|
Franchescanado posted:I prefer Demons, but I feel like Demons 2 is just as good, it just may not benefit from being seen so close to the first one, since you kind of already know what to expect. I think Demons 2 is better 
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2017 15:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 04:23 |
|
|
I decided to just go on chronological order for Hooper week, and after skipping Eaten Alive(I watched earlier this year), next was: The Funhouse This actually turned out to be a lot different than what I was expecting, it's less House of 1000 Corpses and more Castle Freak, which I was totally cool with but the focus on just two specific Funhouse inhabitants was a bit of a surprise. It's a much different looking film that Texas Chainsaw, the different color palette of course jumped out at me right away. If TCM is yellow and orange, The Funhouse would have to be considered a very red movie.   As I said, the cast is fairly small, really only about six people, so each one is pretty memorable and all four of the protagonists are fairly well developed by horror standards. At no point would I say this movie is scary, at least not anywhere on the same level as some of the more intense moments of TCM, but there's certainly a creepy vibe going on and the makeup effects are(for the most part) very well done. And even though I said this film didn't remind me of House of 1000 Corpses that much(on a plot level), I think it could be considered another piece of evidence that Zombie's #1 horror influence has to be Tobe Hooper. Between this film and Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2 you basically have Zombie's entire style contained in them. With the notable exception of graphic gore, because considering Hooper's reputation he really is not a gory director. Texas Chainsaw Massacre, The Funhouse, Eaten Alive, and a few of the others I've seen all tend imply gore more than show it, and I appreciate the art of all that, it's a skill that probably is the main thing that would separate Hooper from Zombie in my mind. The Funhouse was made only a year before Poltergeist, and with that in mind it's really very believable that Poltergeist would be considered Spielberg's movie. The crispness of every shot in Poltergeist(which I also watched last night) is so anti-Hooper, at least from what I've seen, and it's tough for me to believe that his style evolved so drastically between 1981 and 1982. Completed:The Wicker Man, Deadly Blessing, Night Creatures, Shock Waves, Slugs, Venom, Maximum Overdrive, Christine, The Tingler, The Masque of the Red Death, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, The Funhouse Basebf555 fucked around with this message at 17:14 on Sep 27, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2017 16:59
|
|
|
Neo Rasa posted:This makes sense since while Blatty was the author of the book it's based on it actually was unrelated to The Exorcist. There's a more complete version of the movie that's out but IIRC it's like the uncut Evil Dead II where they had to use old VHS tapes and a variety of other less than ideal sources to piece it together. IIRC it doesn't really improve the movie much, but that's okay because I like the movie a lot anyway. It's also cool to see a movie that hits a lot of similar notes to Seven so long before Seven came out too but is also relatively bloodless. And while Hannibal Lector is of course THE cinematic serial killer of the 90s, you can't tell me plenty of people playing that kind of role didn't study Brad Dourif here. Dourif is great and I'm sad he is most well known as Chucky from Child's Play. He is a great voice actor but he's also insanely expressive and just using his voice robs you of his fantastic physical presence.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 00:19
|
|
|
Are any of the Chucky movies actually, and not ironically, good?
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 00:27
|
|
|
1 and 2 are really good. 3 is middling. Bride of Chucky went straight campy comedy. Seed of Chucky was so campy and lovely it actually had John Waters in it. Curse of Chucky takes away the overt comedy and goes back to middling. Haven't seen Cult of Chucky. So I'd rank them: 1 2 Curse 3 Bride Seed
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 00:33
|
|
|
Untrustable posted:Dourif is great and I'm sad he is most well known as Chucky from Child's Play. He is a great voice actor but he's also insanely expressive and just using his voice robs you of his fantastic physical presence. I know him as Billy from One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, and he's one of the most memorable characters in that film.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 00:37
|
|
|
Yea I'd agree that 1 and 2 are legitimately good movies, after that it's hit or miss depending on your taste.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 00:37
|
|
|
The first two. Alternately: https://twitter.com/JayBauman1/status/880545634301820929
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 00:37
|
|
|
3 is pretty bad though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 00:49
|
|
|
3 is when the writer decided Chucky needed to spout off one-liners. It really took away from any menace Chucky had to that point.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 00:56
|
|
|
Lurdiak posted:The first two. This tweet is really about the best way to describe the series. Like, Bride and Seed seem to be trying to do a completely different thing from the rest for example. I love the poo poo out of Bride of Chucky, but a big part of it is definitely that it's a campy, almost post-modern jokey riff on slasher/spree killer movies, released right in the middle of that weird late 90s glut of films trying to ride the success of Scream, where like, every theatrical release was some cheesy, poorly written crud using pretty teenaged tv actors as their main selling points.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 02:15
|
|
|
Bride of Chucky loving owns and now I think I'm gonna watch it for the challenge at some point. e: the first two are also genuinely good movies and, while 3 is a step down, I'm okay with it. Seed is staggeringly awful, Curse pretty much vanished from my memory as soon as I watched it (though I think it was okayish?), and I haven't seen Cult yet.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 02:26
|
|
|
Movie #20: Nosferatu (1922) I understand that this is a classic and the first vampire movie but it is dull. Without all the quality of life improvements films have experienced over the last almost 100 years Nosferatu comes off as a slog. Granted, there were some pretty creepy shots of Count Orlock throughout but I've seen them lampooned and played in "greatest horror movie" clip shows for years so they lose any affect they might have had. I'm just spoiled by all the good movie stuff since 1922. If you're a fan of horror you should see it for it's historic significance, just don't expect a great time.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 02:34
|
|
|
Untrustable posted:1 and 2 are really good. 3 is middling. Bride of Chucky went straight campy comedy. Seed of Chucky was so campy and lovely it actually had John Waters in it. Curse of Chucky takes away the overt comedy and goes back to middling. Haven't seen Cult of Chucky. this is the correct order and I'd put cult of chucky that i just watched probably between curse and 3. they take the fun curse premise and just go nuts with it and its a lot of fun
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 03:15
|
|
|
Just a heads up, but Cult of Chucky hits Netflix on October 3.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 03:17
|
|
|
Untrustable posted:Movie #20: Nosferatu (1922) You are wrong. I love showing people Nosferatu because we all have a good time laughing at the terrible acting and crazy kleig-light makeup in the 20m intro part, then Orlock shows up and everyone gets quiet because Max Schreck is the best Vampire ever and his preformance is so goddamn good. I saw it last year with a live band playing the music, a five piece outfit with like a theremin and an ethereal goth girl vocalist and a dude with a top hat with gears glued to it on the chimes/keyboard
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 04:07
|
|
|
A Nightmare on Elm Street 3: The Dream Warriors (1987) This isn't the scariest of the Nightmare movies, but it's probably my favourite entry. This one has tons of iconic scenes, and I really feel that the wisecracking Freddy we get is what most people associate with he character. The premise is pretty simple - a group of teens in an asylum are all being haunted by Freddy. Nancy from the original Elm Street is a new doctor at the facility, and she learns these teens are dealing what she once did. This has some of my favourite kills in the series, including the human marionette and the TV scene. Everything about this is very creative, and the special effects and props are great. The only thing that holds this movie back is the character of Dr. Parker. He's another doctor at the facility, and he gets way too much screen time for a largely useless character. He could have easily been written out of this movie. Resident Evil: The final chapter (2016/2017 wide release) I have no clue what the hell this series is even about. I've seen three or four of the prior entries but I've never played the games so I have no major attachment to the series. I didn't mind the last entry though, so I thought I'd give this a try. I really didn't know what was going on, nor did I really care. This came off like a bigger budget episode of the walking dead, and that's not a positive. It's just going from set piece to set piece, with exposition in between. The editing isn't my style either. It's one of those ones that does rapid cuts that are supposed to convey action but really just produce headaches. Overall, some monster fighting is okay but I really don't think this series is all that great. Rewatches (4): Maniac Cop, Friday the 13th 3, Friday the 13th 4, A Nightmare on Elm Street 3 First time watches (7): Mortuary, Little Evil, Eloise, Mother!, The Roommate, The Chaos Experiment, Resident Evil 6
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 04:28
|
|
|
15. Dr. Phibes Rises Again - This has pretty much everything I could have hoped for from a sequel and then some. The feel is a little different since we shift from "Phibes is a genius" to "Phibes can also do magic" immediately and without much fanfare, but it's mostly in service of walking back the ending of the original so they can actually have a sequel. It also gets us more Vulnavia and I just don't think Phibes would be as much fun solo so I'm cool with it. Of course, there being a sequel at all sort of undermines the original on account of the whole curse of darkness thing that finished it off. If you think about 1 and the 1+2 sequence as being different stories, though, both are good stories so again it didn't bother me - just sort of striking for a second before we settle back into elaborate murder plots using extremely non-threatening animals. The robo-snake fakeout in particular is glorious. I don't think there were quite as many standout moments of brilliance in this one and the pace felt a little more sedate, but I appreciate that it kept so much of what made the original great without being a simple retread. Both are absolute must-watches. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 04:46
|
|
|
5 and 6: Evil Dead 2/ Army of Darkness I'm not going to say too much about these because honestly, what are you even doing here if you haven't seen them already? What was cool this year was that I could share AoD with my 5 year old. I debated it, but really it's no scarier than any of the kids movies like Dark Crystal or Labrynth, and Ghostbusters is his favourite movie so I figured he could handle it. Sure enough he ate it up. Untrustable posted:Movie #20: Nosferatu (1922) Saw this once backed by a live orchestra, now THAT was an experience. Opopanax fucked around with this message at 14:41 on Sep 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 04:57
|
|
|
Retro Futurist posted:What was cool this year was that I could share AoD with my 5 year old. I debated it, but really it's no scarier than any of the kids movies like Dark Crystal or Labrynth, and Ghostbusters is his favourite movie so I figured he could handle it. Sure enough he ate it up. Yeah, I've seriously never understood why AoD is rated R. Even for the time, it should have absolutely been PG-13; there's literally one shot with any blood in it (the pit at the beginning), very little strong language, and no sex. I have to believe it was solely because the film was Evil Dead 3, but even then, it seems insane.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 05:04
|
|
|
Didn't know this was starting early. Gonna aim for 31 this year, I have a huge backlog and I wanna start taking chunks out. I fell a bit short in the may challenge (And had to watch a couple of truly dreadful movies as punishment) so hoping to do a bit better now.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 08:25
|
|
|
1. The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2003) 2. TCM: The Beginning 3. Halloween (2007) 4. Friday the 13th (2009) 5. Hollywood Ghost Stories (1986) 6. Halloween 2 (2009) 7. A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010)  I'll be frank, I kinda half watch these movies, and half write up a first draft for these posts. It's a lot of initial thoughts that are tied loosely into new thoughts as they pop up. And in these opening moments, I'm not too disappointed with the film. It looks alright, surreal and with a very distinct colour and texture. It reads as a dream, both feeling detached from what's going on, and with the character feeling detached from the normal social boundaries. And the way this waitress ignores him is a great nod to Nancy's initial dream meeting with Freddy in the first film. But on the other hand, the way that this dude calls her a Bitch for ignoring him comes across as the creative team going, 'Nudge nudge, get it guys? You all get by how much ladies can be total bitches, huh?' And it reads as immature and not particularly thought out, which I can imagine might be a running theme of the film. That said, I'm not really liking the less wild vision of the dreamscape. Taking a more subdued, Inception-like approach to minorly subverting the waking world. And considering the reputation the series has, with kills like The Roach Motel, 'Welcome to Primetime, Bitch', hell even the first film introduces Freddy with those elongated arms, you expect a flamboyancy to the actions of the dreaming. Freddy is a serial killer with the powers of God and the occasional wicked sense of humor. And this film starting it all off with Freddy just slitting a dude's throat, not even with the claws but a steak knife, is just a bummer. And speaking of Freddy, I'm kinda disappointed in this version of him. I think whatever spin Jackie Earl Haley is putting on him is merely change for change's sake. At best to no benefit, and at his worst he's flat and monotone. I will say it doesn't come across as flat or lazy, but rather as just plain bad acting. And I do have to note that sometimes it's blatant that whatever ADR they needed doesn't neatly matchup with his lips. As for his physical appearance, it feels kinda mean spirited. It's definitely more realistic to burn victims, but it's both hard to look at as well as looking kinda off. And all it does is send the message that burn victims look monstrous. And as for his characterisation as a huge creeps, it does makes sense for how he's presented and his history within the film. But put into action it feels both gross to watch, and dishonest to the character's history. While you could believe Freddy's a paedophile based on how he was presented in the original films, in his death his earthly desires have given away to sheer malice and spite. In this film, he wants to kill them but he also wants to gently caress them? That dynamic can work with Jason or Michael, both of whom have neither the development to understand those feelings nor the outlet to express them (outside of murder). But where Freddy has both lived and hid within society as a functional adult, you would expect him express this effectively by imposing his (absolutely deplorable) will on these teens. Or at least be able to convey a frustration in being unable to do so in an equally disturbing, but much more filmable, manner. As is, it's both gross and unnecessary while delivering on nothing but discomfort. And for the rest of the cast, they're not great either. They're pretty much either teens who are all written the same, or adults who lack much of any characterisation. Rooney Mara is wasted in this film, who time has proved to be an excellent actor. But here, she is given nothing to really work with other than generic terror and a gimmick of being an artist. Everyone else just isn't worth mentioning, other than Clancy Brown. Mainly because it's cool to see Clancy Brown in stuff. As for story, it's just the original film told with less tact and skill. And any attempts to add something new to the original don't lead to anything substantial. The original had a nice sub-theme relating to Regan-era philosophy of 'we know what's best for you' leads to the destruction of the younger generation. In this film it's replaced by nothing. It's all secrets and mystery, but the plot is driven by the kids and by Freddy. Hell, it occasionally goes out of it's way to remove authority to the equation, or at least undermine any moments of dramatic tension by subverting them. It's all Dawson's Creek style teen drama, unlike the original which distinctly placed the kids under the thumbs of their parents. Without that oppressive authority, you just have a film whose message is 'Yo this poo poo is scary'. And the worst is the climax. Where the answers that no one was asking for is revealed. Turns out Freddy, whose been performed as and is suggested to be a Pedo, is actually a Pedo. And the creative team, faced with the fact that they are written into a corner, turns to the generic climactic slasher chase. Gone is the original film's proactive and empowering proto-Home Alone fight that Nancy has with Freddy. Instead she runs from Freddy until she's caught. And generally it's all ideas and set pieces from the original films or other horror films, and generally to poorer execution. In the end our heroine is left whimpering and reliant on the masculine hero to save her. Any proactivity and accomplishment is merely happenstance outside of Nancy's final blow. Where the original had one of the best and most iconic final girl, this one has one of the most unfortunately bland and generic ones put to wide release. That said, it is actually a pretty good looking movie. Looking in to it, the director namely does music video, and was a compatriot to both David Fincher and Michael Bay. And being in league with them, he actually does a good job trying to keep up with them visually (even if he isn't matching their standard). It may not be 10/10 the whole way through, but there's more than a couple excellent shots, with the gem being the interestingly Hollywood look to the subtly surreal nightmares. Though the worst that it gets is when it has to make use CG, even doing so unnecessarily. It's cheap and ugly, and is the definition of aged horribly if it had ever looked good in the first place. Though I do want to put special note on the sound, as I'm pretty sure it hid the sound of Freddy's claws within other sound effects. As far as I know, this film was pretty much rushed into development. After the 2009 Friday the 13th was a success, New Line or Platinum Dunes of whoever it was wanted another guaranteed hit. This film was presumably in development at the time, and figured they could make easy money fast tracking it. And you can tell as much. Everything that should have been figured out and polished in Pre-Production wasn't. You have a bad script that feels like a first draft with the barest of editing (much like my writing), a Freddy that doesn't look good, and special effects that should have been better. Presumably the final film was handed to the CG studio, and given a checklist of effects to work on. The only part that works is the in-camera visuals, and considering the Director's career it's no wonder that's the only thing he's good at. It's a bad film that does nothing to warrant it's existence, and there's no real reason why I would ever want to watch this over any of the original series.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 09:46
|
|
|
It's a shame that the remake NOES script is so bland and bad. I had high hopes upon learning it was written by the same guy as the creepypasta Dionaea House, one of the more innovatively styled stories out there (though it borrows from House of Leaves heavily I hear). It takes the epistolary format into the 21st century by being written through the lens of blog posts, with different characters having their own blog accounts, lending to unique voices and perspectives, but also seeding each others' posts' comment sections, and leading the reader on a wild scavenger hunt to find all the pieces to the puzzle. And then his next work was so mediocre. What a shame.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 12:39
|
|
|
Choco1980 posted:It's a shame that the remake NOES script is so bland and bad. I had high hopes upon learning it was written by the same guy as the creepypasta Dionaea House, one of the more innovatively styled stories out there (though it borrows from House of Leaves heavily I hear). It takes the epistolary format into the 21st century by being written through the lens of blog posts, with different characters having their own blog accounts, lending to unique voices and perspectives, but also seeding each others' posts' comment sections, and leading the reader on a wild scavenger hunt to find all the pieces to the puzzle. And then his next work was so mediocre. What a shame. That was probably due to the studio execs more than him, but the NOES remake is so dreadfully boring. Making Freddy a blatant pedophile, but having the characters ready to defend him because they assume he isn't a pedophile and that he was wrongfully killed is interesting. I don't think it's good at all, but it was at least something.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 14:04
|
|
|
drat, turns out I'm gonna have to cut Tobe Hooper week a bit short because I can't find Invaders from Mars streaming anywhere for a reasonable price. Bummer.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 14:22
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:drat, turns out I'm gonna have to cut Tobe Hooper week a bit short because I can't find Invaders from Mars streaming anywhere for a reasonable price. Bummer. That's insane. It was just on streaming. We almost watched it for my last horror movie night. Oh well, guess you'll have to watch this good quality copy on YouTube for free
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 14:27
|
|
|
Franchescanado posted:That's insane. It was just on streaming. We almost watched it for my last horror movie night. Well poo poo, I just searched youtube last night and didn't see that! Thanks! I better watch it tonight before it gets taken down.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 14:35
|
|
|
1. 2 Jennifer 2 Jennifer is a sequel to To Jennifer, a found footage film that was shot entirely on iphone. I had seen the first one and thought it was a decent movie and the iphone thing was kinda novel, so figured I'd give this one a try as well. No knowledge of the original is needed. The movie opens with a few video reviews/discussion of the original which would've added a bit more "reality" to the film had I not already seen basically the same opening in Grave Encounters 2. Spencer (who's also the director of the movie) really loved the original, and is looking to create a sequel to it with him as the star. The original was all shot and edited on an iphone and they continued the trend here as well (although it doesn't seem consistently this way). After enjoying the original I was hoping this would be at least decent. I was wrong. The original somewhat hinted that the protagonist had some issues/was a bit unhinged, whereas this one it's about 10 seconds for you to realize that Spencer's crazy and going to end up doing something bad. It doesn't help that he's on the screen far more than the original's protagonist and lacks pretty much any subtlety in his performance. The original might have suffered somewhat from being overly long to get to the final act, but it could at least be forgiven somewhat as they were going for a slow burn where you gradually see how the main protagonist is unbalanced. Here it's just waiting around for some crazy dude to finally do whatever his crazy thing is. Which isn't bad in and of itself, if that thing were worth waiting for (it's not) or it were executed with any actual humor and/or horror involved. Spencer and his friend Mack (who is helping make the film) have a casting session to find the actress to play Jennifer in their sequel (who has to be named Jennifer because of course she does since Spencer's crazy and that's what crazy people do). They eventually find someone to cast, and coincidentally she happens to know one of the actors from the original, who is going to a party the original's director is throwing. Spencer and Mack go to the party and eventually meet the director of the original who recognizes Spencer as some crazy dude who sent him some strange pictures. They get chased out and beat up by the people at the party, and pretty much from here Spencer's free to proceed to act full-fledged crazy as the final act begins. The issue isn't necessarily the idea, it's really just how badly everything is written and acted. There's no surprise, no tension, no build while at the same time nothing really happens. There's some things that seem like they could almost be funny if they were intentional, but it's hard to tell if that's the case with how shoddily everything is executed. So yeah, this was pretty bad. 1.5/5 (and that's mostly for keeping the filmed on iphone aesthetic of the original).
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 18:22
|
|
|
 #11 Scanners -It's kind of uneven, and Stephen Lack's performance stands out as really bad compared to the rest, but it's got a weird charm to it. The high points are very high. Specifically the scanning of the computer and the entire end confrontation are golden. There's not actually a ton of gore in it, but what's there is very very good. I watched the effects documentary segment and it's nuts to me that the head explosion was done on set with a real shotgun. 4/5 Total: 11 Butterly Murders [4/5], Candyman: Day of the Dead [1/5], The Fog [4/5], Demons [5/5], Demons 2 [4/5], Prom Night [2/5], The Texas Chainsaw Massacre [5/5], In the Mouth of Madness [4/5], Inland Empire [3/5], Vampyr [4/5], Scanners [4/5] Letterboxd list
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 18:38
|
|
|
2. Gifts from Strangers Gifts From Strangers is a micro-budget british found-footage film. Despite having what must amounted to almost no budget, I found it to be a pretty well done film. There's obviously places where you can seen the constraints (the running time is one-45 minutes is fairly short) but I think it tells a fairly effective story. It also developed in a different direction from what I expected, which is always a nice surprise in movies. Without giving too much away, a big horror fan who does youtube videos sends some videos to one of his viewers, who sends him back a gift in return. Him and his roommate are baffled by what it is, until his roommate's girlfriend informs them about it. Afterwards, a bunch of bad things start happening and it proceeds from there. As I mentioned, I'm being intentionally vague because the direction it went in was really something I didn't expect and with the movie's shortened run time it's probably best to keep any sort of surprises intact. But I thought the main dude did a good job in his role (although it's not always clear why a camera needs to be filming things), and there are some genuinely creepy/scary moments as well as the overall mood of the movie getting darker as it progresses. It would be nice to see what the director could do with a bit more budget/time to expand on some of the goings on, but that's not really a knock on the movie as it is. So yeah, anyone who has 45 minutes and amazon prime (can't remember if this was regular prime or the shudder addon) I'd recommend checking it out, especially if you're a found footage fan. 3.5/5 Total: 2 2 Jennifer [1.5/5] Gifts From Strangers [3.5/5] alansmithee fucked around with this message at 18:46 on Sep 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 18:44
|
|
|
Finally getting around to writing up... Poltergeist As I mentioned in my last post, this film was made only a year after The Funhouse, and the difference is really quite jarring. The Hooper/Spielberg controversy has been covered ad nauseam, but when you actually sit down and watch these two films back to back it's very glaring how much Poltergeist just does not look like a Hooper film whatsoever. Add that to the idyllic setting and the Reagan-era ideal couple with 2 kids and a golden retriever, and it's pretty easy to see why people will always feel it has a strong connection to Spielberg. Hell, his name is the first you see, after all this is a "Steven Spielberg Production", and that's what people walked away from the film remembering. Perhaps Hooper's influence can be seen in some of the nightmarish imagery though, some of it does seem pretty dark for Spielberg.    The implications of those quick glimpses of the other side are pretty scary and the more you think about them the more disturbing it is. Just what is this monstrous thing that reigns over there? The desperation of the family is very genuine, JoBeth Williams and Craig T. Nelson are kind of the prototypical suburban couple in my mind because of this film. I also really noticed for the first time how important Beatrice Straight is to the movie. She is always overshadowed by Zelda Rubinstein whenever people talk about Potergeist, but she really brings a ton of heart to the role and it's easy to forget how huge a part she plays in the actual plot. She's the first one to step in and try to help the Freelings, and even after Rubinstein shows up she stays and is really critical to saving Carole Anne. So the fact that she's mostly a forgotten character is a shame. I have three Hooper films left to watch, but two that I've already seen, plus my first time watching Invaders From Mars. Completed:The Wicker Man, Deadly Blessing, Night Creatures, Shock Waves, Slugs, Venom, Maximum Overdrive, Christine, The Tingler, The Masque of the Red Death, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, The Funhouse, Poltergeist
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 19:58
|
|
|
5. Only Lovers Left Alive (2013) Tommy Wiseau finally got to play a vampire in a movie he always wanted to make.  Ok so other than having vampires this barely qualifies as horror, there's just one off-screen kill and not much to speak of in terms of tension or terror. Instead it's a drama about a depressed musician and his wife who happen to be a vampires and have a vampire friend/sister(?). There's some humor extracted from this situation as well, but to be honest not enough to make me like this one. It's all very pretty and well made but I just thought that the struggle and drama weren't engaging enough and obviously not scary enough to keep me very interested. Things do escalate quite a bit in the third act and I wish more of the movie were like that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 20:16
|
|
|
Jarmusch keeps making me want to like him but then I watch his movies and something's just missing. I wanted to like Dead Man so bad, I usually love westerns. Ghost Dog was pretty good I guess.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 20:22
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:Finally getting around to writing up... What I find so interesting about Poltergeist is how it exists in the zeitgeist. People talk about the little girl in front of the TV, "They're he-eeere!", the clown, the pool scene, but most of the references and conversations about it seem to forget how batshit insane that movie gets, which your screenshots show. There is some absolutely terrifying nightmare imagery in that film, like the long-limbed white spectre and the tree, but yeah, let's talk about the spooky girl watching static on the tube. The movie certainly looks like a Spielberg movie, but the story accelerates and gets weird as hell like a Hooper film. I don't really want to spark up the debate of "Was it the Hoop or the 'Berg?", and to his dying day Hooper claimed he was the director, but I remember reading a producer saying that Spielberg did most of the directing while Hooper did more of a producer's work, but Hooper got the directors bill because of a director's guild working guidelines that stopped them from working on too many projects in a given timelines, hence why they never admitted the truth after all these years. Dunno if that's the truth, but it made the most sense to me. If I were Hooper, I'd probably stick to the story that said I directed the infamous spooky movie and not the other guy.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 20:32
|
|
|
I considered posting a few more screenshots like of the white spectre that guards the bedroom but I decided that it would be nice for someone if they ended up watching for the first time to have a few surprises. The appearance of that spectre at that certain moment is a really cool scene, because they build up to it pretty well with the guy getting bitten by it earlier in the movie.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 20:45
|
|
|
It's a Spielberg movie.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 20:55
|
|
|
#2: The Night of the Hunter Children abide. This is the constant refrain of the 3rd act of Night of the Hunter. Children will accept the rules that their parents and that society will put on them, both good and bad. It's a film about predators, prey, belief, innocence, and fear...but mostly it's a story about children. The story of Night of the Hunter is simple enough. Robert Mitchum plays a serial killer preacher, with LOVE and HATE tattooed on his knuckles, traveling around rural West Virginia in 1930. The Great Depression has set in, society is falling apart, and people are escaping through either destructive vice or blind faith. While spending some time in jail for stealing a car, Mitchum's Harry Powell learns of $10,000 (nearly $150,000 today) that his cellmate robbed from a local bank, but is not told the exact location of the money. Beneficial for Powell, his cellmate is on death row for killing two people during the course of the robbery. Upon his release from jail, Powell departs for his cellmate's hometown to find his widow and the money. Unknown to all of the characters however, the bank robber left the money with his young son, John, and daughter, Pearl, (he stuffed it in his daughter's baby doll) and swore them to secrecy. Powell enters John and Pearl's lives, courts then marries their mother, and makes his moves to find the family's unknown riches. I don't want to say any more about the plot, because you should definitely see this, but there's still a lot to dissect. First, let's all enjoy how the movie starts: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VLcV8uxYK9E I love the disembodied space head imparting sound biblical wisdom to the disembodied heads of the space children. They're almost heavenly, which seems appropriate as the film transitions to some earth-bound children playing hide and seek and finding the body of a young girl in a cellar. The musical cue as Mitchum's Powell is introduced tells us everything we need to know about him. My wife said at the end of the movie that she was glad that it wasn't a story about us discovering that Powell is evil. The movie shows us right away that this guy is bad, but is pretending to be good, and is clearly insane. The conversations and relationships that people have with God in this movie are amazing, and is something that I've always found interesting in real life. For me, it's always been hard to differentiate between the earnest prayers of godly people and the meandering direct conversations with the divine that we hospitalize people for having. I think Charles Laughton is fascinated by this as well, because the film places the madman in a field of virtuous characters, and they all seem to be speaking the same language. I'd imagine that during the Great Depression, sleepy rural towns like the one in the film, would become more drastic with their faith. Or they would turn to vice. The clearest thinker in the film, an old man John calls Uncle Birdy who says he has no time for preachers, is rendered feckless by drink and cowardice. Children become lost in a fractured society, and numerous characters remark on the number of wandering, parentless children who travel up and down the river looking for food and protection. The adults don't sound like they pity these children, they just sound angry with their parents for not doing their jobs. There are a lot of opinions flying around. Mrs. Spoon, the wife of the town's candy shop owner speaks openly and brashly about what Willa, John and Pearl's now widowed mother, should or should not do. She gives a long and loud lesson at a picnic about how sex is a necessity of procreation, and that having sexual feelings is impure and improper (but only for women). Later in the film, though, she clucks her tongue when Powell tells her that Willa turned down his advances on their wedding night. In Mrs. Spoon's righteous world, women should give in to every advance their husband makes, but should derive no pleasure from the act at all. (This sounds so unchanged from today's closed-minded rural America. I chuckled out loud when Mr. Spoon called Mrs. Spoon, "mother" on multiple occasions. It might not have been as weird in 1955, but the way the film is crafted, the absurdity of it is not lost on Laughton.) In reality, Powell is the one who rebukes his new wife's advances, telling her that he will never have sex with her, because they do not want to procreate. He denies Willa coldly, and admonishes her for having sexual feelings. Powell definitely has a weird, understated thing with sex. At the beginning of the film, he hears God saying that He hates "perfume smellin' things, lacy things, things with curly hair" but still ends up at a strip show, where he angrily draws his knife. He thinks about killing the girl on stage, but reminds himself that there are too many other people around. "Can't kill the whole world," he sighs. Powell is unhinged, and has replaced sex with murder. He won't, or perhaps more accurately can't, have sex, so he uses his knife. He even shows it to young Pearl in one memorable scene, and becomes excited and agitated when she goes to touch it. Super creepy stuff. The bedroom scene between Powell and his new wife was one of the most striking shots I've seen in a long time:  The preacher is in his church, which is also his marital bedroom. He's raising his left hand to the sky (the hand with HATE written on it) as his wife reveals that she heard Powell violently trying to get the location of the $10,000 from the children. She's not angry, however; not even after Powell slaps her across the face. She sounds sleepy and blunted. Her only request is that he teach her The Way, how to be clean and pure with God just as Powell clearly is. Willa is changed after meeting Powell. She becomes obsessed with cleanliness, appearing unhinged and manic while discussing how clean she is or could be. After she is turned down and shamed on her wedding night, the next scene shows her as wide-eyed and frantic in her devotion to God and her husband's church. My wife and I both agreed, she was horny af and hated herself for it. While adult sexuality is a big theme in Night of the Hunter, predatory sex against children is the more insidious and shadowy theme. The children in this film are almost glowingly cherubic or piteously disheveled, but always innocent. The one child in the film whose innocence is damaged first is John: his father the bank robber tells him to keep a secret from everybody, even other trusted adults. This secret is about the location of the hidden money, but c'mon...what's the most common secret that adults make vulnerable children keep? It's never explicitly stated that Powell is preying on the children sexually, but the genius of Laughton's direction puts it just under the surface. He knows that something as simple as a door closing and locking can be the most terrifying thing for a child. There's also a scene later in the film when Powell is manipulating a young teenage girl for information. She doesn't fear him, and seems to crave the attention. He buys her ice cream, and she hangs all over him, asking if she's beautiful. She's another wastrel, forgotten by a destitute society. The road is cruel to lost children, and she's found a reliable way to get positive attention and rewards. Again, it's never explicitly stated, but the subtext is chilling and oh so upsetting. In the 3rd act, the children escape from Powell by taking a small boat down a river. All the shots of the children along the river are framed with small woodland creatures. I didn't really understand it during the film, but I kind of get it now: they're all the little innocent things of nature, and they're all completely exposed to the cruelty of the bigger, stronger, and faster predators. Watch how scary this is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9PyNL2ahKwc The children eventually find refuge with a kindly old woman, Mrs. Cooper, who takes them in and cares for them. She teaches them lessons and understands the trauma that they've gone through, even if she doesn't know the specifics. There's a scene where the children are inside Mrs. Cooper's house hiding from Powell who is sitting outside on a stump singing hymns. She sits with a shotgun at the ready to defend her young charges. A poignant moment unfolds before her: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JyxSm91eun4 Mrs. Cooper is the first character in the film to understand the plight of children in a broken world. Their parents either ignored them or abandoned them. They asked them to keep secrets, or failed to protect them, blinded by their own desires and needs. Mrs. Cooper is the only shepherd they have now. The ending is beautifully bizarre in a way that I feel David Lynch would appreciate. In fact, you can tell that Lynch learned a lot from watching how Laughton handled such a dark and disturbing film with subtlety and by highlighting the absurdity and terror of everyday life. Watching Night of the Hunter has only increased my appreciation of something like Eraserhead or Twin Peaks. There's also a lot of silent film film influence here. Some scenes are framed like stage plays, where the whole set is flatly presented to the audience as a cross-section; almost like we're watching ants in an ant farm. You can also see the impact that Weimar German films, particularly M, left on Laughton. M is another dark film, although more explicitly so, about a child murderer as a symptom of a fractured society. And yes, the LOVE/HATE knuckle tattoos are exactly what inspired this:  The most incredible thing: this was Laughton's first and only film as a director! He'd done a ton of acting work, dating back to the silent era, but this was his only time behind the camera. Summary: The Night of the Hunter is one of the most quietly terrifying films I've ever seen. Robert Mitchum's ability to convey subtle insanity couched in disarming charm makes him a perfect predator. Laughton's direction and cinematography presents a surrealistic and absurd rural America where fear and trauma are a silent part of everyday life. I can't recommend it enough, and I feel like my understanding of film has changed in a strange and beautiful way. Completed: Bay of Blood, Night of the Hunter
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 21:12
|
|
|
You forgot to mention the amazing homage in Do The Right Thing. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pa-oUPTr9LI
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 21:32
|
|
|
Christine is a drat good movie, which shows how good John Carpenter is as a director, because it's a silly rear end story based on a mediocre book. Harry Dean Stanton is in it, which is a real bonus.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 22:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 04:23 |
|
|
Night of the Hunter is interesting because it's shot almost directly like a theatrical play , and it's definitely a film that benefits from seeing it in a theater because of the framing of shots in that film
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 22:51
|
|