|
Samfucius posted:When you cover 100 years of horror during the volatile 20th century, it's almost impossible to impart any message other than "people make horror movies about what scares them," as every single horror documentary I've ever seen presents as a revolutionary new idea. This idea used as a spine for a history of American horror films worked for me back when I was a teenager reading David J. Skal’s book The Monster Show when it came out in 1993. Maybe I liked Nightmares in Red, White, and Blue because it reminded me of the book.
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2022 23:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 22:41 |
|
|
I get that, and there was something really powerful about learning that the baddie was actually capitalism or miscegenation or whatever, but it only worked the first time. At least, for me. It's not a dull point, just a saturated one. A documentary could make a very well-supported point about 9/11 being the death of innocence for a certain young generation and it wouldn't be wrong, but we already knew it so we'd be asking "...and?"
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2022 00:08
|
|
|
The Thaw (aka Frozen) vs. Giallo: These are two boring, flawed films whose only successes in my viewings came from what I brought to the table, not what they earned. The Thaw struck an accidental chord with me with the angle that we have a moral obligation to take "extreme" actions (for example, physical violence) in response to existential threats (for example, white supremacists). The movie itself had a horrible grey filter over everything and the characters couldn't remember their own morals. Val Kilmer looked very, very tired. Giallo was an unpleasant film that had very little to do with the heightened (ie ludicrous) dramatics that made its namesakes so much fun. Take away the color palettes and the nonsense and you're left with misery. That being said there was a lot of unintentional comedy. Every time the killer spoke it was funny. Every time the editor accidentally turned a kill into a punchline with bad cut timing it was funny. When the first girl got smacked in the forehead with a hammer my wife and I both said "bonk!", not because we're sick but because the abrupt editing sucked every bit of tension away. This wouldn't put Giallo ahead of a decent movie, but in a clash between two terrible movies I'll take the one that made me laugh a few times, even if I was laughing at it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2022 15:33
|
|
|
Dead Calm was not very erotic or thrilling to me. Never felt like much was at stake cause obviously they’re not gonna kill Nicole Kidman, Sam Neill is off in Event Horizon for most of the runtime, and Billy Zane is just too funny and charming to make for a serious villain. Also at some point in the movie he starts looking uncannily like Mac from Always Sunny, so really how can I take this seriously anymore. The final flaregun headshot was awesome, loved that. Nightmares in Red White and Blue is, as mentioned, babies first horror in historical context documentary, going through all the very obvious takes and movies, does not show any depth and never really surprises with anything. I also don’t think their timeline of influences always makes sense – you can’t make your point of horror movies becoming tamer in response to the real life horrors that Americans experienced in WW2 with movies from 1942. I did appreciate Dante reflecting on the transformation scene in Pinocchio, but that was pretty much the only highlight for me. But ultimately I think the inherent problem with the documentary is that horror is so rife with international cross-pollination that focusing on just one country barely makes sense – how can you talk about slashers without giallo for example? Voting Dead Calm I guess.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2022 15:53
|
|
|
7. (Deb’s Team Erotic Thrillers) Phillip Noyce’s Dead Calm vs. 10. (twernt’s I Never Meta Documentary I Didn't Enjoy) Andrew Monument’s Nightmares in Red, White and Blue I had low expectations for Dead Calm because it's a late 80s thriller directed by the same person who brought us Patriot Games and Clear and Present Danger. It really surprised me. I remember seeing trailers and/or ads for it and wondering how interesting could a movie be if it's about three people on a little boat. The secret is that it's about two people on a little boat and another person who wants to be on the boat with them. There are some really great shots, it's edited well, and the performances are solid. It's also nice how much of the plot depends on the two protagonists being generally competent people even if they make some bad decisions. Nightmares in Red, White and Blue was okay. For anyone who's relatively new to horror, it's a nice overview of the genre in America. For anyone else, it's a surface level examination of the way horror movies are related to what is happening in society. Not exactly incisive commentary. I do always like it when they interview the actual folks behind the movies and have enough sense not to just let the interviewees ramble on forever. I'll be voting against my own team here.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2022 16:01
|
|
|
I have fond memories of Nightmares in Red, White, and Blue. I happened to be in exactly the right spot in 2009 for it to be a great source of titles and subgenres to delve into. Right around that time was when I first joined SA, and the horror thread obviously was the key thing that expanded my horror horizons. But anything along the lines of Nightmares in Red, White, and Blue was also really helpful at that time as far as just giving me an idea of how expansive the genre is and how much more it had to offer than just the slasher icons I'd grown up with in the late 80s. It's a style of documentary that hasn't aged well, these days we're looking for a bit more of a deep dive than the standard talking-head sound bites can provide. But as someone who saw it when I actually did need Horror For Dummies, there's definitely a place for something like Nightmares in Red, White, and Blue.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2022 16:06
|
|
|
I'm surprised by how harsh everyone's being against Nighmares in Red White and Blue. I rewatched it yesterday, and I don't think "baby's first historical context for horror films" is really a fair criticism? Yes, that's what it is, but why is that a bad thing? In context, it's 2009. We're still in the Platinum Dunes / Reboot / nu Zombie phase. Paranormal Activity still hasn't hit. "Elevated Horror" won't really kick off for a few more years. So the fact that the film is reviewing horror from THAT lens and still covers horror from the 40's to "now" (which is Saw 2, Land of the Dead, Hostel, The Hills Have Eyes remake, TCM The Beginning) is pretty interesting. There is a greater emphasis on the 40's through the 70s and then more recent stuff, rather stuff than the 80's and 90's, which has had a glut of analysis at this point. The film list it draws from is impressive, and is full of stuff that a majority of current horror viewers or people newer to the genre have yet to watch or experience. And it's pretty optimistic about the genre, it's influence and it's importance as a cultural influence (and an expression of cultural experiences, changes and zeitgeist). It also just has good interviews. I don't REALLY care about what the director of Saw 2 says, but then he explains how he was given the job of exploring Jigsaw as a character from 5 minutes of material in the original film, and even that's interesting. But then you get Larry Cohen talking about The Stuff and a lot of sincere talking points from John Carpenter, who comes off as warm and introspective instead of his grumpy old man persona he's worn for his entire career. You get Joe Dante, you get Corman, you get Mick Garris, and plenty of other interesting people. It's not the greatest documentary, and I'm sure there are better horror documentaries, but this one is pretty solid for what it explores, and it does so without prejudice. (Compare it to Mark Gatiss's History of Horror, where he very openly says in Part 3 "I actually hate anything in horror past 1980. It's trash and not worth discussing because it doesn't fit within my tastes.") I'm reading everyone's reviews, and while it's cool to be critical, it's hard not to infer jaded perspectives. "Well yeah, of course none of this impresses you, you post on horror threads in a film forum daily with nerds like me who over-analyze everything", when the obvious audience is for a general public who might need convincing that 1) horror movies say a lot about the culture that creates and watches them, 2) horror movies from the past are absolutely worth watching for insights as well as entertainment, and then the added bonus of "Hey, you know who's smart and cool? John Carpenter, Joe Dante, Roger Corman, Larry Cohen, and a bunch of other horror directors and writers" It's difficult to go in-depth over 70 years of horror films and pay them all equal service, but this does plenty in 96 minutes. If someone needed convincing that horror is a genre worthy of discussion, this feels like a safe film to recommend to them. Although it's kind of hilarious how much gory footage they used. Franchescanado fucked around with this message at 16:31 on Apr 25, 2022 |
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2022 16:23
|
|
|
I've done the Criterion Challenge twice now and I've learned that immaculate filmmaking is still fascinating, but new ideas and spectacles can really age. It doesn't take away from how important they were in context at the time but it doesn't make them entertaining now. Not all classics are timeless. My big example is the documentary Antonio Gaudi from 1984: it's regarded as a absolute pillar of documentary filmmaking but it's really a slideshow of stuff that Gaudi did and that's it. Being the only way for foreigners to be exposed to his alien architecture short of buying a plane ticket is a perfect reason to exist, but the whole movie felt obsolete for modern audiences thanks to Wikipedia and YouTube. It doesn't devalue what the movie meant at the time but it means it's boring as poo poo to watch now, and I love Gaudi. I'm judging these entries entirely based on how much I enjoy watching them, not how important they were at the time. A fun lovely movie will beat a boring important movie every single time. Samfucius fucked around with this message at 17:11 on Apr 25, 2022 |
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2022 17:08
|
|
|
Maybe I'm being a bit unfair because I expected an in-depth look into, uh, *checks flags*, Slovenian horror.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2022 17:41
|
|
|
I don't think I'm arguing Nightmares in Red White and Blue as important, even in the context of when it came out. I read write-ups that said "There's nothing in this I didn't already know", and that felt a bit myopic, because we're all pretty big into horror movies and, by being on a film forum, analyzing them in form of discussion, and the film feels designed to be a North American Horror 101 course in under 100 minutes. On the other hand, while the analysis might not be new, I would say all the John Carpenter and Joe Dante discussions are exclusive to this film, right? As are the other talking head interviews. Those insights still hold value, even if they aren't the most enlightening. So you may have "They Live is about Reagan era USA", but then you also have Joe Dante discussing the value of Corman movies vs other shlock we don't remember as much. There were multiple times something was said, on this rewatch, that made me glean some new information. You're still free to criticize the documentary format, the art direction, the editing, or even those chosen for the talking head format. You can criticize it however you want. I was just pushing back against people well-versed in horror and film analysis criticizing a Horror 101 movie for not being as hard-hitting or insightful to them, and reminding them that for certain films, especially documentaries, you have to think about time and place and audience, and in this context it's going for a casual audience while also drawing source material from movies that are still relatively obscure to current viewers. I concede that one of my biggest steps into horror was Bravo's 100 Scariest Movie Moments, which I saw when I was in middle school. That was my first time seeing and hearing about Suspiria, Phantasm, Don't Look Now, Wait Until Dark, Audition, Freaks, Jacob's Ladder, The Serpent and the Rainbow, and dozens of other movies, which all feel pretty easy "essentials" and "must see" and "every horror fan knows these". Except I was 13 years old, and mainly knew the big slashers, Stephen King adaptations, the classic Universal Monsters, Nosferatu, Jaws...the BIG names that even non-horror fans are familiar with. So when this movie starts up and immediately is like "Jacques Tourneur is loving cool and The Leopard Man has this sweet kill", "The Black Cat is visually striking", and it gets Joe Dante talking about the original R cut of Gremlins and John Carpenter talking about balancing an audience's expectation vs the line of what you can and can't show in horror films, I give it the benefit of the doubt with how it would serve a person trying to get into horror films in a somewhat intelligent and enthusiastic way, because something similar is exactly how I got into the genre myself. I'm not saying "It should definitely win". I have to watch the other movie it's in contest against still, and I could understand voting for a shlocky narrative film over a slightly-above-average film documentary, but I still think Nightmares stands on it's own pretty well. Samfucius posted:but the whole movie felt obsolete for modern audiences thanks to Wikipedia and YouTube. This is especially something I'll push back against. YouTube's got plenty of essays, but so many of them suck or I'm not actually going to find, or are so specific that I probably won't look for them, and they definitely won't have exclusive or original interviews with Larry Cohen, for instance. And I COULD read the Wikipedia about, say, Roger Corman, and see why he chose to make Edgar Allen Poe films, but this movie has him talking about it, showing me the Edgar Allen Poe movie, someone else then talking about it, and then when Roger Corman says "Yeah, I learned techniques that would later be used in my acid freak-out movie", it then immediately gives me that footage. I'm not getting that from Wikipedia. That's literally why these documentaries are more fun and engaging than reading Wikipedia. edit: there's approximately 204 films shown, mentioned or referenced in Nightmares in Red White and Blue. That's a lot of Wikipedia articles to peruse, and I got to experience something interesting about them in 100 minutes. Franchescanado fucked around with this message at 18:45 on Apr 25, 2022 |
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2022 18:37
|
|
|
I expected an analysis of the dream sequences in Kieslowski's films. I do think that the documentary was fairly well-made. The interviews with the directors were the highlight, since it conveyed not only what their own influences were, but how those were the things influencing most other horror filmmakers as well. It would have been nice to get an even broader spectrum of people to talk to, but what we got was decent. It had a few flaws, most notably in that it was a bit muddled in how films of a particular time actually related to each other (and this grew more confused as it covered the 80s - 90s era). You also had the occasional bits that should have been left on the cutting room floor, like Reagan as literal Freddy Krueger. Overall, it's probably one I might recommend aside from the fact that it is a bit out of date now. That said, I'll probably vote for Dead Calm, even if it's not fantastic. I found the sense of danger lacking most of the time. It also feels fairly dated in look and some of the characterization. The genuine competence of the characters tipped it for me; I really liked seeing that since it is so rare.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2022 18:50
|
|
|
I had a similar experience to Frans with stuff like Nightmares in Red, White and Blue and Bravo's 100 Scariest Moments list and others that were made in the 2000s. It really is a valuable thing because of how horror goes through these various trends and it can be easy for someone who grows up in the year 19XX to have a limited view of what the genre has to offer. Seeing some clips of stuff outside of my experience helped motivate me to track them down and delve into a wider range of time periods and subgenres of horror that I hadn't explored. I think it's especially true of people who grew up in the late 80s when the slasher boom was in full swing. I definitely have a lot of friends who discounted the entire horror genre because in their mind horror = slasher and so they just didn't explore the genre any further than that. It took some of them a long time to come around to the idea of "oh wait, I don't have to watch teenagers getting chopped up, I could instead watch a spooky ghost story from the 70s, or a technicolor gothic Edgar Allen Poe story from the 60s, or a giant bug movie, etc. etc. etc." Primers like Nightmares in Red, White, and Blue help facilitate that, which is something that was pretty important in helping me develop my love for horror.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2022 19:33
|
|
|
I only caught the last half hour of Nightmaeres in RWB. I’ll watch it all but I get the vibe. And I definitely agree those kind of Horror 101 docs have value. They’re not really for us although I can enjoy them as easy watches that add some movies to my watchlist. But stuff like that and Bravo we’re definitely part of what made me a horror fan. It’s the kind of thing that piques someone’s curiosity enough with an entertaining format to motivate them to take the next step. Whether that can beat a film probably depends entirely on how I feel about that film when I see it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2022 20:08
|
|
|
Turns out I was actually thinking of another documentary, The American Nightmare, which is narrowly focused on the late Sixties and the Seventies, featuring interviews with Romero, Craven, Hooper, Carpenter, Cronenberg, and Savini, and leans hard on the thesis of modern horror movies reflecting the societal chaos of that time. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5v03a_zCSM
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2022 21:31
|
|
|
Dead Calm is really fun. I think Dean Semler's cinematography really ties this film together in style and tone. It's a film rife with symbolism that would make Carol Clover salivate. The affluent family--accomplished husband (career military) and his beautiful young wife--has been destroyed by the death of their daughter. They escape into the womb of the Pacific Ocean on a beautiful sailboat where they seem to float aimlessly. The film is mostly about John's impotence in the wake of his daughter's death--which he was not able to prevent--and his wife, Rae, replacing him as the leader of the family. Though she is most grieved by their daughter's death (she was the one driving, and that fact haunts her dreams), she is actually the one that shows resilience, strategy and sacrifice to save the day. (Well, sorta.) A lot of the first half of the film is playing on the fears of losing your partner to a younger, more attractive person. A beautiful young man appears bringing a decrepit old boat. Through a series of unfortunate events, the older husband is replaced by a younger, more attractive guy who eventually beds his wife. The woman does it out of coercion, a seduction/sexual assault out of survival. So she doesn't want to do it, but the scene is filmed in a way intended to titillate. The cuck horror isn't just sexual. Billy Zane's whole lunacy is that he thinks he can just replace the husband and steal his life. John worked his whole life(?) being a Good Husband(?) and now his child has been taken by Fate, and now he loses his wife, and his boat, which as far as we know is everything he has. And it has been taken from him so easily. There are so many symbols of impotence: a boat that won't sail, an engine that won't start, a radio that the man can't communicate through but his wife can. There's a lot of imagery of the husband surrounding by rising water in a failing vessel, and the regular imagery of his attempts at salvation involves rhythmically cranking a rod to pump water. He's actually incapable of saving the day. It is instead his wife's strategies, deceptions and sacrifice that manages their survival. Rae assembles a big loving gun and loads it with bullets, while John has to suck a pipe for survival (which ejaculates a group of insects, a flourish to give the "emasculation" some vulgarity; this won't be the only "sucking" imagery that seems to denote emasculation). Rae doses her assailant by drugging his drink so he falls asleep. She ties him up, locks him away. John decides to burn the old vessel down and lay in a fetal position on a raft. (There are a couple of weird instances of logic being skipped though. Rae is smart enough to use the radio and the navigation tools, but she doesn't think to mention to John what their coordinates or direction are; John just knows. There's a lot of "John just knows" because he's career military, of course. John seems to pump the water out of the engine room long after it seems like a viable option. Great imagery, of course, but you'd think there's a few other jobs. Also, John uses a raft he's made out of some barrels and wood. What happened to the life boat he was dragging? Does Hughie have an idea where he's going, or is he just going? It felt like they were playing up that he doesn't know boats or ships very well, but they really only play with this idea with the engine key, and it seems he knows he just needs to plug it back in.) Billy Zane's character now has hands wet with blood, rubbing his roped hands vigorously on a glass shard positioned erect from his crotch. He escapes and is immediately penetrated with harpoons by Nicole Kidman's character. The action leads to her inflating a raft that looks like mattress and throwing his body on it. Later she and Sam Neill will find it empty of the horrible beautiful man who shattered the last bit of illusion of their relationship, and she will set it on fire with a flare. The same flare that she twisted and shot a stream of light to save her husband, and the same flare that Sam Neill manages to finally fire off--right into the mouth of horrible beautiful villainous man (see, another emasculating "right in the mouth" gag)! It's a taut ride, and I found all of this really fun and amusing. It looks great, Kidman and Zane are great. I like the garage rock he plays on cassettes. I thought it was tense. Voting Dead Calm over Nightmares in Red, White and Blue
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2022 02:57
|
|
|
Oh yeah, I finished these early. I forgot. 7. (Deb’s Team Erotic Thrillers) Phillip Noyce’s Dead Calm vs. 10. (twernt’s I Never Meta Documentary I Didn't Enjoy) Andrew Monument’s Nightmares in Red, White and Blue I wasn't really feeling Dead Calm. No surprise really. My taste always polarizes from most here. The cast is good, Billy Zane is at his Billy Zaniest, and the ocean setting is simultaneously gorgeous and chilling. I've read the opinions about its symbolism and subtext and I can see that stuff, but as we all know I'm characters and text guy first and I thought something was lacking. The opening felt disconnected from the rest of the film and since it felt almost sensationalistic in what it showed that felt a bit unnecessary and maybe even meant to shock. Now I understand the point is the old trope about a couple who has suffered a loss like that now being distant and troubled. Drifting on the ocean. The husband who wasn't there and can't help his wife physically not being able to help or be there. I get all that. My problem is I don't think the movie actually does any of the work. I think just 10 minutes with Sam Neill and Nicole Kidman would have done it. Let them introduce us to their characters and their relationship. Someone will say I'm asking everything to be "spelled out" but I'm not. I'm just asking for us to meet the characters and get to know them. Instead it feels like I'm just supposed to make assumptions about them to read symbolism and subtext into this situation they're in that kind of feels like it has nothing to do with the kid. And again, I get it... but I don't think the film made that connection. And I really don't think it would have taken much. Just a few minutes really, that could have barely affected the run time or been pulled from a little bit of Neill bailing out water or fixing an engine. But it wasn't there and it felt me disconnected with the film and these characters who I didn't feel like i knew or believed in because the film didn't feel like it had established them. I don't blame the actors. The film is shot very well. I don't hate it. I appreciate it. I just didn't really care or engage with it. Nightmares in Red, White, and Blue is what everyone else has said. History 101. I don't think there's a thing wrong with that. I dislike horror fans who look down on people who know less than them about this or that. We all start somewhere and we all have our blind spots. This doc picks kind of the most obvious stuff so its not gonna be too revealing to seasoned horror fans, but there's still some good details and plenty of films including a few dozen new to my list. Some of the political metaphor stuff was a reach. That one guy was really pushing it trying to make a 1:1 metaphor for every movie. I'm not sure Freddy is Reagan and Leatherface is Bin Laden. Still overall I agreed with the approach. The observations ranged from obvious to on point to maybe reaching a little to out there. But its overall a good and informative watch I think. There was a time not too long ago I didn't know this stuff. And I loved the heavy featuring of the directors. John Carpenter is king for a reason. All in all its good infotainment that was a very easy watch. I don't think I can really vote for the doc though. There's just nothing too deep or exceptional about it. Despite my issues with Dead Calm there's still a good bit I think it does well and I feel like it covers the ground it needed to safely here. A rare case where I might not be voting for the film I enjoyed more, but I'm not really hating or loving either entry. Its just the one that seems fairer.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2022 03:44
|
|
|
Its Thursday! For once I have all the movies watched, reviewed, and voted on but if you don't you've still got time! Just around 44 hours really. Plenty of time to get at least a couple in and share if you're not too busy living full lives and enjoying nice weather and stuff like that. Nerds. Vote or change your vote until 12 noon EST Apr 30th (or when I get to the computer)
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2022 20:52
|
|
|
I actually did end up voting for Nightmares in Red, White and Blue. So there will be no shutout. I'm mostly with Goat when it comes to Dead Calm. I've actually seen the film a few times over the years just because it used to be on cable pretty often. It's not terrible but overall it bores me. I think it's a plot thing, for me there's not enough to carry 90 minutes nothing ever really happens that changes the dynamic or takes things in an unexpected direction. And hot take time I guess, but I will admit that I'm not that into Billy Zane. Even in something like Demon Knight, where his performance is almost universally celebrated by horror fans, I just have a hard time seeing what all the fuss is about. Don't get me wrong, he's a decent actor and he gives a fun performance in Demon Knight, but sometimes people talk about him as if he's a Nicolas Cage type icon of ridiculous acting and I just don't see him that way. So that's probably a big reason why I can't have as much fun with something like Dead Calm as other people, because he and Kidman have to carry the whole thing. Unfortunately I may have to abstain from the other matchup because I'm not sure if I'll get to them this week. To celebrate Alien Day I watched every single movie with an Alien or Predator in it, which took up most of my time this week. Basebf555 fucked around with this message at 17:10 on Apr 29, 2022 |
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2022 17:08
|
|
|
I voted for and enjoyed Dead Calm but I'm with you on Billy Zane.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2022 17:12
|
|
|
I'm always very excited to see what the next week's movies are. It's like a silly miniature holiday each Saturday.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2022 17:25
|
|
|
Part of our Saturday routine is me reading the results and the next movies to my girlfriend. Who says “Hi Goons” right now, as we get a late breakfast.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2022 18:03
|
|
|
Hello, Franchescanado's Girlfriend. I think you'd get along with my wife. You have at least one similar routine.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2022 18:21
|
|
|
I’m very sorry I’m so late. Just feeling under the weather last night and today and couldn’t get myself going and out of bed. I’m sorry for messing up anyone’s Saturday routine. Sorry everyone's better halves.  Argento goes down! Dario becomes the third bye to fall and the first #1 seed, and he does that for the second year in a row making some dubious history. He’s just not getting the draws at all. Meanwhile twernt’s Buggin Out becomes the first Play In team to make it to the second round on the strength of Mark Lewis’ uneven The Thaw. Maybe they’re doing it thanks to luck of the draw but no one remembers how you win, just that you won. Its a huge win for them and now into the second round to face off against one of this week’s winners.  No big surprise here. Nightmares in Red, White, and Blue got a few votes as some either respected what it did well or weren’t as enamored with Dead Calm as some but in the end Phillip Noyce’s heavy symbolism, moody atmosphere, and Billy Zane of it all wins out handidly. That’s gonna gonna set yet another Deb team into the second round as Team Erotic Thrillers advances while twernt splits the week and their unique I Never Meta Documentary I Didn’t Like team heads back to the bench. It was a noble effort. Ok, past time for this week. 2. Terrence Fisher’s Frankenstein Created Woman vs. 15. Danny Boyle’s National Theatre Live: Frankenstein  The RNG does it again! Its a lot of Frankenstein! A lot! No real surprise there from Fischer who made himself a fair bit of Frankenstein films and arguably Cushing’s performance as the mad Doctor might be the peak of Fischer and Hammer’s work. Fischer is 0-2 in Bracketology and has yet to escape the first round so he could use a turn of luck. But luck is the name of the week since as luck would have it Danny Boyle also drew his Frankenstein…s. Apparently a little while back Boyle made himself some plays about Frankenstein that aired on UK TV starring two actors famous for playing mad doctors in Johnny Lee Miller and Benedict Cumberbatch, the unique twist of them switching roles between the Doctor and the Creature in two different versions of the play. I’m certainly intrigued. And man that’s a lot of Frankenstein. Is the offbeat and maybe lengthy Boyle adaption just too much against the familiar and concise Fisher classic? Or will the ambition show out? There’s a trio of really good actors here, two great directors, and a WHOLE lot of Frankenstein. Should be fun. Sequel Alert: Fisher’s Frankenstein Created Woman is the 4th of 7 Hammer Frankenstein films. 6 of them star Peter Cushing as Doctor Frankenstein but as I recall the continuity is a bit shaky. If I recall correctly continuity gets derailed with the 3rd film and 4th kinda starts on its own? I’m not 100% sure. I think you can watch this film on its own and not really miss out on anything. All you’re really missing is that Doctor Frankenstein is a mad scientist who makes zombie monsters. But all 3 previous star Cushing and 2 of them were directed by Fisher. So it seemed worth mentioning. Redraw Alert: Or rather not a redraw alert. I considered redrawing for Boyle since there’s two versions of it and I didn’t quite know how to handle that. Maybe designate them as two separate films and flip a coin? It was discussed and decided that the entire gimmick of the production was the dual roles so it was best to just put it out there, explain the situation, and let you decide. Do you want to watch both? Do you want to pick one? I don’t really have the answer and as you all know I always tend to overdo it and watch everything. Much like with documentaries or non-horror entries or anthologies you can decide for yourself how you feel about this in the vote. So I dunno. If we collectively decide a coin should be flipped we can do that. But I leave it to you to decide. The Curse of Frankenstein is out there and available upon request. The Revenge of Frankenstein is on fubo and Roku. The Evil of Frankenstein is out there and available upon request. Frankenstein Created Woman is on ]Internet Arctive National Theatre Live: Frankenstein is available on Internet Archive in both versions. 8. (Goat’s Knockoffs of the Living Dead) Tom Savini’s Night of the Living Dead vs. 9. William Castle’s Strait-Jacket  George Romero is still going in this tournament so his original 1968 classic is still in the pool for us to watch this year but right now its time for the Knockoffs! Actually the first draw on the team is either biggest knockoff or the least knockoff of the bunch. Director by special effects legend Tom Savini who worked on the original film and produced by Romero the story basically goes that they made this update in part to get a copyright on something (since as you probably know, they hosed up and failed to copyright the original film). It could be easy to dismiss ’90 Night as just a color remake but it stars Tony Todd, gives Barbara a more proactive character, and gives a new ending to the film. Whether these are good things or not is debatable but I’ve definitely seen people who prefer this version. They’re heathens but gotta respect all opinions. On the flip side William Castle has a record to keep up since he’s never been knocked out in the first round. Two years in a row he’s advanced to the second row with House on Haunted Hill and Mr. Sardonicus and he’s gonna try and make it 3 years. Unfortunately for him he won’t have Vincent Price this time around but Joan Crawford is pretty solid replacement and Strait-Jacket is one of Castle’s most well regarded films. This seems like a MAJOR matchup to me (or at least a very fun one) and I genuinely don’t know who has the edge. Of course they’re both my nominees so I’m biased. I can see both these films having very polarized responses based on tastes and maybe a close battle and some heated exchanges. A hell of a way to kick off May and your Half Way to Halloween marathons. Remake Alert: Savini’s NotLD is of course a remake of George Romero’s 1968 iconic original. Maybe I shouldn’t list that here? Basically every film on this team is derived from the original. That’s the team gimmick. But this feels kind of unique since its directly produced by Romero and directed by Savini? I dunno. But its Night of the Living Dead and if you haven’t seen it why not? Come on. Night of the Living Dead (1968) is literally everywhere. Its public domain. Night of the Living Dead (1990) is out there and available upon request. Straight-Jacket is out there and available upon request. That’s our week. Again, sorry for being so late with it. I robbed you of a few precious hours if you want to watch ALL these movies. And lots of movies you could add to your May Horror Challenge. Be sure to check out that thread because the Challenge is live and is always a lot of fun. And you get to cheat a little by counting all the Bracketology films you were watching anyway in there too. Shh. I won’t tell anyone. As always the goal is to just have fun and watch what you want. We try and make sure every film is reasonably available, some are a little harder to find than others and not everyone has the right streaming services so if you need help ask and help might be right around the corner. Vote or change your vote until 12 noon EST May 7th (or when I get to the computer) Next Week! 1. John Carpenter vs. 16. Goat’s Team YA 7. Goat’s Team Universal vs. 10. mbd’s Czech This Out Spreadsheet Letterboxd List STAC Goat fucked around with this message at 23:46 on Apr 30, 2022 |
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2022 21:10
|
|
|
Take that, Dario Argento.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2022 21:26
|
|
|
No suprise here, screw old Argento.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2022 23:06
|
|
|
I woke up today sick as a dog, not sure I'll be participating this week if it doesn't clear off soon.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2022 13:11
|
|
|
My bad. I forgot to wash my hands before I posted the writeups Feel better and take care of yourself. We’ll be here.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2022 18:50
|
|
|
Frankenstein Created Woman is one of the best of the Hammer Frankenstein series. I think it stands out because they weren't afraid to mix up the formula a little bit. This is more of a revenge story that happens to take place while Dr. Frankenstein is lurking in the background. The characters, as per usual with Hammer, are fairly one-dimensional but still well drawn for what they are. The villains are very effective and the film wastes no time and building up your hate for them. The film goes to some darker places than you might expect and it has that classic Hammer ending where some horrible poo poo has happened and Frankenstein is like "ah, gently caress, that's no good....." THE END HIT THE CREDITS. The supreme arrogance of Cushing's Frankenstein is just endlessly entertaining, they could've easily made a t.v. series out of that character. With each film in the series the "science" involved in Frankenstein's experiments becomes more and more absurd, and here we find him trapping souls in some sort of magical forcefield. That's where this series has something over any other Frankenstein, it lasted long enough that they started getting creative with it, and I think that's what makes the series great overall. Boyle's Frankenstein was a well-done production in most areas. They did a great job in designing the stage with interesting ways of showing movement and geography within the scenes. They have this gigantic lighting rig that added a ton of atmosphere and really gave the play a unique feel. So they did a lot to spice things up that I appreciated, but personally the two leads didn't work for me as much as I would hope for a Frankenstein production. I didn't watch both versions, I saw Cumberbatch as Frankenstein and Miller as the Monster. Miller definitely gives admirable effort, but for me there was just a little too much theatricality in his performance and not enough subtlety. And I get it, this is a stage production so the standard is different but there were some cringe moments in my opinion where Miller was going too far over the top. Cumberbatch was on the other end of the spectrum, he blends in with the scenery a bit too much. Not bad, but he never did anything that really stood out to me either. Mostly this is a personal preference thing for me, a stage play is always going to have to blow me away to beat classic Hammer. And this one didn't, so my vote goes to Fisher.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2022 15:02
|
|
|
My illness was as intense as it was short, so after a mere 24 hours I'm back. Night of the Living Dead (1990) vs. Strait-Jacket Savini's remake attempts to cover one of the themes of the original, that people are the real monsters. Every time it works, it's a scene lifted from 1968. Every time it falls flat, it's a new scene. I have to wonder what happened with the special effects. With Savini at the helm you'd expect a showcase if nothing else, but everything looked grey and floppy. It's not a terrible movie overall (Tony Todd is actually great) but it's a complete indictment of all aimless remakes. Strait-Jacket is schlocky and utterly predictable (I guessed the twist within 15 minutes) but drat, it's full of melodramatic style and Joan is so much fun. I really hated Michael though, and wished he got the axe the entire time. Easy vote for Strait-Jacket.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2022 15:32
|
|
|
Samfucius posted:
From what I remember of interviews at the time, they were mindful of the nitpicks about the 'blue' zombies in Dawn so the effects guys worked off actual corpse photos to aim for something more realistic.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2022 07:19
|
|
|
Frankenstein² Besides the whole two-versions-of-the-same-story thing, these are diametric pieces. One is a poorly-done telling of an interesting idea, the other an exquisitely put together production of a boring one. Frankenstein Created Woman I thought was quite clever. The Doctor's miracle was never just bringing animation to dead flesh: playing Creator means tying a soul to a body. It was with a clear understanding of the pathos of Shelley's work that the scriptwriter had the idea of marrying a soul to a disparate body to bring revenge for them both. It's a shame then that the movie is so cheap and the only interesting characters are terminally-self-absorbed Cushing and the horrible rich louts. The National Theatre production is decently acted and lavishly funded, but the central idea barely steps beyond a Middle School English Class level of understanding. Danny Boyle bats heavily for the theme of duality: the leads switch roles between stagings to ask "who is the monster and who is the man," the lighting divides between shadow and brilliance, and even the stage itself is divided into two with a set of tracks. Those tracks, like this central idea, never lead anywhere interesting. Sorry Benny, you can't buy my vote with all the Edison bulbs in the world. I'm going for Frankenstein Created Woman.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2022 16:56
|
|
|
Its Thursday! I for one still have two big theater performances of Frankenstein to watch. Haven't been able to get into that theater mood yet this week. But I have just under 46 hours to do it and you too have about that amount of time to watch whatever you need to watch, deliberate whatever you feel about the movies or directors, and vote. And add some more films to your May Challenge. Vote or change your vote until 12 noon EST May 7th (or when I get to the computer) Next Week! 1. John Carpenter vs. 16. Goat’s Team YA 7. Goat’s Team Universal vs. 10. mbd’s Czech This Out
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2022 19:16
|
|
|
I think Danny Boyle's Frankenstein versions are a lot more fascinating as comparisons of performances, acting, and the theater than as the simple commentary on the duality of the two leads. It takes that as a starting point, an easy set-up that allows an examination of how changing the variables can alter a production. I find value in that, because even the way the other actors respond (especially Naomie Harris as Elisabeth) is altered. Watching them back-to-back as I did only heightens the feeling. It's also quite a well-done filmed play. It's very difficult to make a live performance work when viewed as an edited film, but this one mostly works (the Miller-as-Creature slightly better, but only slightly). It's also quite a good adaptation of Mary Shelley's book; possibly one of the best adaptations for a performing medium. To that end the Miller-as-Creature is a bit better, as his Creature manages to evoke more empathy, and begs to be understood and treated as a human, which Cumberbatch's Frankenstein seems to struggle to understand, just as he struggles to understand even other people. That said, Cumberbatch-as-Creature is the better horror production. Cumberbatch's physical performance is very strong, and throughout it always feels like something is wrong with every line he utters, every movement he makes. He's more believable as striking fear into people as an initial reaction, and Miller's Frankenstein is also more monstrous, since he is more passionate and emotive, and more unhinged. Unfortunately I haven't had a chance to see the movie it's up against. Internet has been out last two evenings and if that happens again I likely won't get to watch it.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2022 23:00
|
|
|
Kangra, I will be perfectly honest and admit I did not watch both versions. I in fact only watched the Cumberbatch-as-Creature version, which sounds the less interesting of the two according to what I'm reading from you. You have made me very interested in watching the other one. It won't be soon, I'm leaving early in the morning for London, but it will happen.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2022 23:26
|
|
|
Voted for the Hammer flick and Strait Jacket
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2022 23:28
|
|
|
MacheteZombie posted:Voted for the Hammer flick and Strait Jacket Same here. I thought that the Boyle Frankenstein was maybe objectively better but I enjoyed the Fisher one more.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2022 23:39
|
|
|
I’m voting for Strait Jacket. I forgot to say anything about that matchup. I like Savini’s Night but it’s a little dry in the first half and while I appreciate the character changes I’m not sure I like the payoff. Despite it objectively being a “happier” ending than the original it feels meaner and more jaded. The first one feels like it’s saying something about civil rights or society and the Savini one just feels like it’s responding to the 80s horror progression of edge and mean. I dunno. Strait Jacket felt like a more complete film to me. Crawford is great and I think it did a good job balancing the ambiguity of the plot. It’s not quite a whodunit and the twist is neither terribly original nor surprising. But I wasn’t sure how it would turn until it did and I was engaged. So I had a good time. Really I had a good time with both. I think Castle just felt slightly better. And I’ve kind of lost enthusiasm for my Knockoffs team. It’s a fun idea but it’s Return, Snyder, and a bunch of bad movies. And I think I rather watch a Castle film. As far as Frankensteins… As others have said Frankenstein Created Woman is a really interesting idea that doesn’t really pay off in any of the ways it could. But it’s still an interesting idea and a charming Hammer production. It’s a bit odd the way Frankenstein becomes a supporting character at this stage like he’s Lorenzo Lamas or Bruce Banner just wandering into town to do his experiments only to run afoul of the locals problems. But Cushing is great and this one does a better job focusing on the amoral subtle villainy of his Frankenstein where instead of trying to help the locals he’s just harvesting the bodies for parts. He’s a great villain even when he’s not the actual villain. So it was a fun charming film but a flawed one. So I’m gonna try and get at least one of Boyles in tonight and hopefully the other tomorrow. And I watched four Hammer Frankensteins so its actually less time. So seems fair.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2022 23:56
|
|
|
I have a soft spot for Savini's Night of the Living Dead. It's one of the first legitimately gory horror films I stumbled on as a kid(I was 6 when it came out, probably 7 when I saw it) and it really messed me up. But then years have gone by and I've definitely noticed that I've kinda downgraded it a little bit each time I've rewatched it. The flaws that weren't apparent to me at 7 years old, like the ones others have already mentioned, start to jump out and the nostalgia can only carry you so far. I haven't seen Strait Jacket yet though, I'm gonna try to get that in tonight.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2022 14:07
|
|
|
I think I'm voting for Boyle. That surprises me. 24 hours ago I wasn't sure I'd get to one of the plays but now I've watched both and I really enjoyed the experience. Its a very solid theater performance first off. I dunno if it needed steampunk in it but what can you do? The whole womb/edison light bulb presentation of the lab was pretty cool and different. And while there were maybe a few awkward transition without any kind of narrator (especially in the first half as the Creature is learning and growing) the narrative flows really well. I think I prefer Miller as the Creature and Cumberbatch as Frankenstein but its interesting how differently their performances play. Miller plays both roles more commanding and as a result more sinister. Cumberbatch plays both roles more confused and as a result feeling disturbed. It completely changes how each character feels and I found that all very compelling and interesting. Ultimately while I did enjoy Frankenstein Created Woman and enjoy the Hammer Frankensteins I feel like Boyle's plays represent Bracketology to me more. On one hand I rewatched some films I like but not love and on the other hand I watched something I not only didn't know existed but a format I very rarely watch. And even though I watched it twice it changed in those two times. And I think I much more enjoy the process of comparing different versions of the same thing than to rewatching the same thing over and over and obsessing over the same shots and scenes. So I just had a good and unique time. Which is what I want from Bracketology.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2022 20:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 22:41 |
|
|
I have no great fondness for Hammer horror, and Dr. Frankenstein I never found to be a very intriguing character, so it does say something that I at least found Frankenstein Created Woman to be worth watching. The killer's shift between moods was delightfully macabre, and Cushing really played a callous mad scientist who is also shocked by his creation rather well. It just felt like it took too long to get warmed up, and didn't have enough time to flesh out the premise. Boyle's Frankensteins actually impressed me; indeed, both of these entries were better than I expected them to be. The 1990 Night of the Living Dead was the first version I ever saw of it (and it even confused me for a while when people talked about 'Romero's film' since I had no knowledge of the original). I liked it quite a lot aside from some of the ending, but once I saw the actual original it's clear to me that the older film is superior. Somehow despite not being that different this one feels much more of its time, and more dated now. I did like how Barbara is developed over the course of it, but she's developed into what was a generic archetype of the 80s-90s. The ending feels more cynical, and somehow more regressive in its racial politics than the 1968 one (I think it's a tone-deaf attempt to show that humans will just do as they've always done, but comes off as if implying we cannot do anything about the past, so we maybe don't have to face up to it). That said, I still liked it better than Strait-Jacket. Joan Crawford is amazing and brings the film up by a lot. It was not enough to overcome how mediocre the rest of it was. She made it above average, but even the lesser remake of NotLD is still a good movie.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2022 07:26
|
|