|
qbert posted:Saw it at the cinema. Arclight Hollywood. Is it not in wide release? It's in limited release now. The Kendall Cinema in Cambridge, MA is showing it, I'm gonna try and see it this weekend.
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2013 18:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 21:34 |
|
|
For people in NYC who are interested, Stoker is on two screens at the Sunshine. I'm headed there tonight.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2013 20:08
|
|
|
Last Exorcism 2 is like a good version of Ghostbusters 2, but I'll hedge and say it's 85% because of the girl who plays Nell.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2013 22:53
|
|
|
Can you compare it to Book of Shadows: Blair Witch 2 for me?
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2013 23:01
|
|
|
Does anyone know when Stoker goes wide? If it goes wide at all?
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2013 23:16
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:Last Exorcism 2 is like a good version of Ghostbusters 2, but I'll hedge and say it's 85% because of the girl who plays Nell. She was great in the first one - I really believed her as an innocent. So 2 is actually good?
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2013 23:16
|
|
|
LtKenFrankenstein posted:Can you compare it to Book of Shadows: Blair Witch 2 for me? I was thinking about Book of Shadows the whole time. It's really not that out there, it's clearly a loving homage to the first film for better and for worse. Some of the sense of humor is retained (it gets a good scare out of one of those living statue guys that hangs out at street festivals) and it uses the locale effectively, but it is a sequel that is very enamored with the original, playing it out beat by beat for an admittedly cool final 25 minutes or so. Craig Spradlin posted:She was great in the first one - I really believed her as an innocent. So 2 is actually good? She's even better in the second. I just think there's too much standard horror movie stuff in it, when it does deviate from jump scares (something people accused Mama of but I don't really see) it's really fine stuff, I wish they just had the confidence to just let the Jacob's Ladder stuff play without pulling tricks from a different kind of horror movie. I love it in something like Insidious (and The Conjuring looks sick) but it doesn't quite belong here. HUNDU THE BEAST GOD fucked around with this message at 23:29 on Mar 2, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2013 23:25
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:I was thinking about Book of Shadows the whole time. It's really not that out there, it's clearly a loving homage to the first film for better and for worse. Some of the sense of humor is retained (it gets a good scare out of one of those living statue guys that hangs out at street festivals) and it uses the locale effectively, but it is a sequel that is very enamored with the original, playing it out beat by beat for an admittedly cool final 25 minutes or so. Well, the living statue stuff has me on board. Considering my biggest problem with The Last Exorcism was that it was a found footage movie, I might actually like this one more than the OG.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2013 23:30
|
|
|
Yeah, in some ways it's kind of like a remake of first movie if you just couldn't get on board with found footage. It's not as prankish as the first movie but clearly took that sense of having fun with the premise to heart. The ending put a big smile on my face.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2013 23:32
|
|
|
qbert posted:Just got back from seeing Stoker, the new Park Chan-Wook film, and I pretty much loved it. I had already read the script over a year ago and really enjoyed it on the page, but seeing the finished product with all of Park's visual flourishes really elevated the material. I guess it might be classified more as a dark psychological drama rather than straight-up horror, but for me this is probably the best twisted metaphor for female sexual awakening/coming-of-age I've seen since Lucky McKee's May. I saw it last week & thought the imagery was absolutely great - stunning stuff. The writing was too melodramatic for my tastes & I couldn't help wishing it was American Psycho 2. Still would recommend it because of Park Chan-Wook, that guy rules.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2013 00:40
|
|
|
This is your regular update to remind you that the script for Stoker was written by the star of Prison Break. He shopped it around under a Pseudonym since he thought people wouldn't take it seriously if they knew it was him, which is odd since Wentworth Miller is the most writely name I could think of.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2013 01:19
|
|
|
DrVenkman posted:This is your regular update to remind you that the script for Stoker was written by the star of Prison Break. He shopped it around under a Pseudonym since he thought people wouldn't take it seriously if they knew it was him, which is odd since Wentworth Miller is the most writely name I could think of. Yeah, that bothers me because people think I just don't like it because it was written by that guy - I don't even know who he is, I never watched Prison Break. The film has some serious soap opera poo poo going down, but I know some people liked that & as I said, besides that, this film looks astonishing. Cinematography, editing, the ideas & imagery - all first rate goose-bump giving stuff.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2013 01:30
|
|
|
BisonDollah posted:Yeah, that bothers me because people think I just don't like it because it was written by that guy - I don't even know who he is, I never watched Prison Break. The film has some serious soap opera poo poo going down, but I know some people liked that & as I said, besides that, this film looks astonishing. Cinematography, editing, the ideas & imagery - all first rate goose-bump giving stuff. I think in the wrong hands it could've been a disaster of a film. It's a very fine line to walk. Miller has talked about his influences on the script in interviews and talked about tonal issues so it seems he was aware of it too. It is soap opera-esque but deliberately so. I think it's a great marriage of script and Director and the performances work toward that (Though Kidman is so botox'd it's weird to look at). And as I said in the general chat thread. Either this or Killer Joe would make a great double-bill with the underseen Eastwood/Segel joint The Beguiled.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2013 12:51
|
|
|
I don't think they've been mentioned in here before, but this past week I saw A Bucket Of Blood (1959) and its 1995 remake, The Death Artist. Roger Corman directed the original and served as co-executive producer on the remake, which was apparently made for the Showtime channel. The two versions are incredibly similar, although there's some nudity thrown into the remake because hey, it's Showtime. The remake also has cameos by David Cross, Mink Stole, Will Ferrell (in his film debut), Anthony Michael Hall as the main character, and Justine Bateman sporting a ridiculous accent through the whole film for a single pay-off joke right before the credits. The trailer for the remake (which they included at the start of the VHS release) spoils the ending by including the last scene, so I'd have to recommend seeing the original first. Both films are cute little semi-deconstructions/celebrations of people's fondness for gruesome art, and they work through just how much people in the art world can become wrapped up in themselves and their peers. There's a bit more sincerity in the original, since it's growing out of the beatniks, but the bullshit art terminology in the remake is better by virtue of having more time to develop. Here are their posters, for comparison.   yeah, that was really the best version I could find
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2013 19:08
|
|
|
So uhh, Last Exorcism 2. Wow.  Just got out of seeing it. I almost want to say it was better than the original, and I really enjoyed the original. I wasn't expecting this at all. Most of the movie was very different from the original. In the way it's shot and the sound design and the performances, it really buries under your skin and presents this constant palpable feeling of fear and dread. And then at the end, there's an exorcism similar to the one from the original, so it's kind of a callback, but then it jumps off the deep end and ends on this totally insane note. Wow. I can't recommend that one enough. I had no idea I'd be saying that, but holy poo poo, was it ever a nice surprise.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2013 20:42
|
|
|
"Nice surprise" is the way I'd put it too, and that ending is something else.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2013 21:02
|
|
|
Goddammit, I'm gonna have to catch it in cinemas.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2013 21:05
|
|
|
What's everyone's consensus on Event Horizon? I just watched in on blu-ray for the first time in ages and really enjoyed it. It was the first horror movie I ever sat and watched properly and it still entertains the hell out of me now - it gives you just enough to be interesting without completely explaining everything, and I love the design of the ship. Plus Sam Neill hamming it up is always wonderful.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2013 03:08
|
|
|
Speaking as someone who generally enjoys Fulci, holy poo poo I always forget how bad House by the Cemetary is outside of some great gore work. Really bad film.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2013 03:27
|
|
|
Are either of the Candyman sequels worth the time it takes to watch them?
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2013 04:25
|
|
|
Crackerman posted:What's everyone's consensus on Event Horizon? I just watched in on blu-ray for the first time in ages and really enjoyed it. It was the first horror movie I ever sat and watched properly and it still entertains the hell out of me now - it gives you just enough to be interesting without completely explaining everything, and I love the design of the ship. Plus Sam Neill hamming it up is always wonderful. Event Horizon is awesome and anyone who says otherwise can go stick a finger in a pie is what I say. There are movies that I can watch any time they pop up even though I've seen them a million times already and this is one of them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2013 04:57
|
|
|
Crackerman posted:What's everyone's consensus on Event Horizon? I just watched in on blu-ray for the first time in ages and really enjoyed it. It was the first horror movie I ever sat and watched properly and it still entertains the hell out of me now - it gives you just enough to be interesting without completely explaining everything, and I love the design of the ship. Plus Sam Neill hamming it up is always wonderful. Criminally underrated. I love Sam Neil, especially when he descends into complete madness. That was a good decade for a completely unhinged Sam Neil, too. I think that the visuals still have a good impact, third act is a little bit more aimless and confused but the setup is brilliant, and it's one of those movies that I can't understand don't have a bigger following.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2013 04:58
|
|
|
The intro scene alone is worth the price of admission for Event Horizon Spinny corpse dude  Also the crew's "hell" footage
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2013 05:00
|
|
|
Darthemed posted:Are either of the Candyman sequels worth the time it takes to watch them? Noooooo no no no. Just watch the original two more times.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2013 05:38
|
|
|
LtKenFrankenstein posted:Noooooo no no no. Just watch the original two more times. Too bad to even be funny? Just sort of a sad 'why did they do this' affair?
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2013 05:43
|
|
|
Crackerman posted:What's everyone's consensus on Event Horizon? I just watched in on blu-ray for the first time in ages and really enjoyed it. It was the first horror movie I ever sat and watched properly and it still entertains the hell out of me now - it gives you just enough to be interesting without completely explaining everything, and I love the design of the ship. Plus Sam Neill hamming it up is always wonderful. Quite possibly Paul W. S. Anderson's only good work. Event Horizon kicks rear end. Coincidentally, he produced another sci-fi horror movie that centered on a spaceship: Pandorum (which I also think is very underrated).
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2013 07:52
|
|
|
So I'm looking at some indie found footage to watch in the near future. Are Home Movie or Long Pigs any good?SuperMechagodzilla posted:Crawl out the jumbtron => kaiju Ring sequel.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2013 08:08
|
|
|
sticklefifer posted:So I'm looking at some indie found footage to watch in the near future. Are Home Movie I really liked Home Movie but I've heard a lot of people not like it. It's very slow and breaks a few rules of the found footage movie unless you believe in the kids are possessed angle. Edit: way late but I fixed it and added spoiler. Sorry, I was tired last night. Ride The Gravitron fucked around with this message at 16:56 on Mar 4, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2013 08:12
|
|
|
Twee as gently caress posted:Criminally underrated. I love Sam Neil, especially when he descends into complete madness. That was a good decade for a completely unhinged Sam Neil, too. I remember SMG once saying that the film is really confusing, because it's smart enough on the one hand to cut from someone getting vivisected to a guy looking at anatomical charts, but then dumb enough to in the same movie refer to its vision of hell as "a dimension of chaos". Some really cool stuff there but it's clear that sometimes the movie doesn't even get itself.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2013 09:05
|
|
|
sticklefifer posted:So I'm looking at some indie found footage to watch in the near future. Are Home Movie or Long Pigs any good? Home Movie is drat good and I have seen Long Pigs and don't recall a single thing about it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2013 11:33
|
|
|
sticklefifer posted:So I'm looking at some indie found footage to watch in the near future. Are Home Movie or Long Pigs any good? Home Movie is not good. It's vastly inferior to Rob Zombie's Halloween, which covers the same themes, and it totally squanders the 'found footage' format. There are two gimmicks that are reused throughout: children suddenly appearing out of nowhere, and the tape distorting for no reason and then cutting away whenever something ostensibly disturbing occurs. If those basic concepts terrify you, you are in for the ride of your life! But really, there is next to no justification for the found-footage aesthetic, outside a handful of shots. Watch Atrocious instead. I haven't seen Long Pigs.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2013 11:42
|
|
|
Crackerman posted:What's everyone's consensus on Event Horizon? I just watched in on blu-ray for the first time in ages and really enjoyed it. It was the first horror movie I ever sat and watched properly and it still entertains the hell out of me now - it gives you just enough to be interesting without completely explaining everything, and I love the design of the ship. Plus Sam Neill hamming it up is always wonderful. Still one of my favourites, and it was an absolutely harrowing theatre experience. I wish someone would screen it in an actual theatre sometime, because it really shines in that environment. I saw it when I was young enough that Sam Neill was still the 'Jurassic Park guy' so his performance was a bit of a...departure.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2013 15:05
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:Home Movie is not good...Watch Atrocious instead. Atrocious is not good either. Obvious title joke aside, it doesn't communicate clearly - some of the stuff that's supposed to be spooky isn't framed clearly enough for the viewer to know that what he's seeing is supposed to be spooky, and the climax of the movie uses the found-footage conceit to completely kill all the momentum and take the viewer out of whatever engagement they have with the story. In my opinion, it's too obvious to even work well as a commentary upon/subversion of the idea of found footage as more "authentic" or "real" than conventional film techniques. As for Event Horizon - I really wanted to like it more than I did. It felt confused to me, like it couldn't decide whether it wanted to be fairly serious and straightforward (all the interactions leading up to boarding the ship) or campy and hysteric (Sam Neill in full-tilt loony mode). If it had been played a little bit more low-key throughout, including some of the supernatural effects (Laurence Fishburne's guilty secret being especially cheesy-looking, even for the time), and settled on being either a haunted-ship story or a possessed-ship story, instead of being whichever the plot demanded, it could have been really, really, really good. I think an early descriptor called it "The Shining in space", and I could tell they were shooting for that, but fumbled it. Pandorum was suprisingly good - even spoiled for how it played out, I enjoyed it. Not revolutionary, but smart and solid.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2013 15:22
|
|
|
sticklefifer posted:So I'm looking at some indie found footage to watch in the near future. Are Home Movie or Long Pigs any good? Home Movie has a couple of creepy moments, but if you've ever wondered "Why don't these people put down the camera?" during a found footage movie, this one'll bug the poo poo out of you.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2013 15:25
|
|
|
DeimosRising posted:I remember SMG once saying that the film is really confusing, because it's smart enough on the one hand to cut from someone getting vivisected to a guy looking at anatomical charts, but then dumb enough to in the same movie refer to its vision of hell as "a dimension of chaos". Some really cool stuff there but it's clear that sometimes the movie doesn't even get itself. The subtle point of Event Horizon is that there is no actual hell, and everything that happens is a combination of malfunctions, the effects of the gravity drive, and the crew(s) going crazy. No one is killed by an invisible monster, and are either suicides or killed by Weir. Remember that we even see Weir gouging his own eyes out. I can even buy Miller throwing himself around in the gravity drive at the end, hallucinating Weir entirely. (He's within feet of the thing that makes you hallucinate, after all) Weir appears to have some kind of supernatural sight, but doesn't do anything so outlandish that he has to. Remember that right after the infamous "you won't need eyes to see" line, Weir says "what makes you think I'll miss?" then fires in the general direction of a noise. All of Weir's easily dismissed scientific explanations of the weirdness are actually true. The crew's sarcastic dismissals of his scientific expertise are as much to blame for their suffering as his suicidal tendencies. It's also goddamned poetic. Fishburne knocks it out of the park with Miller's soliloquy about fire in zero gravity and stupid lines like the "save yourself from hell" somehow manage to come off without being entirely laughable.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2013 15:35
|
|
|
I liked Home Movie, if just for the fact that it's one of the few movies where the parents basically say to the obviously evil kids "gently caress you, you're not our kids, we don't love you any more."
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2013 15:50
|
|
|
Dissapointed Owl posted:Watched Sinister last night, and it ain't no Insidious. I agree with this. I really wanted to like this movie. I loved the first act setup of Ethan Hawke being a true crime author who is clearly making some questionable decisions in pursuit of a story. I recently watched Zodiac and was thinking that Sinister might be the horror movie take on Robert Graysmith. The 8mm films were extremely effective, but at the same time the setup sortof paints the movie into a corner. The films tie the appearance of Mr. Boogie to the murders. That means in order for the plot to continue we get a series of false scares until the end when he finally shows up. I applaud the balls the movie had to let the villain win, but the ending felt anti-climactic. Apparently Sinister 2 is in the works so maybe that will be an improvement.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2013 15:50
|
|
|
foodfight posted:Apparently Sinister 2 is in the works so maybe that will be an improvement. Sinister 2: Even Sinisterer
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2013 19:53
|
|
|
The Re-Sinistering. So it'll be the same movie with a new family and the addition of another film in the box?
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2013 19:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 21:34 |
|
|
priznat posted:The Re-Sinistering. I'm hoping it will just be Vincent D'onofrio going around misguidedly murdering children.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2013 20:04
|
|