|
 It's not obvious unless you've read the book, but Bride of Frankenstein is more than a cash grab sequel. It's a "What if?" story exploring the possibility of Dr. Frankenstein having not had second thoughts about creating a mate for his monster, in addition to a small amount of the book that wasn't adapted. The film is shorter than the first in some senses, as despite a similar runtime it opens with Mary Shelley, Percy Shelley, and Lord Byron talking about her story and recounting the first movie (including reusing footage) for about 5 minutes after the opening credits. However, you can sense an immediate improvement in Whales's directing. The camera has even more motion and more cuts during dialogue and action, a sign of Hollywood's slow march toward modernity and away from imitation of stage plays. Likewise, the changes between scenes and sets are more fluid between large locations rather than seeming like a theatrical director trying to figure out how to film a stage play. The film hits far stranger notes than its predecessor, from Dr. Pretorius and his miniature people (which Frankenstein reasonably describes as "black magic") to the horrible screaming of the Bride when she awakens. No longer constrained by attempts to stick to even the bare plot of the original novel, William Hurlbut's screenplay takes more risks and further develops the monster's character. The film is more about the creature than the people, creating a fleshed-out and complex monster that can truly be called a classic.
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2019 22:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 06:51 |
|
|
Lurdiak posted:Today's horror essential is: This is one of my top 10 favorite horror movies. Maybe top 10 movies in general.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2019 22:24
|
|
|
Lets knock a movie off my anticipated October list why don’t we? So I have a couple of big takeways from The Bride of Frankenstein. The first and most important is that while I wasn’t terribly impressed with James Whale in Frankenstein there’s really a world’s worth of improvement by Bride. I suppose that shouldn’t be a huge shock considering Frankenstein was only his 3rd film in only his second year as a director while he somehow managed to film 7 films in the 2 years between it and Bride. That seems utterly insane but it certainly would explain how he got so much better at his craft technically. Gone are the awkward camera work, cuts, and shots. Everything’s very fluid. The film itself is much better paced. He’s figured out the value of working a musical soundtrack in. There’s also obviously thematic changes. More comedy and character introduced into the film without losing the gothic horror feel. Less long monologues (I imagine a natural carry over from his play work) and more natural scenes. Just really a film that I find hard to nitpick in many ways at all* opposed to Frankenstein where I kind of overlooked some pretty obvious stuff. *The one nitpick is that while his pacing and scene work is definitely improved there still feels something a little off about the first half of the film. Its like we spend a ton of time early with Minnie and the village people (and make no mistake, I love Minnie), and then we spend a lot of time with Dr. Pretorius (and he is also amazing), and then we get an extended thing of the Monster trying to make friends and be more human (which again, is great and I’m in no way criticizing it). All these elements are great and awesome but it feels like they probably could have been interwoven a tad better. And beyond the technical Whale obviously works a lot more subtext and themes and imagery in there about god and man and the Monster’s nature and Frankenstein’s god complex. I doubt there’s anything I noticed or could say that hasn’t been analyzed to death in 86 years but even to a guy like me who rolls his eyes back at a lot of the hyper analysis seen around CD there’s plenty to pick up in this without digging or searching for it. Even as I’m typing this I’m listening to Clive Barker point out a whole gay subtext to it that I didn’t pick up on at all but totally see now. The other big takeaway? Why’d Henry build a self destruct lever in his lab? I don’t even know what to make of Dr. Pretorius. It feels like Whale just wanted to make a film about him and instead worked him into a Frankenstein sequel. He’s amazing and I could watch a million films about him. Like, at no point did I expect the Frankenstein sequel to have this crazy dude who gets wasted in crypts after arranging skeleton center pieces and has a hobby of growing Lilliputians. Sure, sure. Lets do a spinoff of him and Minnie. That’s the next Universal franchise, right? I’m gonna say I like the Frankenstein makeup more here but I think a lot of that is Whale’s better directing and the gradual progression of burns and stuff that the Monster picks up through the two films. Overall Karloff's just given a whole new task in this film. Instead of subtle, silent mannerisms and reactions which he did a great job with he's a more nuanced Monster showing more and learning more. And really, a great job and a very deserving 1-2 punch of why he's so celebrated and beloved. All in all a really good movie that I definitely see myself rewatching a bunch. Would definitely agree that its easily a superior sequel. I’m not sure its one of my favorite of all time or anything, but I can definitely see why it would be for some. Its so wacky and innovative and deep. There’s so much there and so much I’m sure you could watch over and over again and unwrap. It got a LOT of hype and it lived up to it. Also I kind of want to be a Burger Meister when I grow up. Seen Now Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer; The ‘Burbs; Bride of Frankenstein Seen Never Cat People Seen Before The Exorcist; The Birds; Audition; Sleepaway Camp; Let The Right One In; Dawn of the Dead; Frankenstein; An American Werewolf in London; Candyman; Psycho; The Return of the Living Dead; Suspiria STAC Goat fucked around with this message at 10:38 on Jan 16, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2019 10:26
|
|
|
Lurdiak posted:Today's horror essential is: Thanks for including this. It's been on netflix UK for ages but I just figured it was some Romero knockoff based on the title, so didn't bother until now. This was a huge amount of fun with great gore effects and nasty puppets. I liked the semi-sentient zombies and the soundtrack kicked rear end.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2019 10:43
|
|
|
The story about "Romero Knockoff" is really funny and someone posted a video that tries to explain it. The gist is (as I remember it) that it IS a Romero knockoff but not in the way you thought. George Romero and John Russo created Night of the Living Dead together but had creative differences about where to take it in sequels. So they parted ways and cut an agreement that Romero could keep making "... of the Dead" films and Russo could make "Living Dead" films. And with that 2 of Lurdiak's essentials Dawn of the Dead and Return of the Living Dead happen both as official sequels to Night of the Living Dead by its original creator. Then 100 million people do knockoffs in an impossible confusing web of madness.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2019 11:00
|
|
|
STAC Goat posted:I don’t even know what to make of Dr. Pretorius. It feels like Whale just wanted to make a film about him and instead worked him into a Frankenstein sequel. He’s amazing and I could watch a million films about him. Like, at no point did I expect the Frankenstein sequel to have this crazy dude who gets wasted in crypts after arranging skeleton center pieces and has a hobby of growing Lilliputians. Sure, sure. Lets do a spinoff of him and Minnie. That’s the next Universal franchise, right? I think you could argue that Pretorius was just as influential as a character as Dr. Frankenstein was, Cushing's Dr. Frankenstein seems to have taken so much from it and overall the modern idea of the "mad scientist" is really more of a combination of the two. His presence is such a genius move but also a risky one, I mean how many times have we seen a sequel where it feels like they shoehorned new characters into the story unsuccessfully? STAC Goat posted:I’m gonna say I like the Frankenstein makeup more here but I think a lot of that is Whale’s better directing and the gradual progression of burns and stuff that the Monster picks up through the two films. Overall Karloff's just given a whole new task in this film. Instead of subtle, silent mannerisms and reactions which he did a great job with he's a more nuanced Monster showing more and learning more. And really, a great job and a very deserving 1-2 punch of why he's so celebrated and beloved. I think for me it's his hairline that I like a lot more in Bride. Gone are the awkward looking bangs and they're replaced with like bare scalp that's been pulled up and stapled to the sides of his head or something. More effectively "monster" imo, but then I guess the more awkward innocent look of the original had it's own purpose too.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2019 14:58
|
|
|
 I was surprised to find out something that appears so cheesy is apparently considered one of the most influential horror films of all time. Who knew? Cat People is the story of a Serbian immigrant who turns into a man-eating panther when sexually aroused. This sounds like the kind of bizarre concept that you'd see in a no budget indie movie released on Dailymotion today, but it's played in full 1940s seriousness here. The lighting designers clearly put in overtime, with strong chiaroscuro and deep shadows that perfectly highlight or silhouette exactly what's meant to be focused on. Simone Simon delivers a complex and believable performance as the lead cat lady, especially her unease with moving forward in a relationship. The film is an extremely low key horror, even for the time. It could easily be mistaken for a plain thriller if you're not told beforehand that it's meant to be a horror movie. Some missteps (like only seeing two dates between the leads before their marriage, or Irena's belief about turning into a panther being revealed in 15 minutes) seem related to the very short run time, just over an hour if you discount the credits. Take that away, however, and you get a surprisingly intelligent psychological film for a very early point in the genre.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2019 21:12
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XkpdcXQYfP0 Today's horror essential is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHuOtLTQ_1I Halloween This movie, made on a shoestring budget as contracted work by a surprisingly small cast and crew, invented an entire genre of horror, creating the slasher boom of the 80s and 90s. Even though other films contributed to shaping slasher, without Halloween there would be no Jason, there would be no Scream, and there would probably not be an American Psycho or Freddy Krueger. To say nothing of the many lesser copycats it created! While this film is low on gore, it's very high on tension and creepy atmosphere. Even though most of you have probably seen it just to prepare for seeing last year's remake, those of you who are still sleeping on John Carpenter's most iconic film need to rectify that immediately. Available for streaming on iTunes and Shudder bitterandtwisted posted:Thanks for including this. It's been on netflix UK for ages but I just figured it was some Romero knockoff based on the title, so didn't bother until now. I'm glad the thread is doing what it's supposed to. 
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2019 23:24
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:I think you could argue that Pretorius was just as influential as a character as Dr. Frankenstein was, Cushing's Dr. Frankenstein seems to have taken so much from it and overall the modern idea of the "mad scientist" is really more of a combination of the two. His presence is such a genius move but also a risky one, I mean how many times have we seen a sequel where it feels like they shoehorned new characters into the story unsuccessfully? But again to be clear, Pretorius is amazing and I totally agree that its a risky and really well done trick to introduce such a different element into a working formula and for it to be a home run. As you said, its been tried a million times since and almost never works. Ok, lets do a movie. A little late into the month but I'm starting to really get into the horror vibe again. Lurdiak takes down another movie from my October list… Cat People (1942)  I’ve had this on my radar for a few years now given all the love it gets in this forum, but I never seem to watch it. Its actually weird because I’ve had plenty of opportunities but I always seem to miss them narrowly through my own choice or disregard. Like I know its on Filmstruck but I don’t think to go there until its being shut down. Or I record it of TCM but then my DVR fills up and i delete it to make room. Or I see it on TCM but then think its streaming online so I skip it only to realize its the remake streaming. Things totally in my hands that later i go “Oh, I’m an idiot. I really should have watched it.” Seems kind of perfect for this thread, really. An essential that I’m finally pushed into watching. I didn’t honestly know what to expect going in. The premise reads like a schlocky B movie… and I just got done watching Dr. Pretorius which seems as good of evidence as any that this forum loves it some good B. But that’s obviously not what this is at all. Matter of fact one of my favorite things about it is how it so successfully keeps up the question of whether Irena is ever going to actually turn into a cat or if we’re just gonna find her standing over a body dressed like Ariana Grande. Maybe I’m not supposed to wonder that. Maybe I’m supposed to just be waiting for the cat attack all along. Which don’t get me wrong, I am. But I definitely found myself kept waiting for the clues as to whether Irena was just really exactly what she seemed to be. A disturbed and desperately isolated young woman who could be dangerous. Similarly I wonder if I was reading too much into things thinking there’s a subtext here about the kind of society where a man could become infatuated with a lonely, disturbed foreign woman, marry her in a frenzy, send her to a shrink he’s friends with who hits on her while he goes on dates with his assistant, and then the three of them plot to toss her in a psych ward when he tells her he’s in love with someone else (duh). I mean, I’m not saying everyone in this film deserved to be eating by a cat. I’m not saying that. Technically its a beautifully shot film that does an amazing job with lighting and shadows not only to keep the mystery of Irena’s nature intact but to constantly have us wondering if there’s a monster or a cat or a lady with no friends lurking just off into the darkness. And this is again one of those “77 years ago” things where I find myself wondering how much of this was deeply innovative and astounding for the time. Just a quick glance over the Wikipedia entry tells me that the stalking scene was in fact the innovation for so many similar scenes that have followed for the last 80 years or so to the point where they’re called a “Lewton bus.” Its stuff like this that makes me regret sleeping through those Film History courses in college and wishing film historians didn’t always creep me out for some reason. All in all a very good film that I can definitely see myself rewatching. I’m not sure its bolting up my list to one of my favorites or anything but I can see how with proper context from a history book or documentary and multiple viewings to further recognize subtext it could climb and why it would be there for others. Watched - New (Total) 1. Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer (1989); 2. The ‘Burbs (1989); - (3). Frankenstein (1931); 3 (4). The Bride of Frankenstein (1933); 4 (5). Cat People (1942) STAC Goat fucked around with this message at 06:38 on Jan 17, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2019 06:32
|
|
|
Saw Suspiria One of the most striking films I've seen. The story is solid, and there's a great build up of tension throughout, but it's the use of colour and sound that makes it so memorable. The sets are beautiful, with stark reds and blues also used heavily in lighting, giving it an otherworldy and nightmarish feel. Love that score.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2019 11:28
|
|
|
 While not my intended film for last night, I managed to catch most of Friday the 13th: The Final Chapter when Rabbit decided to actually work. As the name suggests, this was intended to be the end for Jason Voorhees. Much like Halloween, the producers had never intended for the Friday the 13th series to become the phenomenon it did and either never planned a sequel or wanted the sequels to tie the name to an anthology series, depending on when you asked them. As such, the film ends with Jason's seemingly permanent death, one that the sequels would need to outright zombify him to counter the damage dealt. By this point, the series has already become entirely about the kills and the nudity. The cast is increased purely so all but two of them can be murdered with rapidly increasing frequency; the MPAA cut out as much as they could, but the uncensored kills show off some of the year's top notch gore. It hits every single slasher stereotype, right down to Jason painstakingly hanging and arranging corpses so the Final Girl can find them one after the other in the climax, with the one body that's not hung up being thrown through the window to scare her. Every character is completely flat, to the point where loving Jason gets the most complexity at the end. So what we have here is spectacle in its purest form. A film that exists only so that teens can hoot and holler at the screen and pause to make out in the back without worrying about missing anything important. At least it's fun to laugh at.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2019 15:36
|
|
|
Gonna watch a classic tonight I just haven't decided what it'll be yet. With the exception of The Burbs I haven't been able to count any of the official selections yet. I can't remember if it's come up in here yet, or just the general Horror thread, but a great choice for anyone looking for a underseen classic is The Changeling, which was just added to Shudder this month. One of the best atmospheric spooky ghost stories ever, and starring George C. Scott who is always excellent.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2019 17:36
|
|
|
 I've seen yesterday's film, so I decided to go with a film that many describe as a landmark for the slasher genre: Black Christmas. Coming several years before Halloween and releasing the same year as The Texas Chain Saw Massacre, it hits virtually every note of a stereotypical slasher, in some ways even stronger than the more famous pair of films. From the use of the killer's first person perspective (including complex shots like climbing up the side of a house) to the holiday setting and the structure of a killer slowly picking off the entire cast in isolated areas until the climax, it could easily be mistaken for something a decade older. The killer (played by Nick Mancuso) gives an obscene and incredibly creepy series of threatening and grotesque taunts over the phone at the beginning of the film, quickly setting the tone for the ensuing bloodbath. Black Christmas makes a somewhat unusual decision for a slasher by never revealing the identity of the slasher. While the 2006 remake gives the killer a name and background, the prowler remains unnamed (except for the possibility of "Billy") and unseen except for a silhouette. Not only does he never get his comeuppance, he's barely even human. He's something less than that. Considering its age and provenance in the development of slashers, it's easy to try and compare it to Halloween as the closest film to it in era and style. Honestly, I'd give Black Christmas the prize here. While the killer is too anonymous to be as iconic as Michael Myers, there's a larger cast of characters that I think are more rounded than the ones in Haddonfield. I'd also call the film scarier, thanks to the disturbing phone calls and constant cuts to the killer's first victim slowly rotting over the course of the film. The kills are played for drama and horror rather than spectacle for the audience or showing off special effects, and the killer's ability to change voices so smoothly and dramatically almost implies something supernatural. Because of the length of time the film takes place over, there's more proactive behavior on the part of the victims: the whole drat college bands together to search for the first victim, spurred on by her boyfriend bursting into the police station and confronting the original uncaring cop who refused to take her disappearance seriously. I think the only thing that kept Black Christmas from becoming the franchise Halloween did was the lack of a distinctive killer. With only a shadowy figure, there's no real personality behind the murders to drive people back to see him kill again. Every major horror franchise rapidly becomes less about the quality of the film and more about seeing your favorite murderer find new, creative ways to kill. Black Christmas is a better movie, but it's not a better franchise. chitoryu12 fucked around with this message at 21:35 on Jan 25, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2019 19:00
|
|
|
Today's horror essential is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AeAzGxWlEcg The Haunting (1963) Based on the Shirley Jackson novel The Haunting of Hill House, this film actually bears a vague resemblance to its source material, unlike the Netflix series. One of the most famous haunted house movies of all time, and perhaps the best one ever made, this classic features a small cast of incredibly talented performers trying to pierce the mystery of a supposedly haunted house. Atmospheric, thrilling, and emotionally draining, this movie makes you feel a lot using very little. Available for streaming on iTunes and the Playstation store
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2019 20:31
|
|
|
Not only is that a film I haven't seen but its a film I just recorded on my DVR!
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2019 20:42
|
|
|
I.....thought I'd seen The Haunting but it seems like I actually haven't? I must've been confusing it for something else. Oh well, gives me something to watch tonight! Gonna rent it from the Playstation store
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2019 20:53
|
|
Basebf555 posted:I.....thought I'd seen The Haunting but it seems like I actually haven't? I must've been confusing it for something else. People confuse it with House on Haunted Hill a lot.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2019 21:11
|
|
|
 The Haunting(1963) Wow, this is a stunning film, absolutely beautiful to look at from start to finish. Within 10 minutes I knew the Hill House set was going to be one of my all-time favorites, it's just so packed with all kinds of textures and patterns but at the same time always elegant, never too busy. Obviously the lighting is a big part of that though, I think The Haunting would have to be considered one of the most excellently lit horror films ever made, up there with Cat People, Suspiria and all the rest. Having seen the recent Netflix t.v. show it was fun to see a few of those characters show up here with some of the same traits, but in the end the stories are very different. Here the focus is much more on the Nell character, and her struggles to fight against the influence of the house, rather than just using her as the spark that kicks off the plot for the others. I wouldn't call the movie scary necessarily, but there is certainly a feeling of increasing dread as you start to understand what the house wants and how it is going about accomplishing that goal. Really though the visuals are 90% of what I'd recommend about this film and I felt like I could've watched this completely without any sound and still enjoyed the hell out of it.   
Basebf555 fucked around with this message at 15:19 on Jan 18, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2019 15:14
|
|
|
dat fuckin' staircase
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2019 16:23
|
|
|
Today's horror essential is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JMao8sg4DPA Pet Sematary Adapted from one of Stephen King's most successful novels, this tale of loss, grief and terror is one of those films that becomes scarier as you get older. Filled with memorable nightmare imagery and heart-wrenching scenes, this oft-overlooked masterpiece is as dark as its theme song is catchy. Available for streaming on Google Play, iTunes, Playstation Store, Youtube, Cineplex Store and Shudder
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2019 21:03
|
|
|
 The Haunting is one of those movies where it could be cheesy anywhere else. It's so stereotypically "gothic horror" as to be almost ridiculous: horns blowing and strings shrieking at everything, dutch angles and off-kilter sets full of shadow, even a narration and montage at the beginning showing how the house's owners all met their demises. Somehow, it ends up working perfectly. I'd compare the film most strongly to Hereditary, in part because Julie Harris and Toni Collette look similar and have similar characters and in part because both films deal with the possibility of what seems to be paranormal activity actually being all in the protagonist's mind. Unlike a more typical female protagonist of the era, Eleanor is a broken and hysterical woman who jumps at virtually everything and loses her temper quickly. Whereas Hereditary ends with a confirmation of the haunting being legit, The Haunting keeps it ambiguous from start to finish. Eleanor's trials are accompanied by voice-overs constantly giving us her internal monologue in which she demonstrates just how many screws she has loose. The Haunting is a masterpiece that one could argue was very ahead of its time. It's rare to find horror in the intervening decades that matches what it accomplished, making it feel almost like a modern movie recorded with an old camera.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2019 23:21
|
|
|
Today's horror essential is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ffw1u0aXn0o Rosemary's Baby Look, I don't like talking about Roman Polanski or recommending his movies. But this is what the French call "incontournable". This surreal tale of alienation, paranoia, helplessness, body horror, satanism and rape is seared into the public consciousness for decades to come. Just try and watch it some way that doesn't give the guy money, eh?
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2019 23:25
|
|
|
Aaah I'm shamefully behind on my classics! Cat People! Working against the fact that cats are cool and good and not scary, this does an admirable job not showing a monster and making you imagine it for most of the movie. Interesting that it barely even scratches (heh) any horror aspects until quite far into the movie and leaves you guessing whether there is a monster pretty much up until the end. I loved the pool scene which quite clearly inspired the one in It Follows. How are Curse of the Cat People and Cat People (1982)?
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2019 16:08
|
|
|
married but discreet posted:Aaah I'm shamefully behind on my classics! Cat People! ....very different. Curse is a completely different psycho-drama that is ahead of its time by decades, but only barely horror. Val Lewton very much was continuing his trend of being given lurid titles by studio execs and turning them into intensely unique for the time pieces of art with canny directors and writers. I personally love the 82 film, but a lot of people hate it. It is a very sexual film, with lots of very uncomfortable connections therein. It's a gorgeous film however, and David Bowie's soundtrack is probably some of his best work from the thin white duke era.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2019 16:43
|
|
|
I really disliked the ‘82 Cat People. It’s got some nice cinematography (especially in the dream sequences) and some nice creature/gore effects, but also a lot of uncomfortable incest-themed sexuality. I don’t mind sex in movies but it felt gross and unnecessary in this one.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2019 17:03
|
|
married but discreet posted:How are Curse of the Cat People and Cat People (1982)? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNzu3TF64Tc&t=26s
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2019 17:25
|
|
|
I now kind of want to watch that show just for that one character's kind of funny running gag. That's actually really clever. edit: Also that seems like a really weird show. STAC Goat fucked around with this message at 17:32 on Jan 20, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2019 17:29
|
|
STAC Goat posted:I now kind of want to watch that show just for that one character's kind of funny running gag. While I think the show in general is quite funny and features a lot of great deep pull movie references, Merton is easily the best part of it.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2019 17:31
|
|
|
gey muckle mowser posted:I really disliked the ‘82 Cat People. Well of course someone with your avatar would dislike a movie about cats...
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2019 17:54
|
|
|
Choco1980 posted:Well of course someone with your avatar would dislike a movie about cats... All Cats Are Bad
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2019 19:17
|
|
|
1982 Cat People is the 'I've met writers who use subtext, cowards, the lot of them' bit from darkplace in movie form.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2019 23:00
|
|
|
Catfishenfuego posted:1982 Cat People is the 'I've met writers who use subtext, cowards, the lot of them' bit from darkplace in movie form. This sort of puts it at the top of my watchlist lol
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2019 23:55
|
|
|
Tonight it's Peeping Tom (1960)
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2019 00:34
|
|
|
Today's horror essential: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l3XWy2BSh0E Peeping Tom The horror discord picked this one but was too lazy to make a post about it.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2019 00:35
|
|
|
 Pet Sematary, one of the innumerable Stephen king adaptations, doesn't hold back the creepy even in the first 10 minutes. When the neighbor across the street is asked about the path into the woods while meeting the Creed family, he makes sure to give a pregnant pause before glancing meaningfully into the distance and saying he'll bring the family down there some time. Like in any good Stephen King work, the Creeds are a family struggling just to deal with basic life. A husband and wife in conflict over their recent move to rural Maine and bratty kids only find things getting worse as they discover that the pet cemetery behind their house has the ability to zombify whatever gets buried in it. While King is known for his grand scale cosmic horror, Pet Sematary sticks to a relatively simple concept and does it as well as possible. It's only aided by King writing his own screenplay. It takes a while to really get going, but when the horror truly starts it doesn't stop. While the children are pretty terrible, the adult actors are all very strong in their parts, Dale Midkiff especially. Like any good King work, it hits a lot of emotional beats beyond simple horror and works hard to develop the characters even without a cocaine-fueled writing spree. It showcases some of the best that King can accomplish when given the screen.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2019 01:15
|
|
|
 Pet Sematary Two Well that's a dumb name for a sequel, gotta use either Roman numerals or "Part X" in my opinion. I'd seen the original but never gave Pet Sematary Two a chance, probably because of Furlong. Well, Furlong is not great here but he's also given a lot of help to keep things entertaining. Namely:  Nobody told me this movie has a batshit Clancy Brown stomping around as like a proto-Edgar from Men in Black? Totally makes the entire movie and probably one of the most drastic improvements I can think of that were made to a film just with one single bit of casting. It goes from what would've been a forgettable piece of trash to something extremely watchable and even recommendable. The movie is actually quite gory too, which I didn't expect but it was a welcome addition and I thought the amped up violence fit the tone perfectly. Is it essential? No, I would never make that argument. Is it a solid followup that I'd recommend to b-horror fans? Yea, it's got enough going for it that its going to fall solidly in the middle of the pack as far as under the radar, borderline D-TV horror sequels go. Watched: Night of the Demons, Angst, Alice Sweet Alice, Captain Kronos: Vampire Hunter, White Zombie, The Haunting, Pet Sematary Two
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2019 15:44
|
|
|
 At the time Rosemary's Baby was filmed, Roman Polanski had not yet become the Roman Polanski we know today. He was engaged to Sharon Tate a year before her horrible murder by Charles Manson's cult. What we have instead is Polanski in his prime, before he lost his wife or raped any children. The film doesn't do anything to set up what occurs. It plays as a drama at first, with only the ludicrous amount of blood surrounding a woman who leaped out a window and smashed her head on the pavement suddenly shocking you into remembering that it's a horror. This only serves to make the horror more disquieting when it slips in; the audience experiences the growing sense of something not being right as Rosemary does, with seemingly innocuous but unusual events being reflected on after the true implications are known. It's a landmark in creativity and experimentation in film, creating something that seems 40 years ahead of its time. When it comes to the question of "giving him money", I take the stance that the film is not purely Polanski's work and that it's not right for people like Mia Farrow, Krzysztof Komeda, and William A. Fraker to have their hard work deleted from the public memory because of a director they had association with before he did anything bad. In fact, I'd argue a film like Rosemary's Baby has even more resonance today than it did in 1968 in the wake of the #MeToo movement as a film about rape and how a woman struggles with the ensuing pregnancy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2019 17:46
|
|
|
Yeah Pet Sematary Two isn't a great movie but it's a better sequel that you'd expect. They more or less abandon the heavy melodrama that carries the first and replace it with a poo poo ton of psychotic zombie madness. It doesn't make for a better movie but it makes for a more fun one.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2019 22:55
|
|
|
Oh jeez! I was sure I had posted the horror essential before I left for the day. Sorry everyone. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgFPIh5mvNc Dracula, aka Bram Stoker's Dracula(1992) Probably the last culturally relevant Dracula film ever made, Francis Ford Coppola brings his unique vision to a familiar tale. Full of eroticism, sickening gore, blasphemy and terrifying visual effects, this version of Dracula stands proudly next to the other great cinematic vampires when it comes to staying power and iconic significance. Repainting the terrifying monster as more of a tragic figure, this film and Interview With the Vampire reshaped the public perception of vampires for a solid decade, leading to terrible table top games and awful fanfics. Available for streaming on Netflix, iTunes, Cineplex, the Playstation store, Youtube, and Google Play.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2019 03:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 06:51 |
|
|
This is my favorite behind the scenes video about Dracula: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_smVQFEMops&t=7s I think it really shows what Coppola was going for and you can't say he didn't pull it off. It won the Oscar for costume design for a reason.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2019 04:32
|
|