|
Creepshow has a filmed version of a short story by stephen king that is based on the colour out of space, iirc. it's pretty funny though and not "lovecraftian" in the adjectival sense, only in the literal sense of being a loose adaptation of one of his stories.
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2012 02:04
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 00:10 |
|
|
She's got an amazing voice, though her music is very hit and miss. She's the weird wailing female voice in Knife Prty by Deftones, and has done a bunch of other lower profile stuff. This movie looks like a gross bad fetish porn though.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2012 14:35
|
|
|
worthless insect posted:I've never heard anyone describe a horror film as "mean" in a negative context before. I personally thought the third vignette was the weakest/most uninteresting of the lot. I haven't heard much about the sequel but now I have something to watch with some buddies this weekend. I mean it's happened like a dozen times in the last 20 pages of this thread so. The ugliest, most nihilistic of horror films don't tend to go over well here because they're both joyless and haven't much to say. There's only a very small subset of viewers who want something that really revels in suffering.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2013 03:08
|
|
|
Volume posted:
I recently showed Evil Dead to a couple of friends who had never seen it, and the clock on the wall stopped during the film on exactly the same time that the clock in the cabin is stopped in the movie.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2013 00:43
|
|
. loving amazing. I never picked up on that before.
|
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
|
|
|
LtKenFrankenstein posted:I don't really agree with this. Lovecraft's stories tend to have incredibly thin characters and focus way more on the creepy monsters and weirdness. In addition to this, they are really bad. I wonder if that's some kind of crazy coincidence?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2013 05:21
|
|
|
LtKenFrankenstein posted:This is all true, but what I'm getting at is he only could ever really write one protagonist. We may experience everything he's describing through a first-person perspective, but his characters remain pretty much a blank slate. Yeah, we may spend a lot of time on their feelings, but we don't actually get much content. Almost every character arc goes from curious and skeptical to kind of weirded out to totally freaked and it doesn't seem to matter who they are or what they bring to the experience (on the extremely rare occasion we even know). Lovecraft helped pioneer a cool aesthetic and a form of the horror of the unknown centered on the increasingly alienating and worrisome physics of his time, but he seemed able to articulate only one response to that horror - rising panic and madness.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2013 16:43
|
|
|
LtKenFrankenstein posted:I still think you're overstating how much of a cipher Charles Foster Kane is compared to a Lovecraft protagonist. Some closer comparisons to me would be the leads of movies like Vampyr (which, as I already mentioned, evokes the Lovecraftian protagonist the most), Barry Lyndon, Scanners, or Drive. Drive I think is different because it's actively interested in the lead's blankness, as is Scanners to a degree. Lovecraft never seemed to be exploring how his characters failed to resemble humans, he just didn't seem to mind (or notice?). I'm mulling over SubG's contention that this is supposed to serve as a vessel for inserting the audience, but I'm having trouble with because I'm not sure if I disagree just because it didn't work for me.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2013 04:10
|
|
|
juan the owl posted:The first 30-45 minutes of The Keep are cool as hell, but after that I started to lose interest, and by the time I got to what I remember as being a laughably cliche love scene I had mentally checked out. The tone is so constantly heightened that it's about half a beer away from being laughable the whole way through (which doesn't mean it's not enjoyable). The reporter in Kane is way more Charles Marlow/Nick Carraway than Lovecraft journalist/professor protag, but maybe that's an interesting comparison to consider.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2013 19:54
|
|
|
Rageaholic Monkey posted:I've seen all the Spider-Man movies, Drag Me To Hell and Oz The Great And Powerful, so I feel like I'm familiar with his style and really dig it. But yeah, I'll have to watch 2 and Army of Darkness. I probably won't have time tonight so I'll have to do that after I see the remake. That's gonna be a weird chronology. DMtH and Spider-Man 3 are the closest touchstones for Evil Dead 2 and Army, but they're even more openly comedic and campy. Also watch Darkman sometime, it owns.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2013 20:56
|
|
|
No, it's normal movie length, and hour and a half or so. I think I've heard there was another much longer cut, but I have no idea if that was ever available. Also I think it's on Amazon streaming.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2013 01:40
|
|
|
TOOT BOOT posted:Are there any other horror sequels that completely outshine the original movie to the extent Evil Dead 2 does? Evil Dead owns and understands that the into the woods subgenre of horror is about atavism, not the dangers of the wilderness or something. The villains are the characters and the audience. It's tremendous. Edit: It's actually probably most accurate to say the villain is the camera, but the film is about the barely suppressed urge to violence in modern culture and how things like modern technology and society are a thin veneer on that urge. The camera literally possesses people and makes them do all the violent things we want to see. It's arguably kind of misogynistic, though. DeimosRising fucked around with this message at 03:19 on Mar 21, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2013 03:16
|
|
|
MantisToboggan posted:I'd have to say that, in general, I think Romero is overrated. He made a few good horror films (NotLD and Dawn of the Dead) and after that a lot of people tried to apply some greater meaning to his work (not that anyone on this forum would ever read too far into a piece of cinema, oh no, certainly not) and he got caught up in it. Day of the Dead seems like a perfect example of someone out of their depth trying to make an important statement without anything important to say. HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:I'm still curious to see what deep meaning people read into Dawn of the Dead, because the stuff commonly cited is explicitly text in the film itself. No one is "reading into" Night either, the movie is about racism. It literally ends with a posse of white rednecks mistaking the African American lead for a zombie and shooting him. Romero was prescient - he predicted the anxieties of his own pseudo-survivalist fans. The irony is that they failed to see how the film is a satire of their own paranoias.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2013 16:54
|
|
|
StickySweater posted:I wouldn't say it's a complete improvement on the original. Some of the acting isn't as good, for example the Harry Cooper character was a bit stiff in the new version. Pat Tallman (of Babylon 5 fame) plays a stronger, more involved and less hysterical Barabara. Also the ending is slightly different. Seriously? The awful, stupid, on the nose ending alone makes it a vastly worse movie. It's not slightly different, it's tonally and thematically a whole other thing. Also I'm not sure why you're spoiling that a different movie has a different ending. It's not like you said what it was.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2013 17:55
|
|
|
Twee as gently caress posted:It's also the ending Romero wanted, and he thought it improved on the original I...don't care? People can be wrong about their own movies. They do it all the time. I'm sure he wouldn't have written the new ending if he didn't like it. It doesn't make any sense and isn't justified by the events that precede it, and reduces the political and social commentary of the film to the tagline of an editorial. It's bad. That's not the only reason the film is worse, though. Savini's direction is pedestrian and the pacing of the film is too slow. The changes to the plot drag out the dullest parts of the film and reduce tension by spending way more time on people yelling. And I agree with Ebert on this one - the subject matter looked a LOT better in black and white.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2013 18:16
|
|
|
penismightier posted:Hellraiser is pretty bad but I always feel vaguely guilty for not liking most of the Clive Barker stuff I've seen. Geekboy posted:This sums it up perfectly. On the one hand, I recognize how inventive and (in a way) brave his stuff is, but it's also just not very good. There's usually an idea or two I find really brilliant, but it's always hidden in something I can barely make myself care about. I just watched the first one since they're on Netflix and mentioned how I found it dull and aimless to my friend. He said that all he could remember about them was that he was supposed to like them but didn't, which seems about right to me. The problem with the first movie is it has no idea what it's about - Frank's pedestrian meanness and sexual creepiness is at odds with the transcendental horror of the Cenobites. At no point is he convincing as a seeker after pure experience, he just comes off as a generic bad dude. No one in the film has a character arc except the wife whose name I forget, and not surprisingly she's the only character who makes any sense in this film. She is obsessed with sensual experience, and Frank represents for her what the Cenobites should represent for Frank, except we never see any of that. Kristy and her father don't even have characters, so there's no way to really talk about what any of the goings on mean to them.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2013 23:51
|
|
|
Volume posted:There was a lot of hate going on for Hellraiser a while ago in this thread and I just don't get it. I think the movie is fantastic. From story to effects I think it got everything right. I was among the people talking poo poo about Hellraiser, but I watched 2 yesterday and it's a way, way better movie. I'm actually pretty confused as to how anyone can prefer the first one.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2013 19:52
|
|
|
InfiniteZero posted:The first Hellraiser has a great visual feel and is certainly worth checking out. It's not very deep, but it's an interesting horror film that examines temptation, obsession, and understanding your own limitations and their consequences. It's also painfully obvious that Barker had recently discovered the BDSM community when he wrote it. I'm not sure what you mean when you say that Hellraiser isn't deep, then point out all the stuff it deals with. The problem with Hellraiser isn't a lack of depth, it's a lack of focus and coherence. Julia's arc is the only one that makes sense, because she's in a spiral of increasing decadence and self-absorption for which the ultimate end is the Hell of the Cenobites, a place of pure, transcendent experience. Frank, in theory, has already gone down this path, but when he shows up he's a pedestrian vampire who doesn't even seem to enjoy being a skinless monster - what the gently caress kind of BDSM villain doesn't enjoy that? Kirsty doesn't even have a personality, and her solving the puzzle box doesn't make any sense because it reduces a thing that is symbolic of obsession and self-mastery and transcendence into...a really lame rubik's cube, I guess? That's why the second film works so much better. Julia is foregrounded, Kirsty is given something to obsess about, the new villain is likewise fascinated by the body and its pleasures and pains and squishy bits, and Frank barely appears. Even the seemingly cheesy stuff with the Cenobites at the climax makes sense, because it juxtaposes being a human with being a vessel for an obsession (or perhaps more appropriately, a fetish). I totally disagree about it being a rehash or something not worth viewing if you didn't like the original. I hadn't seen either since I was a little kid, and I found the second vastly superior. I might even say that it "converted" me. Craig Spradlin posted:I had genuinely never seen anything like it before. Oh, sure, the effects work hasn't aged well at all, I think it looks great. The skinless vampires in both films look tremendous, the Cenobites look great, the matte paintings are stunning. The lightning-bolt unsummon magic doesn't look too hot and the super-demon thing in the first one looks pretty bad, but otherwise it holds up really, really well. schwenz posted:I'm wondering if SMG's reaction to The Thing may be because he saw the 89 version after those kind of practical effects lost their edge and started to really look dated. SMG? I don't want to speak for SMG but I'm going to speak for SMG: No. He's written at length about how the great things about the 2011 prequel to The Thing (it's not a remake) have to do with its more optimistic and thoughtful worldview and excellent control over what a prequel is and how it relates to its predecessor. I don't agree that it's better than Carpenter's 82 version (not 89) but even if it were, it certainly wouldn't be because of the SFX. The Thing '82 is a masterpiece in that regard.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2013 21:21
|
|
|
InfiniteZero posted:When you say that the effects hold up, the effect I'm specifically thinking of as sort of laughable are the maze sequences in Hellbound. I haven't seen that in a bit though, so maybe that sequence is in a different sequel? I also entirely agree with you that the effects on the skinless people are amazing. In my opinion those sequences hold up perfectly with anything you see today. Really remarkable. The matte painting shots of the maze look amazing. The set design for shots inside the maze is pretty cheesy and looks like a low budget TV show.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2013 22:14
|
|
|
I don't understand what you guys are saying about Lake Mungo. Are you asking about the motivations of a character's presentiment of her own death? There is no motivation. It's not that kind of horror movie. The ghost isn't even really a ghost. She just becomes aware, in a literal, fantasy movie sense, of her own mortality. The film is about how no one else has that awareness, either for her or for themselves.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2013 20:58
|
|
|
Free Drinks posted:Carpenter attempts to have the film take its self more seriously than most of his previous films and it could have worked had it not so easily eroded every ounce of anxiety with each note. Without getting into the rest of it, what in the world makes you think this about a movie where Alice Cooper impales someone with one of his stage props, Satan possesses people by peeing/cumming green poo poo in their mouths, and when SCIENCE fails to defeat the power of evil, the priest turns to a fire axe? It's a really funny movie. It's much funnier and less "serious" in the sense I think you mean it than most of Carpenter's prior films, with the exception of Big Trouble and They Live! It's about on par with Dark Star in that respect.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2013 03:25
|
|
|
Hollis posted:Personally I hate House of a Thousand Corpses, ugh I know people are going to hate on me for that I doubt you'll catch much poo poo for it. It's hard to imagine seeing that movie as any better than "deeply flawed." I quite like Zombie's other films and House has stuff going for it but it's ultimately just an intriguing failure.
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2013 22:47
|
|
|
axleblaze posted:For the life of me I couldn't get into the Grudge. It felt like a bunch of j-horror style creepy scenes without context but I found it hard to be creeped out without any context so I was just really bored. Maybe one day I'll give it another go though. Nah that's a pretty good description of it. There are some arresting images but it's not much as a movie.
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2013 00:47
|
|
|
penismightier posted:I will loving ban you if you ever again use the phrase "objectively wrong" in reference to someone's taste in movies. Luckily there's no such person as "Hindu the best god" so the post is entirely hypothetical. Actually can you please change my name to that? LtKenFrankenstein posted:Disagree. Planet Terror visibly has the relative budget and production values of something like The Blob. But it has the wildness and schlockiness of something like C.H.U.D. I think it's drawing on both, in a sense, and feels a bit like one of the higher "class" films trying to be one of the lower, if that makes any sense.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2013 00:30
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:I've felt it was more akin to Slither, except Slither is a good movie. There are a lot of good versions of IotBS. Slither owns.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2013 05:25
|
|
|
Barton Fink makes creepy wallpaper an actual plot point. It also probably counts as a horror movie, sort of, sometimes. Has anyone seen any of the filmed adaptations of The Yellow Wallpaper?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2013 18:35
|
|
|
schwenz posted:I don't get why people say CitW is a critique of the genre. I get nothing but love from that movie. Can you explain how? Because I absolutely don't see it.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2013 18:22
|
|
|
LtKenFrankenstein posted:It's critical, but it's definitely done with a hell of a lot of love for the genre. I can't see anyone but a hardcore horror geek conceiving and directing the system purge scene. What I mean is that he says he doesn't see how the film is a critique of horror films, and I don't see how any reading could not include that. It's ridiculously unsubtle.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2013 19:09
|
|
|
FastestGunAlive posted:I just enjoyed rooting for the technicians That's pretty gross. What did you guys think of The Ward? It's beautifully shot, has some very nice performances, and Carpenter does a great job setting up a critique of mental health care, visually equating our treatment of the mentally ill with medieval torture and [spoiler]the main character's abduction and implied rape[/i] during a great credits sequence that also presages the film's plot twist, but that twist is so totally at odds with everything that goes before it that I was left, at best, confused.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2013 04:50
|
|
|
Volume posted:and like lemurs all the hands follow. I'm having a lot of trouble figuring out what this is supposed to mean. Edit: wait did you mean lemmings? That makes more sense
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2013 18:09
|
|
|
Dissapointed Owl posted:I was spellbound the entire time and when it ended the tape didn't show any credits but just went to static (my dad never copied credits). Absolutely harrowing. This is so completely perfect. gently caress. Also the number of people in here who were exactly 12 is weird. I was 13.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2013 06:48
|
|
|
Mr. Boogie posted:Watched Grave Encounters 2 after the discussion a few pages back reminded me it was on Netflix. It was an alright sequel. Not as bad as I was expecting based on the reviews, but still not great. I didn't think the first one was a masterpiece either though, so I can't say I was profoundly disappointed. Only one character believes that any of it is real, and he is in fact crazy. You can tell this because he does crazy things. Also, it is not about proving it's real, it's about making his film. It was always about the film. The movie is "about" how the things we create have lives of their own and influence us as much as we influence them. That's why the villain is a sentient evil building. Our art demands things of us.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2013 06:35
|
|
|
Touch posted:edit: my bad didn't see it searching Almost everyone calls it Incident at Lake County here so that's not a surprise. An accessible copy of the UPN cut is like CineD's holy grail.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2013 04:40
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:My personal five in no particular order are Safe Haven, The Sick Thing That Happened To Emily When She Was Younger, Slumber Party Alien Abduction, 10/31/98 and Second Honeymoon. What do you like about 10/31/98? I just don't find it to be very interesting, and the best shot is just a Repulsion quote, which is always nice to see but eh. It just seems like a very rote haunted house thing with a not terribly funny punchline she really is possessed! oops. The rest of those are objectively correct.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 5, 2013 22:19
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:I guess you could replace it with the succubus story if you really wanted! Yeah I'd say that's my next favorite. I get what you're saying though, if I'd found 10/31/98's jokes to be funnier I'd be more with it. It's totally competent, I just found it to be the least interesting short in the first film. Even the irredeemably ugly and kind of stupid Tuesday the 17th is at least the kind of trainwreck that's fun to watch (once), and is mildly funny as a send up of the totally unnecessary 80s slasher sequel subgenre. SuperMechagodzilla posted:I think that, with the exception of Clinical Trials - which was just sadly lame, even the 'bad' segments of the V/H/Ses fill a role. Yup.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 5, 2013 22:41
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:You know what my main problem with Tuesday the 17th was? It coincided with the same weekend I had seen Sleepaway Camp 1 for the first time in a really long time and realizing that it's a drat masterpiece. In some ways that's what I like best about it, it's a joke about the nonsensical sequel and just set me off thinking about all the maligned secret classics of the genre, like Sleepaway Camp.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 5, 2013 22:48
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:Yeah. In the thread, axleblaze had the best take on it but I don't have archives so just imagine he said some cool and smart stuff about it. I remember. It was totally on point but it didn't make like the segment any better, it's still pretty poo poo. McQuaid's full length film, I Sell The Dead, is a pretty funny EC Comics/Tales from the Crypt style horror-comedy, so I was hoping for better.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 5, 2013 23:00
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:Oh, he made that movie? With Ron Perlman and all? That movie's a blast. Yeah my wife VODed it a few years ago on a whim and we thought it was dope, I was pretty excited to see he was on the list for V/H/S. Too bad how it worked out. I hope he gets more work as a director, he seems to mostly do random VFX and design stuff (his first credits on IMDB are all for designing the titles for films, which is...a cool thing I'd never thought was really done by a separate person. He even did the title for The Inkeepers!)
|
|
#
¿
Sep 5, 2013 23:23
|
|
|
Holy Calamity! posted:Hot drat Grave Encounters was fantastic. Perfect combination of atmosphere and jump scares. I loved how the setting itself felt just as angry and malevolent as the entity within it. When they find the tech guy in a hospital gown talking like he'd been through some hosed up treatment, oh man. Then when the main guy was scrounging through the tunnels eating rats I thought he was going to come upon hospital staff and get dragged back to a cell. It's pretty good, if you don't hate people who go to parties so much that you think they deserve to die and are alright with it being a horror-comedy (which the first is in a lot of ways, as well). It definitely runs with the "setting [is] just as angry and malevolent as the entity" idea so you'll probably enjoy it on that level. It's a good movie about the relationship between people and their ideas/art.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2013 20:43
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 00:10 |
|
|
Sire Oblivion posted:I went into it expecting something on the lines of Troll Hunter but instead got the most run of the mill found footage films I've ever seen. Lukewarm like a motherfucker. The idea that someone can prefer the dull, rote pablum that is Troll Hunter (apart from some fun Hensen-ish creature design) to The Frankenstein Theory is blowing my mind. I don't see how a movie with such long shots of landscapes and careful consideration of the themes of the novel that inspired it is a "run of the mill found footage [film]". I can totally get not liking it - I don't love it as much as some other people here - but it's anything but typical of the genre.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2013 22:14
|
|