|
Franchescanado posted:Pretty sure this is the 3rd year I've run it. It was done before me, but I started doing it because no one else made the thread, and I kept it up because I like making it. I just keep volunteering. This is my 4th year participating. I ran it the year before you, and someone did it before me. So this is minimum year 6. The reason why I bring this up is because October 13 is a Friday, so I think Friday the 13th part 6 will be a good movie to watch that night in tribute to these threads.
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 02:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 22:11 |
|
|
CopywrightMMXI posted:I ran it the year before you, and someone did it before me. So this is minimum year 6. The reason why I bring this up is because October 13 is a Friday, so I think Friday the 13th part 6 will be a good movie to watch that night in tribute to these threads. That's an excellent idea. Even if someone's never seen a Friday film, Part 6 is a fun one, arguably the best in the series. I think I might do a personal marathon of 2-4-6 and see how that works out, if my schedule allows. I have the series on dvd, but last time I checked, they're all on Starz (through Amazon, too), and they offer a free trial if you've never used them before.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 02:33
|
|
|
I'm probably just gonna start with Part 2 and keep going as long as I can, hopefully I can make it to Part 6 before I pass out. I didn't watch any Friday the 13ths last year OR in the May challenge so I'm ready to go all-in on this one.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 02:37
|
|
Franchescanado posted:That's an excellent idea. Even if someone's never seen a Friday film, Part 6 is a fun one, arguably the best in the series. Don't mind if I do!
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 02:38
|
|
|
If the thousands of discussions about it in the horror thread have taught us anything, it's that every Friday the 13th is arguably the best of the series, and also arguably the worst of the series.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 02:43
|
|
|
Lurdiak posted:Don't mind if I do! Shut the hell up with that Part 7 crazy talk!  Basebf555 posted:If the thousands of discussions about it in the horror thread have taught us anything, it's that every Friday the 13th is arguably the best of the series, and also arguably the worst of the series. But Jason X is the only one that infuriates people when you compliment it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 02:45
|
|
|
Franchescanado posted:But Jason X is the only one that infuriates people when you compliment it. And that's why it's arguably the best Friday the 13th.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 02:46
|
|
I'm not sure anyone's actually ever claimed part 9 is the best one. If you want to be a contrarian rear end in a top hat you say Jason X is good, so it doesn't even get those guys.Franchescanado posted:Shut the hell up with that Part 7 crazy talk! PART 5 IS BETTER THAN 6 YOU gently caress!!!
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 02:53
|
|
|
Critters 1986, dir. Stephen Herek | 35mm print at my local theater The best Gremlins (supposedly not) rip-off!  This showing came with trivia and prizes, a costume contest (the prize was a VHS copy of Critters 2), and an intro with the film's history. Supposedly* this script was written seven years before it was produced and released and was inspired by the childhood fears of the writer. When Gremlins came out, New Line wanted it's own Gremlins and this script was chosen and then re-written to distance itself further from Gremlins. It becomes pretty apparent when comparing the two. Mogwai are mystical creatures that don't really have an origin of where they're from, the Gremlins seem to come from a curse, or magic based around arbitrary rules, like a folk tale. The critters are space creatures, escaped from a prison on an asteroid run by goofy aliens. The Gremlins are destructive creatures of chaos. The Critters are furry Pac-Mans that eat to grow. Gremlins concentrates on a "cool" teenager/young adult trying to save his small town. Critters concentrates on a family defending their farm. Gremlins has Hoyt Axton; Critters has Billy Zane. However, the Gremlins have better puppetry. They are conniving and destructive, and show some thought towards what they are doing. They wear costumes and go to movies and ride tricycles. They have personality, despite all looking the same. The Critters just chomp, roll, and shoot tiny quills. Because they're hungry. There are moments where the Critters do shine through:  I like the design, and I assume the puppetry was improved for at least one of the three sequels. The same people that did the creature design did the creature designs for Ernest Scared Stupid, Killer Klowns From Outer Space, and the Large Marge scene from Pee-Wee's Big Adventure.The movie is self-aware, at times, that it's a b-movie (and it does everything straight-faced, to it's charm), and it has a sense of humor. The jokes are always on the critters, though. They never get one over on the family, except for a few nibbles. The family dynamic is interesting. These movies usually have the kids alone, holding off until the parent/guardian/adult shows up (usually at the end when the house is destroyed). Critters at least keeps the parents around to get bit and poisoned, and to earn respect for their children. Oh, and there's two shape-shifting space bounty hunters that look like Chameleon from Spider-Man, with laser shotguns that blow up everything. They don't actually accomplish anything besides taking out some critters, destroying half the town in front of townspeople, and some deus ex machina house building.  Alien bounty hunter Despite my complaints, the movie's charm is undeniable, and I think I'll watch through the rest of the series after the challenge. I do have a fondness for the small monster genre. Gremlins 1 & 2 are reigning champs, but I love The Gate, I've watched through the entire Puppet Master series, and I've seen (but don't remember) entries from The Ghoulies; they're mindless fun to watch on a cold afternoon.  / 5 Thematic Link: I got nothing. *I haven't bothered to check imdb or wikipedia to see if this is correct Movies Watched NEW: I Walked With A Zombie, Dead & Buried, The Mummy ('59), The Resurrected, Critters REWATCH: TOTAL: 5 Lurdiak posted:PART 5 IS BETTER THAN 6 YOU gently caress!!! BUT I LIKE PART 5, DAMMIT! Also, no matter what, everyone agrees that Part 9's intro is kick-rear end.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 02:56
|
|
|
Please no one get Lurdiak on a tangent about F13. We just got him stabilized on his meds and talking about the best F13 gets him all agitated. (The best is 4)
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 02:57
|
|
|
On paper 5 is a stupid idea but it works and has good kills. 4 is the best.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 03:00
|
|
|
Jason X is in fact, no contrarianism at all, one of the top three of the series. It's so much loving fun. Totally aware of itself without nudging and winking at the audience and having a blast with the whole thing. It's got that wonderfully dated 90's sci fi TV look to it, and of course Jason on a holodeck. To be honest, worst might be Part 7. It's just so boring and even trying to bring a psychic girl in it's got the least to bring to the table, everything is a retread. At least Part 9 is madcap insane. I think what's so amazing about the series though is how distinct each film is from the others. They never bleed into each other for me, they've all got a personal voice.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 03:00
|
|
TrixRabbi posted:Jason X is in fact, no contrarianism at all, one of the top three of the series. It's so much loving fun. Totally aware of itself That's why it sucks. TrixRabbi posted:To be honest, worst might be Part 7. It's just so boring and even trying to bring a psychic girl in it's got the least to bring to the table, everything is a retread. At least Part 9 is madcap insane. I'm gonna drag you to the bottom of a lake.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 03:02
|
|
|
To be honest the only one I really don't care for is the original.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 03:03
|
|
|
Oh my god can we not have a F13 derail in this thread JASON X FOR LIFE MOTHER FUCKERS PEACE OUT
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 03:07
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:To be honest the only one I really don't care for is the original. I really like the cast, the look, and all the weird music. The lighting is weird, it's like a play filmed in the woods. TrixRabbi posted:I think what's so amazing about the series though is how distinct each film is from the others. They never bleed into each other for me, they've all got a personal voice. Agreed (on all points). I've said it before, the series should drop all attempts at continuity and just make each movie it's standalone film using the Jason mythos. Kinda like Rodriguez's Mariachi Trilogy, The Evil Dead series, and the Demons series.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 03:11
|
|
|
It's been almost 10 pages, we were due for the F13 derail. edit: Jason X is the best one.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 03:12
|
|
|
My Lord. What have I done?
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 03:13
|
|
|
People who like Jason X the best are like people who think Kung Pow is the best martial arts movie ever made.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 03:17
|
|
|
TrixRabbi posted:I think what's so amazing about the series though is how distinct each film is from the others. They never bleed into each other for me, they've all got a personal voice. This right here is how I feel, and is why it's such a lasting and colorful debate. They each have at least some reasons to champion themselves above the rest. Speaking of part 9, am I the only one that suspects its script started out as a Halloween sequel instead of a F13 one and then they doctored it up? Kinda like how there's a lot of people who think Halloween 4's script originally was going to be a sequel to Friday 4, with Tommy Jarvis in the role of the kid with a psychic link to Jason, before the series went in other directions with it?
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 03:26
|
|
|
I wouldn't be surprised if it started as a script that had nothing at all to do with a slasher movie and just got turned into a Friday the 13th sequel. Kinda like how every Die Hard sequel was obviously just some random action script that they stuck Bruce Willis into and called it Die Hard.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 03:28
|
|
|
I think we all just use my personal list as the final saying on Friday the 13th. https://letterboxd.com/vincentprice/list/friday-the-13th-ranked/ It's quite legit
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 03:38
|
|
|
Movie #10: 13 Ghosts (1960) I'm gonna put it out at the forefront. I love William Castle's movies. I love the Dark Castle Films remakes. I have somehow not seen the original 13 Ghosts and I was very entertained. I mean yeah, the ghosts are a very small part of the movie and they look like they were pulled from the dumpster behind a Halloween store, but it's got charm! My only wish is that I could watch it in it's original illusion-o but such is life.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 03:39
|
|
|
I doubt I'll get to 31 films, but I will try my damnedest. #1) Your Vice Is A Locked Room and Only I Have The Key (1972) I've always been a sucker for Italian film titles. I mean that thing is practically a short story on its own. That title, combined with having a good time watching other Sergio Martino films in the past, gave me high expectations for this giallo. Except it really isn't a giallo? It starts off predictably enough: a black-gloved, shadowy man is killing women. But, as it turns out, the giallo plot elements are really just a red herring, misleading the viewer into thinking one character is a killer and the other a victim, when the reverse is actually true. It almost basically drops the serial killer/giallo 'act' midway through and just becomes what it really wants to be: a dark, Poe-inspired drama about a hosed up couple. I guess this should be expected from Martino; The Strange Vice of Mrs. Wardh shifts genres every 15 minutes. There's also a lot of nudity in this film, which again seems to be a Martino hallmark. Great cinematography, and a solid twist help distract from the fact that no movie could ever live up to that title. In fact, it doesn't really match up with the film at all. But, again, it is gorgeous:  Next Up: God Told Me To P.S. Jason X blows.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 03:45
|
|
|
I'm just winging it, let's see how many I do. 1. Pulse, 2001  I went into this one pretty tired. I honestly have no clue what happened in this, but I really liked it. I went in expecting something similar to Nakata's Ring, but instead got this inexplicable and melancholy vision of the horrors of being alone. Some of the imagery is completely chilling. Looking forward to seeing this again. 4/5 2. Darkness, 1993 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xAylxU7AIt0 Really fuckin fun. Low quality, low budget mash-up of Near Dark and The Evil Dead with brief elements of Chainsaw Scumfuck-ian madness. Deals mainly in cliches and wooden acting, with the non-violent expository parts feeling like something the later seasons of MST3K would've done. It manages to mostly avoid being dragged down by slow and dull moments like so many low budget horror films made by kids in the middle of nowhere. And the gory finale is something to behold. This looked like it was a blast to work on. 3.5/5
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 03:48
|
|
|
Lurdiak posted:I wouldn't be surprised if it started as a script that had nothing at all to do with a slasher movie and just got turned into a Friday the 13th sequel. Kinda like how every Die Hard sequel was obviously just some random action script that they stuck Bruce Willis into and called it Die Hard.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 04:10
|
|
|
Jedit posted:Warlock was 1989. I know this for an incontrovertible fact because it was the first 15-rated movie I saw at the cinema, a few days before my 15th birthday. Warlock: THE ARMAGEDDON was 1993, which is the sequel that actually has nothing to do with the first Warlock. Speaking of, 1. Warlock 1989 I'm watching these movies with my fiancee, who was very disturbed by the fact that Julian Sands looks a hell of a lot like Leo Johnson in a doublet. Surprised by how much legit sounding old timey witch lore was in the movie, which also handily leads into some very late 80's special effect gruesomeness. The scene in the trainyard was a definite highlight. It also has two characters who travel three hundred years in the future with almost zero fish out of water horseless carriage shenanigans, which was a nice change of pace. The Witch Hunter not really caring about how a car works beyond how it can get his Belmont looking rear end closer to his target and just dealing with it is great. It's not especially scary, but it's definitely a recommended watch if you want a spookier sort of adventure film. 2. Creepshow 1982 I'm finally determined to watch both Creepshows, which I haven't despite being one of the world's biggest supporters of Tales Of The Darkside. What can I say, Buster Poindexter getting his poo poo pushed in by a cat appeals to me in a primal way. Creepshow is....a lot goofier than even Tales. It's a super authentic pastiche of the EC Comics style and I loved it. Leslie Neilsen is one of the most serious characters in the whole thing and he's not trying very hard to be. Steven King shows up as the dumbest man alive, which continues his tendency to cameo as useless idiots. It's another movie that's less creepy than spooky, but I wasn't actually able to make it through the whole thing. Tom Savini had a field day triggering my insectophobia and I spent a section of the film with my eyes closed until my fiancee gave me the okay. So I didn't get to see a corpse disgorge a torrent of cockroaches but the sound was pretty sufficient. Highly recommended.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 04:13
|
|
|
Untrustable posted:Movie #10: 13 Ghosts (1960) You aren't missing much with the Illusion-o gimmick. When I first saw the movie years ago it was by borrowing a friend's dvd that came with a single illusion-o viewer, which is the same red and cyan films of 3D anaglyph glasses, only stacked vertically and wider to see with both eyes at a time. Basically they work like 3D glasses except the ghosts are in just one of the colors, so if you look through the other they don't appear. It's a clever idea, but it isn't done well at all imho.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 04:32
|
|
|
Tapped out on House of the Devil after 30m of literally nothing happening, it seems like a 30m short that got turned into a 90m feature. Beautiful but dull
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 04:35
|
|
|
Lurdiak posted:I wouldn't be surprised if it started as a script that had nothing at all to do with a slasher movie and just got turned into a Friday the 13th sequel. Kinda like how every Die Hard sequel was obviously just some random action script that they stuck Bruce Willis into and called it Die Hard. Excuse me, Justin Long was an essential part of the Die Hard mythology.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 04:49
|
|
|
Movie #11: Basket Case Hoo boy this movie is great! A man carries around a basket that contains something that poses a great danger to the doctors who illegally operated on him years earlier. The effects work is straight awful, the acting is so-so at best but it's such a fun movie that you can easily look past that. The story was actually pretty interesting and kept me hooked all the way through. I now see why this film is so well regarded. Also the fuckin monster twin stealing panties was hilarious. Also, has anyone else who has seen this realised that the monster was way too big to fit in that wicker basket? Edit: also it's really fun to view the monster as puberty. Every time the main character tries to get busy or even kiss a girl this alien part of him fucks everything up or does something inappropriate. Untrustable fucked around with this message at 04:56 on Sep 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 04:51
|
|
|
#3: The Driller Killer As Johnny Thunders said on his classic album L.A.M.F., "living in the jungle, it ain't so hard/living in the city, it'll eat out, eat out your heart," which perfectly describes the horror tale that combines the grimy misanthropy of 70's New York living along the lines of Taxi Driver with a horror film. Similar to The Taking of Pelham 123 5 years prior, and Basket Case 3 years later, the star of this movie isn't any particular character, but New York City itself, an unwelcoming a place as has ever been put to film. Reno Miller is slowly driven mad by the price of living in the city; exorbitant rent, crime, poverty, a particularly annoying set of neighbors, all while he's trying to scrape by as a painter and make enough to live on and be happy. The pressures this bohemian life place on him are immense, as he gradually gives in to his violent fantasies and begins a murder spree with the titular power tool. It's nasty as hell, with a look that could only have been achieved with cheap film stock. The punk music and grit of the city contrast with Miller's beautiful psychedelically-tinged naturalist paintings (except when it really matters.) It's not a perfect movie; in a movie about drilling killings, it's odd to note that some of the killing spree scenes are among the weakest. The editing in particular could have made some of the murder scenes more intense, and would have helped the movie flow a little better. As a low-budget sophomore feature-length effort, though, it shows a strong, creepy, interesting vision of the world, and is definitely worth checking out if you like gritty crime fare. Completed: Beyond the Black Rainbow, Rabid, The Driller Killer
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 04:52
|
|
|
9. The Funhouse - I feel like a man in a suit watched TCM and said "Can you give us that, but blander?" And Tobe said "Yeah sure no problem." Blander TCM is still more interesting than most slashers (largely by virtue of not being a slasher at all) and the setting does have a different feel to it, so if you just really want more of the same this is probably an okay pick. It just doesn't feel like it has any new ideas, and I got really tired of thinking "this scene sure has a lot in common with stuff he did earlier, but it's not as good." I guess the juxtaposition of fake knife intro and inexplicable real weapons in the funhouse was kind of cute? That's about it for high points.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 04:55
|
|
|
Dr. Angela Ziegler posted:Tapped out on House of the Devil after 30m of literally nothing happening, it seems like a 30m short that got turned into a 90m feature. Beautiful but dull I totally agree with this because if the run time was just a bit shorter I think the film would have been better. Like it felt like they were just like " Well we got this 16mm film may as well use it"
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 05:29
|
|
|
Dr. Angela Ziegler posted:Tapped out on House of the Devil after 30m of literally nothing happening, it seems like a 30m short that got turned into a 90m feature. Beautiful but dull
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 05:42
|
|
|
MOVIE ONE The Brood - Cronenberg, 1979 It's 1979 in Canada, and this is what a playground looks like:  Chilling! This is one of those great movies where everyone stalks around in wood-paneled houses wearing triple-layered knits and spouting sub-Koontz dialogue, and it's all kind of endearing and cozy. It really feels like a pulpy Stephen King knockoff, which lends an aura of charm, but it doesn't quite hold up the first half of the movie. The basic mystery isn't scary or mysterious enough, and the character's aren't fascinating enough for the amount of time we simply spend sitting around with them. But there's a charm to the semi-amateurish script and acting, the edges of the construction are so easily felt that it's kind of just fun to hang out with the movie. I appreciate its intimations of Bergmanesque intrigue and sturdy interpersonal relationship drama, which have a subdued, adult quality - this is a movie for grown-ups, darn it! This is the earliest Cronenberg I've seen, and I'll probably explore a couple of his previous films in this thread, but his fascinations with sex, psychology, and mutilation show up here. The concept is that a famous kook psychologist is running a kind of brain spa devoted to something called "psychoplasmics", which involves sitting on a stage playing out personal issues and seems to be spurring physical transformations (he's the best character in the movie, the entire runtime is worth it just to hear his bizarre line delivery) and weird addictions to therapy. The connections are pretty obvious once the little monsters show up, which means it's not a difficult film to figure out, which takes some of the power out of the middle third. However, the last act has a couple satisfyingly chilling moments, and there's something so sturdy and methodical about Cronenberg's way of directing that it's hard to turn away from, as kludgy as the script is. The way everything ties together is so awesomely dime-store trash horror, as well, and is carried by the utter weirdness of Samantha Eggar's face:  I would be hard-pressed to call it scary, but I was definitely gripped a few times, and the overall atmosphere is pervasively eerie. It's just a good, solid, workaday B movie. You could build a house out of movies like this. 8/10
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 06:36
|
|
|
1. The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2003) 2. TCM: The Beginning 3. Halloween (2007)  It's maybe of note that I watched the Director's Cut, rather than the Theatrical version, as it's the only one that came with my box set. It's weird that a lot of my criticisms about the TCM remake can also apply here. It's weirdly indulgent in it's violence, it's changes detract from the classic story it's inspired by, and it's heavily reliant on visuals to carry a flawed story. And yet, I'm a lot more forgiving of this film for reasons that I might not be able to completely articulate. It might be because I'm more forgiving of Rob Zombie, the director. Lords of Salem is the only film of his that I've seen before, but it showed a flair that I really liked. And I do think that promise was followed up in this film. I think maybe what it is that I like is that this film shows a commitment to it's world, and the ugliness that pervades it. In TCM, the grit and grisly world of the family is a merely a spook house that our protagonists venture through. It's practically an alien wasteland, using the visual short hand of being gross and gnarly to unsettle the audiences. Where as this film actually tries to live in that world, presenting the dysfunction, apathy, and outright hostility that comes from that environment. And that bitterness manifests in a destructive grime and dirt that coats the places Michael inhabits. Making it's incursion into the 'proper' world that Laurie lives all the more upsetting and wrong. Though I do feel the need to make two notes about that: 1) It unintentionally creates a message about class and social strata. It may be sympathetic to the lower class, but it inadvertently suggests that they belong separated. And generally, demonization of the men (and it's distinctly men) that inhabit it. 2) The original was able to make that effect of invading wrongness without 50 minutes of white trash backstory. Talking about story, the film sits in a weird space where it's neither committed to recreating Halloween, nor trying to make something new using it's elements. In the attempt to fit those new ideas within the structure of the original film, the result feels a little overly full and a little tiring. It's total liberties with the start just make the rather straightforward, everything but actually shot-for-shot remake of the latter half seem rather uninspired. It makes the more overt references, even shots taken directly from the first film, a little groan worthy. Though saying that, I think it does rather well character wise, new and returning. It's pretty much been universally said that Malcolm McDowell is the absolute highlight, pretty much lifting directly from Donald Plesance. Though the self-aggrandising egotism is a welcome addition. It makes a lot of what he says as a professional come across as less than factually true and more as what he wants to believe. As well, it also makes it seem like he isn't truly paying attention to Michael, and more like he's patiently waiting for a great, book worthy quote. As well, I thought Laurie's actor, Scout Taylor-Compton, did a remarkably good job capturing a newer generation of teen girl. It's kinda funny, being that when my mom saw the original Halloween, she wasn't too far off from Laurie's age. And back when this was released I wasn't too far off from this Laurie's. In any case, watch the original and I kinda just see my mom in Curtis, a version of my mom 'x' number of years younger, and when I look at this one I see girls who I knew in High School. Point being, to me she reads as a very different yet very believable Laurie. Add Brad Dourif and Danny Trejo, and you got a pretty enjoyable extended cast. And as for Michael... It's hard to point down if Michael is an easy or hard character to cast. In this film, he is an almost impossibly large, imposing, overpowering, almost Jason-like character. Not to say that he doesn't comes off as believable yet somewhat vulnerable, though his continued survival is just as unbelievable as ever. He is given a kind of berserker rage that makes sense for the character presented. Though I don't think the journey to the Michael presented at the end is completely clear. As for what 'made' Michael, I think the film isn't necessarily saying that a broken home, abusive dad, and a couple of bullies is what made a killer. I think it's suggesting that whatever evil he has is just inherent to Michael. It's just that his home ended up being an outlet for that evil, and the hospital is what stripped him away from his humanity. However, I do think the film could have provided more insight in to young Michael's logic. We get the motivation as to why he kills, I just wanted a little more as to why is it 'now' he picks up the knife, or a little bit as to whether he is choosing to shut down while in the hospital or if it's inadvertent. Aside from that, I really do like the mask in this film. It may be a bit too grungy, maybe a bit over the top, but it fits what the film is going for. Plus, I like how the clean version Young Michael first wears ends up looking a bit more clumsy, and a bit more humanising. And that humanity does carry into adult Michael's look and performance as well. And just one more note, his interactions with Loomis have a great undercurrent where there's an ambiguity as to whether Michael believes what he says, or if he understands that it's all bullshit. Point being, I like the Michael in this. He has a very strong presence both on screen and throughout the film. Though the strongest aspect of the film is it's visual style. More than anything, this film is committed to making something visually interesting at all times. Be it in creating believable spaces, recreating the visual style of the original film, or delving into the visceral destructive wake of Myers. And it's the attempts at recreating the original visually that I have to applaud the film. Some of it's shots do look like they're straight out of the first, even when they aren't directly copying shots. Plus, it's choice of location and careful selection of props and vehicles help recreate that 1970's suburban look indirectly, even if it's betrayed by the contemporary looking girls. It's also of note that they squarely place the origin story after the peak of the 1970's, but at a still indistinct period just so it all feels like it came from a 'before'. As a result, the latter half feels like it takes place in the 'now', even though it cribs visually from modern day, the 1970's, and even the 1990's where it would logically take place. As a result, 'now' just feels like a place out of time, kinda like 'It Follows'. And I do want to make special notice of Dr. Loomis' book, looking like a legitimate crappy, horror themed paperback. And I do want to make a note of the film's sexuality. It makes sense that there is a strong element of sex and titillation in the film. It is Michael's film here, and he comes across as someone who has no idea how to handle anything sexual (though generally he makes do with a knife). It's something that he seems to personally revile, and yet is entranced by it. So it makes sense that the film would necessarily make focus on women and their 'assets' in order to comment on Michael. However, this film did not need a rape of an inmate. It's gross, exploitative, and fairly unnecessary for what the scene aims to achieve. The point is to have two assholes harass Michael, and then he uses the opportunity to kill them and escape. And considering that what sets Michael off is the two guys touching his masks, if they removed the woman from the scene it would have saved them a minute or two of screen time. With it in the film, it actively detracts from the movie to little benefit other than making me feel gross, and making gross people feel hot and bothered. But taking the film as a whole, it's not as bad as it's reputation made it seem. Though it is distinctly flawed in ways that I'm not sure if I would revisit it versus just rewatching the original. It's flaws are magnified being so closely related to the original, but it's applaudable in it's ambition, and somewhat deservedly derided for it's flaws. I think it's a worthwhile experiment, and perhaps worth watching if you haven't.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 06:40
|
|
|
and now for my second movie for the challenge #2:Godzilla vs Hedorah  the 11th Godzilla movie, and the one that leaned the closest to true Horror since the original movie(and which the franchise wouldn't truly reach again till Shin Godzilla last year), Godzilla himself in many respects is almost an afterthought here, mostly being included so that the true star of the movie Hedorah(the titular Smog Monster) has something on it's scale to fight, Hedorah is probably the most impressive monster that Toho had come up with during the Showa era after Godzilla himself, and one of the most horrifying of any Kaiju period, it's an absolutely alien monster in not just appearance but mindset, indeed it wouldn't be a stretch to compare Hedorah with some of the more inhuman Slashers like Jason or Michael Myers, especially as we see later on in the film that despite being the size of a skyscraper it will gleefully chase down humans to murder them in a manner that's still very effective in it's terror even today(I was probably 6 or 7 when I first saw this movie and it was traumatizing seeing people get melted down to the bone by it's acid), there's a particularly chilling moment about halfway through the film where Hedorah in it's Flying/3rd Form rams through a construction site, right before it hits a construction worker falls, passing through it's acidic mist, impacting the ground as nothing but a sludge covered skeleton of course one can't mention the terror of this film without bringing up the fact that it's also probably the weirdest Godzilla movie ever made, full of weird little bits and pieces such as little cartoons showing Hedorah's growth, or montages of various constellations and nebulas, as well as infamous scenes like the dance club scene where one of the main characters hallucinates everyone suddenly having fish heads, or the ridiculous scene in the final battle between Gozilla and Hedorah where Godzilla uses his atomic breath to fly, but overall I feel that these moments of oddness don't particularly detract from the movie's quality this film would probably be in my top 5 Godzilla films  out of five
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 07:17
|
|
|
2. Bloodwood Cannibals-2010: 3/10 (Kings of Horror on YouTube) My first foray into the Kings of Horror YouTube channel which has a bunch of Horror movies available to watch for free. and might be my last based on how terrible this movie is (that's a lie, I'm a Horror fan and we pride ourselves on watching garbage like this and this channel is chock full of garbage from the looks of it) A documentary film crew is in the woods searching for cannibals or big foot or something and are taken out one by one. It's a typical low budget piece of poo poo with some gore thrown into the usual mix of poor camera work, bad script and terrible acting. FIRST TIMERS: Pet, Bloodwood Cannibals SEEN IT BEFORE:
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 09:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 22:11 |
|
|
Okay, seriously, are there any guides to what's on Amazon or more user-friendly ways to look at their selection? There's a bajillion horror movies on this thing and it's organized like complete garbage.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 10:07
|
|
