|
Asphalt Engine posted:Behind the Mask I've heard good things about this film, though I have yet to see it. I'm curious--does it distance itself from Man Bites Dog or does it acknowledges it in any way? Given the very similar premises and this movie's film-aware nature it'd seem almost suspicious not to address it in some way.
|
#
¿
May 3, 2011 00:14
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 03:00 |
|
|
Elentor posted:Isn't Sunshine pretty much like Event Horizon? I might be a bit confused about them. The conceptual similarities are there, but the thematic ones aren't. Both involve space voyages taking a turn for the horrific, but they're both about very, very different things.
|
|
#
¿
May 3, 2011 01:35
|
|
|
Young Freud posted:Yeah, a lot of the danger the crew of the Icarus 2 faces is that space around them is openly hostile to human life and their ship is so very, very fragile. Even before they get to the movie takes a turn, they've already lost half the crew do to irreparable damage to the ship. The best part of Sunshine to me is a very, very small part, but it completely makes the movie. After Trey makes the 1 degree mistake and the results have gone down, he tries to apologize, and all he can say is "I hosed up!" over and over again, with this tearful, sweat-drenched expression of just pure bottom-dropping-out-of-your-stomach panic. The actor nails the feeling you get when you realize you've made a stupid, stupid mistake that you should have avoided, but magnified to encompass the fact that his "Oops" moment may inadvertently have doomed the entire human race, and despite that, all he can do is say "I hosed up," because there's nothing else to say--it was an honest mistake that anyone could have made. It's just such a human moment, both the mistake and the apology, in a movie about people who have all of humanity riding on their shoulders, and it drives home that everyone on the ship is there for that reason--because they're human.
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2011 11:55
|
|
|
Kolchak posted:The Lodger Also worth seeing is a remake called The Man in the Attic, starring a very young Jack Palance in the Cregar role. It approaches the story from a different angle--Palance never evokes the same human sympathy as Cregar, but he takes to the role with a wonderful brooding darkness, and it's easy to believe that this man IS Jack the Ripper. The best way to describe the difference between the two films is to look at the leads' eyes: Cregar's say "I don't know why I do this!" while Palance's say "I don't know why you wouldn't." Also, if you dig Cregar, check out "Hangover Square," which was his final role. It's similar in tone to The Lodger, though he plays a different sort of character. If I'm remembering right the dieting regimen he went on to try to lose weight during and after that film was what led to his death.
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2011 07:03
|
|
|
FitFortDanga posted:Just chiming in to second both The Lodger and Hangover Square, terrific films. Both were written by Barré Lyndon, who's also credited as a writer on Man in the Attic--not sure if he worked on that one in a real sense or if he's just credited to acknowledge his screenplay for The Lodger. By the way, Man in the Attic also features Frances Bavier as Palance's unwitting landlady--otherwise known as loving Aunt Bea from The Andy Griffith Show. Only thing I've ever seen her in that wasn't set in Mayberry.
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2011 23:33
|
|
|
Rabbit Hill posted:(I'm glad to see there are a few Laird Cregar fans here. If you haven't already seen it, he's fantastic in the noir film, I Wake Up Screaming, playing a pathologically obsessed detective.) Nice, I'll add that to my to-watch list. Cregar's got a very interesting story--he had the acting chops but lacked the looks of a leading man, and he knew it, and his attempts to lose weight in a short amount of time were what ended up killing him. Very sad end for a guy with such potential, and very much in the vein of a character he might have played.
|
|
#
¿
May 11, 2011 02:51
|
|
|
IShallRiseAgain posted:Don't be deceived, this isn't a Lovecraft story at all. Its just named Cthulhu to trick fans into watching it. Just watch the trailer, and you will see it has nothing to do with Lovecraft's works. This would not in any way preclude it from being a good movie regardless.
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2011 03:21
|
|
|
I enjoyed the silent adaptation of The Call of Cthulhu, as far as adaptations go. But a lot of his work is based on what you don't see rather than what you do, so it makes sense that it'd be hard to adapt to a visual medium.
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2011 04:06
|
|
|
I really don't care if it's properly Lovecraftian or not. What I care about is if it's a good movie. "Faith to the source material" is nowhere near as important as "faith to telling a good story in the medium you've chosen."
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2011 04:19
|
|
|
Corvy Day posted:If you haven't watched the show go watch it now. The...show?
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2011 01:56
|
|
|
Kikka posted:I almost deemed Session 9 as a direct-to-TV quality horror short, but I was pleasantly surprised by the course it took. It was a refreshing change to not have anything supernatural about a horror movie at all, and this movie pulled said change very well. I rewatched Session 9 for the first time in five years the other day, and while it didn't hold up as well as I'd hoped (there are place in the middle where the movie doesn't seem to know what it's supposed to be doing, and some things aren't built up as much as they should be), I still really like it. Gordon's "I AM loving AWAKE!" line is delivered with such heartbreaking sincerity and terror that it almost makes the whole movie for me. And Jesus Christ, Simon's voice is so unsettling that I was jittery walking through the complete darkness of my garage afterward.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 22, 2012 02:14
|
|
|
oiseaux morts 1994 posted:
I just caught the John Hurt version and thought it was excellent. It really only takes the barest skeleton of the short story (man staying in seaside hotel finds mysterious object on beach, is pursued by apparition), using its motifs while substituting imagery of marriage and parenthood to present a story of the loss, regret and guilt that can come at the end of one's life. If I was going to classify it I'd call it a psychological horror film before I called it a "ghost story." The fact that the main character is disturbed by a bust in the shape of a child's face on the first weekend he's spent without his wife in literal decades echoes his earlier statement about having wanted children but never finding the time. It sits there on the shelf staring at him as he lies in bed, and he can't sleep until he's moved it to look somewhere else. It embodies the reason why he's so unwilling to leave his near-catatonic wife's side for even a day: if he admits that their days together are over, he'll have to confront the fact that the opportunities and desires he'd kept putting off are gone forever. Couple that with the substitution of an antique wedding ring on the beach for the original story's bronze whistle and the very clear wedding-dress imagery of the apparition on the beach and you have the picture of a man who's quite literally haunted by the past. The final appearance of his wife's shade in his hotel room, angrily shouting "I'M STILL HERE!" before he dies in fright is a great way of showing that this man's life is already over. The "here" she refers to could refer to the hotel where they honeymooned in their youth, but I think it means that she's still in him--that the way she used to be is always going to follow him around, and that he can't live if he remains fixated on that. His death immediately following her appearance is I think meant to show his acceptance of this fact--not a happy or satisfying acceptance, but the terrified understanding that he doesn't and can't understand how to live now that she's gone. Personally I don't think there's a literal ghost at work in this story, just a sad, broken man destroying himself from the inside.
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2013 00:56
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 03:00 |
|
|
big business sloth posted:So I just watched Burnt Offerings which I'd basically just heard about in small mentions here and there, and I think it suits this thread well and hasn't, to my knowledge, been brought up. I was really not fond of this film when I saw it four years ago, but my tastes have changed a lot since then so maybe I should give it a second look. Shame I missed the showing at the Castro Theatre in SF earlier this month.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2013 06:30
|
|