|
TheKingslayer posted:
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2020 12:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 13:09 |
|
|
While I am highly excited about this news I also would enjoy the awful looking scene where blood holds Deacon Frost's body together to just look a smidge less rear end.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2020 14:34
|
|
|
It being in the MCU probably means no R rating I guess. I guess that’s the price you pay when you definitely need your vampire stabber to hang out with spiderman.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2020 15:32
|
|
|
Revive the Knights imprint and release it as a hard R like the amazing Punisher War Zone you cowards
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2020 15:40
|
|
|
Can someone point me towards a legit good Hammer horror movie? I've been very bored by Vampire Lovers, Vampire Circus and Satanic Rites of Dracula, but I greatly enjoyed Legend of the 7 Golden Vampires and Captain Kronos:Vampire Hunter but I wouldn't call them "good good".
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2020 16:42
|
|
|
STAC Goat posted:But again, I don't really like the whole big blanket over all the Universal films even ones not really connected to each other. So its just more complication. I probably would have gone "The Larry Talbot/Dr. Frankenstein Saga" (as Basebf very cleverly named), Frasier's Mummy alone, and maybe the Dark Universe in its own thing along with like "Universal Mummy", "Universal Invisible Man", "Universal Creature", "Universal Dracula", etc and seen how it shaped out if any of them ranked. But again, I favored some kind of ballots or play in which in that case it would have come down to whether people wanted them in or not. I don't think it's really a big deal since the sub-franchises like the Creature films probably wouldn't make it that far on their own, but could probably beat Critters and poo poo. But I think it's fair to say the Universal Horror includes: Dracula (English and Spanish) Frankenstein The Bride of Frankenstein Dracula's Daughter Son of Frankenstein The Wolfman The Ghost of Frankenstein Frankenstein Meets the Wolfman Son of Dracula The House of Frankenstein The House of Dracula Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein But yeah the OG Universal Mummies+Fraser Mummies+Dark Universe Mummy as well as the Creature films which would have both eventually fell should have their own entries.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2020 16:57
|
|
|
married but discreet posted:Can someone point me towards a legit good Hammer horror movie? I've been very bored by Vampire Lovers, Vampire Circus and Satanic Rites of Dracula, but I greatly enjoyed Legend of the 7 Golden Vampires and Captain Kronos:Vampire Hunter but I wouldn't call them "good good". You need to see the OG stuff from the first round of films they did starting in 1957 with The Curse of Frankenstein, then Horror of Dracula in 58 and The Mummy in 59.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2020 17:06
|
|
Drunkboxer posted:It being in the MCU probably means no R rating I guess. I guess that’s the price you pay when you definitely need your vampire stabber to hang out with spiderman. They said they were going to make it R when it was announced, but every other interesting statement during that event has since been rolled back so I'm not holding my breath. Feige and the money men are clearly not on the same page about this phase.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2020 17:10
|
|
|
Timeless Appeal posted:I'd definitely make it the Larry Talbot/Dr. Frakenstein/Dracula saga. I think it's fair to say the Universal Horror includes: By royal decree, these are the "universal monster" films that may be considered
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2020 17:16
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:You need to see the OG stuff from the first round of films they did starting in 1957 with The Curse of Frankenstein, then Horror of Dracula in 58 and The Mummy in 59. All of these plus The Devil Rides Out are some good Hammer movies.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2020 17:45
|
|
|
CelticPredator posted:Yeah it’s the opposite of the hatchet movies. 3rd is the only bad one lol. Wait, there's a 4th Blade film? Are we talking about the Sticky Fingaz series? Or are we talking about Hatchet?
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2020 18:38
|
|
|
STAC Goat posted:Wait, there's a 4th Blade film? Are we talking about the Sticky Fingaz series? Or are we talking about Hatchet? There's a Blade TV Series and its actually not terrible.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2020 20:42
|
|
|
Yeah, that's Sticky Fingaz.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2020 20:52
|
|
|
married but discreet posted:Can someone point me towards a legit good Hammer horror movie? I've been very bored by Vampire Lovers, Vampire Circus and Satanic Rites of Dracula, but I greatly enjoyed Legend of the 7 Golden Vampires and Captain Kronos:Vampire Hunter but I wouldn't call them "good good". Watch the Frankenstwin films with Cushing as the best Doctor Frankie on screen.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2020 23:44
|
|
|
Tough pairups, but I'm gonna have to give Candyman an edge here because there's little in the way of African American representation in horror. Overall I think I'm going towards films that had an impact on the genre vs being a good film/series. NoES had some really inventive visuals and turned to comedy faster than most of the other longrunning series that became farcical. FilthyImp fucked around with this message at 00:23 on Apr 5, 2020 |
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2020 00:01
|
|
|
Shrecknet posted:It is thus! Thanks for doing this by the way! I'm a teacher in NYC and things are crazy right now. So this stuff is a fun distraction.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2020 01:30
|
|
|
Timeless Appeal posted:Woo! Now I'm just going to nail this petition to get that Monster Squad image changed on the cathedral door. But then I have to think things through rather than just snap voting against it, Monster Squad is a valuable public service.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2020 02:00
|
|
|
married but discreet posted:Can someone point me towards a legit good Hammer horror movie? I've been very bored by Vampire Lovers, Vampire Circus and Satanic Rites of Dracula, but I greatly enjoyed Legend of the 7 Golden Vampires and Captain Kronos:Vampire Hunter but I wouldn't call them "good good". Frankenstein Created Woman has some proto-slasher stuff going on, some business about soul transference, and Peter Cushing being a catty bitch to everyone.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2020 02:05
|
|
|
Timeless Appeal posted:Woo! Now I'm just going to nail this petition to get that Monster Squad image changed on the cathedral door.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2020 02:09
|
|
|
Someone sell me on the original Universal monster movies. I've actually never seen them (or at least not in their entirety, I'm sure I've picked up scenes here and there and they obviously have a large cultural osmosis effect going on). Do they still have any sort of impact today, or is it basically a case where they're classics so people are really valuing them for their historical import? A lot of movies I've seen from that period just have not aged well to me, even compared with some things that aren't that much more modern like a lot of Hitchcock stuff.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2020 06:38
|
|
|
I just watched Frankenstein the other day and it was still dope as hell
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2020 07:18
|
|
|
Yeah Frankenstein and Bride totally hold up. Dracula's got some flaws, it's directed kind of like a stage play, but Bela more than makes up for it. Creature from the Black Lagoon is pretty dope. The rest of 'em aren't all bad but they definitely suffer from old-movie-itis more.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2020 11:08
|
|
|
Lurdiak posted:Dracula's got some flaws, it's directed kind of like a stage play, but Bela more than makes up for it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2020 11:33
|
|
|
alansmithee posted:Someone sell me on the original Universal monster movies. I've actually never seen them (or at least not in their entirety, I'm sure I've picked up scenes here and there and they obviously have a large cultural osmosis effect going on). Do they still have any sort of impact today, or is it basically a case where they're classics so people are really valuing them for their historical import? A lot of movies I've seen from that period just have not aged well to me, even compared with some things that aren't that much more modern like a lot of Hitchcock stuff. I’ll probably get hanged for this but I think Frankenstein is borderline too early. It’s still good, but everything feels very strange from a modern perspective. Bride, on the other hand, is only 4 years later but it’s a massive improvement in, like, everything. They manage to use the sets better, the lighting is an order of magnitude better, there’s some crazy camera angles, better pacing, etc. I was blown away when I found out both movies had the same budget, because Bride looks so much more lush and filled out. I really like The Invisible Man too; I think I had read the story before I saw it the first time and was pleasantly surprised that the scope is a bit bigger.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2020 14:42
|
|
|
alansmithee posted:Someone sell me on the original Universal monster movies. I've actually never seen them (or at least not in their entirety, I'm sure I've picked up scenes here and there and they obviously have a large cultural osmosis effect going on). Do they still have any sort of impact today, or is it basically a case where they're classics so people are really valuing them for their historical import? A lot of movies I've seen from that period just have not aged well to me, even compared with some things that aren't that much more modern like a lot of Hitchcock stuff. Dracula isn't as good. I agree with Lurdiak that it's very play like--I'd actually argue that Frankenstein is too at times, but borrows from German aesthetics that make it look more striking--but Lugosi is the star of the film. Freddy might be the greatest horror villain, but I'd argue that Lugosi's Dracula is the most influential. Do you get Hannibal Lecter without his Dracula? Darth Vader? Hans Gruber? So many Bond villains? There are other proto-supervillains, but often depicted as gross racial stereotyped goblins like Fun Manchu. But Lugosi's Dracula is sexy, he's funny, magnetic, and authoritative. Lugosi's performance left a lasting impression on cinema that really can't be overlooked. The rest of the movies are fine. Wolfman's a decent potboiler with decent special effects. None of the Dracula sequels are that good. The Frankenstein movies after Bride are all B movies including the crossovers like House of Frankenstein and House of Dracula. House of Frankenstein is probably the better of the lot and does a decent job at being the sort of finale for the series despite the other movies that would follow. There is a good closure to the characters. I think that doesn't really do a good job at selling Universal Monsters as the clear winner of this competition because it means that--of the movies we're apparently dealing with--Three are really good with the rest being decent to kinda bad. That's not too dissimilar to Halloween or Romero Zombies' track record. But I think that there is another important part of this that really shows the influence of Universal Monsters: Abbot and Costello Meet Frankenstein. It's a funny movie and very well-made, but I think it defines something about horror: It's malleable. Frankenstein started as this beautiful, subversive character study and one of the greatest movies ever made... it went on to star in B-movie matinee silliness that appealed to children... and then when to outright comedy. And the thing if that it all worked. The Universal Horror movies previewed how horror was a special genre. It could be classy and thoughtful or mindless or downright silly and it all works. So like, they are really important. I think they're similar to kaiju movies or slashers where once you get into the swing of things, you get engaged, and even the lesser stuff is watchable and enjoyable on some level. But they're slow and often more gothic than scary. Try to watch Frankenstein and Bride. If you like them then you might as well watch Dracula and Wolfman. If you leave Wolfman being mostly bored--which ya know, fair--you're good to bail on the rest. Invisible Man is worth going back to though because it's a hoot and if you have fondness for 50s B-Movies, checkout the Creature films. Timeless Appeal fucked around with this message at 14:52 on Apr 5, 2020 |
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2020 14:49
|
|
|
Frankenstein is good but its definitely flawed in a lot of obvious ways and none of the scares live up to modern standards. Like even just awkward shots and cuts. Bride is just a much better package that holds up much better from people who had a better handle on what they were doing. It also has more of a blend of comedy and drama so its not as dependent on being scared by things people found scary 100 years ago. Its just a more much more complete film. Invisible Man and Creature are also both films I think that hold up completely as great movies today, but neither is part of the "Talbot Saga" here. You should see them if you haven't because they're great films, but they don't factor into the entry. For the entry I'd say Bride is stellar, Frankenstein is good with an icon performance, and Bela Lugosi IS Dracula. Dracula also has some pretty amazing performances from the support cast, Spanish Dracula has a great performance from the female lead and some revolutionary film making, and when the crossover films aren't great they're kind of groundbreaking in that they try and hold the characters and story together while doing the "cinematic universe" nearly 100 years before everyone else. I also really like Lon Chaney Jr's Talbot. He's just so sad.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2020 14:53
|
|
|
david_a posted:I’ll probably get hanged for this but I think Frankenstein is borderline too early. It’s still good, but everything feels very strange from a modern perspective. Bride, on the other hand, is only 4 years later but it’s a massive improvement in, like, everything.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2020 15:03
|
|
|
STAC Goat posted:Frankenstein is good but its definitely flawed in a lot of obvious ways and none of the scares live up to modern standards.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2020 16:07
|
|
|
Timeless Appeal posted:I feel like there is a sense of existential dread that I think holds up. But yeah, the transitions between scenes aren't smooth. I think that's there but there's some pacing and filmmaking issues that take away. Its not a knock on the film or its filmmakers. Its just the transition out of silent films and into talkies and the advance of technology and development of the talent. You can't expect people to start doing something no one's ever done before with equipment no one's ever used before and hit home runs. But again, Frankenstein is still a VERY good film as is Dracula. I just think for people hesitant to dive into that stuff and worried it won't hold up (me being one of those people until very recently) its important to note that the quality improves really dramatically, really quickly. You should watch Dracula and Frankenstein and you should watch Frankenstein before you watch Bride. But if you're hesitant or have troubles you should watch Invisible Man or Creature and see how completely the films got as proof of concept and then go back when maybe you'll have more faith that you're watching things that are good and not just "notable."
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2020 16:17
|
|
|
alansmithee posted:Do they still have any sort of impact today, or is it basically a case where they're classics so people are really valuing them for their historical import? I'm talking Vaguely European Widow's Peak Drac, Mummy-wrap Invisible Man, Bolt-necked flattop-with-scars Frankenstein? How we don't think of Count Orlok or the Modern Prometheus creation Those films etched the very design of those monsters into the American psyche. They're historically valuable as well. The makeup design on the original Frankenstein was loving solid... and it unfortunately got less refined over the years since the headcap on Karloff resulted in a lake of sweat piling up on his head. And Invisible Man developed a lot of cool techniques to get the invisibility effect to work, and probably helped when Wolfman did the gradual change thing from man to beast.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2020 16:43
|
|
|
Sorry, y'all need to have another look at the awkwardly white washed Candyman sequels; they're loving abysmal. https://twitter.com/RobbJayne/status/1198730657817645059
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2020 18:47
|
|
|
FilthyImp posted:How we don't think of Count Orlok
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2020 18:54
|
|
|
Darthemed posted:Wait, wait, wait. Back up.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2020 19:13
|
|
|
alansmithee posted:Someone sell me on the original Universal monster movies. I've actually never seen them (or at least not in their entirety, I'm sure I've picked up scenes here and there and they obviously have a large cultural osmosis effect going on). Do they still have any sort of impact today, or is it basically a case where they're classics so people are really valuing them for their historical import? A lot of movies I've seen from that period just have not aged well to me, even compared with some things that aren't that much more modern like a lot of Hitchcock stuff. If you just generally don't like old movies from that era, then these probably aren't for you either, BUT the movies have a ton of atmosphere and some incredible performances and they really sell the horrific in a subtle way that modern movies tend not to. They didn't have the special effects, or gore, or even the sophisticated gear that later movies could rely on to build suspense, so its very interesting to see them do it with these static shots and just genuinely great acting.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2020 20:46
|
|
Shrecknet posted:I love the little tidbit that Lugosi was an arrogant Hungarian rear end in a top hat who refused to learn English so he learned his lines phonetically. It's probably why his Dracula is so otherworldly, he literally did not know or care how to emphasize any line of dialogue "properly" Personally I think the fact they were filming a spanish version of the film simultaneously using the same sets and costumes is much more interesting. And frustratingly, it's significantly better directed and acted EXCEPT the guy playing Dracula is nowhere near as good as Bela.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2020 04:02
|
|
|
I think the English Van Helsing and Renfield blew away their Spanish counterparts and the Spanish Dracula came off very goofy to me but that could have just been because he wasn't Bela Lugosi. But Lupita Tovar was amazing as Eva/Mina and just made such a completely different and greater character in the role than the English version.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2020 04:36
|
|
|
BisonDollah posted:Sorry, y'all need to have another look at the awkwardly white washed Candyman sequels; they're loving abysmal. Yeah after watching (rewatching?) 2 and 3 I'm going with The Grudge. It's not terrible in 2 I guess but in 3 it's too much. Why did they go that direction when there was so many other directions to go? I think it's even a mistake make it about his biological descendants anyway, it distracts from the ubran legend stuff that made it interesting in the first place. Nothing against Tony Todd though, he still kills it. Drunkboxer fucked around with this message at 18:23 on Apr 6, 2020 |
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2020 16:52
|
|
|
Unfortunately, the new Candyman has been pushed back so no one can really say for sure how that would impact the vote.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2020 18:07
|
|
|
My defense of the Candyman sequels: Ok, the idea of making a bunch of pretty white women Candyman's granddaughters is sketchy as hell but the second film at least hints at the idea that her family has kept it a secret because they're racist and that her mom reacts terribly to the accusation. The racial stuff isn't nearly as well done in 2 as it is in the original but I think its still there. And the story was always that Candyman was killed for hooking up with a white lady so its not like it came out of nowhere. In 3 the racial aspects of that are gone but they kind of try and replace it with racism against hispanics and police corruption, which is weird and kind of way outside the original idea of Candyman but I'm not sure its a bad thing on its own. The thing I did kind of like is that both sequels keep up the idea that Candyman is this urban legend/monster that spreads through minority majority communities ignored by well off white communities. 3 is garbage handling it because the pretty Baywatch white woman is the white savior and all that bad stuff but 2 isn't that bad about. 3's just a bad film. But I like the way that it takes the Candyman legend from Chicago with an African American community to New Orleans with a "creole" community and then to LA with a hispanic community. To me that at least keeps up the core theme of Candyman and the uniqueness of horror that's about POC and not just stupid white teenagers. The one thing 3 does well is really GETTING Candyman though and making him real eery and ghostly. That's the strength of the sequels. Tony Todd is great and Candyman is a great ghostly monster. It gets iffy in the last act of 2 but he's a cool floating manipulating monster ghost in 3. Even if he's in a really bad movie. So like... 2 and 3 aren't good films. 3 is real bad. But I think Tony Todd, Candyman, and the core concepts that make Candyman unique and fun manage to carry through. STAC Goat fucked around with this message at 02:00 on Apr 7, 2020 |
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2020 01:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 13:09 |
|
|
I have a vivid memory seeing The Conjuring in theatres. Not from actually watching it, but on the drive home it suddenly started downpouring to near zero-visibility and I had to decide if I wanted to keep driving and hope nobody crashes into me or try to pull over and hope nobody crashes into me. I ended up fine because it cleared bizarrely quickly but I'll always remember the irony of that experience being far scarier than the actual movie. Anyways I voted for Jeepers Creepers 
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2020 03:55
|
|
