|
 The Haunting (1963) This is one I really wanted to watch in October when I was doing the ‘60s. Not just because its a classic and fit my years but because I had just got done watching the Netflix adaption and really enjoyed it. In fact it was probably one of the highlights of my October that pulled me out of a hole some bad exploitation movies put me in. And I’d seen the ‘90s version and hated it. So I really wanted to see the original and compare but just couldn’t find it. So when this thread got under way I just went looking to see whatever horror was on TV this month and saw it playing on TCM and recorded even before Lurdiak named it. How serendipitous. A really, really great piece. Hill House is such a character and the movie manages to really get that across with simple angles, shadows, and the occasional spooky sound or twisting knob. I love that basic idea and this Hill House set is gorgeous and massive with some great camera work, lighting, and angles to really showcase it. Not a ghost, not a demon, just the loving house. As Basebf555 said its not scary, but there’s plenty of “dread”. Of what the house is doing to Nell, what it could do to others, what it WILL do. It not only shares some amazing lighting work with Cat People to help set its atmosphere but a similar buildup of tension and what will happen. One of the things i noticed that I really haven’t noticed in other films of the time is the use of really off beat camera angles and shots. Just a camera panning around a room or moving frantically around a door or getting a weird angle over someone’s shoulder. It helped to make the house feel alive and the threat coming from all over. All in all I just can’t agree more that this film feels way ahead of its time production wise. It really does feel like a modern film that’s just in black and white. That’s a really amazing feat for a film made nearly 60 years ago. Unlike the ‘90s version that as I remember (and rewatching the trailer backed me up) used WAY too much CGI and showed WAY too much poo poo that just looked bad and made it a funhouse ride instead of a mood piece, this version just forces you to stand back and wait for a knob to turn or a plant to get brushed. “Nothing moves in this house until you’re not looking and then you just catch a little peek.” Its such a great technique done so well. There’s no real mystery that the house is really haunted, so its not the “Is Nell just crazy and imagining this?” thing. But its still got you wondering if the next thing that happens will be the Hill House escalating its tricks or Nell cracking. Obviously it doesn’t bear a ton of similarity to the Netflix version but I think the two share way more in common with that atmosphere than either does to the ’99 version. And there’s obviously lots of shots and moments in the Netflix version that I noticed in this. I don’t know if those were specific book stuff or Mike Flanagan paying homage to this film but it struck me when I saw stuff like Nell dancing or Theo’s gloves or that drat staircase. Makes me want to go back and rewatch the Netflix version and contrast and compare. And then rewatch this one again. Hell, I’m half tempted to rewatch the ’99 version but the trailer looked SOOOOO bad. And maybe I should hit the library and read the book. I’m gonna try and turn on the jets and actually hit 13 by the end of the month regardless of how many if Lurdiak's I haven't seen (Peeping Tom is the only one left right now). I have a few off the list essentials in mind. Watched - New (Total) 1. Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer (1989); 2. The ‘Burbs (1989); - (3). Frankenstein (1931); 3 (4). The Bride of Frankenstein (1933); 4 (5). Cat People (1942); 5 (6). The Haunting (1963)
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2019 07:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 00:35 |
|
|
Lurdiak posted:Probably the last culturally relevant Dracula film ever made umm, someone clearly hasn't seen Argento's Dracula 3D I loving love Dracula movies. I have about 30 different ones in my collection right now, although that's counting any movie with Dracula as a character so there are some in there that have virtually nothing to do with the original story, like The Return of Dracula (1958) or Blood of Dracula's Castle (1969) (both of which are pretty terrible). Even with the bad ones though I enjoy seeing how different actors and filmmakers interpret the characters.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2019 17:34
|
|
gey muckle mowser posted:umm, someone clearly hasn't seen Argento's Dracula 3D Doesnt that mean you have Blade 3 and Van Helsing?
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2019 18:33
|
|
|
Lurdiak posted:Doesnt that mean you have Blade 3 and Van Helsing? We don't speak of Blade 3 around here. A badge of shame that Dominic Purcell will never get rid of.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2019 19:05
|
|
|
Van Helsing is so close to being a fun dumb movie instead of a fun bad movie, and their terrible Dracula is a big part of the problem.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2019 19:12
|
|
|
Lurdiak posted:Van Helsing is so close to being a fun dumb movie instead of a fun bad movie, and their terrible Dracula is a big part of the problem. I don't have much of an issue with him(he's more blah to me than actively bad), I think the script is the problem there. It starts strong and ends strong but for a Sommers action blockbuster it really meanders in the middle. This is a pretty common criticism that I have about a lot of genre films but it needed to be about 20 minutes shorter, 131 minutes is too long for a dumb fun action flick unless it's just perfectly streamlined and edited.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2019 19:16
|
|
|
Lurdiak posted:Doesnt that mean you have Blade 3 and Van Helsing? actually, no I don't have either of those. I've seen them but it's been quite a while. I do however own Dracula 2000 and it's sequels.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2019 20:27
|
|
|
 Peeping Tom came out at a similar time as Psycho, both major contributors to the birth of the slasher. While Psycho gained incredible fame as one of the greatest films of all time and multiple Academy Award nominations, Peeping Tom virtually ruined the career of its creator and shocked the world with its darkness. Our protagonist, Mark, is also our villain. Carl Boehm delivers a fantastic performance that easily matches Anthony Perkins's Norman Bates in skill and intensity. Twisted into insanity by his abusive father, he has become obsessed with making a "documentary" of the women he kills. Unlike a typical slasher, we follow Mark as our viewpoint character. He's quiet and reserved until something sparks his twisted creativity, at which point it can be hard to snap him out of it. He falls in love with Helen, a girl who can actually get through to him but seems to have a sort of danger fetish of her own from how she reacts to things. One of the best scenes for showcasing the movie's style is his murder of Vivian, a stand-in for the lead actress in the film he's working on. When he puts on jazz, she immediately flies into a choreographed dance routine around the studio typical of Singin' in the Rain and other musical films of the 50s and 60s. Mark moves around her almost with annoyance, completely apart from her as he sets up the circumstances for her death on camera. It's a noticeable riff on genres of the time, as if he's an interloper barging into a studio fantasy film and bringing horror somewhere it doesn't belong. Ultimately, Mark is an endearing and tragic protagonist. He's clearly too far gone to really help, but showcasing a slasher from the slasher's point of view gives you possibilities for a glimpse into their complexities and what they actually desire.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 01:14
|
|
|
drat it, I did it again. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQvCrg4fZTM The Abominable Dr. Phibes Vincent Price stars in a horror comedy. What else do you need to know? Available for streaming on Amazon Prime
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 02:29
|
|
|
Lurdiak posted:Available for streaming on Amazon Prime I think this is a lie but I can't be sure because my Fire Stick doesn't even want to acknowledge the movie exists.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 07:14
|
|
|
 Peeping Tom (1960) That was an interesting one. I didn’t know what to think going in. You guys tend to have a couple of tastes that aren’t really my thing. Either the really bloody “giallo” stuff or the kind of absurdly bad unintentional camp. Neither is really my thing and this one struck me like it was going to be one of the two. I guess its more in the giallo direction but it wasn’t something I disliked. I wasn’t super captured by it as I just don’t think I go for these serial killer of beautiful ladies stuff really (which I take is the heart of “giallo”). But it was a kind of interesting story of trying to figure Mark out. I didn’t really get him or the killings or what I was supposed to be feeling. He was so reserved and awkward and odd. And then came an exchange in the middle of the film where I turned around on things.  : I’ve been watching you. You’ve been filming them (the police). : Its an opportunity I didn’t think I’d get.: An opportunity for what?: To film an investigation for my documentary.: What’s it about?: I rather not say until it’s finished. And it will be finished soon. : What if you get caught?: Oh, I will! They seem quite efficient.: Are you crazy?: Yes.That changed things for me. For one, I laughed and up until that point I wasn’t sure what the movie wanted me to be feeling. But I also finally realized Mark’s deal. It finishes up after that much better for me. Maybe its just that I was finally on board or maybe the film was purposely paced that way as Mark enters the end game of his “documentary.” I mean, I never fully understand what his deal is but its coming together at this point. I didn’t really feel sympathy for him. Sure, his father abused him and that should garner sympathy but we come to know that well after we come to know he’s murdering people so by then I’m in “your deal, man” mindset with him. But I still don’t know quite what he’s going to do, and neither does he. All it ends up in a solid little ending and film. The dance murder is definitely the most interesting scene of the film. Obviously playing off all those films of those bygone eras with the actress just marveling in the ecstasy of performing on the stage like Rita Hayworth and Judy Garland that she doesn’t even notice have god damned creepy Mark and the entire situation is. Her seeming lack of concern of the danger was actually an odd thing that had me uncomfortable about the film as all the women in the film seem remarkably unconcerned about the threat Mark and their situations seem to hold. Minnie jokes about what a scary creep Mark is but never takes it seriously. Vivian dances and giggles like she’s drunk. Helen jumps right in despite every warning sign that maybe this guy ain’t someone you want to get involved with. Even her mother who is the only one who preternaturally senses Mark as a predator still willfully puts herself in danger and then fights to stay in that position when he wants her to leave. It was a really uncomfortable thing to watch, especially with Helen. I don’t know if I just never noticed it in the past and maybe I’m just maturing to place where I do, or if its just really more prevalent in the 60s and 70s films I’ve been watching since October which I hadn’t seen much of until now. But this idea of the women who make such bad decisions to put themselves in mortal danger unnerves me and isn’t fun to watch. I suppose maybe its another aspect of the “giallo” and the grounded serial killer thing that seemed so popular of the 60s and 70s vs the more supernatural stuff I grew up with and tended to watch. Because for as long as I’ve been a horror fan we’ve joked about people foolishly going into the basement or wandering into the woods or staying in the haunted house but I guess that stuff just doesn’t bother me. Horror films are in some part composed of people making bad decisions to put themselves at the mercy of the monster, and I guess I just process that differently when the monster is just a sick man murdering young ladies. Anyway, I don’t want it to sound like I hated the film or it scarred me or anything. It just got me thinking and that’s been a thing that has felt like a theme ever since my October 31 Years run. I did mostly enjoy this film. I’m not totally sure I see its “essential” nature but I suppose that might again go back to my distaste for “giallo” or crime horror and the forum’s apparent love of it. Que sera sera. I went and spent some more money on some Vincent Price DVDs I was looking at so I’ll get Dr. Phibes in when they arrive. I have four other non Lurdiak “essentials” in mind which will take me to 11. So 13 seems very doable if I can just find the time this last week or so of the month. Watched - New (Total) 1. Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer (1989); 2. The ‘Burbs (1989); - (3). Frankenstein (1931); 3 (4). The Bride of Frankenstein (1933); 4 (5). Cat People (1942); 5 (6). The Haunting (1963); 6 (7). Peeping Tom (1960)
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 10:47
|
|
|
STAC Goat posted:
Peeping Tom is included in Roger Ebert's Great Movies list, which it completely deserves, and I would recommend you read his essay on the film. I wouldn't say Peeping Tom is a giallo. First, it was a UK production, and gialli are Italian. It also came out a solid decade before gialli was really being defined, like The Bird with the Crystal Plumage in 1970. Wikipedia cites lists the first giallo being Bava's The Girl Who Knew Too Much in 1963, but it's kinda like how Psycho is considered the first slasher, despite not resembling the majority of the genre. I don't think you're completely wrong, but it's missing a lot of key ingredients that are common to giallo, such as a murder mystery to find the killer's identity. There is never a mystery as to who is the killer in Peeping Tom, the suspense comes from who he's going to kill next. It's a colorful film, but I think that's more to do with being 1960. If anything, giallo directors saw this movie (as did many slasher directors and horror directors) and were inspired from it. The other aspect, and I guess this is open to discussion, which I think makes Peeping Tom distinct from giallos is the treatment of women. They're being murdered, but the movie never demonizes them. They are victims of a predator, and it never puts that blame on them. For a movie that's about a man killing sex workers, it has a very positive perspective on the actual sex workers. It also doesn't really emphasize actual sex, since Mark seems to be psychologically impotent from his trauma. Mark seems more interested in sexiness and sex culture from an artistic and economic stand-point. The main 'romantic interest' of the film is at worst young and naive for believing Mark to be a good person, albeit eccentric and troubled. The connections/similarities to Psycho are so bizarre. Peeping Tom premiered in the UK three months before Psycho premiered in the USA. Both deal with a killer who suffers arrested development and identity issues from trauma inflicted by a parent. Peeping Tom blames the father, Psycho blames the mother. One is black and white, one is color (Eastmancolor, specifically). One hides the mystery of the killer while the other puts him at center focus with no mystery. Franchescanado fucked around with this message at 14:39 on Jan 23, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 14:27
|
|
|
Peeping Tom's DNA is certainly in giallo as well as the slasher, but I wouldn't identify it as belonging to either genre.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 17:27
|
|
|
 As you can probably tell from the poster, The Abominable Dr. Phibes is a camp's camp. From the very beginning, when a couple dance in ridiculous Flash Gordon-esque costumes to the tunes of an automaton band (obviously played by real musicians wearing creepy plastic masks), you know what you're in for. While the film is technically classified as a comedy horror, it has very few actual "jokes" and a synopsis of the film could easily be mistaken for a straight horror film. Any comedy comes entirely from the over the top campiness of the characters in a colorful world of bizarre costumes and elaborate sets with elevator-mounted organs. Vincent Price is almost an outlier, playing the part of a serial killer wearing a mask of his own face almost completely straight (well, as straight as someone so inherently hammy can play anything), but then you realize that the entire film has been played straight. It takes something bizarre and treats it like it's the most normal thing in the world. The film wastes no time setting up the plot of Dr. Phibes killing people, to the point where it almost feels like your copy is missing about 20 minutes from how rapidly it gets going. This is likely the film's biggest flaw, as there's no real gravitas to the killings (especially when one of them is revealed by an awful fake flying bat effect) and the inspectors have the typical laconic investigatory methods and line delivery of any 1970s British detective. It's an ordinary film that becomes notable by its strangeness, marred by unusual pacing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 17:47
|
|
|
Dr Phibes still has the greatest death in horror movie history and it will never be topped. Catapulted Unicorn Head It's definitely a horror comedy but it's not cracking jokes and pratfalls the fact that it is played completely straight is what makes it so funny. It's humor comes from just the absolute camp of it all and the ridiculous over the top deaths.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 18:22
|
|
|
Today's horror essential is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ql3FFcgyvgU Friday the 13th We had to come to it. The most famous horror franchise of them all, the most iconic slasher, the most critically snubbed series. Friday the 13th, admittedly created to emulate the cinematic techniques and success of Halloween, is the film that created a legend. Everyone knows the twist now, and everyone knows that the character most associated with the franchise is barely even in this one. But it remains a very solidly made slasher, and one that a lot of people haven't actually seen. Because, let's face it, a lot of people watch one Friday the 13th and figure they've seen them all. Well, no more. If you've never seen the original, now's your chance. And for the rest of you who have seen it, I challenge you to watch any of the films in the series you've never seen. If you've seen the whole series, why not try one of the many, many fan films? Available for streaming on Amazon Prime, Vudu, Youtube, Google Play, Cineplex, Microsoft Store, iTunes, Playstation Store, Showtime Anywhere, and DirectTV
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 19:37
|
|
|
Let me also throw out The Burning as a very solid substitute for anyone who has seen the Friday the 13th series and wants to watch something similar. I'd love to see an alternate universe where Cropsey ended up being the big mainstream hit slasher and Friday the 13th became a one-off cult film.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 19:55
|
|
|
As a few others have said, Peeping Tom ain't a giallo for several reasons, the biggest being there's absolutely no mystery, and along with murders that's just about the only non-negotiable requirement the genre has (with just about every other typical giallo trope having been subverted in or absent from plenty of gialli). I see Peeping Tom as having much more in common with films like Man Bites Dog, American Psycho or Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer than, say, Don't Torture a Duckling or Deep Red.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 21:12
|
|
|
 Friday the 13th: A New Beginning is the classic attempt by a slasher franchise to redefine itself, fail, and go back to doing the same thing over and over. Much like Halloween 3: Season of the Witch suddenly derailed in a vain effort to end Michael Myers' story and become an anthology series, the creators of Jason Voorhees wanted to retire the character but maintain the formula. After definitively killing off Jason in the previous film and setting up Tommy Jarvis as having been driven insane by the murders he witnessed (and in the case of Jason, committed), it follows up by revealing the "revived" Jason to be a faker in a costume and all but outright stating that Tommy would be the hockey mask-wearing villain going forward. As we all know, the film received savage reviews and Jason was promptly resurrected as a zombie in the next film while Tommy Jarvis continued on as a recurring protagonist. Like the rest of the 1980s Friday the 13th films, Part V is a "hidden flask of vodka at the drive-in with the cheerleader you're trying to get to third base with" flick. It plays up the hockey mask even in the opening credits, knowing exactly what people are here to see: naked teens killed in creatively gruesome ways. The characters are universally flat cookie cutter stereotypes, including Tommy Jarvis as "the quiet traumatized guy who fights the killer." You've got the fat guy who's always eating, the punk with way too much eyeshadow and a Walkman, the slut and her rear end in a top hat boyfriend, the token precocious child.... The most unusual part of the film is that the first kill is actually by someone other than the killer and serves to set the plot in motion. Otherwise, it's a paint-by-numbers piece of schlock. Watch a compilation video of the kills, read the Wikipedia plot synopsis, and you're good.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 21:15
|
|
|
Franchescanado posted:I wouldn't say Peeping Tom is a giallo. First, it was a UK production, and gialli are Italian. It also came out a solid decade before gialli was really being defined, like The Bird with the Crystal Plumage in 1970. Wikipedia cites lists the first giallo being Bava's The Girl Who Knew Too Much in 1963, but it's kinda like how Psycho is considered the first slasher, despite not resembling the majority of the genre. TrixRabbi posted:Peeping Tom's DNA is certainly in giallo as well as the slasher, but I wouldn't identify it as belonging to either genre. sethsez posted:As a few others have said, Peeping Tom ain't a giallo for several reasons, the biggest being there's absolutely no mystery, and along with murders that's just about the only non-negotiable requirement the genre has (with just about every other typical giallo trope having been subverted in or absent from plenty of gialli). Ha, yeah, obviously I'm tossing the word "giallo" around too loosely. That's something I struggled with through October. I really never dove into Italian film, "giallo", or much of the 60s or 70s of film until the last few months. There's obviously elements and themes that cross through the time period but aren't limited to something as specific as "giallo". Somewhere along the line I just was asking myself "What is giallo?" and came to "So like these 60s/70s movies that are about serial killers of women with lots of color and sex?" And that's probably a flawed definition as you guys have pointed out but then I probably started applying it broadly to films of that time period. Which obviously is historically incorrect. sethsez posted:I see Peeping Tom as having much more in common with films like Man Bites Dog, American Psycho or Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer than, say, Don't Torture a Duckling or Deep Red. Franchescanado posted:Peeping Tom is included in Roger Ebert's Great Movies list, which it completely deserves, and I would recommend you read his essay on the film.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 22:47
|
|
|
STAC Goat posted:Ha, yeah, obviously I'm tossing the word "giallo" around too loosely. That's something I struggled with through October. I really never dove into Italian film, "giallo", or much of the 60s or 70s of film until the last few months. There's obviously elements and themes that cross through the time period but aren't limited to something as specific as "giallo". Somewhere along the line I just was asking myself "What is giallo?" and came to "So like these 60s/70s movies that are about serial killers of women with lots of color and sex?" And that's probably a flawed definition as you guys have pointed out but then I probably started applying it broadly to films of that time period. Which obviously is historically incorrect. You should check out the Film Theory & Criticism thread. While it's kinda aimless right now, the resources are good if you ever want to sharpen your film reading tools. I think Peeping Tom has a lot to say to the viewer, but sometimes it takes time or multiple viewings to get the message. That's why I love the October thread, because sitting down and writing about the movie always clarifies my feelings and ideas about the film. I've been reading A Short Guide To Writing About Film. It's interesting and approachable while defining a lot of things. I have the sixth edition, but there's only a few extra entries in the newest. Plus it's like 200 pages. So if you want something to read, that's my rec right now.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 23:13
|
|
|
Yeah, I love these threads for that very reason. They force me to really think about films I watched and write out how I feel. They let me read other people's thoughts so I can see things I didn't or put words to feelings I had that I couldn't quite figure out. They force me to expand my horizons, not just in what I watch but how i watch it and how I engage with it. They're great. As I said earlier in the thread, it makes me regret sleeping through Film History classes in college. Stupid higher education wasted on the young.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 23:23
|
|
|
(Pardon any typos as me being drunk) Henry probably bears the closest resemblance to Peeping Tom. It’s a drama about a serial killer rather than a traditional slasher, setting the protagonist as the killer from the first minutes. It works hard to make a killer sympathetic, but with radically different treatments of the killer’s love.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2019 03:15
|
|
|
I can see why someone would find Mark sympathetic in Peeping Tom. I can't imagine how someone could find Henry or Otis remotely sympathetic in any way, shape, or form. They're just sociopaths. But yeah, both definitely share the similarity of setting up a serial killer as the protagonist of the film and with no real antagonist, arch, or anything to set them up as some kind of anti-hero. Its just "here's a serial killer, get to know him." But I don't feel like either wanted me to like them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2019 03:29
|
|
|
Henry has this weird charismatic magnetism in the film like when he's smiling etc.. its so offputting. Like I wouldn't say sympathetic but I'd say definitely there's this attraction in the film.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2019 03:31
|
|
|
Henry is able to project a facade of vulnerability that he draws people in with. Otis is just a disgusting oaf who also happens to be a murderer but obviously the movie makes the point that Henry is much more dangerous.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2019 03:35
|
|
|
I mean, he's obviously more of the "charming, functioning, intelligent" sociopath idea than Otis who is a messy psychopath at the mercy of his impulses and emotions. Psychopath, sociopath. I dunno whichever way we apply those terms unclinically. Henry obviously has that disarming thing that allows him to be an effective predator. But Henry's also clearly a cold blooded killer who never shows a shred of remorse or decency. Even his hosed up background is obviously called out immediately as something of a manipulative lie. The one decent thing he sort of does is try and stop Otis from raping his sister but that seems born out of some kind sexual complex or something more than any actual human empathy. Its just "not right" but he hardly seems concerned about her well being. edit: I should say I feel like I've been dismissive of the main women in both stories and I don't want it to seem like I'm treating them as anonymous victims or just inexcusable fools for getting into these situations. Becky is obviously a survivor of multiple forms of abuse and can't seem to find her way out of it, and there's obviously an unexplored backstory to Helen, her alcoholic and disabled mother, and how exactly this setup and their relationship works. I can definitely see that Helen might have seen Mark's abuse at the hand of his father and social awkwardness and felt some kindredness there that just stayed subtextual. And Becky obviously just was escaping one abuser after another looking for a protector. STAC Goat fucked around with this message at 03:47 on Jan 24, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2019 03:39
|
|
|
Holy crap, Peeping Tom was way better than I expected. The acting on Karlheinz Boehm is absolutely brilliant, moving from vulnerable to menacing in the fraction of a second. Everything about the dude screams stay away, but not in the usual movie way. I also love how every character who even just gets a line or two is actually interesting and not just some random cardboard cutout to move the story along. Chief among them is Helen's mother, the scene she has with Marc is fantastic. Some really neat shots too, the murder victim's face projected onto Marc turning into a skull is ingenious. Don't sleep on this one.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2019 05:53
|
|
|
Today's horror classic is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBEVwaJEgaA Gremlins Unbelievably, some humans haven't seen Joe Dante's most famous film. While it feels weird to recommend this outside of December, this holiday-themed all-ages horror comedy is one of the greatest films ever made. Born from an exploitative creature feature spec script by Chris Columbus, molded to be fuzzier and more audience-pleasing by Steven Spielberg, injected with offbeat humor and cartoonish energy by Joe Dante, this masterpiece of a film is an absolutely necessary watch for anyone who likes horror, fun, or creature effects. Also notable is how this film's success led to the creation of the superior Gremlins 2, a film that is so revolutionary it has its own field of study. Available for streaming on Cineplex, iTunes, Google Play, Playstation Store and Youtube
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2019 19:54
|
|
|
Here's my Gremlins review.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2019 23:12
|
|
|
my review of gremlins is the same clip but with youtube auto captions on 
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2019 23:50
|
|
|
 Gremlins is arguably one of the most famous horror comedies of the 80s. So why is its sequel almost forgotten? If anything, Gremlins 2: The New Batch is even more distilled 80s than its predecessor despite coming out in 1990. A pastiche of Donald Trump (strangely accurately represented as an incompetent manchild who needs everyone else to do everything for him) owns a big gleaming tower downtown with a rotating centerpiece on the sign outside that resembles a set from Robocop. He has his own news network with reporters that have hair that seems to have been crafted to be as precisely obnoxious as possible. Everyone has shoulder pads. Haviland Morris exists. It's a bizarre film from top to bottom. Every sequel is made for people who already saw the previous one, but Gremlins 2 is incapable of being viewed as a standalone film. It drops you into the plot and following up on the previous film so fast that anyone who hasn't seen the first will be utterly lost, almost as if Gremlins was originally 4 hours long and got chopped in half. Christopher Lee plays the evil Dr. Catheter trying to create battery rats and read the brainwaves of cows with a pair of clone assistants. A gremlin becomes a genius with a British accent after drinking the right serum and unleashes a winged gremlin on New York, which leaves the Batman symbol after crashing through a window. It's utter chaos. Gremlins 2 manages to be one of the strangest films I've ever seen. With Joe Dante being given unlimited creative control for a movie he didn't really want to make, it almost feels like a protest. It's self-referential, breaks the fourth wall, and insults itself. The black comedy of the original is replaced with cartoonish slapstick parody. Would I recommend it? Abso-loving-lutely. It's the kind of movie that can only be made by a man with lots of talent and no intentions whatsoever of following a single rule. The moment it clicked was when the gremlins suddenly invaded the movie theater playing their own movie, forcing Hulk Hogan to make them play the rest of it. Who the hell thinks of that?
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2019 05:26
|
|
|
Ok I want to get to 13 new views while keeping with the “essential” theme but I have been very surprised that I’ve seen most of the films. So I figured I’d try and find some “essentials” that theme to ones Lurdiak named like others have. That should get me to 13 if I find the time. Originally intended in honor of An American Werewolf in London it happens to fit perfectly to honor Gremlins as well as I submit the other film I remember thinking of from my early days when someone said “werewolf film” that also happens to be one of the few Joe Dante films I’ve never seen…  The Howling (1981) That was a very un-Dante like film. Its weird because I KNEW the Howling was a straight horror even though I’d never seen it, but I actually didn’t know it was a Joe Dante film until I went to watch it. And the second I saw that - and coming off the Burbs and with Gremlins in mind - I went in fully expecting at the very least a dark comedy element to it. But nope, a straight as hell horror with no weird stuff. Well… as little weird stuff as you can have in a film that includes an extended erotic werewolf transformation bestiality-esque sex scene. I guess that kind of was part of the film that felt the most like Joe Dante to me. Not the sex, but the transformation and the focus on it. You know how werewolf films so heavily rest on the transformation and wolf? Some do a great job and they’re remembered very well and some do a terrible job and it makes the whole thing a joke. As a result a lot of them seem to shy away from it a little, playing coy and only showing you flashes until the big moment? Well not Dante. He just loving goes for it and shows you like 20 different werewolves in every possible stage of transformation and some with horrible maiming and some with cute little puppy dog faces and some with detached limbs that transform on their own. In the most Joe Dante thing about this film he clearly just decided if he was making a werewolf film he was making a god damned werewolf film and going all in. And that’s definitely what I expect from him. That’s definitely why the film is so remembered because the story isn’t much to write home about. It’s alright. Perfectly pedestrian and most people kind of act logically and a danger builds to a climax. I never got bored or anything. But it’s nothing special either. But the film is all about watching all those wacky transformations, makeup, and wolves. I don’t know if they age well nearly 40 years later or what, but the whole show is just something to kind of marvel at. Incidentally I thought Christopher Stone was actually Tom Atkins so I was fully expecting him to be a douchebag based on my memories of Halloween III: Season of the Witch. I don’t know if this is an “essential” in the broad sense of the thread, but it very much felt like an essential for my own viewing as its just one of those films I’ve kind of gone through life as a horror fan somehow never seeing and always meaning to. It was even intended for my October marathon before I ended up replacing it with The Beyond for 1981. So I’m glad I saw it and the werewolf subgenre is so shallow compared to some of the other horror sub genres and the Howling seems like a major part of that. Matter of fact it looks like all the sequels are on Prime along with Ginger Snaps, Dog Soldiers, and a bunch of others I haven’t seen like Company of Wolves and Late Phases so I might make February a werewolf month. Apparently Prime got werewolf crazy lately. Also now I really want a hamburger. Watched - New (Total) 1. Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer (1989); 2. The ‘Burbs (1989); - (3). Frankenstein (1931); 3 (4). The Bride of Frankenstein (1933); 4 (5). Cat People (1942); 5 (6). The Haunting (1963); 6 (7). Peeping Tom (1960); 7 (8). The Howling (1981)
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2019 09:02
|
|
|
Friday 13th Part 5 Not a lot of imagination in the kills, the violence felt very neutered, not a lot of memorable moments or characters except for the creepy monther/son pair, who were very Texas Chainsaw, and the first kill, which came out of nowhere and resulted in about 20 people dying over a chocolate bar. It was entertaining enough. The only other film in this franchise I've watched is the first, so I guess I've still not seen Jason kill anyone 
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2019 13:27
|
|
|
STAC Goat posted:I don’t know if this is an “essential” in the broad sense of the thread, but it very much felt like an essential for my own viewing as its just one of those films I’ve kind of gone through life as a horror fan somehow never seeing and always meaning to. It was even intended for my October marathon before I ended up replacing it with The Beyond for 1981. So I’m glad I saw it and the werewolf subgenre is so shallow compared to some of the other horror sub genres and the Howling seems like a major part of that. Matter of fact it looks like all the sequels are on Prime along with Ginger Snaps, Dog Soldiers, and a bunch of others I haven’t seen like Company of Wolves and Late Phases so I might make February a werewolf month. Apparently Prime got werewolf crazy lately. Yea all four of those are top tier werewolf movies, and all very different too so they'd make a great marathon. The most "essential" are probably Ginger Snaps and Company of Wolves, but I'm sure plenty of people would go to bat for Dog Soldiers as essential too.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2019 14:52
|
|
|
Dig Soldiers is legit one of the best werewolf films ever made.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2019 14:56
|
|
|
Hollismason posted:Dog Soldiers is legit one of the best werewolf films ever made. It's also a great "hey, it's that guy!" movie, there's like 5 different "that guy"s in it that most people would probably recognize or find familiar.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2019 15:01
|
|
|
What about Dog Soldiers tho? edit: drat you Basef555
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2019 15:01
|
|
|
married but discreet posted:What about Dog Soldiers tho? If you want to make Dig Soldiers: Werewolves vs. Grabboids, go ahead and do it we'd all be there opening night I'm sure.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2019 15:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 00:35 |
|
|
Really it's my fault for thinking too long about a funny pun before giving up, I blame lack of sleep and coffee.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2019 15:06
|
|