|
8. Bliss - 2019 Directed by Joe Begos 🎃 Horror High 🎃  If you're ever in a slump, creatively, and regular cocaine isn't working for you anymore, there's always evil mega cocaine. It'll be a super glamorous experience with absolutely no negative consequences for you or anyone else. There also won't be any blood all over the place. 💀💀💀💀/5 Spooky May Spring Cleaning 7/13 1. Basket Case 2; 2. Basket Case 3: The Progeny; 3. 3 from Hell; 4. Attack of the Blind Dead; 5. The Ghost Galleon; 6. Night of the Seagulls, 7. Ginger Snaps Back: The Beginning GMM Challenges 1/13 1. Bliss (Horror High) Completed Collections * The Basket Case Trilogy 🧺🧺🧺/🧺🧺🧺 * The Firefly Collection 🤡🤡🤡/🤡🤡🤡 * The Blind Dead Collection ⛪⛪⛪⛪/⛪⛪⛪⛪ * The Ginger Snaps Collection 🐺🐺🐺/🐺🐺🐺
|
#
?
May 2, 2023 21:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 16:17 |
|
|
4. Evil Ed Decent but not great send up to 80s splatter flicks. The effects are solid but the plot gets kinda lost in all the attempts at comedic beats and changing locations. The ending, at least the shoot out portion, is a bit too over the top whereas I was hoping for more of a cat n mouse with Ed and the two characters from earlier in the movie. Still, it's a fun and quickly paced 90 mins so good job lol. 3/5
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2023 21:24
|
|
|
A.o.D. posted:As long as you don't need it to be horror, there's nothing wrong with Harry and the Hendersons. First thing I thought of as well re: bigfoot movies, but yeah not horror. The Berzerker posted:1. The Monster Squad (1987) The only other thing I remember about watching this back in the day, besides nards, is that the quiz they give the new kid to jump him into the crew included a question about how the monster wasn't named Frankenstein, that was the doctor's name. I knew that as a kid and was right  about it.e: Also throwing out Cocaine Bear for the Horror High challenge  
Takes No Damage fucked around with this message at 21:38 on May 2, 2023 |
|
#
?
May 2, 2023 21:26
|
|
|
4. Djinn (2013) It's wild how much just doing an unusual setting or an unusual monster can make old tropes feel fresh again. This is basically just the Ancient Indian Burial Ground haunted house story, but because it's not just ghosts in America, it feels a bit different. This was another pick just to scratch off some challenges, but I ended up pretty into it! Some very good spooks, wasn't too overdone with exposition to explain what djinn actually are, like I was worried it might. A few of the performances are kinda wooden, but I'm happy to overlook that, given most of the cast are delivering lines in a language that isn't their native one. It took me all the way until the credits rolled for me to realize that, oh poo poo, this was Tobe Hooper's last movie, and I was even more shocked to discover it was pretty roundly panned at the time. Maybe I was kinder to it because I didn't realize the pedigree that made it. Counts for challenge #3: Holy Terror (Islam) and meta-challenge Geography Lession (Middle East, United Arab Emirates) Watched so far: The Borderlands, Nosferatu (Shooting Zombies), Shed of the Dead (Challenge of the Dead), Djinn (Holy Terror) Total: 4/13 Gyro Zeppeli fucked around with this message at 00:18 on May 3, 2023 |
|
#
?
May 2, 2023 22:05
|
|
|
 3. To Your Last Death (2019) Evil rich father gathers his children to essentially Saw trap them to death as revenge for ruining his campaign for Vice-President. A cool concept, but gets muddy when they add in The Gamemaster, a mysterious entity that helps our hero reload her save state and fix her mistakes. The Gamemaster is overseeing a group of gods (or whatever) who are gambling on the outcome, adding to the complexity for no real benefit. The core story is fairly simple but a good ride. The father is played by Ray Wise (and one of his henchmen is Bill Moseley), he's a solid psycho with traps that tie into the faults of his kids, and the animation is OK (it looks like a Telltale game, or that cartoon Archer). I'd recommend watching something cool like Mad God or The Wolf House for this challenge instead, but if you've already seen them this isn't a bad alternative!  Completes GMM Challenge #6 Drawn and Quartered  3.5/5First time watches: 3/13 GMM Challenges: 1
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2023 22:08
|
|
#2: 2LDK Two struggling actresses come home to the apartment they share after auditioning for the same role. Standard roommate annoyances start to mount and tension builds, until they push each other too far. What a great movie. Both actresses turn in fantastic performances, coming across as genuinely annoying and annoyed in their turn. It's balanced so well, you don't root for one over the other. If you have ever lived with another person you know somebody else's existence can rub on you to the point where one of them has a nervous breakdown and the other one is just like, "she's doing this to annoy me". And she's kinda right. The fighting is so good. They definitely want to kill each other, but they're so angry they really just want to hurt and humiliate each other more. The result is a blend of actual murderousness with slapsticky bullying that keeps the fight fresh and interesting despite it's extreme length. I appreciate how they had to give the apartment insane interior decoration in order to justify a chainsaw being in there. I especially like how at a couple points the movie seems to be setting up that their mutual animosity is covering up a mutual admiration, and maybe even attraction?... Only to then swerve right back, nope, these bitches loving hate each other. And it's only 70 minutes! Do you have any excuse not to watch 2LDK?
|
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2023 23:40
|
|
|
For the challenges, make sure you are saying in your write-up how the movie fits the challenge (unless it’s super obvious like a movie with Bigfoot in the title for the cryptid one). e.g. for Holy Terror mention what the religion is. And if it’s for the Geography meta challenge, try to mention what country the film is from and not just the region, mostly because it’s interesting and I want to see what people come up with for the tougher regions! If anyone has questions on what qualifies for a particular challenge, ask away in the thread or PM me. I’m not gonna be too much of a stickler unless you are obviously trying to BS it. And in case it’s not clear, there are 13 challenges but you could potentially finish them all with only 11 films. You’ll still need to watch minimum 13 films total though for the overall thread goal.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2023 00:06
|
|
|
9. Mongolian Death Worm - 2010 Directed by Steven R. Monroe 🎃 Tales from the Cryptids 🎃  The Mongolian Death Worm, also known as the Olgoi-Khorkhoi, which apparently means "intestine worm" is allegedly the inspiration for the Graboids from Tremors, which explains why the titular Mongolian Death Worms look so much like Graboids from Tremors. It's not a great movie, very Syfy. Everyone tries their best. 💀💀/5 Spooky May Spring Cleaning 7/13 1. Basket Case 2; 2. Basket Case 3: The Progeny; 3. 3 from Hell; 4. Attack of the Blind Dead; 5. The Ghost Galleon; 6. Night of the Seagulls, 7. Ginger Snaps Back: The Beginning GMM Challenges 2/13 1. Bliss (Horror High); 2. Mongolian Death Worm (Tales from the Cryptids) Completed Collections * The Basket Case Trilogy 🧺🧺🧺/🧺🧺🧺 * The Firefly Collection 🤡🤡🤡/🤡🤡🤡 * The Blind Dead Collection ⛪⛪⛪⛪/⛪⛪⛪⛪ * The Ginger Snaps Collection 🐺🐺🐺/🐺🐺🐺
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2023 00:35
|
|
|
Posting to post. I have some leftovers from my October world tour. I'm going to finish those off and target challenges. And post the 80s D-list binge I went on this past Sunday.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2023 00:48
|
|
|
I have an eligibility question actually. How important is it that the “of the Dead” challenge movie actually ENDS with that phrase? Because I have Day of the Dead: Bloodline already planned but technically that doesn’t end with the phrase. But like clearly it’s in the spirit of the challenge? I can watch some other poo poo movie. I literally have dozens of them on my plex. But I was curious. Normally I just go by “if I have to question it I have my answer” rules but in this case it does feel like maybe I’m being too pedantic about the exact wording? Or not?
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2023 01:54
|
|
|
#3: The Mothman Prophecies 2. Tales from the Cryptids Because it is about the Mothman 12. History lesson 2000s Man, that first opening scene where Richard Gere is happily loving his beautiful Debra Messing wife in the beautiful huge house they're about to buy, that whole time I'm just like, Debra Messing is loving dead in the next five minutes. Pretty good. Moves around at a good clip. The bridge collapse scene is great. Could have used more Mothman. I think it's really hut by Richard Gere's character being an outsider. Everything is focused on this small town that's about to have a tragedy, but Gere is from the big city, and that lack of connection to the community weakens the whole thing. He's a big city journalist, but his big city journalism doesn't really add anything or move the plot forward. And his wife getting killed by a Mothman gives him reason to get really invested in the Mothman thing, but it doesn't really fit the Mothman lore. If Mothman presages big disasters, why was he loving around on that random DC street causing one single car accident and loving off? I want to say that the movie would have been better if our lead was a local who got interested in the mothman because it was an interesting thing happening in their town, but then at that point I'm just describing a completely different movie also about the Mothman. I know the vast majority of this review has been about what I think didn't work, but it's hardly a bad movie. Perfectly good Mothman time. It's just not the great Mothman movie we deserve. Challenges in progress 12. History lesson: 1990s (The Relic) 2000s (The Mothman Prophecies) 13. Geography Lesson: North America (The Relic) Challenges complete 2: Tales from the Cryptids: Mothman Prophecies (because of mothman) Gripweed fucked around with this message at 13:28 on May 5, 2023 |
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2023 03:11
|
|
|
STAC Goat posted:I have an eligibility question actually. How important is it that the “of the Dead” challenge movie actually ENDS with that phrase? Because I have Day of the Dead: Bloodline already planned but technically that doesn’t end with the phrase. But like clearly it’s in the spirit of the challenge? I can watch some other poo poo movie. I literally have dozens of them on my plex. But I was curious. That’s totally fine, as you said it’s in the spirit of the challenge.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2023 03:18
|
|
|
The hell you say I won't watch at least 13 horror films in May, I'll watch one right now you son of a bitch. 1. Psycho (1960) For those who watched and hated Gus Van Sant's 1998 shot-for-shot remake of Hitchcock's Psycho, I wonder: was it truly bad because it was "lifeless," in some way spiritually worse than the original it copied? Or is Psycho just not an outstanding film anymore if you aren't watching it through a filter of reverence for having broken new ground and influenced cinema? Demeaning masterworks from the past simply for their age is poor form. But Hitchcock's Psycho is an exploitation film, crafted to shock the audiences of 1960 by transgressing boundaries. And the boundaries of sex and violence have been pushed so far out in the decades since that it's impossible for scenes that once made people afraid of their showers to land an impact. There are still aspects of Psycho that feel masterful and affecting, timeless hits such as Bernard Herrmann's score, the way Anthony Perkins navigates in a conversation from nervous chitchat to festering anger, classic Hitchcock suspense tricks like the pause of a sinking car that reveal how you in the audience are suddenly rooting for someone to get away with a foul crime, the unnerving rhyme of the close-up on Perkins' peeping eye with a close-up of a lifeless one on a body crumpled on a bathroom floor. I'm being a bit coy because if somehow you've managed to dodge all the spoilers on this one I've picked up through cultural osmosis, holy cow watch it, Hitchcock's twisty screenplay gamesmanship will take you for a ride. But against those highs there are some real lows, too. Dull investigative scenes of worried people speculating about questions we already know the answers to. Janet Leigh insisting she's in a hurry for the fiftieth time in a single scene. Annoyingly repetitive shot framings that hang the camera in a scene on a hidden packet of money, only for it to come to nothing, not even built suspense, just Hitchcock having a giggle to himself about red herrings. And a wretched let's-explain-what-just-happened ending where some rear end in a top hat blathers to us and squanders all the malevolent energy that Perkins conjures with his face alone. I'm not trying to drop some dumbass hot take that "Psycho is mid." But I'm filing this one in my personal library next to The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari, super cool films that simply aren't as mindblowing if you only see them for the first time after generations of artists have strip-mined their ideas.  .5 / 5Counts for the Shooting Zombies challenge, as it's the highest on the list I haven't seen, and History Lesson: 1960s. Vanilla Bison fucked around with this message at 07:06 on May 3, 2023 |
|
#
?
May 3, 2023 05:40
|
|
|
gey muckle mowser posted:That’s totally fine, as you said it’s in the spirit of the challenge. Thanks! As is usual when I do spring cleaning I get distracted with other dumb projects.  - (7). Vampires (1998) Directed by John Carpenter; Screenplay by Don Jakoby; Based on Vampires by John Steakley I meant to rewatch this a couple of months ago when it was drawn for Bracketology but my mother had a health crisis and I spent all my time in a hospital and sick so... I didn't. But I was pretty sure I was gonna still clean it up here in May when I saw it had a sequel I hadn't seen. Of course that means I'm also gonna rewatch the Jon Bon Jovi sequel... which feels even less fun as I recover from losing to the Jersey Devils. But ah well. We make choices. I always liked this. Its polarizing I guess and to some extent I get why. Its fairly bare bones as a story and grimy and sleazy as hell. Certainly James Woods' character and some of the homophobic or misogynistic stuff he and Daniel Baldwin says don't age well. Neither do Woods and Baldwin. Still a lot of this is true of the stuff from the decade or two before this but I guess 1998 was just a little too late to get that grandfathered in? Oddly I do think that's kind of what makes this work for me. Carpenter is a good dude who isn't like that but his filming style is very much rooted in the 80s. So I think Vampires feels dated in that sense but in a way that works for me. Its an ugly, mean, nasty approach to a simple idea that I've always loved. The whole "slayers/hunters" thing as we've seen in something like one of my favorite shows Supernatural. But unlike there where its a couple of pretty boys wooing the girls here its a bunch of grimey dudes. And that always made sense to me because if you had a bunch of people who dedicated their lives to riding the roads and killing monsters they're probably not gonna be the best of the best. Not very well socially adjusted or clean or hirable. Not the type you bring home to mama. Supernatural played with that idea but ultimately was still clean because it was on CW. Carpenter just makes his dirty in that 80s way. I also always loved the take on vampires as this kind of beast thing like in 30 Days of Night or the western idea like in Near Dark. I think the pattern with all of these is kind of a grounded Americana take on these classic monsters. Cars and highways, guns and beer, jeans and leather. And no like magical or sci fi weapons or tricks. Just DIY grit and muscle and ingenuity. I dunno. I just always liked the vibe of that and it feels different from what we get a lot of the time. And most of the American based horror we do get of that variety is over serial killer and Texas Chainsaw type stuff. But I like the monsters so I enjoy seeing that thing applied here and I haven't seen it too much. And Vampires is definitely where I first saw it. I'm rambling a lot and justifying why I like it but ultimately I do just like it. Despite its flaws, despite its problematic lead, despite its grimy, simple, thinness. Because of that last one really. Just a simple story with basic grimy dudes you wouldn't want to spend time with doing a job you wouldn't want to even know needs to be done. And I love Carpenter so what can you expect? Certainly not one of his best and on the downturn of his career when either he was aging away from Hollywood or Hollywood was aging away from him. But I think one of the last ones that really kind of clicked and held onto what worked so well with Carpenter's style.  - (8). Vampires: Los Muertos (2002) Written and directed by Tommy Lee Wallace Everything and everyone in this is just way too clean and pretty. Its rare you say that about a DTV sequel to a theatrical film but its definitely the case here. Carpenter's Vampires works (as much as it does) because its grimy and ugly and raw. James Woods and Daniel Baldwin are ugly scumbags you'd move away from if you saw them in a bar. Jon Bon Jovi and Cristián de la Fuente look like they just left their soap opera set or something. And from the second that Jon pulls out a special stake gun I just kind of rolled my eyes. Again, it kind of betrays the basic idea of the first film that they weren't working with any kind of special tricks or anything. They were just dudes with guns and trucks. Now its stake guns and special drugs. And that could work... but it doesn't. And it loses what made the first one work. That and you know... these just aren't very good actors. James Woods is a terrible human being but a good actor. Jon Bon Jovi is not. He'd pass for a TV cameo or something as would his telenovela and Family Matters co-stars. But not for this. Natasha Gregson Wagner is decent I think and I always thought Arly Jover was an underrated physical actor strength of Blade and she's good here too. But largely this cast just doesn't sell what they need to sell. And well... its also just not that good. Tommy Wallace worked on a ton of great Carpenter films and has two cult classics in It and Halloween III under his belt but this just isn't very good. Dialogue is clumsy. Plotting is clumsy. Exposition and plot points are just spelled out awkwardly. The team comes together so matter of factly. Some of the basic plot turns are just outright silly. Memphis is like the dumbest dude alive and its a wonder he lived long enough to find Jon's band. Its all just so... clumsy. I saw this a long time ago and remember mostly being fine with it so I didn't really expect to hate it or anything. And I didn't hate it. Its not THAT bad. But it just kind of manages to do everything the first film does well the opposite way. Its odd. And maybe deliberate? Maybe Wallace was purposely trying to tell a completely different story with completely different characters in this same world Caprenter established? I don't mind that. And I don't mind them being cleaner and prettier. I'm a massive Supernatural fan so I'm ok with pretty boy hunters. But this just isn't a very well done film when it comes down to it. Maybe that's just money and resources and Wallace working with what he had. But I dunno. I do think Wallace is a good director and this is actually shot really well. But I dunno. Its just not a particularly good movie.  5 (9). Vampires: The Turning (2005) Directed by Marty Weiss; Written by D.B. Farmer and Andy Hurst A dull movie. It borrows the loose outline of the Carpenter’s film. Slayers, the same basic vampire rules, and one seeking a ritual to day walk or something. That’s where the similarities end. Its set in Thailand although I have no idea if it was filmed there. I suspect not. Its doing away with any of the grimy road stuff and is back to pretty people and sex vampires. All the usual tropes and cliches you’re familiar with. Some bad effects for no great reason. Terrible acting from the lead. A dull as hell plot. There’s like slayers and bad vampires and good vampires and an eclipse and a ritual that either turns the bad guys into day walkers or turns the good guys into humans? I dunno. Whatever. So dull. There’s like motorcycles and samurai swords and martial arts and wire fighting so that might be your thing and draw you in. But there’s not a lot of it. Patrick Bauchau is kind of slumming as the main slayer. A kind of slick veteran guy who comes off like a mercenary leader or something. I might have enjoyed a film about him more but he too isn't around much. Nope, ist a lot of that boring lead. You know the type. Pretty white guy saving his girl (after being a dick to her) and going all white savior on the locals. For a film set in Thailand and filled with asian actors there's like two who have more than a few lines and they're mostly exposition. The best part is when the douche lead saves the woman he loves by banging the sexy lady he just met. Which by the way is basically her committing suicide because she wants to gently caress him so bad or something. Or help him save that one random girl he loves. So lets gently caress. So yeah. Like maybe you'll enjoy the 10 minutes or so of martial arts style action. Or maybe if you don't like the aesthetic and style of the original you'll like this going the total opposite way. Or maybe you'll just enjoy how bad it is. But it isn't camp or comedy or anything. Its just a bad movie. 🌼💀Spook-a-Doodle Half-Way-to-Halloween ’23: Spring Cleaning💀🌼 Watched - New (Total) - (1). Scream (1996); 1 (2). The Invisible Man’s Revenge (1944); 2 (3). Viral (2016); - (4). Scream 2 (1997); 3 (5). Mostly Ghostly 3: One Night in Doom House (2016); 4 (6). Man-Thing (2005); - (7). Vampires (1998); - (8). Vampires: Los Muertos (2002); 5 (9). Vampires: The Turning (2005); Completed Collections: 3/13 The Invisible Man; Mostly Ghostly; John Carpenter’s Vampires; Return of the Fallen: 1/13 Viral; Spook-A-Doodle Challenges: 0/13
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2023 06:23
|
|
|
Skinamarink (2023) -- Oops! Aaallllllllll establishing shots! Alternately: My bro, have you read House of Leaves? Didn't care for this one at all. I guess if it was actually happening to you it would be pretty creepy, but watching it on screen was a challenge of endurance rather than bravery. What if Paranormal Activity but actually nothing happened? What if that girl from The Blair Witch self portrait scene shot a whole movie on her 1st gen Nokia phone camera? Even when something slightly scary does happen you're so pissed at the waste of the previous hour of your life that it's hard to care. Dude should have stuck to making 10 minute Youtube shorts because there is not a single thing that can possibly justify this 100 minute runtime  ~*Progress Tracker*~ 01. Idle Hands Horror High, History Lesson 90s02. Maniac Cop History Lesson 80s03. Skinamarink History Lesson 20s, Fresh Hell (released in North America in January)
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2023 07:33
|
|
|
Wait, the Skinamarink is a real movie? I thought it was some kind of Twitch meme.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2023 08:16
|
|
|
Shaman Tank Spec posted:Wait, the Skinamarink is a real movie? I thought it was some kind of Twitch meme. It is, depending on how loosely you're willing to define 'movie'. The things that 'happen' in it are more suggested than actually shown on screen. To be as fair as possible it is described as experimental and based on the creator's childhood dreams. And it cost 15k to make and they cleared 2M in theaters so good on them for that. Just very much not my bag man.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2023 08:31
|
|
|
Skinamarink is definitely a “love it or hate it” kind of movie, it’s 100% about the vibe and if that doesn’t work for you then it’s gonna fall completely flat. I was completely transfixed in the theater and it might be my favorite movie of the year so far, but I totally get why opinions are very divided on it.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2023 13:07
|
|
|
Oh, hey, speaking of "vibes movies"...gey muckle mowser posted:
 #4. Mad God (2022) (Shudder) A stranger in a WWI doughboy getup wanders through a dystopian hellscape of bizarre and nightmarish sounds and images, ostensibly to blow it all up. Also there's a whole bunch of stuff about surgery and death and rebirth and I don't know man I wasn't stoned enough to get this movie. I'll be honest - I put off watching this film for as long as I did post-release not because I was worried it would terrify me, but because I was worried that it would come across as a series of grotesque vignettes strung loosely together and become barely coherent as a result. Turns out I was correct in that pre-viewing assessment, and I ultimately feel that that fact keeps the film back from true greatness. What I didn't reckon on, though, was how darkly funny the film could be in places, and how that helped to alleviate the crushing feeling of grim, grimy monotonousness and borderline nihilism. Watching this film, I was reminded of director Phil Tippett's stop-motion work in other seminal films from my childhood, notably Star Wars and Robocop. There's a certain uncanny elegance to Tippett's brand of stop-motion animation; more fluid than something like a Willis O'Brien King Kong character, but blurrier and less distinct than the world around it, since Tippett's work was often integrated into a normal film shot. It also seemed to be operating at a different speed than the film it was inserted into, looking like 18 frames of animation compared to the 24 frames it was projected at, so the animation is smooth on the creature but the creature is not smoothly integrated into the world around itself. I don't know if I'm explaining that right, but Tippett exists purely in the Uncanny Valley, in my mind. Yet, in that Valley, and in a way that most other similar FX artists don't quite manage to land on, a strange alchemy happens. It's unreal, yet by virtue of being animated by human intent, it becomes as real as the fantasy worlds that Tippett was asked to integrate into. Sometimes more so. I had that realization very early into the film, watching the way automated cannons animated themselves to turn and fire upon our nameless, title-less Assassin Hero, lowered down from the Heavens and sent out into Hell with little in the way of intent or protection. Much like we, the audience, in that regard, little doughboy man. There's a sublime-ness to the animation and the artifice, but I'm less wedded to the thematic material, if such exists here, and the way the film ends with a trippy 2001 degeneration into pure noise and visual stimuli. I've never been much for Stan Brakhage's experimentation with non-representation, and this film was already pushing the limit of what I can take in terms of non-cohesive non-narrative storytelling. Again, it feels less like even a thematically cogent experience, so much as it does a series of grotesques stitched together by the loose narrative threadwork of a nameless figure going on an ill-defined quest. The experience of being on an automatic walkway from Point A to Point Z, and look at all the horrible attractions on the other side of the glass around you. Look, but don't touch. I want to say that there's something to be gleaned from the forms that Tippett highlights, but I don't know that I can gather what he wants to say - all that blood and cum and poo poo on all of these lumpen, cancerous monstrosities cropping up around it being representative of what? A fear of aging and mortality and loss of morality? A scream at the fact of the world getting worse as it goes and the wonder of the creator being perverted into outright hostility to both his creations and his audience? Am I still making sense? And the soundscape - there's nary a spoken word of dialogue in the whole thing, with the only lines apparently being spoken in Italian from audio stolen from a Fellini film. So as a dumbass American with no culture, it might as well join the ranks of alien gibberish being spouted around. But the weird thing is that, for all of the inventive and individual care and handling of the monsters being formed, all of the audio effects seem to be stolen from the same couple of sound FX CDs banging around in Hollywood. And game design, as I heard common, notable sound effects - the squealing pig snorts from "WarCraft"! the demon hiss-howl from "DOOM"! the same shrieking monkey effect you've heard from a thousand places! - being deployed all throughout. Hell, they even use the same noises for multiple characters throughout, as one roaring bull noise gets used for both a minotaur being jerked off in a back alley and a giant monkey monster gladiator fighting amongst mountains of poo poo and now I realize how insane trying to talk about this film makes me sound when I just write out exactly what happens on screen. In the end, I go back and forth with something like Mad God - I'm glad I watched it and frustrated with trying to understand it in equal measure. The whole experience of watching it was a rebellion against the "tune in, drop out" mentality that I feel like something like this demands; I sat there, trying to puzzle out what the images meant, what the author was saying with our trip through "Tippett's Inferno" and ultimately not being able to land on anything concrete. I'm sure that's mostly a me problem - there's a lot of sticky images here that I'm still trying to puzzle my way through. I just ultimately wish I could suss out greater meaning or a more coherent theme or statement from a film like this, that there was something greater I could take from this than mere appreciation for the act of creating by a creator I respect, even if I don't care for his latest creations. To be fair, I don't know if such a film shows if Tippett does either. Or his audience, on that point. I wonder how much that matters. /5Also counts towards History Lesson (2020s) and Geography Lesson (North America) because why not. Watched so far: The Seed, Witchboard, The Visitor, Mad God I apologize for rambling above.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2023 16:25
|
|
|
5. Yeti: Curse of the Snow Demon (2008) It's exactly what you expect when you read "A Sci-Fi made-for-TV movie about the yeti where the biggest star is Dom Deluise's son". It's campy, it looks like it was filmed on a camcorder, the yeti costume itself looks it was built out of shag carpeting samples glued onto a Spirit Halloween gorilla suit, but the whole movie takes itself so deathly seriously that it's charming. It also helps that every character is so unlikeable that you are absolutely cheering for the yeti to eat the lot of them by the end. I'll even give it credit for not doing the usual trick of "hide the cheap monster costume in darkness", that yeti is right out there in broad daylight, struggling to run in ankle-deep snow in a very midwestern-looking Himalayas then getting shot with a flaregun. Counts for challenge #3: Tales from the Cryptids (Yeti) and meta-challenge History Lesson (00s) Watched so far: The Borderlands, Nosferatu (Shooting Zombies), Shed of the Dead (Challenge of the Dead), Djinn (Holy Terror), Yeti: Curse of the Snow Demon (Tales from the Cryptids) Total: 5/13 Gyro Zeppeli fucked around with this message at 17:58 on May 3, 2023 |
|
#
?
May 3, 2023 17:33
|
|
|
 2. The Manitou (1978) (dir. William Girdler) Shudder Challenge 3 - Holy Terror (Algonquin theology/spiritualism) Geography Lesson: North AmericaDoctors at a San Fransisco hospital are baffled by the tumor growing on Karen Tandy's (Susan Strasberg) neck - not only is it growing at an incredible rate, but in x-rays it appears to be a developing fetus. Not fully believing it and not knowing what else to do, they decide to remove the growth surgically. The night before the operation, Karen visits an old friend, a fake but charming fortune teller named Harry Erskine (Tony Curtis), who overhears Karen speaking a strange language in her sleep. Long story short, the surgery fails, and through a seance Harry learns that Karen is possessed by the spirit of a long-dead Indian medicine man trying to force himself back into the world, and he enlists the help of a modern medicine man named John Singing Rock to exorcise the spirit and save Karen's life. I was prepared for the parts of this concerning indigenous culture to have aged very poorly, but it's actually pretty OK. It pulls from actual Algonquin theology, I'm sure some great liberties were taken but at least it has some basis in reality. Although I'm not sure anyone ever says "Algonquin", it's always "Indian", but considering this was made in 1978 I give it a pass. John Singing Rock could've been a one-note stereotype, but he's maybe the smartest and most competent character in the film. There's even a scene where he basically says, "Why should I help you when the white man has hosed over my people for generations? If you were me, would you help?", to which Harry responds "yeah I guess I wouldn't" and starts to leave. And when he does agree to help, John asks for a donation to the American Indian Education Fund in lieu of payment. I'm not saying this is especially progressive by today's standards, but for a 45-year-old film I think it handles the material well. I really enjoyed this! In a lot of ways it's a riff on The Exorcist with the Christian parts swapped for Algonquin theology, but it also has some body horror elements and gets completely bonkers by the end. If you've ever wanted to see Tony Curtis throw a typewriter at an evil dwarf, or a topless Susan Strasberg shoot lasers from her hands at an ancient demonic entity, this is the film for you. It gets bloody at times, and even has one or two moments I found legitimately creepy. Tony Curtis is fun in the lead role, and I always like Strasberg even if she spends most of the film either unconscious or possessed. Burgess Meredith shows up in a small role too. If you're a fan of '70s horror I highly recommend this - it's a weird film that I had a lot of fun with. 4.5 tumors out of 5 Total: 2 Watched: Lokis, a Manuscript of Professor Wittembach | The Manitou (Challenge #3) Challenges: 1 2 History Lesson: 1/5 - 1970s Geography Lesson: 2/5 - Europe, North America
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2023 17:57
|
|
|
 Scream 6 It's Spring Cleaning, time to take care of a few major releases that I skipped over from the past year or so. Scream 6 is probably the biggest of the bunch, the one that's been the hardest to resist reading spoilers on. But I did it, I went in totally blind and still with the faint hope that maybe they'd pulled off a massive swerve and Sydney was actually the killer. Well, no, that did not happen and I think for me this series has fully run it's course. The process of evaluating the suspects and trying to guess the killer(s) has become old hat, and I just don't have much fun with it anymore. Especially(and I saw someone in the Scream thread mention this) given that they seem to have established this one archetype for Scream killers where every actor who does it feels pretty much the same. They all basically do some form of the Matthew Lillard "It's a Scream baby!" manic character or the Skeet Ulrich creepy Kubrick stare thing and that's about it. Ultimately as much as I understand the need to move forward with new characters, personally my interest took a nosedive with the double whammy of Dewey's death in Scream 5 and then the news of Neve Campbell not returning for this one. Gale, Dewey, and Sid together made for a unique slasher series, without them it's starting to kinda blend in with all of the generic slasher background noise that's constantly out there. Throwing me a bone with some references to the original trilogy isn't enough. That said, I had a better time with it than I did with Scream 5. The setting was at least somewhat fresh, and there were a few classic Scream stalk/chase scenes that were better than anything in 5. I may not end up fully completing the challenges but we'll see how it goes, may as well start tracking them now: 1. American Bigfoot 2. Terror on Bigfoot Pond 3. Scream Challenges Completed: 4. Fresh Hell(Scream 6) Meta Challenges: History Lesson(1/5), Geography Lesson(1/5)
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2023 18:26
|
|
|
Movie #4: Psycho (1960) 5. Shooting Zombies “WELL, A BOY'S BEST FRIEND IS HIS MOTHER” OK, I had never seen Psycho. Much like everyone in the world, I have seen parts of Psycho referenced and parodied to death, and know the broad strokes of what happens, so I never saw much point in watching the movie. Well I am very glad I did, because holy loving poo poo that was excellent. At this point it's going to be impossible to try to roleplay a 1960 movie watcher and pretend that I am approaching Psycho from the cultural context it was released in, so I'm not even going to bother and instead will just talk about the movie as I saw it in 2023. First of all, the movie looks amazing. I watched a 4K Blu-ray version (with the most unnecessary DTS:X certification in the history of cinema) and it's gorgeous. The movie uses contrast and shadow incredibly well. Together with the soundtrack it creates this amazing feeling of foreboding and dread. There were so many scenes that just look so absolutely amazing, including my favourite shot of the movie. As Arbogast is leaving the Bates motel following his interrogation of Bates, there's a shot where Bates' face is almost entirely covered in shadows, but the light briefly JUST catches his eyes and it looks so loving awesome.  I also want to especially highlight Marion's dinner date with Norman, because it's one of the most effective scenes I've seen. At the start of the scene, we're thinking that Norman is just this harmless, lonely guy. Then slowly, bit by bit, the edifice starts crumbling and Norman starts to feel weird, then menacing, then downright dangerous. It's acted and shot so god drat well. I could pick out a thousand little things I absolutely loved, like how for the first half of the movie we see every scene from Marion's perspective, until he arrives at the Bates motel and meets this weird guy, and then we see a scene from his perspective, which kind of subconsciously sends us a message that maybe Norman is also a main character. Maybe him and Marion can band together and he can rise up to oppose his clearly oppressive mother and nope, she just got the poo poo murdered out of her. I can't even imagine how incredible the experience would have been in 1960 without knowing the twists ahead of time. But even now, in 2023, Psycho loving owns. Just about the only thing I didn't super care for is the final scene, where the doped up psychiatrist spends several minutes spelling out everything that happened in the movie. I get that in 1960 maybe the audience might have needed some help, but right now it just felt clunky and I would've liked it more if the movie ended with the basement scene. The Best Part: Like I said, I could gush about so many of the scenes in the movie, so I'll just highlight a very small touch that felt incredibly modern and also embodies many things I loved about the movie. After Marion's murder, when Norman is cleaning the crime scene and packing Marion's things in her car's trunk, at the last moment he notices the newspaper Marion had hidden her stolen money in, and without bothering to look inside, without giving it even a second thought, he just grabs it and dumps it in the trunk. The thing the whole movie's plot seemed to revolve around, the central thing, just discarded like garbage. / 5 My May 2023 Movies: 1. Black Friday!, 2. Hood of the Living Dead, 3. Hellboy Animated: Blood and Iron, 4. Psycho Challenges completed: Challenge of the Dead (Hood of the Living Dead) Drawn and Quartered (Hellboy Animated) Shooting Zombies (Psycho)
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2023 21:00
|
|
|
Shaman Tank Spec posted:Movie #4: Psycho (1960) 5. Shooting Zombies Heck yeah, this is the kind of post I was hoping for when I thought of that challenge. And now I want to rewatch Pyscho.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2023 21:20
|
|
|
That's a great write up (and great screen cap of Norman's eyes) and I'd like to add that the sequels to Psycho (that I didn't even know existed until this year) are surprisingly good too, each in their own ways, even if it's hard to top the original.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2023 21:23
|
|
|
Shaman Tank Spec posted:At this point it's going to be impossible to try to roleplay a 1960 movie watcher and pretend that I am approaching Psycho from the cultural context it was released in, so I'm not even going to bother and instead will just talk about the movie as I saw it in 2023. Definitely impossible to truly put yourself in the shoes of those people in 1960, but if you try to imagine it for a minute the movie just seems even more amazing. The genius of Hitchcock that he basically made an entire first act of what he knew to be "standard Hitchcock" that people had become accostomed to. The somewhat innocent woman on the run, in over her head and being tracked by police, a life changing stack of cash is at stake. Everything about it sets you up to kinda just ease into that comfortable Hitchcock zone where you enjoy another one of his capers. So that rug pull is even more ridiculous if you can imagine it in that context. The extent he was willing to go to set the audiences expectations so that he could then blow them away. Kinda odd actually to also think about that commercial he did for the movie where he shows off the Bates motel/house. I guess marketing trumped any sort of modern concept of spoilers that we would have today.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2023 21:52
|
|
|
Been sitting on this for the past couple days, keep forgetting to post it. 1) Cocaine Bear - 2023 - Theater & Peacock Of course, I have a work related story for this one. I'd taken my break pretty late in my closing shift and was chatting with some co-workers when we noticed this little kid probably around 5 or 6 years old comes walking down the hallway opposite from where the movie he was at with his mom was. No big thing since there's bathrooms on that side. Kid ends up coming over to us and watching concessions get restocked. Gives us some critique on our candy offerings (yeah, our gummies selection's not that great). We start talking with him in case we have a possible lost kid situation. Kid says his mom fell asleep during Ant-Man and he was bored with that movie so he got up and left. He went to the bathroom and decided to see what was showing on that side and ended up walking into Cocaine Bear. He said it was okay, thought the bear falling asleep on a guy was funny. We're glancing at each other nervous since we don't know how mom's going to react to this and we already had a manager heading towards the Ant-Man show she's in. She woke up and was heading out to look for her kid and was directed to concessions where we were topping off his popcorn as a kinda sorta bribe for silence. They ended up leaving because it was late and we ended up chuckling over how a little kid snuck into an R rated film and was well behaved compared to how many underage teenagers sneak in and are completely rowdy and disruptive. As far as the movie goes, I pretty much went in expecting a big dumb fun movie with a bear hopped up on cocaine and that's exactly what I got. Plot's pretty much surrounding a dumped drug delivery that's scattered in the woods and a bear got into it along with all the drama/chaos involved with recovering the drugs and dealing with the bear. I know the true story this was based on and if they didn't take liberties, it would barely be a film. I really enjoyed this one. The gore was decent. If the humor didn't quite land, the situation was absurd enough to get a smile. My fiance who used to be an EMT/Paramedic did chuckle thankfully that he never had an unsecured premises moment like the ones the paramedics did in the movie. He also said he'd be driving a hell of a lot faster with a bear in pursuit. Everyone around my age was laughing soon as the opening notes of White Lines started at the credits. It's definitely more of a comedy/thriller than horror/comedy, and even then leans a skosh more over the fence towards comedy. So, if you're looking for something along the lines of Grizzly with humor, definitely check this one out. gey muckle mowser posted:
Bear snorts much cocaine. gey muckle mowser posted:
Taking this for 2020.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2023 22:19
|
|
|
 3. Spoonful of Sugar (2022) (dir. Mercedes Bryce Morgan) Shudder Challenge 1 - Horror High History Lesson: 2020sMillicent, a college student taking a semester off, gets a job as a nanny for Johnny, a young boy with special needs. She is also microdosing LSD as part of an experimental therapy program, although her doses maybe aren't so micro. Johnny is non-verbal and completely withdrawn, but Millicent begins to make a connection with him (by spending time together and by microdosing him with LSD too), leading to resentment from Johnny's mother. I'm not even sure how to talk about the rest of this movie without spoilering its many twists and turns, but let's just say that Millicent isn't what she seems, and everyone else is pretty hosed up too. This reminds me a bit of Excision, another thriller featuring a young female protagonist who is basically a delusional psychopath, but it doesn't work as well. I think it's because there isn't really anyone to sympathize with here - the mother should've been the most sympathetic character, and she is at first, but she goes off the rails after a certain point and I had no idea who I was supposed to be rooting for. Maybe that's intentional and we're not supposed to root for anyone, but that doesn't make for an especially compelling watch. I think this might've worked better as a (very) dark comedy - there are plenty of bonkers twists and it's borderline comedic as is, but the film plays it all just a bit too straight. At the same time it touches on some heavy subject matter (like sexual abuse) that wouldn't really fit in a more "fun" film, so... I dunno. It's just missing something that I can't put my finger on. Anyway, I like the premise and there is some good stuff here, but the execution falls short. It's not bad, it's just not nearly as good as it could've been. Tentatively recommended if the premise sounds interesting, it just fell a bit flat for me. 2.5 drops of acid out of 5 Total: 3 Watched: Lokis, a Manuscript of Professor Wittembach | The Manitou (Challenge #3) | Spoonful of Sugar (Challenge #1) Challenges: History Lesson: 2/5 - 1970s, 2020s Geography Lesson: 2/5 - Europe, North America gey muckle mowser fucked around with this message at 16:28 on May 5, 2023 |
|
#
?
May 3, 2023 22:29
|
|
|
Don't know if I saw posts about it earlier, but if anyone is looking for a Drawn & Quartered contender The Spine of Night is a Heavy Metal-esque rotoscope thing about an evil/cursed power traveling around corrupting people. More Fantasy than Horror but there's enough blood'n'guts that I reckon it qualifies.'s
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2023 00:50
|
|
|
Don't know how many I'll do - I'm not even willing to commit to 13 the way my eyes have been going - but I'll do a few. 1) Project Wolf Hunting (2022) Challenge: Fresh Hell As per my last post: although this movie doesn't strictly match the stated rule of "released in 2023", its international release date was in November 2022 and so this is the first Challenge Month that it could be watched in. I feel that this is the true spirit of the challenge. A number of Korean convicts who escaped to the Philippines are being extradited back home, traveling aboard a cargo ship to avoid coming into contact with civilians. A violent breakout ensues, swiftly followed by the convicts discovering that they're not the most dangerous person on the ship... I picked this up blind because it sounded suitably mental, and it is. Did I mention the violence? I should have said ultraviolence. There's a shitload of gore, the fight scenes are visceral and brutal - I always wanted to see a movie where someone has their arm ripped off then is beaten to death with the soggy end - and it has a few stylistic choices that will make you look away. It's relentless and quite long at nearly two hours, but it has enough plot to keep you interested. Overall verdict: strong recommend.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2023 01:24
|
|
|
Jedit posted:1) Project Wolf Hunting (2022) Looks like that didn’t come out in the US until this year anyway, so it definitely counts. Sounds really cool too. And stuff like Skinamarink or M3GAN that say 2022 on iMDB but didn’t get wide releases until this year count as well
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2023 02:40
|
|
|
The cryptid challenge got me to cross off one that's been on my list for a while! The Abominable Snowman (1957) - Challenge #2 - Tales From the Cryptids  "A snowed-in group slowly loses their minds" is a classic setup that always works for me, and this one has psychic yeti-induced trauma on top of that! An early Hammer Horror where Peter Cushing plays a scientist who leads an expedition to find the yeti. He's the gentle foil to Forrest Tucker's profit-driven hunter, a brash American on board to make some cash. Less of a monster movie than I expected, focused more on paranoia, cultural exploitation (with some truly awful American and British guys insulting their Tibetan hosts at every turn), and the pursuit of knowledge vs. profit. The main danger is elemental, in desolate mountains, and the loneliness and fear that comes with it. There isn't a ton of yeti action here but I like how they're handled! Seeing a living yeti has a transformative effect; those who experience it can then feel a traumatic, psychological drive when they're near. They're depicted less as Bigfeet and more a kind of elevated being, spiritual and not actively hostile but rather something that's just beyond our understanding. How much of what happens is actually real is left to interpretation. The first half drags, but once we get into the depths of Snow Madness this is a really solid one. Cushing is always great, though this is a more subdued role than he usually plays.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2023 04:27
|
|
|
 6 (10). Evil Ed (1995) Directed by Anders Jacobsson; Screenplay by Anders Jacobsson, Göran Lundström, and Christer Ohlsson “New films for Edward?" "Yeah. Yeah." "Are they any fun?" "No, not really.” This got compared to too many good films and got my hopes up. I'm not generally a believer in the "this film is bad because it reminded me of better films" criticism but this one really started to make me a believer. The issue is there isn't a lot here besides the clear homages and references to better movies. And it doesn't feel like it really does anything with that. Like the basic setup feels like its gonna be some kind of play on censorship but its not really. Its just a dude losing his poo poo. I don't know if you're trying to say something by having horror movies do it to him but there's just nothing there. Its all so over the top and dumb there's no there there. And like you can enjoy the dumb gore and violence and weirdness. And I think there's moments. If more of the movie had been about that fridge demon I probably would have been more into it. But I dunno. It just feels like it goes nowhere slowly. More than anything I think there was just some kind of pacing issue where it felt SO slow. Apparently they had to do a second filming to add the intro and finale and like... I get it because it just doesn't feel like there's much here so they just had to add more stuff. And to me it never felt continuous or like there's any kind of narrative or flow. Just poo poo happening. Slowly. Dully. But hey. It did bore me enough to put me to sleep. So thanks!  - (11). Scream 3 (2000) Directed by Wes Craven; Written by Ehren Kruger Watched on Paramount+ The Scream franchise can be a weird one to evaluate because it does its meta stuff about the genre or sequels and then also falls victim to some of the problems its acknowledging and its not always clear how much is intentional and how much is just flaws. Scream 3 is definitely most flawed of the bunch in my book. Its also probably the most troubled of the productions? Williamson is gone and his original script is being rewritten while he’s taking his idea to a TV show. Now Willaimson was rewriting Scream 2 on the fly so that’s not new but now we’re also stuck with the baggage of Columbine happening and studio execs getting shy about the violence. So now we’ve become this weird film set in Hollywood instead of Hillsboro and playing like a really over the top camp at times and in other parts not even really clear what its going for. And while I'm not a big fan of Williamson we got the guy who would go on to write Transformer films now so that's a downgrade. And what we get is really weird. There's clearly a lot of stuff here kind of mocking Hollywood itself, albeit softly. Casting Roger Corman as the movie exec worried about the exploitative nature of the film produced by the Lance Henriksen clearly Corman inspired producer is probably the most clever while still coherent it gets. Carrie Fisher showing up as some other actress who's entire role is to say she's not Carrie Fisher is a more confusing and weird aspect that seems too inside to make sense of or something. The Corman stuff is kind of fun and appropriate but doesn't feel fully realized. Then there's the theme of Hollywood's treatment of young actresses and the "casting couch" which many now feel was intentional. I have no idea really. Wes was always a progressive dude so its certainly possible he was calling something out, but this is also a Weinstein film. So is Wes just calling out his boss on his paycheck? Is Harvey having a laugh at what he gets away with? I have no idea. Broad stuff like Jenny McCarthy being annoyed she's 31 playing a 25 naked in a horror movie is easy enough and pretty clumsy. But this other stuff is clumsy in its own right and kind of tough to nail down in this script. A big part of the reason is because much like Scream 2 seemed to fighting against its nature as a Hollywood sequel, its meta commentary of Hollywood sequels, and it just being a natural sequel of the heart of the film and characters... Scream 3 also seems stuck between different identities. That campy comedy about Hollywood sequels came from wanting to get away from the Columbine image. The meta film stuff that feels a bit too forced here when its not just Randy doing it but rather other characters treating Randy's ideas like they have real world validity. I love Randy and missed him too and I think there's a very sweet moment in the way Sidney reacts to seeing one of the friends she's lost in all this tragedy and in a way getting to say goodbye. But its all kind of silly that Dewey is actually taking notes or that Randy's sister felt like she had to deliver this now instead of years ago. its just goofy. But there is that core heart still here and its heartbreaking when we see Randy. The stuff with Sidney's mom kinda sucks and is again goofy. And Dr. McCutie or whatever his nickname is as a very weird Hollywood detective seemingly nodding at film noir tropes or something just feels all kinds of off here, especially in the heart of the Woodsboro trio. Dewey and Gale are still very likable together but their adventure is much more tied up in the goofiness and doesn't have the same heart as in Scream 2. And Sid's stuck in that weird mom stuff. But still. There's moments like the Randy thing. Or that really good chase through the fake Woodsboro home. I've said it before and I'll say it again. Wes was a great director who was better at making a good film out of a production mess than anyone else I've seen. This isn't a bad film exactly. Its got its problems for sure and McDreamy just doesn't belong in the movie. But its a better 3rd film of a franchise than most horror sequels get and its a better horror parody than Scary Movie. Its probably best appreciated if you know who a guy like Corman is and can definitely see some of the inside jokes its making. But its definitely a little too inside and too wrapped up in rewrites and reshoots and stuff. But Wes does manage to spin it into a watcheable, decent movie in the end. A mixed bag and an unceremonious end to the franchise for awhile. But hardly a bad watch, I don't think.  7 (12). Do You Like Hitchcock? (2005) Directed by Dario Argento; Written by Dario Argento and Franco Ferrini The idea here really isn't bad. The idea of this cinephile convincing himself he's in a Hitchcock film and witnessing a trademark Hitchcock conniving plot when its not clear he's not just an obsessed lunatic is interesting. And its actually pretty cleverly written with the multiple Hitchcock plots/homages worked together. We've got the obvious Strangers on a Train core plot that our main guy believes is playing out, but there's also the clear Rear Window story he's living out from the peeping to the obsession with a murder he's not sure of to the love interest and of course the eventual crutches. And then there's the theme of unhealthy relationships with mothers that seems like a tongue in cheek Psycho thing? Its one of those times I wish I'd seen more Hitchcock films because I wonder if maybe digging around you'd find more references in here. I see a little Vertigo in there too? Its a TV movie and it feels held back in that regard. In budget, look, acting. The film definitely lacks Argento's visual flare although definitely has his perviness. And I don't think it helps that the main guy is a peeping tom and stalker. And also just kind of a pretentious jerk. And mean to his girlfriend. Come on, man. Be better to your drat Grace Kelly! I guess that does fit with the way James Stewart's character's obsession played with Kelly but this guy ain't James Stewart so he can't really sell everything quite as well. I actually liked Cristina Brondo which could just be my bias towards Spanish films and ladies, how much she reminded me of the great Grace Kelly performance, or just how much fun that particular role is in Rear Window and makes for the best part of this film. And that does make for a pretty good finale. So yeah its flawed and imperfect and definitely not great. BUt I do actually think its pretty clever and really ambitious for a TV movie. And I think Argento does the best job I've seen of doing Hitchcock this side of that Psych episode. It plays way better for me here than it does when other guys like Brain De Palma or M. Night Shyamalan try it. So good on Argento there. I think he largely does a good job here with what he's got and while some of that Argento/giallo gender problems hold it back for me in addition to the lackluster acting, distracting dubbing, and tv budget and production limitations... I still kind of enjoyed it? Once I really hooked into the multi lane Hitchcock stuff and the Rear Window thing I really did start to feel it more. Not all the way to loving it or anything, but really a not half bad film. Weird as hell ending though. I guess I can't expect much else from giallo. 🌼💀Spook-a-Doodle Half-Way-to-Halloween ’23: Spring Cleaning💀🌼 Watched - New (Total) - (1). Scream (1996); 1 (2). The Invisible Man’s Revenge (1944); 2 (3). Viral (2016); - (4). Scream 2 (1997); 3 (5). Mostly Ghostly 3: One Night in Doom House (2016); 4 (6). Man-Thing (2005); - (7). Vampires (1998); - (8). Vampires: Los Muertos (2002); 5 (9). Vampires: The Turning (2005); 6 (10). Evil Ed (1995); - (11). Scream 3 (2000); 7 (12). Do You Like Hitchcock? (2005); Completed Collections: 3/13 - The Invisible Man; Mostly Ghostly; John Carpenter’s Vampires; Return of the Fallen: 1/13 - Viral; Spook-A-Doodle Challenges: 0/13 Meta Challenges: History Lesson - The Invisible Man's Revenge (1940s); Evil Ed (1990s); Man Thing (2000s); Viral (2010s); Meta Challenges: Geography Lesson - The Invisible Man's Revenge (North America); Evil Ed (Europe); Man Thing (Australia/Oceania); STAC Goat fucked around with this message at 05:50 on May 4, 2023 |
|
#
?
May 4, 2023 05:46
|
|
|
Third movie was In the Mouth of Madness (1994). This one was a hell of a lot of fun, especially after having started off the challenge with two bad-to-mediocre films. Sam Neill is an rear end in a top hat insurance investigator looking into the disappearance of a popular Lovecraft-esque cosmic horror novelist. The writer's work has somehow come to life in a kind of pocket dimension and sucked him into it; Neil ends up there too and struggles to figure out what's going on and how he can get back out. I do think it starts off a bit slow, but it picks up about half an hour in and just keeps getting better as the movie goes along. Sometimes the limited budget shows, especially where the special effects are concerned, but Carpenter is skilled enough to work around it. We don't need to see the Cthulu-type monsters all that much anyways, it's the effects they have on people's minds that are the real point of those stories. 4/5. It's a good time, and a quick hour and a half. Contributes to Challenge #12: History Lesson. (1990s)
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2023 06:46
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:So that rug pull is even more ridiculous if you can imagine it in that context. The extent he was willing to go to set the audiences expectations so that he could then blow them away. Yeah, I can definitely see how that would have blown some minds. I kinda suspected something like that was going on, but it's been ages since I last saw any other Hitchcock movies, so I wasn't terribly sure of it. I also like how even after that he does a SECOND rugpull and makes it seem like Norman Bates is this awkward weirdo stuck trying to clean up for his insane mother, and maybe he'll eventually rise up to challenge her, possibly after she murdered a woman he seemed to have a connection with? But nope, he's loving nuts. From that perspective I can also see the necessity for the last scene wrap up, because maybe audiences in 1960 weren't quite as aware of these things as we might be now (and I am 100% not saying our general cultural understanding or handling of mental disorders is very good, nor that Psycho handled the issues with any special deftness). gey muckle mowser posted:Heck yeah, this is the kind of post I was hoping for when I thought of that challenge. And now I want to rewatch Pyscho. Conversely I also meant to say the opposite, that this is why I love these challenges. They force me to seek out movies I normally might not, and I've discovered some real gems that way. So thank you for putting in the effort of coming up with them!
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2023 07:05
|
|
|
gey muckle mowser posted:
 #5. Eyes Without a Face (1960) (HBO Max) After ruining his daughter's face in a car accident, a surgeon goes to extreme lengths to repair the damage he caused. Less of a horror movie than a drama about regret and the lengths people will go to to absolve themselves of it. I have to admit that I think the film and I got off on the wrong foot, since I came in expecting a spooky little thriller about loss of identity and madness and got a jaunty little ditty underscoring the almost comic misadventures of a lady who is eventually revealed to be dumping a body in the river. I get that the juxtaposition is what the film is going for, but it took me aback for a minute and prevented me from settling in properly at the start. It's a gorgeous looking film, shot and dressed very handsomely and everyone is great in their performances. But I think that plotting ends up being an issue - shortly after the halfway mark the doctor has successfully managed to repair his daughter's face (by cutting off one from an innocent woman), and you think the film is going to shift into a thriller about covering up their crimes. But no, instead the film has her body reject this new face and we return to where we were at the start, essentially - meaning in a three act structure, the second act was meaningless. Especially because the film makes no use of this rejection metaphor AS a metaphor, turning instead to a metaphor about escape and release. Which is fine and all, but feels unrelated to what had come before and undermines the daugher's complicity in the whole thing, as an easy out. It's not a bad film, at all, and I'm not sorry I watched it. I just can't help but see avenues to different story elements that feel under- or unexplored, and that frustrates me a bit. Also, if I'm being perfectly honest - even trying to make allowances for time and place, in a historical context and everything, I don't see what the big fuss was that caused this film to be rated so highly on that TSZDT? list. /5Also counts towards History Lesson (1960s) and Geography Lesson (Europe). Watched so far: The Seed, Witchboard, The Visitor, Mad God, Eyes Without a Face How did you find this one? The premise looks interesting, and I'll never say no to a Peter Cushing performance, but it doesn't look like it's available anywhere for streaming in the US.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2023 15:29
|
|
|
6. Dolly Dearest (1991) American toy company opens a sweatshop in Mexico on top of a Ancient Mayan Burial Ground, when a vengeful spirit possesses a doll and eventually the boss' daughter. I kinda liked this, honestly! It's that exact level of camp charm a movie like this should have, a very Tales from the Crypt vibe to the whole thing. A very visibly hungover Rip Torn trying his best to do a Mexican accent that lasts as long as the first line of any scene he's in before cutting back to his regular speaking voice is a treasure too. A bunch of really fun puppet-work like you'd expect from a movie like this, including lots of doll POV shots with its wee little arms. It's obviously a quick cash-in on the Child's Play craze, but there's much less entertaining entries in that fad than this. Counts for challenge #10: Children Shouldn't Play with Dead Things and meta-challenge History Lesson (1990s) Watched so far: The Borderlands, Nosferatu (Shooting Zombies), Shed of the Dead (Challenge of the Dead), Djinn (Holy Terror), Yeti: Curse of the Snow Demon (Tales from the Cryptids), Dolly Dearest (Children Shouldn't Play with Dead Things) Total: 6/13
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2023 15:54
|
|
|
I haven't seen it and I don't want to do too much googling because I don't want to spoiler it, but would Mandy count for Horror High? I somehow have the impression that it heavily deals with drugs. And if not, I am open for recommendations.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2023 16:43
|
|
|
Shaman Tank Spec posted:I haven't seen it and I don't want to do too much googling because I don't want to spoiler it, but would Mandy count for Horror High? I somehow have the impression that it heavily deals with drugs. And if not, I am open for recommendations. yeah most definitely
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2023 16:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 16:17 |
|
|
Shaman Tank Spec posted:I haven't seen it and I don't want to do too much googling because I don't want to spoiler it, but would Mandy count for Horror High? I somehow have the impression that it heavily deals with drugs. And if not, I am open for recommendations. If I remember it right, there's a key scene where a kidnapped Mandy is drugged before being presented to the lead villain of the piece, and the whole scene is incredibly trippy before it goes really really sideways. But it's also the only scene where I remember drugs being overtly used and the rest of it is just really heavily stylized. Someone else may be able to weigh in if there's more to it that I'm forgetting, since I only saw it the one time, but I don't know if there's quite enough there to count. gey muckle mowser posted:yeah most definitely Well, disregard lol.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2023 16:50
|
|