|
You guys with your "do a marathon in October... now in May... now in January..." Its like you want me to watch nothing but horror. I've seen all the entries so far so I'm still waiting for a fresh one. I saw Birds just at the end of October so it feels early for a rewatch. I kind of hated Audition (the style) so I have no interest in a rewatch. And I've seen the Exorcist so many times, I considered a rewatch but I JUST cancelled my Hulu. So I'm still waiting to see one I can easily slip in and join in while saving my marathon energy for May. Franchescanado posted:Tippi Hedren's Melanie is a fun protagonist, however. Her 'romance' with Mitch (Rod Taylor) is less charming than it is bizarre, but they still seem to have a nice chemistry. One of my only "problems" with The Birds was that I couldn't figure if Tippi's whole romance behavior was purposely weird and creepy as Hitchcock having a laugh at the romcom or if that was just a modern interpretation I was projecting on Hitchcock. But I loved the Birds. I don't know if its "Hitchcock's best" because Hitchcock was a genius who had like 10 films you can reasonably argue as his "best". So its gonna come down to your own tastes and you'll have a lot of different reasonable arguments. But no, I don't think its particular "scary." Its definitely got tons of dread and discomfort but not "scary." But there's so much going on in that film and so many ways you can interpret the relationships and symbology of stuff that I think it stands out plenty. STAC Goat fucked around with this message at 22:28 on Jan 3, 2019 |
#
¿
Jan 3, 2019 22:23
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 11:47 |
|
|
Ok, that's the first I haven't seen before and its one that's been on and off my list for years and I always pass over for one reason or anoth, so I guess I'll join in. 1) Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer (1986) 30th Anniversary Edition on Amazon Prime I'm not really sure what I think of this one. Its not as shocking and depraved as I had prepared myself for. I suppose that's in part different expectations after 30+ years but also a bit of a testament to the idea that the violence isn't over the top or sensational, its just matter of the fact and real. I certainly can understand why it would have shocked and outraged people in the 80s. There's no doubt its sick, although I almost felt like I knew where we were going by the end of the film. That's a credit to the writing that it felt like the natural place and build without being an overt narrative, but it also kind of softened the blow(s) a bit. I guess my disappointment is that Michael Rooker is great and I go in expecting this amazing performance in a character piece and he really isn't given a hell of a lot to do. I get it. He's dead inside. But it was a surprising turn of events. Reading about the production respect to it. 28 days on a 16mm camera on a tiny budget. Its obviously very well done and has a vision that was probably very new and different for the time. This is not a movie that is my thing, that I "enjoy" watching, or that I have any desire to ever watch again. But its a well made film, for sure. And I'm glad to finally have it marked off the list.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2019 02:17
|
|
|
I think that's very much part of the film. When the movie begins you see it as a story of two 12 year olds getting to know each other and being first love. As it goes on you realize that one of them is a grown, God knows how old, monster preying on a lonely child. You see the man who has been with her and he's a beaten down, depressed, trapped, monster himself. And I think there's one question that lingered with me when the film was done. "When did she meet him?" I couldn't shake the idea that she did the exact same thing to him and she was now just seducing and abusing her replacement after 40 years of abusing and preying on him. So like, its a romance in the sense that, yes, the boy is "falling in love" for the first time. But on the flipside you have the old man falling out of love and desperate to be free and in the middle you have a true horror story of a monster. Not just because she sucks blood and murders people, but because she's a true predator in every sense of the word. She will manipulate, abuse, use up, and discard this one like she did the last. And I think that was all deliberate so I don't see it as a criticism, I see it as subtext. STAC Goat fucked around with this message at 04:56 on Jan 7, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2019 04:52
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:I would say whether or not it's a criticism depends on how the filmmakers intended it to be. The sequel novel goes one way with it, but the film has no sequel and as far as I know won't be getting one. So you have to consider whether the ending is intended to be cute or if it's intended to be horrifying. Fair, and I guess I'm getting a little too "Death of the Author" close in insisting my interpretation is right, and I hate that crap. Its just the way the film struck me but that certainly might be my own feelings of the entire "centuries old vampire romances a teen/child" thing. Basebf555 posted:I've seen every selection so far Henry was the only one I haven't seen so far, which really surprised me. I guess I've got less holes in my catalogue than I realized. Then again I only saw the Birds and Sleepaway Camp this past October and Audition the October before. So its probably a testament to how much my intention of using the October Marathon and year gimmick to fill essential holes has actually worked. STAC Goat fucked around with this message at 21:46 on Jan 7, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2019 21:44
|
|
|
Lurdiak posted:Frankenstein is available for streaming on iTunes and the Playstation store Both films are available on Starz if you have it. I've seen Frankenstein but I had Bride pegged for October when I finish off my years. I'm unsure about whether I want to watch films from that time period and risk making October harder, but leaning towards just gambling that I'll be able to find another 1935 movie without too much trouble. We'll see.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2019 22:20
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:Any one of us could get hit by a bus crossing the street tomorrow. Watch Bride of Frankenstein. I mean, I was leaning towards "it could get pulled off the streaming service by October." But yeah, your version works too.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2019 22:23
|
|
|
gey muckle mowser posted:The Black Room is a good one from 1935 and it is streaming on Prime (for the moment at least). Franchescanado posted:Several other 1935 horror films: Yeah, I'm sure there's tons of good options. I'm not actually nervous about it and its a problem for 10 months from now. I've not had a lot of trouble finding movies for the gimmick and I have no idea if stuff from the 30s will be easier because of copyright laws or harder because of just modern availability. We'll see. I'm definitely gonna watch Bride tonight or tomorrow. Basebf effectively put the fear of death in me.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2019 22:34
|
|
|
drat, the Frankenstein movies aren't actually available on my Starz because they're behind some mysterious extra pay window that it won't actually even tell me how to open. Its really weird.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 9, 2019 05:47
|
|
|
I'll get the Burbs in tonight or tomorrow. I pulled the trigger on that massive Legacy DVD set so I'll probably do Bride this weekend/next week. Otherwise I remain surprisingly caught up with the "essentials" list.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 11, 2019 21:38
|
|
|
I love it and would probably do a rewatch for fun, but its not on any streaming services. So I might just give Farewell to the Flesh a rewatch for the hell of it since its on Prime.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 11, 2019 22:00
|
|
|
The 'Burbs Why have I never seen this? Its one of those weird films that somehow evaded you. I mean, there's tons of "essentials" I haven't seen but most of them came before I was born. But I was a child of the '80s and a Joe Dante fan. So I've always been surprised I just never happened across this somehow. And then it becomes one of those things where you're like wondering if you just forgot it and thinking about it builds it up and for some reason I just never click on it to watch. So now i will because someone on the internet told me too. I dug it. I think maybe it could stand to be a little tighter and the tone could be a little bit tenser but I really like it for what it was doing. It feels a little off in tone, but that's probably Dante's intended tone. Hanks really carries it by just going big all the way and seeming willing to do anything. Its a great supporting cast and Dante directs the thing in a way that makes it feel like everyone just had a good time. The femur scene was definitely the high mark. There was definitely something off with Feldman's character. I'm not sure I buy the "trickster god" idea but I could buy Dante had something like that in mind. The whole thing was just wacky without ever accepting that wacky was a normal state of being. Feldman spending the entire movie going "look at these lunatics" keeps you there. I enjoyed it. Didn't love it but another I'm glad to have checked off my list. And I'm totally fine calling it a comedy horror. The tones are there. Seen Now Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer; The ‘Burbs Seen Never Bride of Frankenstein Seen Before The Exorcist; The Birds; Audition; Sleepaway Camp; Let The Right One In; Dawn of the Dead; Frankenstein; An American Werewolf in London; Candyman; Psycho
|
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2019 06:09
|
|
|
Suspiria is available for streaming for free on Tubi TV and Hoopla (a library app) if you got it.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2019 00:31
|
|
|
I pulled the trigger on that Universal Monsters Legacy set so let me go back and catch up. I saw Frankenstein during the '16 October marathon when I first started trying to correct how few "Essentials" and classics I'd actually seen and a year before I started the " And no doubt, its a good movie. Most notably to me is how that iconic lab set and "Its alive!" scene hold up today. Saying "holds up" feels kind of condescending to these old films, but I think its kind of a necessary thing to judge fairly. Because if I was judging this film technically by the expectations of the film industry 88 years later I'd have criticisms of camera work or pacing or a lack of soundtrack or whatever. I probably wouldn't think Whale was that great. But of course you have to recognize how long ago it was. How there were no steady cams and Whale's panning dolly shots actually seem kind of innovative for the time. And that lab set and scene really I think is a testament to Whale that it does hold up completely and without any caveats. And wow, Wikipedia tells me there was an actual Tesla coil in that scene, from Tesla's lab. That's trippy. And that the same equipment was used over and over until the 70s. That's seriously "iconic." I have to be honest, though. Its a little difficult to see Karloff and not imagine Herman Munster for a second. I really, really tried. Its just one of those things, I guess. Frankenstein's Monster and Karloff's look has been aped and copied and mocked so many times that its impossible to capture what it must have been like for audiences to see it at the time. It certainly didn't "horrify" me despite the awesome cold opening warning (and I really loved that) but I can't begin to imagine the sensibilities of a 1931 audience. I will say the flower scene does really hold up (there it is again) and play very well and "horrifying" despite it being such an iconic scene that has so entered the cultural zeitgeist. Its one of those scenes of the film you know is there even if you've never seen it, but there's a reason for that because it completely works. My lasting impression was actually that I think Henry kind of got screwed over by everyone else in the film being incompetent. Ok, sure, Dr. Frankenstein got a little obsessed, robbed some graves, and played God. He's not a saint. But its not like he killed anyone and he didn't even do that mad scientist thing of trying to protect his monstrous creation. No, Henry LEADS the angry mob of villagers with torches against his monster. Maybe not the best dad in the world but as soon as his creation starts killing people he's like "ok, put it down" and he even calls the cops when things get out of hand. Its like the most ration horror behavior ever. If Fritz isn't an incompetent and sadistic assistant and his teacher doesn't decide to do a live dissection of the murdering monster before killing it like he told everyone he would, this might have worked out. I mean, Henry had discovered something pretty amazing and the body count was still limited to a guy who kind of asked for it by poking the undead bear. But no, even the angry mob couldn't just follow him like they were supposed to. The ending is a little weird. I'm not sure James Whale really grasped the damage being thrown off a tower and bouncing off a windmill would do to the human body. But 1931, I guess. Or the studio pressure for sequels dating all the way back to then. I had intended to watch Bride as ordered but there was an hour long documentary on the DVD that kind of sucked me in. I never look at the extras on DVDs/Blu Rays but the historical nature of this stuff is way more interesting than general Making Of stuff. And I should say that the quality of the movie on this Legacy DVD was way better than I remember the AMC version I watched years ago. Even with me cheaping out and not getting the Blu Ray set this seems like a really good version, at least with the 1st of 30 films. So I’ll watch Bride tomorrow night.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2019 09:26
|
|
|
Lets knock a movie off my anticipated October list why don’t we? So I have a couple of big takeways from The Bride of Frankenstein. The first and most important is that while I wasn’t terribly impressed with James Whale in Frankenstein there’s really a world’s worth of improvement by Bride. I suppose that shouldn’t be a huge shock considering Frankenstein was only his 3rd film in only his second year as a director while he somehow managed to film 7 films in the 2 years between it and Bride. That seems utterly insane but it certainly would explain how he got so much better at his craft technically. Gone are the awkward camera work, cuts, and shots. Everything’s very fluid. The film itself is much better paced. He’s figured out the value of working a musical soundtrack in. There’s also obviously thematic changes. More comedy and character introduced into the film without losing the gothic horror feel. Less long monologues (I imagine a natural carry over from his play work) and more natural scenes. Just really a film that I find hard to nitpick in many ways at all* opposed to Frankenstein where I kind of overlooked some pretty obvious stuff. *The one nitpick is that while his pacing and scene work is definitely improved there still feels something a little off about the first half of the film. Its like we spend a ton of time early with Minnie and the village people (and make no mistake, I love Minnie), and then we spend a lot of time with Dr. Pretorius (and he is also amazing), and then we get an extended thing of the Monster trying to make friends and be more human (which again, is great and I’m in no way criticizing it). All these elements are great and awesome but it feels like they probably could have been interwoven a tad better. And beyond the technical Whale obviously works a lot more subtext and themes and imagery in there about god and man and the Monster’s nature and Frankenstein’s god complex. I doubt there’s anything I noticed or could say that hasn’t been analyzed to death in 86 years but even to a guy like me who rolls his eyes back at a lot of the hyper analysis seen around CD there’s plenty to pick up in this without digging or searching for it. Even as I’m typing this I’m listening to Clive Barker point out a whole gay subtext to it that I didn’t pick up on at all but totally see now. The other big takeaway? Why’d Henry build a self destruct lever in his lab? I don’t even know what to make of Dr. Pretorius. It feels like Whale just wanted to make a film about him and instead worked him into a Frankenstein sequel. He’s amazing and I could watch a million films about him. Like, at no point did I expect the Frankenstein sequel to have this crazy dude who gets wasted in crypts after arranging skeleton center pieces and has a hobby of growing Lilliputians. Sure, sure. Lets do a spinoff of him and Minnie. That’s the next Universal franchise, right? I’m gonna say I like the Frankenstein makeup more here but I think a lot of that is Whale’s better directing and the gradual progression of burns and stuff that the Monster picks up through the two films. Overall Karloff's just given a whole new task in this film. Instead of subtle, silent mannerisms and reactions which he did a great job with he's a more nuanced Monster showing more and learning more. And really, a great job and a very deserving 1-2 punch of why he's so celebrated and beloved. All in all a really good movie that I definitely see myself rewatching a bunch. Would definitely agree that its easily a superior sequel. I’m not sure its one of my favorite of all time or anything, but I can definitely see why it would be for some. Its so wacky and innovative and deep. There’s so much there and so much I’m sure you could watch over and over again and unwrap. It got a LOT of hype and it lived up to it. Also I kind of want to be a Burger Meister when I grow up. Seen Now Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer; The ‘Burbs; Bride of Frankenstein Seen Never Cat People Seen Before The Exorcist; The Birds; Audition; Sleepaway Camp; Let The Right One In; Dawn of the Dead; Frankenstein; An American Werewolf in London; Candyman; Psycho; The Return of the Living Dead; Suspiria STAC Goat fucked around with this message at 10:38 on Jan 16, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Jan 16, 2019 10:26
|
|
|
The story about "Romero Knockoff" is really funny and someone posted a video that tries to explain it. The gist is (as I remember it) that it IS a Romero knockoff but not in the way you thought. George Romero and John Russo created Night of the Living Dead together but had creative differences about where to take it in sequels. So they parted ways and cut an agreement that Romero could keep making "... of the Dead" films and Russo could make "Living Dead" films. And with that 2 of Lurdiak's essentials Dawn of the Dead and Return of the Living Dead happen both as official sequels to Night of the Living Dead by its original creator. Then 100 million people do knockoffs in an impossible confusing web of madness.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 16, 2019 11:00
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:I think you could argue that Pretorius was just as influential as a character as Dr. Frankenstein was, Cushing's Dr. Frankenstein seems to have taken so much from it and overall the modern idea of the "mad scientist" is really more of a combination of the two. His presence is such a genius move but also a risky one, I mean how many times have we seen a sequel where it feels like they shoehorned new characters into the story unsuccessfully? But again to be clear, Pretorius is amazing and I totally agree that its a risky and really well done trick to introduce such a different element into a working formula and for it to be a home run. As you said, its been tried a million times since and almost never works. Ok, lets do a movie. A little late into the month but I'm starting to really get into the horror vibe again. Lurdiak takes down another movie from my October list… Cat People (1942)  I’ve had this on my radar for a few years now given all the love it gets in this forum, but I never seem to watch it. Its actually weird because I’ve had plenty of opportunities but I always seem to miss them narrowly through my own choice or disregard. Like I know its on Filmstruck but I don’t think to go there until its being shut down. Or I record it of TCM but then my DVR fills up and i delete it to make room. Or I see it on TCM but then think its streaming online so I skip it only to realize its the remake streaming. Things totally in my hands that later i go “Oh, I’m an idiot. I really should have watched it.” Seems kind of perfect for this thread, really. An essential that I’m finally pushed into watching. I didn’t honestly know what to expect going in. The premise reads like a schlocky B movie… and I just got done watching Dr. Pretorius which seems as good of evidence as any that this forum loves it some good B. But that’s obviously not what this is at all. Matter of fact one of my favorite things about it is how it so successfully keeps up the question of whether Irena is ever going to actually turn into a cat or if we’re just gonna find her standing over a body dressed like Ariana Grande. Maybe I’m not supposed to wonder that. Maybe I’m supposed to just be waiting for the cat attack all along. Which don’t get me wrong, I am. But I definitely found myself kept waiting for the clues as to whether Irena was just really exactly what she seemed to be. A disturbed and desperately isolated young woman who could be dangerous. Similarly I wonder if I was reading too much into things thinking there’s a subtext here about the kind of society where a man could become infatuated with a lonely, disturbed foreign woman, marry her in a frenzy, send her to a shrink he’s friends with who hits on her while he goes on dates with his assistant, and then the three of them plot to toss her in a psych ward when he tells her he’s in love with someone else (duh). I mean, I’m not saying everyone in this film deserved to be eating by a cat. I’m not saying that. Technically its a beautifully shot film that does an amazing job with lighting and shadows not only to keep the mystery of Irena’s nature intact but to constantly have us wondering if there’s a monster or a cat or a lady with no friends lurking just off into the darkness. And this is again one of those “77 years ago” things where I find myself wondering how much of this was deeply innovative and astounding for the time. Just a quick glance over the Wikipedia entry tells me that the stalking scene was in fact the innovation for so many similar scenes that have followed for the last 80 years or so to the point where they’re called a “Lewton bus.” Its stuff like this that makes me regret sleeping through those Film History courses in college and wishing film historians didn’t always creep me out for some reason. All in all a very good film that I can definitely see myself rewatching. I’m not sure its bolting up my list to one of my favorites or anything but I can see how with proper context from a history book or documentary and multiple viewings to further recognize subtext it could climb and why it would be there for others. 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) STAC Goat fucked around with this message at 06:38 on Jan 17, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2019 06:32
|
|
|
Not only is that a film I haven't seen but its a film I just recorded on my DVR!
|
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2019 20:42
|
|
|
I now kind of want to watch that show just for that one character's kind of funny running gag. That's actually really clever. edit: Also that seems like a really weird show. STAC Goat fucked around with this message at 17:32 on Jan 20, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2019 17:29
|
|
|
Yeah Pet Sematary Two isn't a great movie but it's a better sequel that you'd expect. They more or less abandon the heavy melodrama that carries the first and replace it with a poo poo ton of psychotic zombie madness. It doesn't make for a better movie but it makes for a more fun one.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2019 22:55
|
|
|
 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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted: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. I should clarify as I worded that poorly. I've seen Dog Soldiers and Ginger Snaps. But I've only see the former once and its been awhile since I've seen the latter. So yeah, I feel like just marathoning the lot and ODing on werewolves along with seeing how long I can tolerate the Howling sequels.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2019 22:10
|
|
|
Watches Creepshow trailer. Have... I not watched Creepshow?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2019 00:45
|
|
|
Lets see... Creepshow (1982) That’s weird. There’s parts of this I remember very vividly. The Stephen King bit, of course. The Danson/Nielsen scene. As someone who grew up in the projects the cockroach scene is second only to Candyman for horrors I actually really got as a kid. At the same time I didn’t remember the Father’s Day segment at all. I remember the Danson/Nielsen scene but had no memory that it was Ted Danson and Leslie Nielsen in it. And even though I remember the Crate scene and Adrienne Barbeau’s role in it I totally had it merged in my mind with a similar scene from another film starring Christian Slater. I feel like somewhere along the line all those 80’s horror anthology films and tv shows just merged together in my mind. Creepshow, Tales of the Darkside, Amazing Stories, Tales from the Crypt, The Outer Limits, Twilight Zone. I don’t think my mind can keep any of them straight anymore and they’re just all part of some big mash up of segments in my memory. Now THAT’s Tom Atkins. And sure enough, he’s a douchebag. Anyway, as advertised loads of fun. King’s performance was always such a weird little treat even if the story isn’t much. Leslie Nielsen plays a very good slimy psychopath. And Barbeau will forever be the queen of Horror for me and one of my all time crushes. I don’t know that there’s much I can say that probably hasn’t been said. This obviously isn’t some revolutionary film or anything with deep subtext or nuanced characters. Its some horror legends getting together and making something that works because they know and love horror and know what works. Like I said, this kind of campy horror is really what I grew up on in the 80s and its all kind of smooshed together in my brain now but even if this wasn’t a new movie its clearly been long enough that I didn’t remember everything and was a good rewatch. RIP Ed Harris’ hair. You never stood a chance. The goal is three movies for tonight’s Saturday night in. I am so cool. 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); - (9). Creepshow (1982);
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2019 04:17
|
|
|
What, I'm the only one who stays home all Saturday night watching horror films? In honor of Suspiria I went into the main horror thread and asked around about what the next best Argento film to watch for a newb to him was and was surprised to get back a film I had never heard of. Then I went and looked up a bunch of “Argento’s Greatest” lists and was surprised to find that that same move was consistently #1 on every single list even over Suspiria. So while part of me doesn’t REALLY want to watch a giallo after that previous stuff about how giallo like movies don’t appeal to me part of me thinks I SHOULD watch a proper universally agreed upon giallo that also happens to apparently be regarded as the best Argento film. Besides, every Argento film is described by Wiki as a “giallo” so whatever…  Deep Red (1975) What the gently caress was the toy man? Honestly, this didn’t feel like a horror film to me (aside from that scene) much at all. I’m reading this described as Argento’s “transition” from “whodunits” to “supernatural” and it feels like 95% one and 5% other. I’m not gonna harp on the giallo thing too much because i hate people who are obsessive about stuff they subjectively dislike that others do well after the point has been made and they should move on. Suffice it to say that murder mysteries don’t do a lot for me and graphic killings do much less. There’s a reason i don’t watch the local news or those shows like Criminal Minds. And I know horror is a wide genre but I’m not sure how a film like this truly fits into it. It’s mainly those killings, huh? And I guess I’m coming to understand that its not that they’re hyper sexualized, its that they’re hyper stylized. I think in retrospect that’s obviously the biggest thematic difference between this and the other two films I described as “giallo like” in Peeping Tom and Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer. In Henry the killings are ugly, in Tom they’re shameful, but in Deep Red they have their very own “Its Murder Time!” up tempo theme music. It sends the very clear message that THESE are the show and its a show that had me literally turning away. I’m not really prudish about this stuff, I don’t think. I don’t like it but I love the Evil Dead franchise and zombie movies. I’m ok with gore, even if its not a draw for me. But there’s something about the style and FOCUS and LENGTH of these killings that consistently had me cringing and got an audible “Oh Jesus!” at the final one. Obviously that was kind of the point as it was the closing shot. It seems obvious Argento wants me to soak in them and be shocked. And it worked. Obviously lots of people love that and its the draw, I guess as it is in a lot of slashers and stuff like the Friday the 13th franchise. Just not my thing. Despite all this Argento’s obviously great at what he does. The film looks amazing and while I may not like those stylized killings they do stand out and make an impression. Music, color, imagery. Its all very pronounced and gorgeous in its way, even when its ugly. Story wise I don’t know. For the most part the plot moves easily enough along and I was never bored or confused (except for that toy man) but there were two big things that stood out to me. First, a character seems to get introduced and exist solely to be murdered brutally. Like it just happens in the middle of the film and feels like it screeches the story to a halt just to up the body count and give us more “Its Murder Time!” Second, Gianna just disappears from the film. I assume that was done to set her up as a red herring killer suspect when she shows up to save Marc right after he’s attacked and then acts all sketchy but I didn’t really buy into that so it just felt hackneyed and odd. It probably didn’t help that I happened to totally see the woman in the mirror at the beginning and more or less guessed at the mystery as I was going. I’m not a mystery person and I didn’t really devote much energy or thought space to trying to guess who the killer was, but like I saw that and then Carlo’s mom is there all weird and pointless and Marc is over the top misgynstic about how women are weak pretty much telegraphing that the killer is a woman and Carlo clearly couldn’t have been the sole killer so… yeah. Or maybe we were supposed to know? I couldn’t tell what was written on the mirror. I assume it was in Italian? Ultimately I feel like maybe this was the wrong Argento film to watch as like my 3rd ever. Maybe this should have been more of one of the last ones I saw after I had already been accustomed to his style and the giallo thing. But que sera sera. I prefer Suspiria. Oh yeah, I really hate that dubbing poo poo. It makes everyone look so detached and over the top melodramatic. I actually turned on closed captioning so I could just pretend it was subtitled. in honor of Possession I submit… eh, gently caress it… Lurdiak posted:Lifeforce is thematically appropriate because it is also a very insane movie starring a disturbingly beautiful French actress.  Lifeforce (1985) Boy. That’s a movie that really escalates and goes places. How does one even write a script that starts with people on a spaceship finding dead aliens and ends with a dude running through a zombie apocalypse destroyed London so he can stab a bat with a sword who is protecting two vampires doing it in St. Paul’s Cathedral so they can send souls to a penis ship? My imagination is just lame. quote:In an interview, Tobe Hooper discussed how Cannon Films gave him $25 million, free rein, and Wilson's book. Hooper then shares how giddy he was. "I thought I'd go back to my roots and make a 70 mm Hammer film.” “So, Mathilda. We’re going to make you the star of this movie and give you one of those ‘Introducing’ billings but you’re gonna have to be naked like the whooooole movie. Cool?” Whose hair was more tragic? Young Ed Harris or Young Patrick Stewart? quote:Jay Carr wrote in The Boston Globe that "it plays like a tap-dancing zombie.” I really feel like if this thing had been called Space Sex Vampires more people would have seen it. I don’t know if that was a good movie or a bad movie. I don’t know if its an essential or some weird artifact of the 80s best forgotten. I don’t know what I think of that this thing was brought to life by the creators of Texas Chainshaw Massacre and Return of the Living Dead teaming up. But this film is a loving experience, that’s for sure. quote:Leonard Maltin called the film "completely crazy" and said it was "ridiculous, but so bizarre, it's fascinating.”  I feel ya, Lamson. I do. 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); - (9). Creepshow (1982); 8 (10). Deep Red (1975); 9 (11). Lifeforce (1985)
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2019 09:36
|
|
|
Ah, that sucks. I usually try and keep an eye out for that. There were two different versions of Lifeforce and I picked the one I figured out was Hooper's original cut. It just didn't even occur to me with Deep Red. I just watched the version that came up on Prime. Although the version I watched was 144 minutes and didn't end on a freeze frame. So I dunno. It doesnt sound like the bad one you guys are describing. Edit: I'm an idiot. 1 hour, 44 minutes is 104 minutes. I watched the bad version. Well rewatching the end now i guess it freezes about halfway through the credits, if that's what you guys mean. I hadn't watched that deep last night. Either way I apologize for some of the criticism lobbied at Argento and his film. Basebf555 posted:Godamn STAC, you just had one of the all-time greatest movie nights a human being can possibly have. I'm extremely jealous. It kind of paced perfectly too. I got the fun, schlocky opened in Creepshow, the heavy involved entre of Deep Red, and the insane, decadent dessert of Lifeforce. Dumb luck really. STAC Goat fucked around with this message at 22:53 on Jan 27, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2019 22:32
|
|
|
Samuel Clemens posted:Now I'm really confused because the original version of Deep Red is 126 minutes long. There is no 144 minutes cut. I'm a sleep deprived idiot who misread 1 hour, 44 minutes as 144 minutes. So yeah, seems like I watched the bad US cut.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2019 22:50
|
|
|
Yeah, that makes sense because there's clearly a romantic subplot between those two but in the version I saw they fight, she flirts, and then they like never see each other again until he nearly dies and just trade a few phone calls. It's super weird. But knowing it's bad editing that removed scenes changes that dramatically. Also I imagine those scenes would have helped connect that middle part of the film where i said the story takes a break for some murders. Maybe even give context to one of those victims. That sucks. But at least it seems to directly counter my two main problems with the film that weren't just "I may not like giallo". I just watched a bad version.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2019 23:19
|
|
|
Lurdiak posted:Not available for streaming, but is on youtube I'm now hyper conscious of this... Wikipedia says the film is 102 minutes long. I find a non Youtube english subtitled version at this length. There's a version on youtube that is in Japanese and is 114 minutes long. There's an english subtitled version on youtube that is 138 minutes long. I'm going with the 102 unless someone's got a reason why there's 36 extra minutes of footage going around that must be watched?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2019 00:12
|
|
|
 The Abominable Dr. Phibes (1971) Oh, Dr. Phibes. Where have you been all my life? You know what’s weird? I love Vincent Price but I haven’t seen near enough of his films. I guess its a thing where i just absorbed him as a cultural icon growing up in the 80s without actually seeing the movies he had made in the 2 or 3 decades before I was born. He was the guy in the Thriller video and Animaniacs. I knew he was a horror icon and I loved him for it and yet I just hadn’t seen the films. But I just bought a dozen of them so we can change that. I know that what’s most famous for is playing amazing madmen and oh boy, is this one of those. Dr. Phibes is such an amazing, bizarre, unexplainable character. Oh sure, we get WHY he’s doing this and that he’s a brilliant musician and theologian to explain HOW but the method and the theatrics and the mysterious beautiful assistant and Dr. Phibes Clockwork Wizards. I don’t think I’ve ever been more excited by an opening than I was with the just pure “WTF?!” no excuses and no explanations introduction to us to Dr. Phibes in his lair mid murder plot. And of course the wonderful design of the sets and costumes. The waxy makeup to make Price’s real face look like a mask while the ultimately revealed true face looked so good I almost wish he had spent the entire film wearing it. Mid way through I was maybe starting to wear thin of the cop side of it but that lasted for maybe 10 minutes when suddenly the cops had me laughing out loud. It was the stupidest poo poo I was laughing at. Dumb 3rd grade stuff like “Where are you headed no?”/“The Lavatory.”/“Appropriate.” Just how deadpan they played it all really made it all click to me. Its kind of a brilliant storytelling format I’m not sure I’ve ever actually seen in another film. Just moving back and forth between Dr. Phibes’ completely unexplainable madness and brilliance with barely any dialogue and no expositions and then jumping to the befuddled cops constantly 5 steps behind him just scratching their heads as they attempt to explain what’s happening to themselves and us. Making the comedy of the film not jokes or a tone but just in how lost the police are by this insanity that is being played completely straight. The unicorn was just the amazing peak of it all as they finally get ahead of Phibes and then… whoops. Good think no cops went out onto the street to look for a man with a catapult, huh? Watching I began to see all the Horror Icons who were probably inspired by Phibes. Jigsaw seems fairly obvious and I’m not sure I would believe you if you told me James Wan and Leigh Whannell denied it. Just the insane traps and the ultimate key challenge to the doctor that Saw basically completely copied. Not to mention obviously the vendetta against the doctors who failed him. Jigsaw is totally a Dr. Phibes ripoff right down to Tobin Bell’s stilted form of speaking and Billy the Puppet’s robotic voice he spoke through. There was something else the film reminded me of towards the end but I’m totally drawing a blank. I honestly consider it a great shame of my life and missed opportunity that I haven’t spend my entire life watching and rewatching this film. After one watch there’s no way for me to say it but this may well be one of my favorite horror films ever. If I had watched it when I was a kid I have no doubt I would have watched it 50 times since, known every scene and line by heart, and would love it with all my heart. i was right to love you, Vincent Price. I just didn’t know why. Lurdiak posted:As with Friday the 13th, I recommend those who've already seen this film check out one of the entries in the Nightmare on Elm Street series they've never seen instead. It's a much more uneven series, but all of them have some creativity involved. Just please don't watch the remake. If I had time I was gonna do that for lols solely because its the only Nightmare film I've never seen but I picked it up years ago in a bargain bin with the Friday the 13th remake and Freddy vs Jason. But I definitely wouldn't have counted it as an "essential".
|
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2019 06:33
|
|
|
I don't need recommendations for Price, because as I said, I ended up buying like a dozen films of his along with Dr. Phibes for $20. Most of the big ones i know of are in there so I'm definitely gonna slot in a bunch for October, watch some more in May, and maybe some more in between if I'm in the mood. I watched this and typed it up as well last night but dozed off before i could post it. Sadly I didn't stay asleep and I'm SO TIRED I COULD STAB SOMEONE AND STEAL THEIR ARMOR FOR SOME RICE!  Onibaba (1964) Hmm. I’m not 100% sure what I thought of that, especially of it being a “horror”. Seems like according to the Wiki that’s long been a debate about what genre it is and I might lean away from horror. I can see why its seen as horror but at the same time I had an idea of where it might go with the jealous mother and unstable Haichi that would have been more horror to me and it went in a very different direction. I dunno. Is it weird that the film kind of reminded me of a Spike Lee Joint? Something about the summer atmosphere and long laid back days and neighbor drama where no one does anything too terrible but it just kind of escalates? I dunno. It was just this odd thing that jumped into my head and once it was there it seemed to make more sense. I should note I know almost nothing about Japanese cinema. I’ve never heard of Kaneto Shindo. I think my Japanese film viewing may actually be limited to this, Ju-On, Ringu and Audition. I’m probably forgetting something and saw some random kaiju films as a kid but like, that’s all that’s really coming to mind. All that aside I really did enjoy the film. Its a very well done piece that ages very well. Very beautiful shots and a great soundtrack that builds tension very well. Just a handful of characters, most of whom are well developed and feel full (the wife was a tad shallow but I got the sense she was kind of supposed to be because she had to be naive enough to fall for the old woman’s tricks). And that mask was awesome. I couldn’t figure out if the eyes moved or if it was one of those “the eyes follow you around the room” painting type things. Either way it was very cool and when it first appears I honestly wasn’t sure if there was an actual demon or not. An interesting view, for sure. I’m still not sure what I think of it but one I probably have to digest. 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); - (9). Creepshow (1982); 8 (10). Deep Red (1975); 9 (11). Lifeforce (1985); 10 (12). The Abominable Dr. Phibes (1971); 11 (13). Onibaba (1964) STAC Goat fucked around with this message at 15:14 on Jan 29, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2019 15:10
|
|
|
Akira Kurasawa is a name I've always known (I was a huge Wu Tang fan growing up, after all) but like I never actually saw Seven Samurai or anything. I've just never really been into that stuff and I guess I just didn't come across it easily. Nowadays I'm expanding my interests more. Part of that is probably maturity and more curiosity, some of it is probably that its easier to get stuff now than it ever was before, but part of it is definitely my involvement in these horror challenges that has forced me out of my comfort zones. Kurasawa at least is definitely one of those checks I should set out to mark off on my general non horror list. edit: Holy poo poo, Seven Samurai is 3 and a half hours? Maybe that's why I never watched it.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2019 15:23
|
|
|
Does it really makes sense to compare Nosferatu to Frankenstein? Like can't you chalk a lot of those "stage play" problems Whale had up to the industry's move into "talkies?" I'm no film historian but my understanding is they didn't know how to deal with that, they hired stage directors like Whale to figure it out, and there were growing pains. But couldn't it be argued that by contrast Nosferatu and Murnau are basically towards the end of an era that knew what it was doing and the film, while different from what we know today should be judged on that as a masterpiece? I should rewatch, but i was planning a rewatch for October. I should do both if I finish my 13 new essentials tonight. I've seen it a few times and love it.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2019 21:09
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 11:47 |
|
|
Someone in the horror thread this halloween described some kind of awesome church showing of it in NYC that I was so jealous I missed out on. At least I think it was Nosferatu.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2019 21:41
|
|