was on netflix. I watched it by myself in the dark while drinking. It was a pretty powerful experience. I love PKD though, so... edit: Real content: Just this evening I watched The Canal with my roommate because she said it was on some list of horror films to watch on netflix. It was bad. It was very generic, plodding, a few neat "scares" but even those were still just generic "there's a ghost" jump-scares. The none of the "twists" were twists if you've ever seen a horror film before. It's like they threw a bunch of gimmicks at the wall and none of them stuck. I don't mind when a film takes a generic story and tells it well. This movie does not even close to make up for how unengaging and predictable it is. Snak fucked around with this message at 05:57 on May 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 23, 2015 05:54
|
|
|
Firstborn posted:Does A Scanner Darkly count? I recently rewatched it, then heard the fantastic audiobook narrated by Paul Giamatti (it's on audible, seriously, do yourself a favor and go listen). I think the rotoscoping of the film lends itself to Bob Arctor (Keanu Reeves) character explain why he left his wife and changed his entire life. He says (paraphrasing) that when he was a straight, every day was the same. It's like a little sailboat that goes on and on and one day just ends -- but now that he is on all of these crazy drugs, little awful and sometimes beautiful things happen to him all the time. Every frame of this movie is intensely watchable just because of the visuals, in the same way Bob finds the mundane interesting under the influence. I saw this movie at the height of my Philip K Dick obsession so of course I didn't like it and found tons of flaws with it. I wonder what I would think about it now. It's exactly the kind of movie I would love. Did anyone see that Radio Free Albemuth adaptation that came out a few years ago? I would love to see a good VALIS adaptation but that'll never happen.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 01:47
|
|
|
Snak posted:The Daniel Radcliffe one is... not good. But it's like a study in jump scares. It's like the best movie you could make if you had to use only jump scares to tell your story. It uses every variation. Jump scares where it was just a bird, jump scares where it was just a bird AND THEN A GHOST, and where it acts like there will be a jump scare, and then nothing happens. It's got a couple of neat visuals, but it's definitly not good. I will have to watch the original sometime. As for the plot, the premise is pretty neat, until you stop to think about it for a second. So the drug makes people receivers for some kind of ghost, who then possesses them to do... what? Creep around and give people jump scares? There was never any plausible theory for why this thing is happening, and what the entity is trying to achieve. I give the writer credit for realizing that yes, numbers stations are weird and creepy, but what they actually did with the premise is pretty dumb. If I understood correctly, the stations' original purpose must have been to simply remote control people injected with the drug by broadcasting the numbers program, no ghost involvement required. However, what they didn't realize is that what the drug actually does is make people receivers for some kind of ghost. Does that then make the broadcast a complete red herring? Or does the ghost still need it for some reason? Maybe it's using the program to tell everyone how to produce more of the drug, thus increasing the likelihood of creating more receivers. Which it can then use to shuffle around, scaring people. A neat premise wasted on somewhat confused story, cliched ending and tired scares.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 06:59
|
|
|
I actually prefer my otherworldly invaders inscrutable. Why should they have motives sensible to the living? Banshee Chapter is not necessarily the best handling of this, though I enjoyed it for what it is. A better example of this is perhaps The Ring, where the protagonist goes in this whole quest convinced she understands ghost logic and makes everything worse by doing so.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 13:03
|
|
|
MagnumOpus posted:I actually prefer my otherworldly invaders inscrutable. Why should they have motives sensible to the living? Banshee Chapter is not necessarily the best handling of this, though I enjoyed it for what it is. A better example of this is perhaps The Ring, where the protagonist goes in this whole quest convinced she understands ghost logic and makes everything worse by doing so. Okay but that's been done so much it's been run into the ground. There's practically an entire subgenre of "we though the ghost needed laid to rest... we thought wrong".
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 14:14
|
|
|
I think that's more a statement about the horror genre in general. It's not like ghosts/aliens/monsters/etc have not also been acting on human motives since forever. How many times have we been subjected to the ghost of Dr. Badguy still performing his illegal experiments on randy teenagers who wandered into the abandoned hospital/mausoleum/mine/ship/station? The whole genre is pretty heavily mined at this point.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 14:27
|
|
|
MagnumOpus posted:I think that's more a statement about the horror genre in general. It's not like ghosts/aliens/monsters/etc have not also been acting on human motives since forever. How many times have we been subjected to the ghost of Dr. Badguy still performing his illegal experiments on randy teenagers who wandered into the abandoned hospital/mausoleum/mine/ship/station? The whole genre is pretty heavily mined at this point. Well yeah, like any genre, the quality of a good horror film is completely independent of the plot beats. Movies that tell a good story well have their details copied by poor imitators. Unrelated, I want to watch Oculus again. I really liked the thing they did with the flashbacks in that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 14:37
|
|
|
MagnumOpus posted:How many times have we been subjected to the ghost of Dr. Badguy still performing his illegal experiments on randy teenagers who wandered into the abandoned hospital/mausoleum/mine/ship/station? Too many, but I need to see a movie where the setting is all of those things, like right now.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 06:34
|
|
|
I just watched Late Phases on netflix. It was okay. I wouldn't say it was bad, so much as nothing special. The most interesting thing about it was that the protagonist was blind, and the movie's sound design was based entirely around this. I thought for sure google would reveal that this was a movie made specifically with a blind audience in mind, that doesn't seem to have been the case. The movie does not have descriptive audio for the visual impaired, at least on netflix. It's a real shame, because if it did, I would wholeheartedly recommend this movie to blind horror fans. As it is, there are probably a few parts where a sighted person would have to clarify what's going on. The visual effects are decent, I think there's no cgi at all. Lots of practical effects, but nothing that I haven't seen before, so there's not a lot of originality to the makeup and prosthetic effects. They are well done, but sort of "last season of buffy" level of quality. I nearly forgot, but I also watched Odd Thomas. It was... well I loving hate Dean Koontz. I feel like this must have been a pretty stylistically faithful adaption because it felt like a Dean Koontz story in every terrible way. So I thought it was pretty much complete garbage, but almost entirely because of the dialogue and story. The acting and effects were pretty decent. If you somehow like Dean Koontz, this is probably worth a watch.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2015 21:19
|
|
|
Snak posted:I nearly forgot, but I also watched Odd Thomas. It was... well I loving hate Dean Koontz. I feel like this must have been a pretty stylistically faithful adaption because it felt like a Dean Koontz story in every terrible way. So I thought it was pretty much complete garbage, but almost entirely because of the dialogue and story. The acting and effects were pretty decent. If you somehow like Dean Koontz, this is probably worth a watch. Odd Thomas is aggressively terrible. I dislike Dean Koontz but I'm usually of the opinion that he can hit one or two decent horror notes per book, but Odd Thomas is utterly without merit. I have to imagine the book was better than that to actually get funding for a movie.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 14:59
|
|
|
The guy writes airport rags geared toward the lowest common denominator for impulse buys, did anyone think the movie based on his work would be any different
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2015 01:06
|
|
|
speshl guy posted:The guy writes airport rags geared toward the lowest common denominator for impulse buys, did anyone think the movie based on his work would be any different I knew it would be bad, I didn't expect it to be that bad. Phantoms and Demon Seed were at least competent as B-movies.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2015 08:26
|
|
|
If you like 'people with cameras go to investigate weird spooky place' movies, check out From Above, So Below. Nicely claustrophobic and a genuinely interesting premise.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 03:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 00:01 |
|
|
Vulpes posted:If you like 'people with cameras go to investigate weird spooky place' movies, check out From Above, So Below. Nicely claustrophobic and a genuinely interesting premise. Is that a found footage film? I don't remember the trailer...
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 04:42
|
|