|
100% in. Been waiting for months and have been tinkering with my list nonstop! 🌻💀 Spook-A-Doodle Half-Way-To-Halloween ’22: Return of the Fallen & King Spring 💀🌻. The short version is I have 3 main goals here. 1) 13 Stephen King entries. 2) 13 films from my fallen Bracketology teams. 3) Any Bracketology films this year I didn't get to or that come up. I'll do challenges if they come. I'll do other scavenger hunts I have or movies I just feel in the mood for. I'll go overboard as always. Should be fun. gey muckle mowser posted:What DOESN'T Count As I do every year I will humbly suggest that if you just allow mini-series and say "it all counts as one entry" than the only person hurt by that is the one who chooses to spend 6-10 hours for 1 entry when others are getting 3-6 films in that time. And this has nothing to do with the fact that I'm theming my month off of Stephen King, Mike Flannagan, and Mick Garris. I swear. Now I'll drop it and just not count them as official entries if I watch them and nothing changes. Thank you for hearing me. The park needs new benches and too many dogs poop on my lawn.
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2022 21:19
|
|
mini-series
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 12:04 |
|
|
Gripweed posted:I vaguley remember people counting The Green Knight for last year's challenge, was that legit? I know it's by A24 and has a big scary monster so I assume it's pretty close to horror at least. There’s monsters, ghosts, and witches. I’ve seen movies with a lot less horror elements called horror. It’s also a pretty dark and harsh tone and story.
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2022 03:17
|
|
|
Two days into the month and I already have a huge backlog of movies to review. Can’t finish a job until you start it. 1. Magic (1978) Directed by Richard Attenborough; Screenplay by William Goldman; Based on Magic by William Goldman Watched on Kanopy A popped this on expecting a killer puppet movie and boy did I have the wrong read on that. No real surprise given the direct and cast of this that it was a lot more. No Chucky running around here, just a chilling and well done psychological thriller and character study. Hopkins is of course great but I give a ton of the credit to Ann Margaret and Burgess Meredith. The film had a hard time hooking me early. There’s something to that 70s style that feels a bit drab and almost made for tv quality that I have a hard time tapping into. That and our main character was being purposely mysterious about what was going on with him or his little buddy Fats. Things really started to speed up for me when he first starts to get humanized and we start to really see him and his psychosis with the delightful Margaret and then really hits the fan with the really incredible Meredith “Make Fats Shut Up For Five Minutes” scene. Tense as hell and incredibly well acted I was hooking from that point on. The film even managed to trick me a little so even when I was pretty sure what was happening and what wasn’t real I went and second guessed myself. Well done killer puppet movie. I’m a few days removed so I admit this film has faded a little. Some of that is probably that for as good as it is its also a little familiar. Magic has a rep as a cult classic and there’s no real mystery there as its clearly one of the first to go to this story, or at least with this level of talent behind it. And it largely holds up. There is that 70s aesthetic though. I don’t know what to call it but I’ve seen it a few times. And there’s just the reality of time. In 1978 this was probably a genuinely mysterious variation on Psycho or something. Now you can kind of see where its going because you’ve seen it before in other stories. Its still very well done and Hopkins’ performance alone makes it worth a watch. I think the most striking thing is that I didn’t notice at first but as the film goes on it really hit me that Fats looks like Anthony Hopkins. I don’t know if he always did and I just didn’t notice, if they tweaked the doll a little as the movie goes on, or if Hopkins’ appearance and demeanor changed to get closer to the doll. Or all of the above. But the most chilling part of the film is very late in when everything well and truly gone off the rails and Fats seems to have taken control and I looked and realized how much the two of them looked alike. Obviously intentional to the metaphor and theme and incredibly well executed. That journey alone is worth the price of admission.  - (2). A Quiet Place (2018) Written and directed by John Krasinski; Story by Bryan Woods and Scott Beck Watched on Paramount+ I saw this a few years back and enjoyed it a bunch so I was curious to see how it held up. Criticism on it seems harsh online sometimes. I guess I get why. Its a slow play that puts the emphasis on the characters and sentimentality instead of the monsters and action, and there’s definitely a horror audience that just wants monsters killing people sometimes. I’m a character and story guy myself. And granted Kasinski isn’t super subtle with a lot of his writing. He’s hanging guns on the wall all over the place and even Chekhov would have told him to chill and get a new trick. But it works and they pay off well. And as obvious as they are they’re not beaten over your head. They’re just spotlighted and then paid off. And don’t people love some quote about subtlety and cowards? Its really just about the characters of course. People seem to get caught up in analyzing their decisions and strategies that way people seem like they go about watching zombie movies like they’re planning their own survival plan. That’s not what this is about. Its not a story of how they survived, its a story of why they’re surviving. The impact of it, the mistakes, the emotional stress and trauma of all of this. Parents doing their best to protect their children in a world so unsafe for them. Children just trying to understand any of this at the same time they’re trying to figure out their parents and their places in the world. I role my eyes when someone starts talking about how they should live under a waterfall, not because that just seems like a problem in itself but because like that’s not the point. Sometimes characters are dumb. Sometimes they make mistakes and fail. And they have to live with it and move on and learn and heal. And that’s what the film really is. Along with some very good tension and jump scares. It would probably be unfair to call this a “first time” for Krasinski since he’s no amateur struggling to pull a film together. He’s got all the money and resources he needs here. Still it would also be unfair to not acknowledge its his first time out and its a pretty good job. Yes, the foreshadowing is obvious and yes they’re jump scares. But they work. There’s tension and gravitas and you get to know and care about the characters even as they barely say a word. And its a tight, well paced package that still worked for me even knowing how everything was gonna go. I wouldn’t call it one of my favorites or anything but I had a good time with it once again and it definitely does some unique stuff well.  2 (3). A Quiet Place Part II (2020) Written and directed by John Krasinski Watched on Paramount+ I wasn’t really sure I wanted to watch a sequel if I’m honest. The first film’s story feels very well self contained and at no part of it do I think “I want to see more of this world” or “I want to see more of these characters.” Its not that I didn’t enjoy them or care its just that once we get past that first film’s story and unique hook we struggle into falling into standard survival/zombie movie tropes. And sure enough, that’s kind of where we are. Now I like zombie/survival movies well enough so like I wasn’t mad about it either. But its also not breaking any new ground here. Krasinski does a good job not repeating himself and instead turning the sequel into a more action orientated film and splitting the focus in an even way that does still feel at least partially connected. Again, not subtle but well enough executed. And everyone does a good job. Cillian Murphy isn’t exactly playing a new character as the traumatized survivor who’s given up but has to learn to care and fight again. But he works his way into the film and cast well and I was glad the film doesn’t try and add too many other characters into the mix. The vision stays fairly focused even as it expands and that helps. And again, the film is tightly paced and doesn’t wear out its welcome. But I definitely felt some fatigue on the whole thing and I didn’t think the characters and story were as engaging as the first time through. I guess in some small ways its Aliens to Alien. I mean not that good but that kind of transition. And some people prefer Aliens. I prefer Alien. This one probably would satisfy the survival movie prepper crowd a bit more and it definitely has more of the monsters. None of that’s necessarily a bad thing to me but its also just not really what I liked about the first film. They still do try and focus on the characters and family and do a solid enough job of showing the growth of them and their journey. I really don’t have anything to criticize the film for. I just also don’t have anything really to praise it for either. Its a perfect good sequel.
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2022 20:34
|
|
|
gey muckle mowser posted:I lied, I got done with work early so it's YAY! quote:
However will I do this?
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2022 20:54
|
|
CHALLENGE TIME 
12. All Hail the King
|
Franchescanado posted:Watch the new Firestarter, maybe?  3 (4). Benny Loves You (2019) Written and directed by Karl Holt Watched on Showtime Anytime Return of the Fallen: 1/13 Team: The Magical Muppet Wizardry of Jim Henson and Friends To say this was a disappointment for me would be an understatement. I kind of hated it. Some of that is just false expectations. I was looking for a puppet film and this wasn’t that. I mean maybe they used puppets? I dunno. I’m not good at identifying how CGI works. Its all magic to me. And honestly the effects in this are pretty solid. I mean Benny looks a little goofy but that’s kind of when the film works the most. And while the big CGI fight finale isn’t exactly what I would have expected and I thought went on a bit too long it still all looked pretty good. Like not great but perfectly good for the B horror film I was watching about a killer doll that totally isn’t Elmo. I just hated everything in between that. The whole thing is built on this mean and nasty sense of humor that felt undeserved and distasteful. No characters are built or anything. They only just exist to be mean to. The opening sequence that doesn’t have a ton to do with the film but just kind of exists so they could do a punchline of a terrible mom slapping the hell out of her kid very nearly made me give up on the movie right off the bat. It does set the tone though. If slapping kids is what you consider super funny then the movie is gonna be a lot of fun for you. If you just want a movie that hates all its characters and just wants to kick them, except for the one perfect woman inexplicably attracted to the terrible writer/director/star character of course, then this might be your thing. I’m probably being a bit too harsh. Once Benny showed up I did start to enjoy it more and the killer doll being mean is a lot more fun and goofy than just dumb jokes about man children or whatever. I could have seen a lot of people having a lot of fun with this and its probably much better as a group watch. But i watched it alone as an end to my fun Puppet Week and it just was a miserable, bummer of a time for me.  4 (5). Strait-Jacket (1964) Directed by William Castle; Written by Robert Bloch Joan Crawford is amazing and William Castle knows how to make a schlocky b horror film. Crawford is like 3/3 in blowing me away with this, The Unknown, and Whatever Happened to Baby Jane? so I really should seek out more of her films. Well, there was Trog too but I don’t wanna talk about Trog. That’s just sad. But Crawford is dynamic and you can clearly see why she’s such an icon and has been for nearly 100 years. She’s an incredible actor whether she’s playing the deranged killer or the scared old lady. Her ability to go back and forth helps make this film that was probably a Psycho knockoff in many regards really work and come together. I also think Castle just does a good job juggling the twist/mystery of things. I mean you won’t be surprised but I wasn’t exactly sure how everything was going to play out. It felt like there were a few ways this could all play out. Joan being deranged. Her daughter being deranged. Her daughter making mom deranged. The film does a good job balancing that ambiguity and along with Crawford’s tremendous performance the whole thing kept me intrigued to the end. I’m not 100% sure how i feel about the ending. Again, it wasn’t a surprise and I’m ok with that because I think it did a good job getting us there. But i dunno. I think the problem is it doesn’t feel like it makes a ton of sense. I mean its a B Castle horror. I don’t need this to be a carefully crafted mystery. But as much as I don’t really care about whodunits I think they kind of have to have you going “yeah, that makes sense” in the end for them to fully land. And I don’t think this necessarily made sense or felt connected like that. I dunno. But that didn’t kill things for me or anything. I didn’t dislike the ending, it just didn’t land fully for me. But it was another fun Castle ride and another great Crawford performance. And I can’t be too mad about a simple good time that makes me want to see more of the players.  5 (6). Werewolves Within (2021) Directed by Josh Ruben; Written by Mishna Wolff; Based on Werewolves Within by Red Storm Entertainment Watched on Showtime Anytime That was fun I guess but I dunno. I felt like the tone never fully landed for me. Its like part quirky Twin Peaks town, part quirky Stephen King, part whodunit, part slapstick. Its not that the tones clash. You could probably draw a line between Twin Peaks and King fairly easily but it never felt fully settled to me. I’ve never seen Ruben’s other horror (although now that I see it stars Aya Cash I’m gonna have to) but I did see Death to 2021 and I just found that humor kind of grating. I wouldn’t go that far here. I actually mostly enjoyed this collection of vaguely familiar comedians just being all quirky and weird together stuck in a werewolf whodunit. But it never really felt like it got going for me or really started to click. Its also the second whodunit I watched in a row that just didn’t feel very well constructed as one. And I’m not generally a fan of those. I don’t want to guess the killer of a story, I want to just be engaged the whole way. And I don’t really mind of a film doesn’t focus on the mystery stuff or make it possible for you to guess the killer if its focus is somewhere else. And that’s definitely the case here. This is a comedy first and foremost and the murder mystery is really just setting it finds itself in. So its entirely fine that I can’t guess the killer. But I do think things have to have a kind of “oh, yeah that makes sense” feel in the end and I don’t know that this actually made any sense. It doesn’t really have to. Its just a lot of whacked out characters being wacky for laughs and a little gore. And that’s fine. I liked Sam Richardson and Milana Vayntrub and really the whole cast does a solid job. Ultimately comedy clicks for you or it doesn’t and this just never quite did. It didn’t put me off or lose me. I mostly enjoyed the whole film. I guess technically its the best video game movie adaption even if the adaption aspect of it seems tenuous and the video game premise is just like… a whodunit. But I dunno. A fine enough time if you want a horror comedy but nothing that really stood out to me.
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2022 21:53
|
|
|
Franchescanado posted:I thought you had run out because of your previous King binges. I didn't realize you were doing that for this challenge. Time is wonky. Even if I somehow manage to watch everything and run out before another ones comes out it turns out there a whole bunch of Bollywood King films to get to some day.
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2022 22:16
|
|
|
My main problem with Woodland Dark and Days Bewitched is that it felt like it went over the same themes and ideas a bunch of times. That would have been fine in a 90 minute doc but it felt like I was binging episodes of a series that kept recapping what we went over last week. Ultimately it’s very deep and if you’re interested it’s got a lot to give. But it’s also very academic feeling. I’m also currently debating if I can sell Children of the Corn as folk horror and realizing King might actually have written a lot of folk horror? I guess I always assumed folk had to be European or something. But he’s always writing about ancient poo poo who want you to worship them or die or something. STAC Goat fucked around with this message at 14:17 on May 3, 2022 |
|
#
¿
May 3, 2022 14:14
|
|
|
Bracketology kind of inspired a new challenge I’m adding as there’s 3 Frankenstein movies there and 3 prequels I “have” to watch and then 3 sequels I’ve wanted to watch so I’m crazy so why not watch 13 Frankenstein movies? - (7). The Curse of Frankenstein (1957) Directed by Terence Fisher; Screenplay by Jimmy Sangster; Based on Frankenstein 1818 novel by Mary Shelley 13 Frankensteins: 1/13 A fun if low key time. The Hammer Frankensteins are the best of the Hammer films to me in part because Cushing is just so great in the role but also because the role feels like it fixes the “problem” with Hammer for me. Hammer always has amazing costuming and sets and ambience but it also tends to have a lot of talking and slow play to a very quick and unsatisfying ending. I just spend the whole movie wanting to see Van Helsing confront Dracula and then when it happens its over before I can really appreciate it. But Frankenstein works around that because he’s the protagonist AND the monster. There’s a guy and a girl and another girl but they’re all there to help us know the Doctor and what kind of guy he is. Not outwardly a monster but a man who really is selfish to his core and completely unburned by pesky things like morals or guilt or honor. The more you get to know him the more its obvious that regardless of how charming he is or if women want him or men look up to him he’s bad news and won’t actually stop for anyone or anything. Story wise, you know, its the usual thing slow played. That’s Hammer for you. But Cushing’s so charming and good you don’t really mind if its just 90 minutes with him. Or at least I don’t. Again, I think the key here is that the Creature isn’t really the monster. He’s a monster but he’s just a consequence of the real monster’s actions. So even in the final confrontation its Frankenstein who kills someone, not the Creature. Accidental perhaps but Frankenstein doesn’t care. He’s shown us that. The accidental consequences of his science are meaningless. He’s a full on narcissist and not in a cartoony or over the top way the way many mad scientists are. He’s not mad. He’s just utterly amoral. And that’s scarier and more interesting 9 out of 10 times.  - (8). Children of the Corn (1984) Directed by Fritz Kiersch; Screenplay by George Goldsmith; Based on "Children of the Corn" by Stephen King Watched on Amazon Prime King Spring II: 1/13 I know many hate it but I dunno, I like it. Sure it drags a little in the middle and the decision to move away from King’s focus on the characters and to a more actiony thing and more of a traditional hollywood ending probably hurt things a bit. Its not a great film by any means. But psycho religious kids in the middle of nowhere is more than enough spooky for me. Taking the traditional folk horror theme of an isolated religious community going all crazy cult when things get rough and doing it with kids… well I guess Blood on Satan’s Claw did that first but its still pretty uncommon. And really, as weird and silly and almost assuredly bad as the sequels are it takes a great idea and something very interesting to spawn 11 films. There’s no accounting for the bad films that are made with low budgets and bad talent (and of course one recognizable future star to regret the film) but it has to start from somewhere interesting. And for the most part I do think this is interesting. Its great to see Linda Hamilton and funny to think she did this right before Terminator. What a time. In some alternate universe James Cameron directs Children of the Corn and the iconic sequel and then instead of making a long run of bad sequels for the next 30 years… well… I guess the same thing would have happened. The Terminator sequels ain’t great either. But they did cost a lot of money. Big budget Children of the Corn 6 universe is the one I think about. And the setting and cult are all great. Isaac always felt a bit second fiddle to me. He does talk too much. Malachi freaked me out. Hell, Malachi freaked his own parents out. Like the actor’s parents were scared of him. And can you blame him? Apparently in his audition he took one of the crew members hostage with a prop scythe or something. That kid could have gotten arrested or casted and I’m glad it worked out this way. He Who Walks Among Us might disagree but gently caress that guy. He picked Isaac. The ending of the movie is a little too silly. I’m talking specifically of the weird corny epilogue after the cheesy big finale. I don’t really mind the early 80s CGI and animation special effects. That stuff is charming. Maybe I would have liked some kind of puppet He Who Walks but hey, there’s time. 10 sequels through 4 decades I’m really looking forward to the evolution of bad special effects in this series. Even more than I am looking forward to the usual Before They Were Famous cameos you can always count on in horror sequels. You gotta enjoy yourself or else its a chore. That’s the trick to a bad horror franchise binge. And make no mistake I’m planning to watch all the Children of the Corn movies this month. I enjoyed this first one so starting off well. We’ll see how long that holds up. Wish me luck.  - (9). The Revenge of Frankenstein (1958) Directed by Terence Fisher; Screenplay by Jimmy Sangster 13 Frankensteins: 2/13 The most interesting thing about this one is really the way it kind of starts off with Frankenstein as the kind sympathetic guy. He’s a doctor everyone likes who is working on poor people. There’s this group of smug doctors who turn their noses up at his patients and want him to join their group just because he’s stealing patients from them after their previously tried to sabotage him. Some young rear end in a top hat is blackmailing him to work with him. There’s that funny scene of him having to put up with the pushy mom trying to throw her young daughter at him. If this is all you knew you’d think Frankenstein wasn’t such a bad guy. But that’s the beauty of Cushing’s Frankenstein because all of that is just a charming mask and a means to an end. He’s only working with the poor because people don’t ask questions. He’s still doing his crazy experiments, things those snooty doctors would never approve of if they had any idea. And you might still be with him and think he’s a nice enough guy while he’s feeding his bunnies and chimps but its all in what he says. That resolute lack of concern for any of the warning signs. The lack of a sense of responsibility for science or moral oath of a doctor. Frankenstein just pushes past all of that unaffected to do his experiments. The ending is maybe a bit anticlimactic as there is no true final conflict here, but it also feels really appropriate. Its Frankenstein’s hubris and disregard that takes him down in the end. He’s unconcerned about the law or the other doctors. And in the end none of them get him, its the poor victims he was experimenting on who lash out against the predator they now realize was preying on them. Something Frankenstein never considered because they were never people to him, just test subjects. No different than the bunnies or chimps. But because he is such a relentless genius he still gets the last laugh. No real laugh though. Frankenstein is unconcerned with such petty things. He just moves on to do more of his experiments, unfettered by law, moral, or death. A great little ending.
|
|
#
¿
May 3, 2022 18:15
|
|
|
M_Sinistrari posted:I'm still in the process of trying to find something Stephen King I haven't sat through yet. Would Rose Red count as a mini series or a movie since while it originally aired as a mini series, I believe it was home released edited to a movie? I think there’s a Rose Red prequel movie I’d that’s what you’re thinking of. There’s a new Firestarter being released in the 13th in theaters and on Peacock. If it helps here’s my list of King adaptions. It includes Hill stuff too and derivative work like sequels King has nothing to do with. But hey, there’s a Bollywood Misery! https://boxd.it/atpMo
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2022 18:31
|
|
|
 - (10). The Evil of Frankenstein (1964) Directed by Freddie Francis; Screenplay by Anthony Hinds 13 Frankensteins: 3/13 First time I saw this I was really disappointed it seemed to ditch continuity but going in prepared i think I was more receptive to taking it for what it is. And that’s fun as usual with Hammer and especially Cushing’s Frankenstein. In particular its fun to see him kind of go back and do the Universal version of the story and Creature. Like I enjoy Hammer just went its own way but its definitely fun to use that familiar Universal story and creature as a backstory this way and see Cushing and Hammer play it out. I guess the problem is that the film just doesn’t really do anything with that. Instead if introduces this whole other villain and subplot of Professor Zolton. This feels like a separate movie entirely and it makes Cushing’s Frankenstein feel like a bit of a supporting player in this. Also is Zolton a knockoff/nod to Dr Caliguri? So we just took two classic movies and smushed them together? That’s odd. I don’t dislike it or anything. Its still a fun watch and even if Zolton feels like he comes from another movie he’s still a fun enough villain. But I really liked that Frankenstein was the villain of the Hammer stories so this kind of odd backseat is still disappointing. He’s not a hero or anything. Cushing still maintains that cold indifference to anything but his science. It just doesn’t feel terribly important and him taking the wrap at the end almost feels like it makes him a victim. And I guess that’s different, but I dunno. Its odd. And its one of the only films of this series not done by Fisher so what can you do? But I mean its fine. But definitely the low point of the series to date.  - (11). Frankenstein Created Woman (1967) Directed by Terence Fisher; Written by John Elder 13 Frankensteins: 4/13 Frankenstein Created Women is a few things. First its a rebound for the series to me with the return of Fisher. It was only one film and Evil of Frankenstein isn’t terrible or anything but this feels like it has a better understand and focus of what the first two films did. Cushing’s Frankenstein is back to being the casually indifferent and contradictorily charming doctor. That outwardly a terrible person or villain scheming to do anything malicious but also solely motivated by his clinical pursuit of science and proving the brilliance of his exceptional mind. So like yeah I guess its kind of sad that the nice guy running his errands his being executed for a murder he probably didn’t commit and than the girl he loved killed herself. But Frankenstein just sees an opportunity. Fresh corpses are so hard to find and these just fell into his lap. Its also kind of a continuation of this weird place the last film ended up where its starting to feel less like movies written around Frankenstein and more like some kind of serial road tv series where Dr. Frankenstein goes from town to town trying to do his experiments and encountering the locals problems. But instead of Lorenzo Lamas or the A-Team solving their problems he’s just letting them happen and then harvesting the bodies. Its weird but kinda fun. And Fisher does a better job making it feel like Frankenstein is part of this even if he’s still oddly a supporting character. The main story is interesting though and potentially very progressive. As others say it doesn’t do nearly as much as it could do with the idea of a man’s soul being placed in a woman’s body. Its 1967 so if it had dug into that it probably wouldn’t have gone anywhere good. So maybe that’s a relief. But you can’t help but watch and not feel like there’s some stuff left on the table. Instead its just kind of a basic possession story with the added element of the ghost getting boobs to lure his victim in. Not a terrible little mini slasher but not the final act that I think could have really elevated this one. Its fun enough and you could probably read into things. But I dunno. I think more than the trans element that probably wasn’t intended I was a little disappointed they didn’t give Christine’s character more agency. Its played mostly as what’s his face’s revenge but she was victimized and had her dad murdered by these assholes too. Focusing more on a lucid Christine operating with the ghost… I dunno. There just feels like we took the shortest path to this idea and there’s a lot of ways it could have gone. Still, a fun enough watch with a memorably different story. And a return to form for Cushing’s Frankenstein even as we stay into this odd Incredible Hulk tv series. I haven’t seen beyond this one so I’m curious to see if that serial feel continues or if we get back to telling stories of the mad scientist. But I think I’m kind of good either way.
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2022 21:29
|
|
|
A whole rash of rewatches. Gotta get in some new films sooner or later but gotta work through the old ones first. And catch up on my reviews. - (12). Night of the Living Dead (1990) Directed by Tom Savini; Screenplay by George A. Romero Its been awhile since I've seen this one and the original is one of my favorites. One of those films I'll stop and watch whenever. But I always did like this version too. Its faithful in spirit, obviously, considering its made by the same people. And since it is the changes it makes feel more organic and like thinks they feel like they might have done different in the 20+ years since instead of other remake changes. Still while I like the choice to give Barbara more agency and a better character it does come at the cost of Ben and it does come with an ending that I don't know that I like. The remake ending is arguably "happier" considering no one survives the first film. But the ending of the first felt like it was saying something. I know Romero kind of denies some of it but casting a black man as your hero at the tail end of the civil right's movement (or what we call the end of a struggle that continues to this day) feels like it comes from somewhere even if subconsciously. And having it end in him mindlessly being killed by some random white dudes with guns the same year MLK died feels like something. On the flip side the ending to this just kind of feels like the general growing meanness and jaded outlook of the 80s and horror as well as society in general. Maybe Barbara's saying something about gender roles but it just feels like a gut punch ending for her character if no one else. And that's a bummer. I also feel like the first half of the film is kind of dry. Its a talented cast and I love Tony Todd. And all the credit in the world to casting him BEFORE Candyman. But there's a real kind of lack of energy in the setup for things. I chalk it up to Savini. It just feels like the guy behind the camera doesn't have that knowledge or experience to really fine tune it or fix what's off. And since its so faithful in so many ways at times it feels like line readings from a familiar play or something. I think it all picks up once the rest of the cast and the zombies show up. But the first act feels drawn out and slow to me. Still even though I'm saying a lot of criticism I did enjoy the film. And I still do appreciate what it does do well and just why it exists. In some ways its the most rational, fair remake of all time not made to make more money and capitalize on a property, but just to get some ownership of your property. But having revisited it its a film I'd probably watch again if someone asked me to but doesn't feel like part of the Dead series that really needs to be revisited again on my own.  - (13). Children of the Corn II: The Final Sacrifice (1992) Directed by David Price; Written by A. L. Katz and Gilbert Adler King Spring II: 2/13 I like the first film but a lot of people call it cheap and uninspired. I don't agree but man, they should see this one. The budget has that distinct feel of cheapness like it belongs on TV... and not a good network, an early 90s cable tv movie. And everything feels very rehashed but also just with a bunch more poo poo tossed in. And like its just too much poo poo. Why do we need two uncompelling romances? Just have to up the sex with all those amish kids running around? And why's there this whole subplot about a human conspiracy and scientific explanation for the kids going all bonkers when we're keeping with the supernatural thing? Like what purpose did that whole conspiracy serve? And why is there a scene in which the conspiracy is revealed and explained to the main characters who are then left for dead by the villain only for them to immediately argue how this could happen and if there's a supernatural element? It was that guy! He just tied you up and confessed! Why pick NOW to debate the spookiness of it all? And you gotta be impressed with someone taking a Stephen King story and ADDING a mystical indigenous wise man. Even when King avoids that sketchy trope someone just adds it for him. And that's another thing about the film. I couldn't tell if it was sincere or not. Like the wise man openly mocks the notion that he's some kind of racist cliche. He's actually a professor of anthropology. But he's still playing that role. And like the film is filled with these random meta jokes and over the top moments that seem like they're at least aware they're gonna get laughs. But that feels totally against tone with the film that for the most part seems to be a sincere little thing. Still for all its flaws... and make no mistake this is a bad movie... there's a certain charm to it for me. Probably just my age and that time period. Pretty girls in 90s denim and sneakers. Cheap special effects. A movie I didn't think I had seen but as I was watching realized I definitely had scene a lifetime ago. It was bad but an easy and weirdly enjoyable watch for me. Just dumb schlock from another time of my life. A simpler time, a harmless stupid movie. Sometimes horror is just that for me.  - (14). Children of the Corn III: Urban Harvest (1995) Directed by James D. R. Hickox; Written by Dode B. Levenson King Spring II: 3/13 Another movie I didn’t think I had seen but once I was watching it I was pretty sure I had. While the second Children of the Corn film just kind of rehashes the first one with a lot of 90s randomness tossed in this just kind of feels like 90s randomness. And it feels barely connected to King’s story at all. Like there’s a creepy religious kid who ostensibly came from that town, but he’s not actually even a kid. He’s like a satan corn demon or something. And yeah he’s luring a bunch of “kids” into his cult but its not like some religious rural cult slashing people thing now its just sexy young people in black getting drugged out by magic corn while creepy kid uses voodoo to kill people. Credit to the movie, the kid is creepy. I don’t know if he’s overacting deliberately or is just a melodramatic young actor but it does sell how unnervingly demon child the kid is. There’s some line where he says “some people can just see me for what I am” but really I mean… everyone kind of sees he’s creepy and weird as long as they haven’t taken the magic corn. Its unnerving. There’s also a fair bit of genuinely memorable special effects. Like I’d honestly tell you to actually seek this out for that stuff because if you like some fun cheap but ambitious practical effects this has some fun and funny stuff. But like skip the entire first half of the movie because its not there for the most part. That’s just kind of a boring setup and story that’s also kinda vaguely racist. Not like overtly but in a real “white dudes in the 90s writing black characters” way. Just something feels icky about it. But if you skip that and the creepy kid there’s definitely some fun weird monster and goop poo poo. There’s also random Charlize Theron and Ivana Milicevic as some of the definitely not kid sexy cult zombies. Not quite into full blown future stars regretting the bad horror movies they did when they were young territory yet but Charlize looks like Charlize and that’s kind of funny. So yeah, a fun ending keeps this out of a real doldrums rating and salvages a bad film into a pretty wild ending. But the first half of it is really kind of a chore and not very good at all. And the whole thing feels like its as written by someone who just was told the title “Children of the Corn” but didn’t actually bother to read the story or watch the previous two movies. I guess that’s not a terrible thing if you do something interesting and different with it. But this doesn’t. Its pretty bad. But also pretty goopy. So give it a chance at your own risk. 🌻💀 Spook-A-Doodle Half-Way-To-Halloween ’22: Return of the Fallen & King Spring II💀🌻 King Spring II: 3/13🎈Return of the Fallen: 1/13👻Spook-A-Doodle Challenges: 0/13🐺13 Frankensteins: 4/13 Watched - New (Total) 1. Magic (1978); - (2). A Quiet Place (2018); 2 (3). A Quiet Place Part II (2020); 3 (4). Benny Loves You (2019); 4 (5). Strait-Jacket (1964); 5 (6). Werewolves Within (2021); - (7). The Curse of Frankenstein (1957); - (8). Children of the Corn (1984); - (9). The Revenge of Frankenstein (1958); - (10). The Evil of Frankenstein (1964); - (11). Frankenstein Created Woman (1967); - (12). Night of the Living Dead (1990); - (13). Children of the Corn II: The Final Sacrifice (1992); - (14). Children of the Corn III: Urban Harvest (1995); STAC Goat fucked around with this message at 06:42 on May 6, 2022 |
|
#
¿
May 6, 2022 06:40
|
|
|
 - Moon Knight (2022) Directed by Mohamed Diab, Justin Benson, and Aaron Moorhead; Created by Jeremy Slater Watched on Disney+ Return of the Fallen: 2/13 - The Enemies of Horror Ok its a mini series so I guess that doesn’t count? Or that does now with the Rose Red designation? I dunno. I’m just gonna review it because I watched it and keep it separate for now. I dig me some MCU so its no real surprise that I enjoyed this. I do think this felt like a continuing trend of Phase 4 MCU feeling less like the same familiar Marvel stuff and more in the creative hands of those making it. There’s a bunch of horror people behind the cameras here and while I wouldn’t necessarily call this a full out horror there’s definitely an element of that in play. Not just in spooky stuff and monsters and zombie type things but in a psychological horror kind of sense. A real question of identity and sense of self and the existential horror of losing a grip on that. I think the series feels a little divided there. Some people definitely preferred it as it got weirder and darker towards the end and I get that. I probably did too. I’m not overly familiar with Moon Knight as a character. I know the elevator pitch but not much more so the first couple of episodes setting things up worked well for me in really coming to understand everything or at least start to. And I definitely enjoyed it when poo poo really hit the fan in the last couple of episodes. But there was definitely a middle part there that slowed down a bit. Focused more on a kind of Tomb Raider/Indiana Jones type journey that’s something I really can enjoy but it felt like it kind of slowed things down for a minute or so. I don’t know. I binged the whole thing in two days and the first four episodes in one so maybe I was really just feeling the need to space out the episodes a bit more. But it did feel like it kind of went “here’s some weird stuff… now lets go on an adventure… ok more weird stuff now”. But all told I really enjoyed this. Oscar Isaac is pretty great in the dual roles for this very unique superhero in the MCU. The series is definitely at its best when he’s out of costume and just playing his roles. I love F Murray Abraham as Khonshu. I just do. I actually really enjoyed the gods in total. Taweret was a delight and Ammit managed to somehow work even if on paper I feel like it shouldn’t have. The series felt like it managed to blue the lines so well between reality, delusion, and metaphysical magical god something that by the big finale fight I was just going with it. And May Calamawy does a good job as probably the one character who develops the most in the series as we get to know here and see her become more than she started as. I think I’m a fan and that was a delightful costume. And Ethan Hawke’s villain probably worked enough for me with that opening of the glass in his shoes and the constant slight sound of them you could hear when he walked up in a scene. That’s actually something I noticed in the series and it might have had something to do with Benson and Moorehead’s involvement, but I thought there was a lot fo really good subtle sound directing in this. Just the slight sound of broken glass or a fish tank or this or that. It was the sort of thing I sometimes thought might be in my house and just kind of played into the overall uncomfortable vibe of much of the series. Like most Marvel this probably wasn’t weird enough for people who find the MCU stuff too common or bland or whatever. Like most MCU films/shows it ends in a big CGI fight. But I like that stuff. I also really like Benson and Moorehead and while I’m not sure I’d call this their work I definitely felt like I felt their hands on it. With Sam Raimi’s Multiverse of Madness, Blade, and the upcoming Halloween Special as well as B&M being part of Loki S2 it feels like the MCU is getting a little more horrory. I actually thought we might see Blade, Werewolf or Night, or Black Knight in this one but this actually ended up being a very self contained story. There’s a few little nods to Madripor or The Ancestral Plane and maybe I missed something else but this did feel like it was the rare MCU property that stands alone nearly completely neither being set up from somewhere else nor setting something else up. The ending did obviously leave a ton more room for Moon Knight and whether we see a Season 2 or a movie I don’t know. But I get the feeling the MCU world is getting weirder and weirder and a bunch of Egyptian gods and their superhero avatars are gonna be interesting to see how they mix with someone else down the line.  6 (15). National Theatre Live: Frankenstein (2011) Directed by Danny Boyle; Written by Nick Dear Watched on Internet Archive 13 Frankensteins: 5/13 Technically I watched this twice since there’s two versions. One where Benedict Cumberbatch plays Frankenstein and Johnny Lee Miller plays the Creature and one where they switch roles. I wasn’t super sure if I would watch both. That was the plan but as the week wore on it seemed less and less likely to me. But once I did watch the first version (Miller/Creature; Cumberbatch/Frankenstein) not only did I really enjoy it but I was really interested to see how the two actors handled things differently. First as a general stage performance I really enjoyed the show. I think the lack of narration did lead to a few awkward transitions especially early on when the Creature is growing but in general I think the narrative flowed well and was very easy to follow. I don’t know what the steampunk really added to things but I really enjoyed the whole womb/light bulb lab setup as a simultaneously simple and incredibly extravagant alternative to those classic lab scenes from the Universal films that I so associate with the Frankenstein story. There’s no “Its alive!” here but its a very interesting theater version of that in its own way. Noticeably the first version I watched seemed more comedic. I don’t know how much of that was the actors hitting the comedy harder or the audience not responding to it. Or maybe both? Maybe the actors were reading the audience and adapting their performances? Its interesting because it changes the tone of a lot of the play and makes the same lines and scenes play differently. Of course the big thing is the two leads and that’s very interesting. Miller feels like he plays both characters more commanding and as a result more sinister. I never doubted his Creature was a villain. He was a very good villain who seemed quite evil. On the flip side Cumberbatch plays both characters more confused and disturbed. His Creature seems more child like and even as he’s doing evil things he seems to be lashing out in temper tantrums and immediately regretting it. I felt like Cumberbatch’s Creature wasn’t necessarily evil, or was at least fighting against it at times. Miller’s version felt like he was embracing being the monster. And it worked the same way with Frankenstein. Miller’s seems more arrogant and certain of what he’s doing. He feels like he’s talking down to Elizabeth and scoffing his father. But Cumberbatch’s felt more broken. Like he didn’t know how to talk to a woman and was hurt that he was disappointing his father. And he seems genuinely unsure of what to do with the Creature and scared. He just seemed like a man in crisis. Miller’s Frankenstein very much felt like a villain who knew what he was doing. Which version you prefer I think is a toss up. I can make arguments for both. I think I preferred Miller as the evil villainous Creature and Cumberbatch as the disturbed Frankenstein but maybe that’s just because it was the first one I watched. Different adaptions really do play it differently sometimes making the Creature a monster and sometimes a victim. Sometimes making Frankenstein a mad man or an amoral monster and sometimes just a tragic character who reaches for the sun and gets burnt. Both extremes feel represented here and that’s pretty cool. Ultimately I just don’t watch a lot fo live theater and if I’m being entirely honest there’s something I enjoy more about it than film. I mean I still think I’d watch a move 4 out of 5 times but there’s a lot of interesting comparisons and contrasts to the same play performed twice. And to be honest I kind of hate the way film fans really obsess over the same film they watch over and over. Taking scenes or shots and just hyper focusing on them again and again. Its dull to me and doesn’t feel terribly informative of the whole. But being able to notice how two actors play the same characters differently or how the same lines are delivered differently in two different performances feels like it reveals more about their intent and how they’re received. It feels like something real to talk about instead of just staring at a screen cap. I don’t know if I’m gonna start watching more live plays now. I wouldn’t mind. I’m not going to them. Covid and all. But I’m sure there’s ones I can find to watch on the TV. But it was a fun change of pace. 🌻💀 Spook-A-Doodle Half-Way-To-Halloween ’22: Return of the Fallen & King Spring II💀🌻 King Spring II: 3/13🎈Return of the Fallen: 2/13👻Spook-A-Doodle Challenges: 0/13🐺13 Frankensteins: 5/13 Watched - New (Total) 1. Magic (1978); - (2). A Quiet Place (2018); 2 (3). A Quiet Place Part II (2020); 3 (4). Benny Loves You (2019); 4 (5). Strait-Jacket (1964); 5 (6). Werewolves Within (2021); - (7). The Curse of Frankenstein (1957); - (8). Children of the Corn (1984); (9). The Revenge of Frankenstein (1958); - (10). The Evil of Frankenstein (1964); - (11). Frankenstein Created Woman (1967); - (12). Night of the Living Dead (1990); - (13). Children of the Corn II: The Final Sacrifice (1992); - (14). Children of the Corn III: Urban Harvest (1995); 6 (15). National Theatre Live: Frankenstein (2011); Series: Moon Knight (2022);
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2022 21:06
|
|
|
Rainy and dreary day put me in a certain mood. 7 (16). The Shallows (2016) Directed by Jaume Collet-Serra; Written by Anthony Jaswinsk A pretty solid shark movie. Its no Jaws or anything but its not trying to be. The Shallows actually holds the shark back a bit which I think is effective. Its not a slow play movie at all. The shark attacks early and often and we get into the tension quickly. But for the first half of the film or so I felt like I rarely actually saw the shark and was wondering if that was a budget thing or they couldn't film decent looking shark scenes. But the shark definitely shows up a LOT as we go and it definitely plays more like an intentional holding back to play into the character situation. What starts as a shocking attack and is visualized more through blood filled water and thrashing camera movements against rocks and a desperate scramble to recover or survive eventually becomes an extended scope of everything terrible that's happening and the impossible challenge of beating it. Its not really an Alien or Jaws thing where the monster is held back to build suspense for its big reveal but more about the character’s mindset and the growing sense of “do I keep fighting?” Lively does a good job in a role that really is just 100% her. Well… kinda. This isn’t a heavy dialogue or face closeup movie. Its there and Lively does a good job with that stuff. But its also a lot of action and very striking visuals and stunts and some much lesser known stunt woman is probably responsible for that stuff. Actually I looked it up. Kelly Richardson did most of the stunts and Isabella Nichols did the surfing stunts. Lively also did some stunts herself though. Three talented women who all deserve their due for a film entirely focused on this one character they all had a role in playing. And credit to the directing and editing since it merges them all well. I guess we don’t think a lot about a movie being able to effectively sell a stunt double as the star. Its something you only really notice when they fail. But its one of those movie magic things where when they do it right you believe in the lie even though mentally you know Blake Lively probably didn’t do all that intense poo poo. But I did buy it in the moment and feel compelled to look it up. And that’s a testament not only to the effectiveness of the magic but really how impactful and difficult the stunt work was and how good a job the women did. There’s some iffy CGI, I think. The jellyfish scene is very interesting and sounds good on paper but it kind of fell into the uncanny valley for me or something. That part I became very conscious of it not being real. But for the most part I think the film actually does a great job hiding the seams of the CGI. Hell they filmed most of the movie in a tank and on blue screens and I honestly didn’t notice. I thought the film looked gorgeous and the tranquil beauty of the “paradise” island put against the horror of the situation was very effective to me. To hear director Jaume Collet-Serra put it “Every scene has one shot that is real, and the other 99% is not – but the one real shot tricks you.” And for the most part that trick worked for me. I saw what the other hand was doing a few times for sure but for most of the show I was just watching the magic. The story is pretty simple and standard. No one’s reinventing the wheel here. Maybe a little tacky CGI and male gaze stuff? Early on it feels deliberate that we’re being shown that Blake Lively is a beautiful woman even if as the film goes on you might kind of have to have a weird king to be excited by watching her bleed and gangrene and starve to death. Of course she’s always still a beautiful actress and I couldn’t really shake the idea that the film was exploiting that a bit but maybe that’s more about me. I dunno. There were elements of the film that felt like they held it back from being a full hit for me but for the most part it worked. Its a tight, well done tension filled thriller that I really enjoyed.  8 (17). Leviathan (1989) Directed by George P. Cosmatos; Written by David Peoples and Jeb Stuart Return of the Fallen: 3/13 Everyone says its an Alien ripoff… and boy is it an Alien ripoff. I mean man. That couldn’t be more blatant. But I mean I love Alien so its not all that bad. The creature effects are pretty good and the cast is pretty fun and a nice recognizable nostalgia collection. I didn’t mind this at all really. But to be honest I watched it yesterday and I kind of can’t think of ANYTHING to say about it. Its just way too much of a really blatant Alien knockoff. I’m not bothered by that. A decent Alien knockoff in the ocean instead of space with a Thing like monster instead of a xenomorph isn’t a bad watch at all really. I always enjoy Ernie Hudson. And I can’t even remember why I know Amanda Pays. Do I really recognize her from Max Headroom? Was that show THAT impactful on my psyche? Was it some random episode of Psych? A short recurring character from The Flash I don’t remember? I have no idea. Its weird. I dunno. I just can’t think of anything to say.  9 (18). Piranha 3DD (2012) Directed by John Gulager; Written by Patrick Melton, Marcus Dunstan, and Joel Soisson; Based on Characters by Peter Goldfinger and Josh Stolbergi Well that was just trash. And not like trash that offended me. Just really unfunny, uninteresting, nothing trash. I feel like I watched it before but I what I think happened is that I started watching it once because some people said it was good, and then I turned it off and said “This movie?” and they were like “no, that’s the bad sequel” so I watched the other one. So I don’t know really know why I watched it this time. It kind of fit my theme/mood and I didn’t want anything heavy or real and it filled a challenge for me. But man. Just bad and dumb and nothing. At least I got some work done during it.
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2022 05:56
|
|
|
Lets Stephen King this poo poo. 10 (19). Children of the Corn IV: The Gathering (1996) Directed by Greg Spence; Written by Stephen Berger and Greg Spence King Spring II: 4/13 Whoever the user at tmdb is who threw a blue filter on half of the Children of the Corn sequel posters for some weird reason and then made them the primary one but also didn't do it with all of them... I don't like you and it makes me irrationally mad I can't figure out how to change it to the right posters. But then that's probably why you did it, isn't it? Ok, We've now entered the stage of the horror franchise where the most interesting thing about the movie is the future star who will one day regret having made this. Our familiar face here is Naomi Watts and this isn’t too early into her career, I guess because she had whole “star in Australia, try to break out in America” phase. Watts is Australian? Wait she’s British? I had no idea. But I digress. She’s reasonably experienced here and I think that benefits her and the film because this isn’t really a performance she has to regret. Its not a good film but that’s definitely not Watts’ fault. If anything I think she actually holds a fair bit of it together as the lead, especially once the story kind of stops dicking around and actually starts to focus in on her. Its not a very good story but Watts handles her part well and actually does have the presence for the finale which I was surprised to find got me engaged. Karen Black is also here and she does well and I feel like there was a lot of good work that could have been done if Black and Watts had been in the movie more together working through their issues and everything. But mostly Black just kind of acts senile but she’s actually being haunted or something? And Watts is kind of too busy dealing with the rest of the movie. So Black’s just doing her own thing and feels like a bit of a distraction. I’m honestly not even 100% sure what the story was. Its something about a ghost kid or something. We’re also well into the stage of the horror franchise where it has like no attachment to the original or the source material. Now we’re just collecting demon children who lived on farms. Its not complicated enough to be confused about but it also just kind of gets explained in one exposition dump without any real build or it feeling like it makes a ton of sense. Like if this all about one ghost kid why are all the kids calling themselves other names like they’re possessed by other ghost kids? I mean they’re dead kids and I guess the ghost kid is raising other ghost kids to do his bidding or something? Its just not very clear or meaningful and feels like you could have done it in more of a straight line. I dunno. Its not a good movie and really its a bad one. But grading on the scale of Children of the Corn sequels it could have been a lot worse. The first half pacing is all wrong and someone definitely needed to write a better script and realize that they should put their name horror icon in more of the movie with their young lead, especially when they’re playing mother and daughter. And really, just make a movie about cult kids and a corn god. That’s all I want to see. I haven’t seen a franchise lose the plot quite as proununced as this. It really is just a bunch of people who are like “Uh, I have a movie about a creepy kid dressed like he’s amish” now. That’s probably how this franchise got this big. Just any time the studio got a horror script about a creepy farm kid they threw “Children of the Corn” on it and King got a licensing check. Makes sense. Definitely has me excited for 6 more. Oh, and the pedophile from Glee is in this being a creepy kid. That was weird.  11 (20). Stephen King’s Night Shift Collection (The Boogeyman (1982)/Disciples of the Crow (1983)/The Woman in the Room (1983)) Directed by Jeff Schiro, John Woodward, and Frank Darabont; Written by Stephen King Watched on Youtube King Spring II: 5/13 Spook-A-Doodle Challenges: 1/13 gey muckle mowser posted:
Ok, you probably know the deal. Back in the 80s Stephen King was getting a bunch of request from student and amateur filmmakers asking if they could adapt his works so he started letting anyone adapt one of his works for $1 as long as he hadn’t already sold the rights to someone commercial and you don’t sell it. For the last four decades countless filmmakers have made god knows how many of these “Dollar Babies” and aired them at film festivals and such. Now since you can’t actually distribute them without King’s permission most of these are probably lost to most of us. But some of them sneak through either because King likes them or because its 2022 and you can only keep so much stuff off the internet. But back in the 80s King sold the rights to a handful of stories made from his Night Shift Collection including one from a guy named Frank Darabont. And the legend is that it was this very short that ultimately made Darabont a King Whisperer who would go on to make poo poo like Shawkshank Redemption, The Green Mile, and The Mist. So I’ve been meaning to get to some of these and now is a perfect time since its King Spring. And luckily not only are these three shorts readily available on Youtube but I found a new favorite youtube guy who put them all together to show. That’s convenient. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jaUlRpujXZY&list=PLyYndFVkzKFntZXi3z7xlzcKQuTA6U2yF&index=57  The Boogeyman (1982) Directed by Jeff Schiro The Boogeyman is a solid place to start off my string of Dollar Baby amateur shorts because its definitely very amateur. Its clear there’s a limit in finances and resources here and the quality is rough even for an 80s VHS but its still a pretty solid little piece. Largely a dude just sharing his story of growing madness as the monster in the closet kills his kids and just to be a bigger dick decides to lay it all at his feet. I mean, sure, a monster does his thing but if he also takes the time to frame and gently caress with you then he’s a real rear end in a top hat. And there’s a fun aspect to that and the ending here. Its not super surprising or anything but its a solid little spooky story that I would like to see it more drawn out. And luckily there’s a bunch of other adaptions of this so I’m gonna go looking. I like simple little spooky stories. And this is one decently done despite the limitations.  Disciples of the Crow (1983) Directed by John Woodward I’m watching all the Children of the Corn movies so it makes sense to get this one in too. Its another pretty solid if obviously limited piece. Since I’m at the part of my CotC where the sequels are just kind of showing they’ve never actually read or heard of a Stephen King story and are just doing random spooky stories about evil kids who dress Amish its fun seeing what’s really the most faithful adaption to this point. I mean its not all the way there and still kind of ends right when stuff gets real good but its good the core foundation. It kind of works like a real good prequel for the original one in a way. Watching creepy kids boiling frogs in witch cauldrons and poo poo is a lot of fun and sets up a cool little pre-story for these kids. That’s the biggest disappointment with the CotC movies really, that none of them have actually really dug into the whole concept of a bunch of kids worshipping an evil god. Like lets get culty here. This one does do some fun stuff and is a solid little ride. But again, it kind of stops right when it really gets good. But its always good to leave people wanting more. Especially if you’re a student filmmaker on a limited budget just trying to make an impression. Apparently John Woodward just kind of made porn after this… but hey. Everyone has their path. Wes Craven started there too.  The Woman in the Room (1983) Directed by Frank Darabont Wow. That was loving great. I love watching student films from accomplished directors because even when they kind of suck you can usually see little bits of the talent and future in them. Like a lot of people make movies and a lot more make amateur films. But the guys who do it really well clearly kind of had an idea early on and stand apart. Its like watching high school kids play basketball. Some are good, some are mediocre, some are bad… but you can tell when a kid is GOOD and just playing at a higher level. But holy crap. Darabont was Lebron. This poo poo is GOOD. Some of the performances are maybe a little uneven (although again, they’re really loving good for the level) and there’s still obviously a lack of budget but holy crap, this is a real film. How about another metaphor? You know when your friends invite you to see their band? Or like you go to a bar and hear a band. And like the band’s maybe ok. Maybe really fun to listen to and dance to. But every once and awhile you actually wanna buy that CD because the band is actually good. Or download the song on iTunes? Do bar bands still sell CDs or do they just have internet links drawn on a sign? I don’t know. I’m old. Point is this is GOOD. Darabont had been working as a PA for other films so he probably had some experience and know how of what to do beyond just film school stuff. But still. Its just real good and you can see the great director he’ll become here because he already is pretty great. The story is heartbreaking and told completely even in the short format. We have a full narrative here and even three acts. Like 3 or 4 locations. Dramatic shots. It just loving rocks. And by the time we get 20 minutes in and we’re getting to the conclusion I’m basically welling up with tears. Just drat. And honestly, this is the kind of story that much like King’s short stories feels like it works better in this format than as a full feature. You could spend more time with these characters and explore it more but the ideas are pretty simple and easy to get across. And the pain of a dying loved one is something sadly most of us can either remember or anticipate. And the challenge of whether your love for someone is more about what they want than what you do? If letting go and helping someone means doing something you might not be able to forgive yourself for? Its haunting and loving impactful. Just a really great story and a really great adaption. gently caress. I gotta go watch some Darabont.  12 (21). Children of the Corn V: Fields of Terror (1998) Written and directed by Ethan Wiley King Spring II: 6/13 Well the good news is someone’s read the original story. I mean, sorta. We’re at least back around the idea. Creepy cult of kids and some corn. Well “kids”. Eva Mendes ain’t 17, guys. Who are we kidding? But this actually seems to be actually treating itself as an actual sequel to the first film too kind of making reference to past events or something. I think? I dunno. To be honest the core story is still kind of loose. David Carradine is… what? A scarecrow? I don’t get it. And seriously, why is everyone in this cult old enough to drink except for the leader? Its ridiculous. Just this 10 year old kid ordering around a bunch of grown rear end people and everyone pretending they’re all attending the same school or like this kid just got skipped a couple of grades. Oh and then there’s the 14 year old girl impregnated by the 18 year old dude? That’s kind of upsetting and not really handled like it should be at all. Like no one’s reacting to that poo poo at all. Is it just me? loving middle america gonna tell me what the age of consent is or something. But seriously the age thing is weird and impossible to ignore. Like I guess the main characters are supposed to be high schoolers who are just on some random road trip to bury their buddy? No one’s really treating them like kids but the entire story kind of demands that they are under 18. Its really a shock when Mendes is like “hey, I’m under 18”. No you’re not. None of your friends are. You’re all clearly in your 20s. So are those guys too. I know its Hollywood and we pretend grown people are teenagers but this is just weird. It really is that kid I think. Its just kind of a silly juxtaposition. But no, its also the weirdness of how the story simultaneously doesn’t treat them as kids at all but also basically requires they be kids by the rules. Its like they wrote and cast the movie and then someone was like “Oh poo poo, the book says ‘children’ and you gotta die if you’re 18” but it was just too late so they just went with what they had. I dunno. Its weird. Its probably not a terrible movie. Its not good, but its definitely not the worst CotC movie. The consistent pattern is that there first half of these movies are really dull and then the finale actually has a little fun. There’s a really cool effect at least and some zany action. It wasn’t great but it could have been a lot worse. I should also say there’s this odd suicide theme during this that I think they meant to be really deep and drive the emotional core of this but… well, its not written well at all. Its just like this uncomfortable subject that no one really deals with and then someone just sacrifices themselves to a deity because the first person who actually talked to them was a corn cult member. Come to think of it, that’s the plot of Midsommar. So clearly Ari Aster watched this crappy film and was like “I can do better.” This writer/director made House II. I know I saw that but don’t really remember it except that its loving weird. He also made a film about a Santa’s elf superhero. So why is this so boring and poorly made? Dude seemed to have ideas. Did the studio just say “naw, we can’t make a movie with a bunch of kids. Cast a bunch of 25 year olds and have this really sexy future star have a sex scene for no real reason.”? Why am I writing so much about this movie? I have like 5 more of these. Maybe I’m just avoiding them. 🌻💀 Spook-A-Doodle Half-Way-To-Halloween ’22: Return of the Fallen & King Spring II💀🌻 King Spring II: 6/13🎈Return of the Fallen: 3/13👻Spook-A-Doodle Challenges: 1/13🐺13 Frankensteins: 5/13 Watched - New (Total) 1. Magic (1978); - (2). A Quiet Place (2018); 2 (3). A Quiet Place Part II (2020); 3 (4). Benny Loves You (2019); 4 (5). Strait-Jacket (1964); 5 (6). Werewolves Within (2021); - (7). The Curse of Frankenstein (1957); - (8). Children of the Corn (1984); (9). The Revenge of Frankenstein (1958); - (10). The Evil of Frankenstein (1964); - (11). Frankenstein Created Woman (1967); - (12). Night of the Living Dead (1990); - (13). Children of the Corn II: The Final Sacrifice (1992); - (14). Children of the Corn III: Urban Harvest (1995); 6 (15). National Theatre Live: Frankenstein (2011); 7 (16). The Shallows (2016); 8 (17). Leviathan (1989); 9 (18). Piranha 3DD (2012); 10 (19). Children of the Corn IV: The Gathering (1996); 11 (20). Stephen King’s Nightshift Collection (The Boogeyman (1982)/Disciples of the Crow (1983)/The Woman in the Room (1983)); 12 (21). Children of the Corn V: Fields of Terror (1998); Series: Moon Knight (2022);
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2022 06:05
|
|
|
 13 (22). The Ghoul (1933) Directed by T. Hayes Hunter; Written by Roland Pertwee, John Hastings Turner, and Rupert Downing (adaptation); Based on Play by Dr. Frank King and Leonard Hines Watched on Svengoolie. Spook-A-Doodle Challenges: 2/13 gey muckle mowser posted:
Svengoolie promises me a formerly lost KARLOFF film and I get excited. He notes that prior to this Boris had come off a string of Frankenstein, The Old Dark House, and The Mummy and in truth… this kind of feels like a bit of all of them. Boris plays an expert on Egyptology who thanks to some of that magic is resurrected as a mute hulking monster who runs around a spooky house chasing all the wacky randos in it. Its adapted from a story so maybe those similarities are accidental, and maybe its not yet another case of Boris sadly being given too little to do except stalk around silently. That’s a shame because Karloff kills whenever he’s allowed to do more but sadly here most of the time is being given to all the wacky folks. Including oddly the romance between two cousins? That’s weird. The highlight of the cast is Ernest Thesiger who is a perpetual delight with Karloff in Old Dark House and soon after this Bride of Frankenstein. He doesn’t get a ton of time here but when he does it feels like he’s outclassing everyone else and I almost care. I wouldn’t say the rest of the cast is bad exactly, the stuff just really isn’t all that interesting. It definitely feels like a film that’s afraid to be a horror. Understandable I guess, this being 1933 and the genre only barely existing but the indecision kind of shows not only when the movie tosses in some exposition to hand wave a rational explanation for stuff that could just be magic but just in the overall pacing and tone. Is it a romance? Is it a madcap comedy? Is it a terrifying thriller? It feels like its trying to be all these things but not really finding enough of any of them. I’m never gonna be entirely disappointed watching KARLOFF skulk around a spooky house. And I did giggle a few times. And besides the cousin thing there was also this really weird scene where a dude in brown face had dirty talk with a girl by roleplaying beating a slave? What the hell? This is VERY 1933 English in certain ways that aren’t great. But it was also a light Svengoolie watch. Its also the last episode on my DVR that’s been backlogged with Svengoolie movies for like a year. So there’s both a great sense of relief and a little sadness to not have any of them calling to me. But there’s always next Saturday.  14 (23). Children of the Corn 666: Isaac's Return (1999) Directed by Kari Skogland; Written by Tim Sulkaa and John Franklin King Spring II: 7/13 I may be blinded by the sudden introduction of actual continuity but that wasn’t that bad? This not only brings back Isaac and the original actor from the first film but it feels like its making a genuine effort to be a sequel instead of just a random horror about some spooky farmer kid. And that really did kind of pump me up for it and kind of sustain me. Its also got a couple of recognizable faces in Stacy Keach and Nancy Allen and a few pretty young people from 1999 I kind of vaguely recognize but have no idea why. And I kind of like the idea of the “Children of the Children.” This idea of a handful of those cult kids surviving and holding on to their beliefs and this little ghost town spending the last generation dealing with the remnants and ideas being passed down like any kind of town secrets and wacky religious folks. I was debating if Children of the Corn qualifies as “folk horror” and I realized I kind of thought of folk horror as needing to be a period piece and probably European. The idea of a modern US folk story felt off to me that’s kind of what the original is and this is in some ways even more of that. Its less interested in like ancient rituals and more about like the way ideas linger and get passed down. And these random folks in this run down middle america town are in a pretty similar position as many of those folks turning to witches and the devil in those other period piece stories. The problem with the film really feels like there’s just too much going on and its kind of a rushed mess. Its not that the story doesn’t make sense, its just that it feels like its trying so hard to tell so much story and link so much stuff that it doesn’t really ever stop and catch its breath and let anything sink in. Our main character/final girl is bouncing through clues, revelations, and creepy townsfolk so fast that its hard to really get any great sense of it and harder to really invest in her perspective and WHY she’s doing any of this. Especially when she starts having sex with a dude in the middle of this crazy. I know we gotta fulfill prophecies and all but we’re just not leaving enough room for the characters and story to do their work. The film is co-written by Isaac’s actor John Franklin and some guy named Tim Sulka who doesn’t have any other credits I can find. And Kari Skogland is largely a TV director still doing stuff today like MCU shows and NOS4A2. So from the writers it very much feels like a bit of a labor of love, someone who has been thinking of story for awhile and has a lot of ideas. And Skogland’s directing is competent but does have that vague TV quality and lacks any real feature film punch. And that hurts the overall pacing and story layout but it also leaves the finale without the real necessary punch it needs. The film doesn’t feel too far off from being something better. Another draft of the script, a little more money, a punchier ending. Not too much but definitely things that feel missing or flawed. But for how flawed the film is its so dense with stuff doing competently that I had no problem at all watching it. It was just hard to really get super engaged in the story and when it ended I didn’t really feel like I came away with much except some canon for the wiki.  15 (24). Night of the Living Dead (2014) Written and directed by Chad Zuver Return of the Fallen: 4/13 - Knockoffs of the Living Dead Knockoffs of the 13 Dead: 2/13 Couldn't sleep and just popped this on. There's a little charm here in how it tries to both be faithful and respectful to the original Romero film but also adds its own stuff and changes characters around. And I don't totally hate the changes. Making Barbara a teenager kind of lets you do the traumatized girl thing without being kind of misogynistic but also lets her rebel in a way that actually feels on paper a bit more natural than the 90 version's attempt to just turn her into half a nihilistic action star. Having a paternalistic dad for her also kind of lets you do the conflict with Ben and someone watching over Barb in a different way while Helen has no rear end in a top hat husband around and gets to have a new story. And for fun we the young couple into a lesbian couple because why not? That's all on paper though. In execution this is bad. Poorly written and acted. Its funny that the only actors in this cast with any other credits are the zombies. And even though some of those character changes seem kind of interesting on paper they kind of don't get written into anything interesting or compelling. The poor writing, acting, and low budget makes their actions all feel more irrational and random. I don't mind characters acting irrationally, especially in a film like this. People who get hung up on characters in a zombie movie making smart strategic survival decisions generally miss the point that most of these films aren't about that but rather about the way characters react to the world shaking revelation of the impossible and a nightmare scenario. I myself would probably chug whiskey and curl up in a ball. But there's irrational actions that go somewhere thematically and there's people just yelling at each other and running in directions like chickens. And that’s really what we have here. There’s a couple of moments or scenes that probably would have been compelling in a better made film but mostly this is just people running through some motions in a familiar but not good at all song. And I swear at one point Barbara called her sister “Barbara”. And either no one noticed or no one really cared to film a second take. That’s about where we’re at with this. Its cute and I honest am kind of compelled now to watch a bunch of these knockoffs. After watching some Stephen King Dollar Babies and seeing what amateur filmmakers can do with King stories not only do I feel interested in watching some more of those but the idea of amateur filmmakers taking advantage of NotlD’s public domain status to give it a whirl is interesting to me too. I don’t know if I’m gonna get a lot of good films this way but as someone who once had dreams of making movies and took my failed shots I respect the passion and work that goes into this stuff and always enjoy seeing what comes of it.
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2022 05:15
|
|
13. Sins of the Past
|
Basebf555 posted:I actually think The People Under the Stairs may be Craven's best film. I suppose it's a hot take to say it would be anything other than Nightmare on Elm Street but for me it's really a decision between The People Under the Stairs and Scream, with NOES the clear #3. I'd say that's safely my top 4 with Serpent and the Rainbow rounding out the pool. What's 1 and what's 4 I don't know. I think that changes on mood and I could make an argument for any order. But those are the 4 I'd recommend to someone. dorium posted:30 AHHHHHH!
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2022 19:55
|
|
|
 16 (25). Frankenstein Must Be Destroyed (1969) Directed by Terence Fisher; Screenplay by Bert Batt; Story by Anthony Nelson Keys and Bert Batt 13 Frankenst13ns: 6/13 Ugh, that scene really dragged this down half a star for me and makes it hard to hit that like button. I understand what they’re trying to do here. I broadly agree with it. I really got excited early on when the movie opens with Cushing ripping off a rubber mask and kicking a severed head down a well after a fight and before evading the cops. It not only had some madcap energy I was looking forward to but felt like it was really getting back to Frankenstein being this evil monster just racking up the sins and crimes in pursuit of his scientific experiments. I loved this after the last couple of films feeling like Frankenstein was kind of a supporting character in his own movies. So he's back to truly be the villain and I can get behind that. And I get it. We want to make him very evil and create a chasm between Anna and Karl as one is being truly terrorized by this monster and the other is becoming yet another of Frankenstein’s assistants seduced by the marvels of his brilliance and fantastical experiments. I get it. But that scene just is entirely unnecessary and goes nowhere and just ends up looming as a distraction since its never addressed or paid off. And its just incredibly unpleasant to watch. To testament apparently everyone hated it. Fischer, Cushing, and Veronica Carlson. And lo and behold it was entirely demanded by the studio. I guess that story never gets old. Apparently they also added the wacky cops. I actually found them kind of interesting early on when I thought they were like a goofy Holmes and Watson spoof and this was going to be a crazier film. But its tone feels at odds with the entire core story and just feels like it hurts the overall flow of things (and takes Hammer rarely past the 90 minute mark). Its not a bad film really. Cushing is great as always and Carlson really does good work with a difficult and under developed role. And I did love seeing Frankenstein back to his roots. I also really liked the way the Creature story both plays directing into Hammer Frankenstein’s whole character of a sociopath willing to do anything in the pursuit of knowledge and advancement and the classic story with the Creature luring his creator into a trap and battle of wits and wills. I liked it. Its as clever. But it wasn’t smooth. And I would really like to see what this film looks like with all that studio excess removed to make a tighter story with less dumb comedy and unnecessary rape. That’s probably not that hard to do and is maybe even out there. But we get what we get and that’s a film that does a lot right, feels like it could have been real good, but is sadly held back with mistakes and unnecessary baggage.  - (26). Night of the Living Dead (1968) Directed by George A. Romero; Screenplay by John Russo and George A. Romero Knockoffs of the 13 Dead: 3/13 For some reason I felt compelled to watch Pittsburgh get eaten by zombies tonight. I love Night and I really don’t mind watching it any time. I’ve popped it on countless times in my life and while its hardly a feel good movie its just always such an engaging and well done story that I get sucked right in and have a great time. I’ve missed school, sleep, and other stuff to watch this. But you know, I’ve never seen the color version. There’s a time I would have just rejected it out fo hand as some kind of bastardization but I’m much more chill and less pretentious now. I’m watching a bunch of remakes so why not watch a revamped version of the original and see what it has? The runtime on this is 96 minutes so I don’t think I got the Russo added scenes that sound like crap. I got pale green zombies so I think that’s the first 86 colorization from Hal Roach? I don’t know. Its also been awhile so I don’t really know if I got a changed score. I revisited the end of he original and it sounds mostly the same. So really the focus is on the color and I didn’t hate it. At times I definitely think it enhanced things and really helped show up the gore and effects better. Go figure, Tom Savini was good at that stuff. The zombies are what they are. They’re not that dissimilar from Dawn and while they’re not terribly impressive they’re fine. The problem is really in some of the lighting in scenes. Its a black and white movie filmed at night so like there’s obvious consequences of coloring it that weren’t part of Romero’s plan. You can see a clear difference between the day scenes and the night scenes and really if there’s any reason not to support this kind of revision of films its probably that. You’re gonna create flaws that weren’t actually there originally. Still, as someone who has seen the film tons of times it was an interesting experiment and I don’t think it took that much away. I could see myself watching it again or another color version. Or that added scenes version. But I don’t think I feel compelled to choose that again and if I was showing this to anyone for the first time I’d absolutely show them the black and white original. If you don’t like b&w fair enough but that’s what the film was so its definitely how I’d present it. But art is fun to mess around with and see how it looks in different shades. And there’s no real harm in that since no one’s painting over the original. And color or b&w its still one of my favorite horror of all time. As the yinzers threw Ben’s body on the fire I thought I vaguely heard an “Igor” chant.  17 (27). The Changeover (2017) Directed by Miranda Harcourt and Stuart McKenzie; Written by Margaret Mahy Watched on Amazon Prime I don’t really like YA and I’ve thought a lot about the why of that. Its been suggested that not liking YA is basically a rejection of stories for young women in an industry dominated with stories about men. I don’t THINK that’s what I’m doing but I can’t deny that’s the landscape so maybe it is? If I was being lovely the only way to fix that is to accept the possibility and challenge it. But I’m not sure, after all the same argument has been made about rape films and while I can see the idea that many of those stories are focused on women and their trauma and struggles its not that I dislike. Its that I don’t like revenge/slasher stories ANYWAY so toss rape into the mix and its just an unpleasant experience. I’m just as disinterested in watching Death Wish. And similarly I don’t think my problem with YA films is the focus on women, its the kind of coming of age chosen one fantasy thing. I don’t like those movies either and putting a young man in that seat doesn’t change things for me. So maybe that’s it? Ok, now that I’ve finished rationalizing why I’m not part of the problem I should talk about the movie. I think there was a disconnect for me with it and I think that comes in part from the first person narrative and in part from the kind of dreamy, airy feel of the world around the main character. It didn’t feel like any of that magic world was terribly built up. Timothy Spall is a good and creepy villain and Lucy Lawless as a witch teacher all sounds great and basically work but there’s no real time spent with them on their own terms or fleshing out their characters or this world. Spall is “a larvae” who lives off kid energy but beyond that he’s just a villain who kind shows up to mirror some of our main character’s internal conflicts about loss and childhood. Similarly Lawless is cool and all but she only really shows up to advance the plot and make thematic waves at puberty/coming of age ideas under the guise of magic. Even the bland, personality less, vaguely bored looking love interest pulled off a Twilight poster is kind of mostly just there to advance plot and make out a little. Like some kind of a fantasy fuckboy or something. Erana James is good and I don’t think she carries any of the blame for this. In fact I’m not sure anyone carries blame. I think this is a very basic problem you see in a lot of novel adaptions. I’ve never read the book but its difficult translating first person or a third party narration to film. Unless you have a disembodied voice narrating the whole film you’ve gotta find a way to convert what is described in a book to something that works in an A/V format. But often that kind of results in just an internal dialogue of the main character doing most of the story and there’s something about that I find kind of disconnecting. On one hand its theoretically more intimate but that assumes you’re invested in the character as a full person. But I think at least for me I need a film to establish its world for me to believe in its characters. So with something like this that tries to establish its world THROUGH a first person narrative I kind of feel like I’m just reading dream diary entries or something. Novel adaptions also of course have to sacrifice a lot of stuff and that feels like it happened here. Again, the supporting characters all feel shallow and removed from this and the whole witch world feels very matter of factly stated instead of explained. I’m sure there’s more details to all of that in the book and you can kind of see that there’s thematic elements that matter and some of which you can infer. But the problem especially with fantasy stories is that when you hit key story developments they can feel a bit deus ex machina done as kind of short cuts to the character beats because you never really established the rules or consequences. I’ve had some of the fallout of the story and magic or motivation of the villain explained to me since and all of that feels like stuff that probably should have been in the movie to give those story elements more weight. But I do think I understand why this was done this way. For one you just HAVE to cut a novel down when adapting it. That’s the challenge. Finding a way to tell the story without all that time and in a completely different format. And in this case the choice seemed to be made to focus on the main character’s internal struggles and coming of age journey. And that’s probably the right call. It seems to be the heart of the story. And much of the magic probably IS just parallels and metaphor for that stuff. But in choosing to kind of downplay all the magic of this story the way it did I feel like it makes it all feel a bit like a fantasy. Which I mean… it is a fantasy but I mean it feels almost like a dream. And while that ephemeral vibe is something I know works for a lot of people its always been something I’ve had a hard time connecting with. And maybe I also have some trouble connecting with the character because of internal biases? I don’t know. I’m gonna rewatch Phantasm in the next couple of days so I’m curious to bump that up and see how my reaction compares watching another dream coming of age story but with a male protagonist (or how I feel with the different approaches to their endings and the themes of loss). The Changeover definitely gave me stuff to think about and is probably worth a rewatch down the line. But I don’t know. It just didn’t quite click with me.
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2022 20:33
|
|
|
PKMN Trainer Red posted:Hot take: 90% of thrillers are just horror movies with less goop. Also for whatever reason if you make it in Italian it’s not even questioned as horror. My personal rule as what I count as horror for these things? You know it when you see it. Gripweed posted:#9: Candyman I love the original but I definitely think if you had to contrast the two quickly it’s that the first film is a black story told by white people with a white main character and this one is made by black people with black characters. So it definitely dives deeper and explores ideas that probably never occurred to them before and from a much more authentic perspective. The first film is basically about white guilt as much as anything. I also think that’s some of the negative response the film got from people who didn’t think of Candyman as a “black film” and wasn’t excepting it to go in that direction.
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2022 23:17
|
|
|
I think probably for a “thriller” to be a “horror” to me there’s gotta be an element of tense terror. Or some danger pending from some monster of some kind. I don’t necessarily sarily think that’s present in Cruel Intentions or Wild Things. They’re more like twisty mystery novels. But my rule in Bracketology is “if you can make the argument go for it.”
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2022 23:42
|
|
|
There’s a lot of older stuff up for free on YouTube or Internet Archive. When I get a chance I’ll look for some of the less obvious movies of note I know.
|
|
#
¿
May 11, 2022 20:23
|
|
|
Jedit posted:Planning ahead, can someone spec me a movie from before 1950 that is freely available with the assumption that if it's well known, I've seen it? Ok, here's the highly rated films I had pre-1950 that aren't the usual classics and are all freely available. I hope it helps. The Body Snatcher is a Karloff film directed by Robert Wise (The Haunting, Sound of Music, Star Trek, West Side Story) and produced by Val Lewton (Cat People, I Walked With a Zombie, the 7th Victim). I really liked it and I think really gives KALROFF a chance to showcase his acting skills. Its available for free on The Internet Archive. https://archive.org/details/thebodysnatcher1945belalugosiboriskarloffvallewtonfilmdvdripillusions I Walked With a Zombie is probably a bit more well known of a Lewton film but less talked about than Jacques Tourneur's other classics of Curse of the Demon and Cat People. I think its a great film with a lot of very interesting subtext but its a very slowburn. It is also on Internet Archive. https://archive.org/details/i-walked-with-a-zombie Dead of Night comes up a fair bit but is definitely worth checking out if you haven't. Its an early anthology that has some very good stories and a great wrap around. It is once again on Internet Archive. https://archive.org/details/dead-of-night_20210519 The Unknown is a silent film from Tod Browning (Freaks, Dracula) that stars Lon Chaney and Joan Crawford in some pretty remarkable physical acting performances. Its under an hour though so it might not technically count. Like the rest its on Internet Archive. https://archive.org/details/the.unknown.1927 Seven Footprints to Satan is probably the deepest cut on this list. I don't totally know how I came across it. Its a "lost" silent film that has been restored a couple of different ways. Its pretty weird and wild and I had a lot of fun with it. Weird blend of comedy, satanism, random monsters and gorilla suits. It left an impression on me. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q6XE26owTTE
|
|
#
¿
May 11, 2022 20:53
|
|
|
King, King Superfan, and King in name only. Midnight Mass (2021) Written and directed by Mike Flanagan Watched on Netlflix Return of the Fallen: 5/13 - Team K🖕ng Super loved that. No huge surprise. Big Mike Flanagan fan, big Stephen King fan. This isn't a King adaption technically but I mean... Flanagan clearly loves King and at this stage I don't think its much of a spoiler to say that this is so very clearly a spiritual successor to Salem's Lot. I feel weird just saying that like maybe I’m spoiling something even though I had it figured out from the first episode or two and it reveals itself by like Episode 3. But I’m a huge Stephen King fan so I felt like I was kind of watching it with a cheat code. This isn’t a remake or adaption or knockoff or anything. Its a truly original story and Its been a year so you’ve probably heard the premise by now if you’re interested, and if not maybe the word “vampires” would draw you in. I don’t know. Taking a chance I guess but I don’t really think that’s a spoiler at all. This story isn’t some big mystery, its a character drama like most King and Flanagan stories. You’re focus shouldn’t be on the “what” but the “who, where, why, and how”. Flanagan’s move to tie vampirism and the original story to Catholicism is super interesting, and I think for more reason than just me being a lapsed Catholic. Certainly my experiences added some familiarity to all of this. This really might be the most Catholic horror or movie I’ve seen. Its not just the religion and ritual stuff but the whole community thing. The pros and cons. A good parish can be a comfort to all in it, a beacon of strength and help during the most difficult times and something that brings people together. A bad parish can be something parasitic and toxic. Taking money and time from the community for selfish means, feeding terrible ideas opposite of the love and inclusion Christianity is meant to represent, and with people at the top who are either deeply misguided and lost in their own stuff or deeply narcissistic and there for the power and judgment. The second I made the connection to Salem’s Lot I was like ‘yeah, you make the evil vampire henchman THAT Rosary Club lady.” Every parish has one. Yeah there’s all the obvious Catholic/vampire stuff. Its a religion that claims to consume their savior’s body and blood every mass. Its basically asking for a vampire metaphor. And I’ve definitely seen a few spins on it although I don’t think I’ve seen one quite this deep. Because I do think it can go very deep even beyond that surface stuff. Like the entire ritual and rhetoric of Catholicism certainly lends to the vampirism thing. Its what makes it so easy to cherry pick Bible verses to rationalize this insane poo poo. Book of Revelations would cover like 50% of horror films if you’ve got an experienced reader used to squeezing out their preferred interpretation from the Bible. But its that community and trust that really makes this all possible and kind of able to believe in the story. Why would people go along with this? Why would they buy this insanity? Its selfishness to some degree of course. Health, youth, power. But its that insular community that is way too easy to infect. There’s a reason Christian communities lead the world in being victims of pyramid schemes. So happens this pyramid scheme is vampirism and mass murder. There’s maybe some pacing issues with the story. Maybe it gets a little bit to get going and maybe it finishes up a little too quick once poo poo really hits the fan. I’m not sure. I like a good slow burn character piece and I think Flanagan and the cast do a great job with it. Powerful scenes of Riley/Father Paul, Riley/Erin, or loving Bev don’t work as well without all that time spent getting to know them and all the other supporting characters don’t have the same impact if we only know them for an act or two before they become part of this whole madness. And I know a lot of people found the thing too monologue heavy but that all worked well for me. It didn’t feel unnatural to me. Maybe that says more about my tendency to pontificate but most of the big speeches come at big moments with big ideas and feelings behind them. If you’re not gonna give speeches at AA meetings when do you give them? You’re mileage may vary but it all worked for me. The ending is also probably too corny for some, and I can respect that. Flanagan walks the line for me. He’s obviously very sentimental but I don’t agree at all with the criticism that he writes too happy endings. There’s always tragedy and heartbreak and there’s a poo poo ton here. When poo poo hits the fan it REALLY hits the fan. There’s no sequel setup here. There is a lot of closure and sentimentality. The fundamental question of what faith is and what it truly means. All these people who talk about faith and values. Some who held to their believes even at the sacrifice of themselves. Some who gave in and seek forgiveness and peace. Some who showed they were never truly believers in any sense of the word and embrace the evil and cling to it. The end sequence is very on the nose but I appreciated the idea of it. Weird thing is I’m even kind of interested in attending mass now. In large part I think because of the theme at work here that if you turn your back on something you only hand it over to the monsters. There’s value in community and good that can come from it. There are also those who pervert and abuse it and they can chase you away. Religion, politics, family, whatever. But if you care then it might be worth fighting for. Taking the risk, pushing back, and keeping the Bevs from taking control and doing more harm. I dunno. I’m probably more likely to watch some more Flanagan and King than go to mass. But its on my mind. In the end Midnight Mass gave me a lot to think about and fully engrossed me. I don’t think its revelatory or anything. You’ve seen most of the themes and elements in some way or form. Its probably more pulp than fine art, but its drat engaging pulp and a riveting binge for me. Watching it with someone else slowed me down from the usual 1-3 day timeline for a binge but I still saw it all in a week and I think the slowed down pacing does help let stuff sink in better and let me go back on a few things between episodes. Its not perfect, its not for everyone, but its right up my alley in a bunch of ways and I had an absolutely great time with it.  - (28). Salem’s Lot (1979) Directed by Tobe Hooper; Screenplay by Paul Monash; Based on 'Salem's Lot by Stephen King King Spring II: 8/13 I wasn’t actually planning to rewatch this at all but Midnight Mass was so clearly a spiritual successor to it that I kind of couldn’t help myself. Plus as soon as I explained the connection to my mama she insisted on watching it since she loved MM so much. Salem’s Lot feels like arguably King’s most influential piece. Just counting adaptions alone you have this, its Cohen sequel, the 90s Rob Lower version, and a new one coming. You have the spiritual successor in Midnight Mass and the technical prequel in Chapelwaite. And you have so many classic vampire movies and shows whose creators credit Salem’s Lot for inspiration such as Fright Night, Lost Boys, and Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Of course much of that is the book and not the film, and not all of those stuff is a King creation. But the combination of them in his classic novel and this right time and place first King tv mini series seems to have left such a long line of people who took something from it. Its crazy to think of this as the first King mini series. There’s been so many King minis and adaptions its easy to forget it all started somewhere. And even though it might be a little rough around the edges as a tv production its honestly ahead of a lot of the King stuff that’s been made in the decades since. A lot of the credit there probably belongs to Tobe Hooper. A genius who seemed capable of adapting to almost any style and making a quality film he basically created an entire legacy here. And where would Mick Garris be if he hadn’t? Not to mention guys like Mike Flanagan and Frank Darabont. It definitely doesn’t age amazingly and there’s definitely flaws. It seems like people new to it don’t appreciate it much and I get that. For me its one of those things I saw young and first and stuck with me so much. It was probably my first look at the Nosferatu style vampire. The glowing eye vampires. The floating at the window. The basement fo drones. Even staking a vampire in his coffin probably came here first for me. Now maybe some of those things DID come here first, or maybe it was just the right timing. That’s what this ultimately is to me. Part nostalgia but also part how King and Hooper really came along at the right time with this and how much came from it. Maybe that doesn’t hold up as much to a new viewer today but it feels like a bit of a significant film in horror to me and if nothing else its one that scared me as a kid so will always have a place for me.  18 (29). Children of the Corn: Revelation (2001) Directed by Guy Magar; Written by S.J. Smith King Spring II: 9/13 Crud. Crap. We’re back to just finding any old generic horror script and tossing some corn into it. Seriously, this one kind of doesn’t even try and make the bad guy much of a spooky farm kid like the previous forced ones. This is basically just a devil movie that they wrote in some exposition lines about a kid farm cult and threw some corn around willy nilly. I dunno. Maybe there’s more there but it took me three ties to get through this and I ended up watching it while doing other stuff to get it done. And I don’t regret that. There just didn’t seem to be anything here at all. Not even some fun before they were famous cameos or special effects. This feels like the bottom of the barrel for the franchise. Just a super bad, super generic story with the brand stamped on. I mean I guess if you want to see the classic Freddy bathtub scene reenacted with corn stalks… Man, I hope this is the bottom of the barrel for this franchise. Four more to go. I honestly would have much rather watched a movie about Michael Ironside as a priest fighting the devil. Did we have to half rear end that into a Children of the Corn movie? 🌻💀 Spook-A-Doodle Half-Way-To-Halloween ’22: Return of the Fallen & King Spring II💀🌻 Watched - New (Total) 1. Magic (1978); - (2). A Quiet Place (2018); 2 (3). A Quiet Place Part II (2020); 3 (4). Benny Loves You (2019); 4 (5). Strait-Jacket (1964); 5 (6). Werewolves Within (2021); - (7). The Curse of Frankenstein (1957); - (8). Children of the Corn (1984); (9). The Revenge of Frankenstein (1958); - (10). The Evil of Frankenstein (1964); - (11). Frankenstein Created Woman (1967); - (12). Night of the Living Dead (1990); - (13). Children of the Corn II: The Final Sacrifice (1992); - (14). Children of the Corn III: Urban Harvest (1995); 6 (15). National Theatre Live: Frankenstein (2011); 7 (16). The Shallows (2016); 8 (17). Leviathan (1989); 9 (18). Piranha 3DD (2012); 10 (19). Children of the Corn IV: The Gathering (1996); 11 (20). Stephen King’s Night Shift Collection (The Boogeyman (1982)/Disciples of the Crow (1983)/The Woman in the Room (1983)); 12 (21). Children of the Corn V: Fields of Terror (1998); 13 (22). The Ghoul (1933); 14 (23). Children of the Corn 666: Isaac's Return (1999); 15 (24). Night of the Living Dead (2014); 16 (25). Frankenstein Must Be Destroyed (1969); - (26). Night of the Living Dead (1968); 17 (27). The Changeover (2017); - (28). Salem’s Lot (1979); 18 (29). Children of the Corn: Revelation (2001); 📺Series: Moon Knight (2022); Midnight Mass (2021); 📺 💀Spook-A-Doodle Challenges: 2/13💀 🌽King Spring II: 9/13🌽 🧑💻Return of the Fallen: 5/13🧑💻 ⚡13 Frankenst13ns: 6/13⚡ 🧟Knockoffs of the 13 Dead: 3/13🧟
|
|
#
¿
May 12, 2022 07:22
|
|
|
Opopanax posted:Does Studio 666 count as a musical? I can’t find a straight answer and I don’t want to pay for it and have it not count The challenge says musical OR something heavily involving music or musicians. So I think you’re good.
|
|
#
¿
May 12, 2022 18:23
|
|
|
PKMN Trainer Red posted:14/13 - Bones (2001) Ernest R Dickerson rocks.
|
|
#
¿
May 13, 2022 05:01
|
|
11. Horror Noire
|
 19 (30). It Came from Outer Space (1953) Directed by Jack Arnold; Screenplay by Harry Essex; Story by Ray Bradbury Aliens: We have only crashed here by accident! We mean no harm! Dude: Then why are you kidnapping people and impersonating them and stealing poo poo? Aliens: We need materials to fix our ship and we must blend in so we are not noticed! Dude: So why not just tell everyone and ask for help? Everyone thinks I’m crazy! Aliens: You will be too frightened by us and attack! We must hide our appearances and actions! We understand the concept of war! Dude: Do you understand the concept of gaslighting? I enjoyed that but I can understand why others might not. I’ve been watching Svengoolie for like two years now so I’ve really built up a strong tolerance for 50s sci fi films and an appreciation for the better ones. I definitely think this is one of the better ones. Arnold is just a good director and he makes a much better film than the average one of these. He also had this tendency to be at the forefront of a lot of stuff and I do not consider it an exaggeration to say that he is and under-appreciated forefather of the modern sci-fi, creature feature, and even acton blockbuster films. He seemed to have an incredible grasp of the evolving technology of special effects and filming and how to build a film that featured them with becoming a long slow build or tacky delivery system like so many of his contemporaries. People will probably think exclusively of the sort of giant bug and tiny man stuff he dd with films like Tarantula and The Incredible Shrinking Man but I’m also thinking of stuff like the water scenes in Creature From The Black Lagoon. He just seemed very capable of using that stuff to make and enhance a film in a way directors seemed to struggle with at the time and that is basically required for anyone directing a major motion picture these days. And even still you can watch big name directors like Zack Snyder and Michael Bay who seem to find a new film trick they like and instead of folding it into their films it kind of takes them over. Arnold had a handle on how to balance that stuff that still evades directors regularly. Unfortunately for him here the big technical advancements he was using were stereophonic sound and 3-D technology. The former is obviously very standard these days and unlikely to impress or show up to someone watching their TV and her usual set up. And 3-D is kind of just a gimmick that I've never really gotten big deal with or enjoyed and think it tends to just look bad especially when you're not wearing some of those goofy glasses. I mean I can understand why people would be interested in 3-D technology on paper but it never turns to work out very well and when you come back and look at it later it just looks silly. But fortunately in this case Arnold integrates it into his film well enough that I don’t think it was too distracting or film breaking. The weird alien eye visual stuff just kind of plays like a stylistic choice about the way humans perceive aliens or vice versa or something. I dunno. I didn’t know it was 3D at the time so I was just like “oh, that’s odd but kind of cool” and then afterwards when I read the 3D thing I said “Oh, yeah, that explains that.” There’s also the aspect of Arnold kind of pushing back on the Red Scare stuff of the time and instead of telling a story about alien invaders he told one about a bunch of aliens who just crashed and want to get home and its our suspicious, violent nature that makes the enemy. That’s interesting and this very much feels like one of the first places to try that. Spielberg says it was the inspiration for Close Encounters. But its another one of those things that’s become a sci-fi trope so it can be hard to really give it the credit it deserves when you’ve probably seen it a bunch. And probably better because as I joked about earlier its a bit clunky how the aliens are peaceful but also not. The humans have some pretty good reasons to be concerned. Then again maybe that’s the point? This feels less like a very simple “aliens good, humans bad” idea and more like a nuanced take on relations between countries or tribes. That both sides have reasons to be concerned and fingers on the trigger but there’s no actual necessary conflict there. A film made in the growing Cold War that seems like its probably directly addressing the unclear reason for such hostility and the possible terrible consequences of letting them get out of control. So yeah, I can understand why people wouldn’t be into this. And I grant that my appreciation is at least in part academic instead of an emotional response to the film. Its entirely possible to appreciate a film but not enjoy it. But i do think I enjoyed this. Maybe just because I’m out of Svengoolie movies on my DVR for the first time in a year and it has that same familiar feel. I even looked up some Svengoolie clips for this movie on Youtube just to complete the fix. So maybe its not for everyone but I had a good time and the movie feels like its got some layers.  20 (31). Morgiana (1972) Directed by Juraj Herz; Written by Juraj Herz and Vladimír Bor; Based on book Джесси и Моргиана by Alexander Grin I’m not entirely sure what to make of that, which in fairness is my general reaction to Czech New Wave films. Finding out that the original story was one woman with split personalities and that government censorship forced them to change it kind of helps give more context but also not really? Like I’m not sure how that story would work at all in this context. Maybe, I guess. This is just a simple story about someone who wants to kill her sister. I guess the original is like a deception where we don’t know there’s only one person and the “sister” is still trying to kill her “sister” and just like bi be really knows the deal until the end? That definitely would have added more punch. Much of the film just felt a little drab to me. I know people who would be shocked at that word because obviously its very colorful and rich in costume design and Iva Janžurová gives a lively dual performance as both sisters. And that’s definitely enough for many and I can’t blame them. I kind of felt like I was dragging for much of the movie. It felt like I had accidently popped on the Czech version of Downton Abbey. Which again, is a show that millions love and find incredibly engaging but I’ve just never given a look because it feels like something that would bore me. Maybe some of that is a cultural thing. I can hook into a 50s American sci fi film and read into the political and cultural subtext and elements of it but give me a European period piece and I turn into an uncultured slub and indictment of the American school system. Or maybe I just don’t care about aristocratic people in fancy clothes plotting to undo each other. I dunno. Its not a bad film by any means. Obviously very stylish and the story plays out in an easy way despite any language barriers (or just me being distracted and tired). Subtitled films can sometime be a challenge fo 100% concentration but Morgiana’s got the same structure of like a good silent film where you can follow the flow of the narrative even if you were ignoring the dialogue. And again, Janžurová does a commendable job in an always challenging job of playing two distinct characters that take up almost 100% of the screen time. I would have liked to see the version of this with her playing the same character with distinct personalities. That sounds more interesting to me than what it became. But I dunno. This one just didn’t click for me.
|
|
#
¿
May 13, 2022 20:48
|
|
|
Any particular reason? I generally prefer stringing shorts into a pseudo anthology so that seemed ideal for me. Is there a big enough problem/difference to just make a playlist?
|
|
#
¿
May 14, 2022 02:48
|
|
|
Is it like one short, and added bridge, and another short? Because I think I’d prefer that to just some random shorts. I like structure and to just sit down for a feature. Or is it like weirdly and heavily chopped up to intertwine stuff and change the story? Because I’d probably skip that. I’m sorry for the questions. I’m just curious but not curious enough to watch a Friday the 13th fan film twice.
|
|
#
¿
May 14, 2022 03:41
|
|
|
 Lisey’s Story (2021) Directed by Pablo Larraín; Written by Stephen King Watched on AppleTV+ King Spring II: 10/13 There’s basically two Stephen King stories. Well he’s written like 300 stories, there’s a ton. But there’s two he comes back to over and over. The first is a story about a sleepy New England town filled with secrets and problems that gets invaded by some evil thing. You’ve seen that one. The other is a world famous writer who happens to kind of resemble Stephen King who has problems that happen to mirror Stephen King’s at the time. This is definitely one of those, a really deep and intimate feeling story that can sometimes feel esoteric and maybe too personal for us to understand but that really comes together by the end. A lot of King writing is like that kind of starting off a jumbled mess that picks up half way through the story and slowly pulls everything together into a cathartic place. Its no surprise the show mirrors King’s style since he wrote the screenplays for that, and that can be frustrating. The first few episodes had me spinning and unsure where to hold on and its King so of course the ending doesn’t fully land. Still even during the bumpier parts of the show its buoyed by some tremendous performances. Julianna Moore is at the forefront in a really powerful performance of a woman dealing with her own grief while the world starts to fall apart around her but Joan Allen stands out doing a great job and Jennifer Jason Leigh puts in what I imagine is an unappreciated performance as the bratty sister who kind of has a reason to be annoyed since she’s the only one in the dark about all this magic nonsense. Dane Dehaan is also excellent as the terrifying super fan stalker. You gotta wonder how much of that was from him and how much was King writing from experience. He’s had to have a few really unstable “deep space cowboys” over the last 40+ years. Whether the film works better as metaphor or fantasy or in that in between of both, I really ended up feeling it by the end. King revealing anxieties about the world of fantasy and imagination writers have to tap into for their stories and how close a vivid imagination might feel to a detachment from reality for him. The monster being a basic representation of losing yourself to mental illness either thanks to a family history of violence, a personal inability to cope, a loss and grief hole you’re struggling to pull yourself out of, or just spending so much of your time in the wonder of fantasy that you lose sight of the real world. And in a lot of basic ways this just feels like a love letter from King to his wife of 40 years. A sadness for the poo poo she might have to deal with after he’s gone and a hope that he can leave her something to help, and a ton of appreciation that she was his anchor and source of strength during a mad life. Its not the scariest King story. Probably not the best either. But its a great cast, a singular talented director, and King writing for himself about himself. That could be called self indulgent and that’s not an unfair label for King but King also seems very happy to rip back his own flaws and regrets and expose them to people so I think it works. This isn’t a story about how awesome the writer is. Its a story about what a mess he is and how awesome his wife is. And King has talked about how the current streaming era appeals to him so much since it gives him a chance to make mini-series that fully adapt his novels without the time constraints that force compromises in a feature film or even an old school 3-4 hour mini series. 8 hours with a King story might be too much for some and certainly its been said that King could use an editor. But its his story in his words and I’ve been reading him my entire life. So I’m tuned in well and I enjoy his voice. Also the monster is really cool looking, especially once you figure out what it is.   21 (32). Never Hike Alone: the Ghost Cut (2020) Written and directed by Vincente DiSanti Watched on Youtube GMM Challenges: 3/13 gey muckle mowser posted:
I hate Friday the 13th and Jason. Don’t @ me. Its not my thing at all. Slashers aren’t in general but the Friday series in particular seems more interested in “cool kills” and body counts than story or character or tension or any of the things I tend to enjoy. So I wasn’t really planning on watching a Jason movie this 13th but a challenge is a challenge and this is new and a little different. And I always am curious to see what amateur filmmakers can do. And you know, this is actually pretty good? I watched The Ghost Cut which is like the original short plus a prequel follow up plus a bunch of random things. And like… most of that ranges from cute to bad. The Snow feature in particular just feels like a completely unfinished and not terribly compelling story. I appreciated the seeming interest in character and buildup but it goes nowhere slowly and the whole thing feels more focused on some fan service with any real clear idea why its existing. The main feature is solid though. A very straight forward and simple but effective man vs monster story. Its well shot and solidly acted and it does what most of the Friday movies fail to do in establishing a protagonist and a struggle. Now for a lot of fans of the movies this is probably not what they want to see. There’s not a bunch of random people to get killed in various ways through the course of the feature. DiSanti actually approaches things more like… well… a Carpenter/Halloween type story where the focus is in the buildup of tension and anticipation for the big conflict and moment. And you know what, that’s exactly what I feel like is missing from all those films! And there’s still a body count and some fan service and a laugh or two. It feels like DiSanti is definitely a fan of all that stuff. But it also feels like he set out to make a better Jason movie. And I actually think he succeeded. If I were judging the main feature alone I’d probably give it a solid 3 1/2 stars and rank it as one of my favorite Jason movies if not THE favorite. The whole package is a little more uneven and the other feature just did nothing for me. Its all very well shot and made. There’s genuine talent here and it feels a lot better than a lot of “fan films” or “student films”. The idea feels stretched out past whatever core idea or point DiSanti had in the first one. I mean its not a deep film, but the more stuff that gets added to it the more it starts to feel very “fan filmy” and less like just a decent little Jason movie. But as much as the overall continuity doesn’t make a ton of sense the Ghost Cut does right by finishing strong. And trust me, no one is surprised to hear this as much as I am. But I actually kind of enjoyed that.  22 (33). Freaky (2020) Directed by Christopher Landon; Written by Michael Kennedy and Christopher Landon Watched on HBOMax Return of the Fallen: 6/13 - The Silver Spoons I was actually kind of pumped for this. “Pumped” is probably the wrong word. Slashers aren’t my thing. But I really like Landon’s Happy Death Day films and what he did with the slasher format in those. And I really like Kathryn Newton. And this just looked like a lot of fun. And I was saving it for May and then when I started it a week or so ago and discovered it was a backdoor Friday the 13th film I decided to save it for the right day. So it was just a lot of anticipation and waiting that had me very pleased to finally hit play. And for the most part it was a lot of fun and a really good time. I really don’t have any complaints. I think its probably a lot more of a standard slasher in some ways than I thought it would be. I mean its goofy too and fun because its obviously Freaky Friday the 13th. But it feels like it leans more into the slasher than the Freaky Friday stuff. That’s fine but Happy Death Day felt maybe a bit more ambitious or truly unique. Still, this is a cool and fun premise. Newton is good in the dual role but actually kind of doesn’t get to do a ton as the generic slasher villain. She has some good lines and an overall very good presence but its a lot of looming and slashing. Which you know… makes sense. Vince Vaughn ends up being the star, which I guess is something I should have realized but it feels like a bit of a trick. Like the whole film feels marketed as “slasher possesses a teenage girl” but of course that means the other half of the film is Vince Vaughn playing a teenage girl. When I say tricked I’m not mad or saying I feel like I was duped into something, I just feel like the film and marketing kind of purposely says “here’s a story about Millie… now Vince Vaughn is playing Millie!” Which makes complete sense and I didn’t see coming at all. Which makes me feel dumb but I also give credit to Landon for the kind of rope a dope. And Vaughn playing a teenage girl could have been dumb and bad but its generally just a lot of fun. He really leans into it and with the help of Millie’s teen friends ends up really being the focus of much of the movie. Its less of a slasher transported into the body of a teenager and more of a teenager transported into the body of a slasher and now having to go figure out the voodoo and poo poo to fix this and evade the cops and convince her friends and make out with the boy she has a crush on? The film goes there and its all very lighthearted goofy fun. I don’t think this was as good as Happy Death Day for me and I probably had it a little too built up because of that and because of all the waiting I did to watch it. But I still had a really good time with it and think is a very fun slasher comedy. And it felt like a very appropriate Friday the 13th substitute for someone like me who wants to abstain from the real thing.
|
|
#
¿
May 14, 2022 20:37
|
|
|
 - (34). Attack the Block (2011) Written and directed by Joe Cornish Watched on Starz ”You know what? I’m making GBS threads myself, innit. But at the same time… “What?” “This is sick.” I love Attack The Block. Absolutely love it. I grew up a white kid in the projects in NYC in the 80s and 90s and yet I just feel a kinship to this and its characters. It nails the feeling and people who live in that world. Its a thrilling, fun, funny ride but its also a very quietly deep story of people and labels and circumstances. Its a story that deliberately starts with Moses with a mask over his face mugging a woman and looking like the “scary black man” and ends with that same woman vouching for him and his whole block chanting his name. Its basically about how we are not our worst choices and actions. We are not the easily described labels you can put on someone. We’re more complicated than that. And it doesn’t put Moses off the hook. Jodie Whitaker doesn’t really give him and his crew a pass for what they did and the movie never tells us she’s wrong for being mad or seeing them in a bad light. Because its the way they WANTED her to see them. Its the way they presented themselves because its the way they were raised and taught. But given a second chance, put in a situation that demanded cooperation and choices, given a chance to understand each other a little bit? There’s a line midway where the boys finally do apologize to her and say “we never would have mugged you if we knew you lived here.” Its the same protected, macho non-apology attitude and she calls it for its bs, but its also basically true and part of them all getting past their instincts and labels and understanding one another. I was gonna give it 5 stars but a dear friend got a little upset with me and the film pointing out that that initial confrontation of 5 men attacking a woman is a little too severe to the way its treated. I absolutely understand that, or I do now. I don’t think its done casually or without intent. I think Cornish is purposely presenting us with a threatening image to tell his story. And I think as a dude who grew up in the projects I almost think of muggings in the same way those kids do. Its a thing that happened to me more than once. Sometimes you get rolled. You don’t carry a lot of cash or expensive poo poo and pay attention to your surroundings. And it still happens. And I definitely think that’s the mindset of Moses and his crew. They don’t think they’ve done something terrible. They just did the thing people do. Its not until later that they even really try and put themselves in the perspective of the woman. And again, I think that’s the point but I also absolutely understand my friend’s point that maybe its too heavy an image for the transition that follows. Maybe in a world filled with women who have been assaulted by men in terrible, similar ways using that fear has deeper consequences and responsibility. And horror and film in general always uses real things and traumas and anxieties to move its drama. Its part of fiction. But I can absolutely see how the general tone of the film, quick transition to the “boys being boys”, and overall focus on Moses a bit more than Jodie Whitaker… who sadly I don’t remember the character name of which probably underlines the point. That maybe that’s a huge mis step for the film and a place where Cornish (and I) failed to see another perspective in the same way that Moses and them did. So yeah, I’ve been thinking about it. And I still really love and enjoy this film, but I can absolutely see where it might contain a very real flaw and trigger for some. And that sucks and should not be dismissed. Every film is not for everyone but art shouldn’t hurt people. It sucks that sometimes a piece of art that many love and brings them joy can hurt someone else. And sometimes that a really deep eye opener. There’s definitely some of that here. I still love the story of Moses but I should really remember Jodie Whitaker’s name too.  23 (35). The Horror of Frankenstein (1970) Directed by Jimmy Sangster; Screenplay by Jeremy Burnham and Jimmy Sangster 13 Frankenst13ns: 7/13 Where the hell is Peter Cushing? This isn’t a terrible film but you can’t just pull Cushing out of your Hammer Frankenstein series and act like everything is ok. I can probably get past that and Ralph Bates isn’t terrible or anything. And he’s playing a more deliberately evil Frankenstein than Cushing so its different. But its not better and its not really just as good either. Bates’ Frankenstein feels like any evil villain. Cushing’s portrayal wasn’t just about how good he was but also the uniqueness of his character’s kind of apathetic disregard for morality. He wasn’t setting out to kill anyone, he just didn’t care if they died. And if they did, hey… useful body parts. Its a compelling and engaging villain who has that ability to charm you and lull you into a false sense of safety. His endless string of lackies who know what they’re doing is messed up but keep just getting talked into it by Frankenstein’s cold logic are gone now. Now Frankenstein’s assistant literally bolts for the door when he’s had enough. Because Frankenstein is just a little over the top and someone you back away slowly from now. And yeah, I basically get that this is a deadpan comedy. It definitely shines through in a few spots. I don’t think it really works overall as a tone though. Maybe because Hammer is already pretty campy to start with so just ramping that up a little doesn’t register very much. Or maybe it does and does damage. Maybe laughing at it breaks the charm and makes you wonder why you’re bothering. I’ve been enjoying these Hammer films all along and now you’re laughing at them. Are you laughing at me? I dunno. I’m not mad about it but I’m not sure I really get the point. This isn’t terribly funny and you’re really not going anywhere Hammer hasn’t already gone. So where’s the joke? Or maybe its as simple as not being very funny. Its still a Hammer film so there’s lots of style and costuming and setting and mood and heaving chests. And since its a comedy or satire or something that’s really enhanced. The boobs I mean. They’re basically a punchline. And despite everything I’ve said there’s still a basic charm here to Hammer. But this is like the 6th Frankenstein movie and like my 15th Hammer movie and there’s not Cushing or Lee or anything really special. Its just there an since its not even part of Cushing’s run it barely seems worth doing.  24 (36). Firestarter (2022) Directed by Keith Thomas; Screenplay by Scott Teems; Based on Firestarter by Stephen King Watched on Peacock King Spring II: 11/13 GMM Challenges: 4/13 gey muckle mowser posted:
I didn’t exactly go into this expecting a lot. In my opinion Firestarter isn’t a terribly good King story and its aged poorly. Its an artifact of that 70s government conspiracy ESP is the future of mankind sci fi thing and now just feels like one of the million random X-Men one offs or new character origins. And the reviews have been bad although to be honest so many of the reviews I’ve seen have been of the very hostile “another bad King adaption” or “I wanted to die watching this” or “this is the worst thing ever” variety that I think some of the first wave of any new release (especially a streaming release) is just some people looking to be the first one to be mad. Still, I wasn’t hoping for much and I wasn’t really seeing anything good. But I love King and its a rare modern release that stays under 100 minutes so why not? And like.. yeah, its not great. Its not the worst thing either. Its not even bottom 5 King movies I’ve seen so far this month. But its not especially good either. Again the story feels very aged and overly familiar and dry. This version really doesn’t add anything to update it, just some odd story changes that feel like they’re done to set up a sequel. Like a lot of King adaptions there’s just too much story in the original novel to squeeze into 90 minutes of film, and when the movie skips portions and speeds up elements it just doesn’t really give anything room to breath or get you engaged. Its just so set in the basic path King scripted for it (and I think part of that is that King’s story starts with them already on the run skipping the first part of their story) that it feels very by the numbers and hitting story beats rather than actually telling a story. The ending is ok enough but it definitely kind of took an overall “this feels like a show pilot” feeling and confirmed that this felt more designed for what follows than to be a fully satisfying stand alone. And I think that’s a big mistake not just for the usual reasons but because when you think about it there’s really not many King stories that have sequels are there? He tends to tell stories in one go. And Firestarter just feels like a story that isn’t fleshed out or complete. I don’t entirely blame the director and crew. As I said, its not the King story I’d choose to adapt in 2022. But I also do kind of blame the people who made this. A lot has been said about John Carpenter scoring this and there’s definitely a cool little retro vibe in there. But the rest of the movie doesn’t do anything with it or match it. It just all feels like a movie put together in parts or something. Like an Ikea film or something. I dunno. Its not an especially bad watch but its also not something I’m gonna remember a year from now or probably a week or two from now. Its just there. 🌻💀 Spook-A-Doodle Half-Way-To-Halloween ’22: Return of the Fallen & King Spring II💀🌻 Watched - New (Total) 1. Magic (1978); - (2). A Quiet Place (2018); 2 (3). A Quiet Place Part II (2020); 3 (4). Benny Loves You (2019); 4 (5). Strait-Jacket (1964); 5 (6). Werewolves Within (2021); - (7). The Curse of Frankenstein (1957); - (8). Children of the Corn (1984); (9). The Revenge of Frankenstein (1958); - (10). The Evil of Frankenstein (1964); - (11). Frankenstein Created Woman (1967); - (12). Night of the Living Dead (1990); - (13). Children of the Corn II: The Final Sacrifice (1992); - (14). Children of the Corn III: Urban Harvest (1995); 6 (15). National Theatre Live: Frankenstein (2011); 7 (16). The Shallows (2016); 8 (17). Leviathan (1989); 9 (18). Piranha 3DD (2012); 10 (19). Children of the Corn IV: The Gathering (1996); 11 (20). Stephen King’s Night Shift Collection (The Boogeyman (1982)/Disciples of the Crow (1983)/The Woman in the Room (1983)); 12 (21). Children of the Corn V: Fields of Terror (1998); 13 (22). The Ghoul (1933); 14 (23). Children of the Corn 666: Isaac's Return (1999); 15 (24). Night of the Living Dead (2014); 16 (25). Frankenstein Must Be Destroyed (1969); - (26). Night of the Living Dead (1968); 17 (27). The Changeover (2017); - (28). Salem’s Lot (1979); 18 (29). Children of the Corn: Revelation (2001); 19 (30). It Came from Outer Space (1953); 20 (31). Morgiana (1972); 21 (32). Never Hike Alone: the Ghost Cut (2020); 22 (33). Freaky (2020);- (34). Attack the Block (2011); 23 (35). The Horror of Frankenstein (1970); 24 (36). Firestarter (2022); 📺Series: Moon Knight (2022); Midnight Mass (2021); Lisey’s Story (2021); 📺 💀GMM Challenges: 4/13💀 🌽King Spring II: 11/13🌽 🧑💻Return of the Fallen: 6/13🧑💻 ⚡13 Frankenst13ns: 7/13⚡ 🧟Knockoffs of the 13 Dead: 3/13🧟
|
|
#
¿
May 15, 2022 06:48
|
|
|
 - (37). Phantasm (1979) Written and directed by Don Coscarelli Watched on Peacock The god’s honest truth is I’m not much of a fan of the Phantasm series or Don Coscarelli as a director/writer. The series feels like a mess of half thought ideas, things pulled from other stuff, and a very poor attempt to make any of it link up or make sense together. But that all kind of works in the first film’s favor and I think is a big part of why its great and a cult classic. The confusing narrative and messy editing really fits the dreamlike atmosphere of the story and even the things that feel cribbed from something like Star Wars feels like exactly the kind of thing a kid’s subconscious wrestling with grief would pull out to spice things up. I think everyone’s pretty well covered in what we all interpret Phantasm as. Whether its a real life nightmare or just a kid’s nightmare its all a big metaphor for what a kid would go through reeling from losing his family. Hell, I was 20 when I lost my dad and the weeks around it are a blur and I kind of half lost my mind and convinced myself of stuff that couldn’t be true. So a kid who has no real understanding of death but is forced to deal with it with no one really left to help him is gonna come up with some gnarly stuff. And it works, really. The scary mortician, the man who only seems to show up when someone dies, who basically profits off their death, who often lives with the dead, who does some strange things with the dead. Yeah… that dude’s probably some kind of monster or warlock or necromancer or some poo poo. And my loved one is now in that box we put in the ground? They’ve gone to a better place? Yeah, ok… I guess maybe they’ve been turned into something else. Filled with those chemicals, smushed into that box, forced to do god knows what by that scary man. And the spinning balls of death? Ok, I have no idea what that’s about. Mini Death Stars? Some surreal interpretation of embalming tools? Just some cool idea Coscarelli had and put in there for some more gore? That’s probably the easiest answer and yeah, sure. Cool. The cast isn’t very good but that’s not a huge problem. Again the janky editing and dreamlike atmosphere covers up for a lot of it. And there’s a charm to the whole thing. That one scene where Jody and Reggie just randomly jam kind of sums it up. They feel like real dudes just doing their thing. And that works for the whole atmosphere and fits the idea that this one kid uncovers this nightmare happening in the mundane place us adults don’t thing twice about. And really, thinking about it any more beyond that just isn’t necessary. Its a kid’s nightmare, and its a random spooky ghost story. It works. A clear labor of love and one that manages to not really age even as it gets older because that basic spookiness and grief stuff is still there. And so are the basic characters and real life behavior. Just a real good idea worked on really hard for a real long time that makes a real good movie. Shame about the sequels.  - (38). Dolores Claiborne (1995) Directed by Taylor Hackford; Screenplay by Tony Gilroy; Based on Dolores Claiborne by Stephen King Watched on ShowtimeAnytime King Spring II: 12/13 Return of the Fallen: 7/13 - All Hail Stephen King; I hadn’t seen this in a very long time but seeing Jennifer Jason Leigh in Lisey’s Story got me thinking about it so I decided to revisit. And man, its still a powerful and good film. I had really forgotten most of the details. I knew Leigh and Kathy Bates put in great performances, and Dolores may or may not have killed some people, and its a sleepy New England town… because Stephen King. I had forgotten Christopher Plummer is in here doing a good job as the walking symbol of the patriarchy, and probably had no idea who John C. Reilly was last time i saw it. I know I didn’t realize Ellen Muth plays a young Leigh. drat that’s a perfect casting and she’s very good. I had even forgotten this was set in the same town as Storm of the Century, one of my favorite Kings and one I know want to rewatch as well. You could really just keep going following the King reference rabbit chase, can’t you? Would it be a reach to go from Storm of the Century’s Tim Daly to The (remake) Shining’s Steven Webber by Wings? I digress. The details all came rolling back as I watched the film. I even remembered that one cop in Storm of the Century saying something like “we haven’t had a murder since Dolores Claiborne”. The story isn’t terribly complicated but its that classic King mystery approach of telling things backwards slowly unraveling the histories and secrets into a full picture. It works very effectively here, not because of any supernatural magic affecting things, but because of plain old human trauma, repression, and secrets. Its heartbreaking story as you find out the full one and even more heartbreaking as the characters do. Its not quite a whodunit. Hell its actually kind of the inverse of a whodunit, isn’t it? The who is the name of the movie. But I’d be surprised if many could guess how it all unravels when the story first begins. Especially since the “dunit” part isn’t even the right one. This is a murder mystery about a whole other murder. Its also clearly a feminist piece. I dunno if King qualifies as a feminist and I know I’m not terribly qualified to speak on it but its impossible to ignore the overriding theme of women being let down and hosed around and hurt by men and the system they all seem to hold positions of power in and how ultimately they’re left with no real options but to help themselves. “Sometimes being a bitch is all you have to hold on to” its subtle but its shown to us time and time again without overtly spelling it out. The boss/boyfriend who takes it upon himself to take away something she’s worked hard on because of his personal evaluation of her emotional state. The bank manager who can’t deny that he should have asked questions when her husband started withdrawing money from her account but didn’t. The cop who makes it his personal vendetta to bring a woman to justice because he thinks she’s gotten away with murder… or because she ruined his perfect record… or because she beat him and hurt his ego. And he’s got the full law to do it including any indignity from rifling through her underwear to pulling out her hair. And Bates’ Dolores just made a choice a long time ago to be tough, take care of what she has to take care of, and give no quarter to the fragile egos or idea of decorum from these men. Maybe it makes her a “bitch” but the alternative wasn’t really working either. And all the women here find a way to fix their problems and get stuff done in spite of the men in their way. Good? Bad? Necessary? Gripping performances, great atmosphere, strong directing, and an excellent story. I’ve never read the original novel but to my understanding the story is largely the same although the film brings Selena more into the story which is absolutely a positive. The complicated mother/daughter relationship and the theme of sacrifice and hard choices and tough consequences all shine through there and of course it allows us to get a second great performance from JJL to match Bates’. Just a really great and powerful movie that holds up. Away from the usual King horror its still got plenty of gothic feel and the presence of “ghosts” of memories and secrets that haunt people long after others are gone. And tell me the content isn’t horrific. Shook me more than any evil clown.
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2022 08:20
|
|
|
 25 (39). Phantom of the Paradise (1974) Written and directed by Brian De Palma Opening with doo wop and then giving me no more is a false promise. Shame on you, DePalma. I dunno. I understand why people like this but it just never clicked for me. The music is fine. Paul Williams knew how to write a catchy song. Jessica Harper sings very well and has a presence, but she’s really not very much a part of this. She just sings songs and then is the women men just get because they want her. She has no actual character or motivation or anything and that sucks. It somehow seems like less agency than the traditional Christine or I’m not actually overly familiar with the Phantom as a story so I don’t know if there’s a consistent name for that character. But she feels like she’s usually more of the main protagonist while Phoenix is really just a plot device here. DePalma’s gender politics have never seemed great. But I digress. The problem might mostly be that this isn’t exactly a Phantom adaption but also kind of a Faust thing? But also kind of a Psycho thing too? But also kind of the Cabinet of Dr Caligari? I think that’s my main problem. It just felt like kind of a mess of ideas and none of them really stuck. I guess its a critique of the record industry but it doesn’t feel especially dense. This definitely has the feel of those 70s spoof comedies that were like “referencing a thing or doing something wacky is better than writing a joke.” See, signing a record deal is signing a deal with the devil and the record industry just cycles through the same song with different acts and sounds or something. I dunno. Comedy is subjective and you either laugh or you don’t. This one just didn’t resonate for me at all and the rest seemed just too messy and dumb to really do much for me. William Finley gives it his all. As I said Harper is good in limited time and Williams makes solid music, even if nothing’s sticking with me the next day. Gerrit Graham’s performance seems somewhere between problematic and the exact kind of insane people enjoy? Not sure. Ultimately I didn’t hate it but it just never really clicked for me. I get why people like it. People who just want some wild, dumb stuff will get that. But it just wasn’t for me.  - (40). Phantasm II (1988) Written and directed by Don Coscarelli quote:Writer-director Don Coscarelli says that he had been under pressure to film a sequel but could not come up with a story Ya think? The first film is great. The sequels are not. But this one has always kind of had a soft spot for me. Its your very standard horror movie of the era and does nothing especially well, and a complete departure from the tone or elements that made the first film work. I guess that’s studio interference but Coscarelli openly admitting he couldn’t come up with a story or need for a sequel for the better part of a decade and just kind of gave in to the pressure of demand also sums it up pretty well. There really isn’t much of a story or goal here. We sort of end up back where we started and the idea of introducing a love interest through a psychic link is… well that didn’t really go anywhere. Still, I kinda like it. Why? Probably because its one that was aired on TV a bunch when I was a kid and that scene of breaking into a hardware store and making up some weapons always stuck with me. Maybe because I was in puberty and Paula Irvine was pretty without her character being just a random damsel or hook up (like poor Alchemy)? Or maybe its just the fun of the road movie about two dudes traveling from town to town fighting monsters and meeting pretty girls? Wait, two dudes who lost their family shooting monsters with shotguns and kissing pretty girls before jumping in their car to the next town? This is the second thing in awhile I realized was something I kinda liked as a teen but was really just waiting for Supernatural to happen. I should rewatch/finish that. But seriously, Alchemy, I get the appeal of being on the road and hitchhiking and hooking up with randos but the sawed off shotgun, chainsaw, and grenade booby trap should have been some warning signs. Its not a good film. But its an easy watch. And we’re in that place where the continuity doesn’t exactly make sense but its not really confusing or nonsense yet either. Its all fairly straight forward and easy to follow. That makes it a worse film than the first one because its just kind of generic horror and action and gore. But at least its not a head scratching mess of ideas not really connecting to each other as I recall the series devolving into. This is just a generic, simple horror movie that’s a little fun. Maybe you need nostalgia like i have? Maybe not. But sequels go a lot worse than this and at least it gives you something different from the first film. For better or worse.  26 (41). Mimesis: Night of the Living Dead (2011) Written and directed by Douglas Schulze; co-written by Joshua Wagner Knockoffs of the 13 Dead: 4/13 The idea here is very interesting. A bunch of people at a horror convention find themselves waking up inside of a reenactment of Night of the Living Dead complete with zombies. I didn’t really know where it could go with that idea but I was intrigued. Sadly it doesn’t really go anywhere interesting. The “twist” isn’t terribly surprising and I’m not sure it was meant to be. There’s plenty of little clues to it along the way. But it still feels like its dragged out past where you’ve probably figured it out and doesn’t really go anywhere besides some generic rehash of poo poo Scream said over a decade earlier and isn’t terribly deep or interesting now. And it fell into this weird place where like I wasn’t sure it if was teasing things it never paid off or if I was just reading into stuff because I was looking or something more. Like were they hiding that one zombie at the end because he was supposed to be a reveal of someone we knew like I suspected or was I just looking or more? And what WAS Owen doing there? Did that question get asked and then never answered or was he just there and I’m over thinking it? And I’m falling into that trap of questioning the choices of characters in horror movies when they’re under stressful situations with less information than I have if I think maybe they should have tried to escape at some point? Is that an actual plot issue or was I just getting bored and nitpicky wanting something to happen? Mostly it plays out like a generic zombie plot. Its not an especially bad one and it does avoid following the NotLD plot line as I was a little worried it might. It wasn’t really bad but the promise of something more interesting kind of made me anxious for the standard zombie stuff to go anywhere. Plus… you know… it was aping NotLD a bit too much so it was like “ok, what’s next?” And unfortunately the answer is “not very much.”
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2022 19:27
|
|
|
I’ve seen Troll like half a dozen times and never seen Troll 2. It’s so weird and fun and clearly JK Rowling ripped it off and I just never remotely saw the point in watching a bad movie instead.
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2022 13:43
|
|
|
Class3KillStorm posted:I've liked everything that Landon has directed that I've seen thus far, so I should know to at least trust him to get into setups and see where he goes from there. (I must admit, though, that between these two and Freaky that I'm now most curious about what he could do with a simple, straightforward film with no weird premise or gimmick hooks. I think he could nail it, but I don't know if he'd even want to try.) Landon's actually written a fair share of horrors he hasn't directed. Disturbia is probably his most "straight" one but he also wrote Paranormal Activity 2, 3, 4, Marked Ones, and Next of Kin. So he's responsible for most of that franchise. I'm not sure it qualifies as "non gimmick" though and Marked Ones is the only one he directed and is probably the weirdest and most gimmicky of the bunch. But Next of Kin is a fairly straight up stand alone horror. Even if its kind of weird. I think Landon's probably just kind of weird. Landon also has the unique position of having made porn and a Highway to Heaven remake.
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2022 14:39
|
|
|
Class3KillStorm posted:Uh, now I'm wondering if both of those come from some sort of "gently caress you Dad, I won't do what you tell me!" place, then. I probably mischaracterized Boys Life 3 as "porn" just looking at the cover and quick synopsis. And that's probably lovely and homophobic of me so I'm sorry. But it was also 20 years ago so it was probably just him getting his career started.
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2022 15:27
|
|
|
 27 (42). Night of the Living Deb (2015) Directed by Kyle Rankin; Written by Andy Selsor Knockoffs of the 13 Dead: 5/13 That was alright. For a “zom-rom-com” there’s actually surprisingly little zom and not near as much rom as you’d think. The com is fine though. It wasn’t hilarious or anything but it was comfortably amusing the whole way and never lost me. The first act is a little rough as Maria Thayer plays Deb as VERY awkward and uncomfortable. Its clearly deliberate and seems to be less about the character and more about her reacting badly to first the awkward circumstances of waking up after a one night stand you don’t remember with a dude who clearly doesn’t want you around and then… you know… zombie apocalypse. Its actually a rough way to introduce the character because its not super clear if Deb is just loving with him, just really uncomfortable herself, or really kind of half crazy. As we get to know her more through the rest of the film I’m comfortable going with one of the former explanations but you don’t know that at the start of the film and it feels like she might be like a weird obsessed character. And to be honest I’m still not even sure how any of that is intended. The second act throws a curve, first because it like kind of just puts the zombies on the outside of everything but also because it basically stops the awkward “romance” thing and just kind of lets the characters be. It also has Deb make the choice to finally leave her one night stand when she is being demonstrably made to feel like a 3rd wheel with the ex. And again… is this a nice liberating moment where Deb just kind of shakes off the awkwardness and says “ok, its time to go” or is it Deb in love with this guy she barely knows being jealous by the transparent effort to make her jealous? I honestly don’t know. I was leaning towards the former but then the last act culminates with a declaration of love and like… I dunno. So yeah, I dunno. Its a totally fine zombie comedy. Its a bit of a weird rom com. I mean I know all rom coms are basically two people falling in love in record time after ridiculous circumstances but I think it played really odd here. Like zombie apocalypse is a weird time for awkward flirting. Obviously that’s the idea behind this and makes this a unique film… but its also like… sometimes something isn’t done because it isn’t very good. Sometimes you say “I wonder what this would taste like if I add X” and its the greatest thing you ever had. And sometimes it ruins the dish entirely and you never do that again. This isn’t that bad or anything. It really was a perfectly fine movie that I largely enjoyed. But I dunno. I’m not sure i’d do that again. I’m not sure it worked.  - (43). Phantasm III: Lord of the Dead (1994) Written and directed by Don Coscarelli My biggest reaction to Phantasm III is that Coscarelli clearly had really enjoyed Sam Raimi films and Evil Dead before making this one. My second reaction is that fans went in an uproar when they recast Mike for the second film because it had been 10 years and the original kid wasn’t actually an actor, so then they get back the original Mike for this film and he’s kind of a really bad actor so they just make a movie where he’s kind of barely in it. Actually my biggest reaction to Phantasm III has always been anger and disappointment that they just kill off Elizabeth in the opening minute like its nothing. Not that I care deeply about the character or anything but the second film is entirely built around introducing her as part of the team and story and then some fans got mad so gotta kill off the girl. In hindsight it strikes me that a big part of why I liked the Phantasm sequels as a kid was that the road movie fighting monsters thing probably was something I liked and that’s probably why I loved Supernatural and it makes me wonder if Tim Kripke also grew up watching these movies. But even that’s weird since like Supernatural also had a huge problem with a fanbase who got really mad about stuff and always pressured the show to kill off its female characters. Also that made me realize that like the two women in this movie only exist for Reggie to creep on and then to fight over him. Overall Phantasm III is a schlocky monster hunting road movie clearly heavily inspired by Evil Dead an filled with goop and Deadites and the trademark floating death spheres. A whole lot of Phantasm is clearly cribbed from other stuff but if there’s anything that is distinctively Phantasm and probably is the reason the franchise had enough identity to make 5 movies its Angus Scrimm as the Tall Man and those spheres. They’re memorable and cool. And Phantasm III kind of throws a lot of stuff that is cool and fun at the wall… even if some of it is pretty gross misogyny that ages terribly… and constructs a fairly coherent horror sequel. There’s not really much of a story here but its all pretty simple monster hunting and goop stuff and that can be fun. But the surrealistic atmosphere that made the first film work so well is pretty much entirely gone and even those these are probably objectively better made films they’re also more generic and less impactful. And the actual story and canon stuff kind of just makes no sense and without the dreamy atmosphere of the first one that just seems like bad writing. ”Seeing is easy. Understanding, well, takes a bit more time.” gently caress off, Jody. But fine. I’ll watch the last two.
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2022 16:35
|
|
|
If I recall right Rose Red is the first thing King wrote for tv instead of adapting an existing story into a screenplay. And I think it suffers from it. It feels more like a knockoff/checklist of King stuff than anything actual original feeling.
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2022 01:57
|
|
|
Rains, Cushing, Price, KARLOFF, Lorre, and Nicholson. Not a bad night. 28 (44). Phantom of the Opera (1943) Directed by Arthur Lubin; Screenplay by Samuel Hoffenstein and Eric Taylor; Story by John Jacoby; Based on The Phantom of the Opera by Gaston Leroux Return of the Fallen: 8/13 - Team Universal GMM Challenges: 5/13 gey muckle mowser posted:
I’ve seen my share of Phantom adaptions and they all seem to go crazy in their own way, so I decided to finally check out that lone Phantom movie sitting in my Universal Monsters set. Its funny that the most unique thing about this version is how vanilla it is. Its like when Lady Gaga realized the most shocking thing she could do is just be classically gorgeous and do duets with Tony Bennett. This Phantom stands out by just being kind of calm. And that’s a pro and a con. The big problem here is we really don’t get a ton of the Phantom or horror. There’s some in there and I enjoy it. Claude Rains is great and I think he plays a very good Phantom. But the film stays around 90 minutes and devotes a LOT of time to opera. I’m not really mad about that. I’m not an opera fan but you can’t really be mad about getting opera from Phantom of the Opera. But the film does seem to purposely lean hard into it when you probably could have cut a song or two for more horror. But I guess that’s not really what the studio known for horror was going for. Odd, but ok. On the positive end the film also goes for comedy and I found it really funny. Not quite subtle but not too overt either. Just a lot of droll gags that start subtle and get less and less so as the movie goes on. Beyond a doubt my favorite gag is that Raoul and Anatoli spend the entire film fawning over Christine and trying to prove they’re better than the other when really they’re so drat identical they could be brothers. Christine seems very aware of this and highly amused every time the two doofs argue with each other and star moon eyed at her side by side like there’s a mirror between them. Christine goes into a giggling fit more than once and I was right with her. The other thing I really liked is that this version doesn’t try and turn Phantom into a romantic anti-hero like so many versions do. Its always creepy and weird and this movie outright says as much. Rains plays the Phantom for exactly what he is. A obsessed loser who snaps. The film builds up some sympathy for him early on but once he goes homicidal no one ever minces words. Christine repeatedly underlines the fact that if she felt anything for the guy it was pity and reacts to him dragging her into the sewers to sing for him exactly as one should. The film also doesn’t try and make Christine’s other suitors villains to make the Phantom look better. Raoul and Anatoli are goofy but they’re pretty harmless losers and actually do seem to have Christine’s concerns in mind. A little pushy and patronizing perhaps but it is the 40s. At least they’re not drugging or kidnapping anyone. Its a very pretty movie in technicolor and its focus heavily on the opera is definitely gonna appeal to some audience, and even if I’m not part of that audience I still appreciated its beauty and execution. And I genuinely enjoyed myself the whole time in part just laughing with it. I definitely would have liked to see more horror and Phantom but I liked what I did get. And I absolutely loved the ending. How can you not enjoy an ending to Phantom that has Christine propose a threeway with Raoul and Anatole, have them reject it and force her to choose, she dumps both of them, and they comfort themselves by going to dinner arm in arm? That might be the single best ending Universal ever produced.  29 (45). Frankenstein and the Monster From Hell (1974) Directed by Terence Fisher; Written by John Elder 13 Frankenst13ns: 8/13 And so we reach the end. I basically added this Frankenstein challenge because I had been stuck on the last few Hammer Frankenstein films for awhile and I wanted to use the excuse to finally close them out. The series as a whole has its ups and downs but feel like the strongest Hammer films I’ve seen in part due to Peter Cushing’s wonderfully sociopathic Doctor Frankenstein and Terence Fisher’s clever habit of making movies that revolve around the Doctor but in an almost incidental way. Frankenstein’s never setting out to do evil in the world. He’s just doing his experiments. But his utter lack of morality or limits just keeps resulting in horror movie after horror movie happening around him and making his life difficult. Its a very clever and fun spin on Frankenstein and was a joy to keep revisiting and see what kind of mess the bad doctor gets into this time. So there’s a very tangible melancholy to this. Cushing’s last Frankenstein, Fisher’s last film. There’s a certain sadness here to the doctor’s long journey of failures. The movie was more or less coasting for me until we reached the point where things go bad with yet another one of Frankenstein’s Creatures and the Doctor finds himself defeated. Slunched in his chair, telling his latest ambitious assistant that his whole life’s mission has been a failure you actually kind of feel for this monster. God knows the world will be better when he’s gone and there will be less random monster rampage murders or convenient suicides but you almost gotta feel for an old man who knows he’s running out of time and doesn’t have the results to show for his work. That’s a universal anxiety and Cushing ends his great run of this nuanced character showing that even if he can’t bring himself to care for another human being he still has his own feelings. But of course that’s a fleeting moment for the Doctor and after a pep talk and a power nap he’s back to taking notes and moving on to the next test trial. You can’t keep a good necromancer down. Its not the best but its still a Hammer film. It meanders around a lot and just kind of happens, but it does so with style and flair. The Creature is pretty cool as is the mental hospital/prison setting. And Cushing is the best and even does a little Action Cushing action at the age of 59. Good for him. It sounds like maybe Fisher knew this was gonna be his last film and while its not his best its still a very solid goodbye that feels like him and Cushing closing the book. And I’m not sure I really expected to get closure from this marathon. You don’t get a lot of closure in horror franchises. But this one delivered on it and left me feeling like maybe I didn’t waste my time on these.  30 (46). The Raven (1963) Directed by Roger Corman; Screenplay by Richard Matheson; Based on "The Raven" by Edgar Allan Poe Return of the Fallen: 9/13 - Roger Corman GMM Challenges: 6/13 gey muckle mowser posted:
Now that was completely unexpected, and absolutely delightful. When I pop on a Corman Poe film that starts with Price reciting dark poetry the last thing I expected was for the crow to replace “Nevermore” as his dialogue with an alcoholic smart rear end’s running commentary. Then Vincent Price is all “oh, yeah, I’m a wizard.” And then they go have a magicians duel with Boris Karloff like this is freaking Harry Potter. What the gently caress is going on here? Something wonderful really. Its awesome watching all these legends just goof around and make something so silly. And they’re all legends so of course they kill it. Its got big gothic castles and moving corpses and enough heaving chests to make Hammer proud. I’ve seen Corman comedies but a lot fo the time they’re the back end of a serious movie that Corman just makes on a riff with the leftover budget. Here it feels like they really did set out to do something cool with this (and then blew the rest of the budget on the really bland, totally serious Terror) and they succeeded. Its also fun to realize that Jack Nicholson’s career basically got started by Roger Corman. But where the hell is Dick Miller?!? I don’t know that I have a lot to say about this. Its not exactly deep or scary or anything. Its just a lot of goofy fun and an absolute must watch for anyone who has ever enjoyed any of the players in this thing. Just a great, great time and its always fun to be completely surprised by a 60 year old classic.
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2022 04:21
|
|
4. Music of the Night
10. The Price is Right
|
dorium posted:64 HORROR NOIRE Basically the story as I understand it is that Bond had a bit part on Spike Lee's School Daze and used that opportunity to sell to a bunch of the cast and crew to make his movie. Bond himself was pretty incompetent and solely focused on his character and the acting, so that left the film to basically be taken over by a crew of talented people who already had made a bunch of classic Spike films together and for Ernest R. Dickerson to become the uncredited director. And you can clearly see a lot of what he would go on to do in Bones and Demon Knight in Def By Temptation's gore and horror.
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2022 20:03
|
|
|
It’s a testament to the limits of auteur theory. That film works not because of some singular talent or vision from its creator but because of an immensely talented cast and crew.
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2022 20:32
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 12:04 |
|
|
 31 (47). Titane (2021) Written and directed by Julia Ducournau Watched on Hulu I don’t get it. I was pretty iffy about this going in. I loved Raw so I was very interested in what Ducournau followed it up with, but everything I heard about Titane gave me pause. I heard nearly nothing but praise but the kind of way people talked about it just made it seem like the kind of film I don’t go for or get at all and that panned out. There’s some interesting visuals and a lot fo style and maybe some ideas I’m curious about? I dunno. But the movie never hooked me anywhere. I saw a lot of comparisons to Cronenberg and that makes sense to me because I have the same reaction to a lot of his films. They just feel cold and detached in a way that leaves me detached and completely uninterested. Its not that I can’t engage with a flawed or outright villainous protagonist, its just that the film itself doesn’t seem to really care or invest or give me a reason to. Its just stuff happening that’s wild and weird and like that’s supposed to be enough? Raw felt like it had a very solid core character that really drove the narrative. This one really didn’t. I don’t know what I was supposed to be feeling or why I should care. And like… if there’s a deeper theme or subtext to it it just went over my head completely. I’ve read one or two and I can kind of see them if I squeeze my eyes but none of them really feel like something I watched. Like is there an incestous thing? I guess maybe? Its weird. I can see it if I push it. A couple of odd looks from daughter to dad, dad “examining” her but not wanting to notice she’s pregnant because of who the daddy might be? I guess, maybe? If that’s subtext it feels buried DEEP. And I’m not entirely sure how it connects to her being a serial killer or how it pays off with the relationship with her new “dad”? I dunno. I really can’t connect the pieces at all. Vague pictures kind of come into view from a distance but they don’t actually fit when I try and make it clear. I don’t know. I get why people would like this. Its stylish and shocking and lots of crazy stuff happens and weird sexual stuff. None of that works as a core for me. I need something deeper to hold those pieces together and I couldn’t find it in this film. So really I just found myself bored and confused. And I don’t really know what else to say about it. Just not for me.  - (48). Phantasm IV: Oblivion (1998) Written and directed by Don Coscarelli Watched on Peacock It is remarkable how much of this film is just unused footage from the first film 20 years earlier. The whole thing feels completely pieced together and without any clear design. After the third film kind of put Mike and the Tall Man on the back burner as a sub story to focus on Reggie’s post apocalyptic adventure fighting Deadites this one puts Reggie on the back burner and focuses super heavy on Mike and the Tall Man. Which if it was the design maybe that would work… or if it was a pair of episodes of a tv show aired back to back. But its a bizarre movie construct that leaves me at a complete loss as to what the hell Phantasm even is. Apparently Coscarelli filmed this deliberately as a sort of prologue to a fifth film that was being developed by some other director that just never happened. And I guess that kind of explains the utter lack of a satisfying finale or why the whole film feels like slow exposition with no point. The Tall Man was once a nice guy a very long time ago. And something with tuning forks. That’s all I got. We time travel now. Why? I dunno. So we can have a random Civil War scene? The gently caress? Of course even if Reggie is backburnered we still need to write in an utterly pointless subplot where he creeps on a hot lady. THAT’s Phantasm. The Tall Man, spheres, and Reggie being a creep. I still get a kick out of them recasting Mike for a working actor and then having to switch back due to fan uproar only to confirm that yeah, the original kid is a bad actor. I think 90% of his lines in this movie are VOR. Its genuinely hilarious and the only think that entertained me through this film. Remember the kid from 3? This film doesn’t. He got treated even worse than Elizabeth did. Don’t be an add on character in a Phantasm sequel. I hope Rocky got far away from them. This is just an incoherent boring mess. I think the first film is great. I even have a certain amount of nostalgia and enjoyment of the next two. But I don’t get the level of super fandom that would enjoy this. I mean I’m sure its there. Someone demanded a 5th film. Things resonate with people and they spend decades just looking for more. And the fact that the first film is so vague and unclear about any answers probably just bred the fans who wanted so badly for backstory and continuation regardless of the quality. It seems clear Coscarelli never really had a plan for this stuff. The Tall Man and Phantasm were metaphors and a spooky story. It wasn’t meant to be a sci fi epic. He said he didn’t see the need for a second film and his sequels all feel like they’re taking from someone or something else and just making it up as they go. I guess part of me is curious to see how this all ends up. How old and bad they all look by then. What random poo poo gets cribbed from to finish this. Mostly I just want to watch V to close the book on it, quiet that nagging voice that bugs me when I don’t finish something, and so I never again feel the need to say “Oh, I never watched Phantasm V.. maybe I’ll do a binge.” Lets just put a stop to this here and now.  32 (49). Phantasm: Ravager (2016) Directed by David Hartman; Written by David Hartman and Don Coscarelli Watched on Peacock <a href=https://boxd.it/eeDny><b>👻 HORRORx52 (2022 Edition) 👻</b></a> <b>PROGRESS: 24/53</b> <blockquote>49. Shown as part of Joe Bob Briggs's The Last Drive-in.</blockquote> Well I’m done with that. What to say about Phantasm V? Ok, lets try and be kind. If you’re one of those people who have been passionate Phantasm fans since for decades and care deeply about Reggie and Mike and the Tall Man than this is a fairly clear love letter and goodbye. And its a solid enough goodbye that zeroes in on the brotherly relationships and idea of family. I mean its clumsy. At one point Reggie’s offered a chance to have his family back and says he doesn’t want them as zombies but he’ll take Mike and Jody because they’re family. And its like… uh… Reggie? But much like Reggie you as a fan of Phantasm never actually cared about Reggie’s family. They didn’t have names or faces, they were just a plot device. You cared about Reggie and Mike presumably. And this film builds on that. It also at least tries to bring things back to where they started by kind of mirroring the idea of Reggie having dementia and this whole thing being his own grief and trauma the same as the first one might have just been Mike’s. Its a nice idea. The whole thing is a nice enough idea. Its fan service for people who care. And there’s a charm there if you want to see it. And hell, it actually kind of offered up the closest thing to a franchise explanation for parallel dimensions they’re all just slipping between. All that said, this is terribly made. Just terribly. The parallel dimensions or dementia things don’t really work at all because the directing and writing fails to really balance them in a way that works and just the idea of the entire franchise having been a delusion is a tough sell at this point. It also just looks bad. Its shot on some kind of home camera and looks like crap. The first film was cheap too but it worked, not just because I guess cheap 70s grainy video is better than clean cheap HD. But also because Coscarelli chopped his original film up in a way that kept it moving and flowing while Hartman just kind of lays out what feels like a series of chapters loosely connected to each other. I read some reviews that said this basically started as a bunch of shorts and was pieced together with an abandoned script. And yeah, that’s what it feels like. This whole thing feels frankensteined together awkwardly and cheaply. And it means even those kind of interesting, well intentioned ideas just fail to work. And christ the CGI is terrible. And of course no matter how old Reggie is we fit in a female character who only exists for him to be creepy to and die. I’m sure at this stage Phantasm fans find this charming and part of the package, and V certainly plays it with a certain amount of self awareness and humor. But its creepy and not charming to me. But ultimately that’s the problem. This is a fan service film through and through and there’s just no reason to watch this if you aren’t a fan of the franchise and characters and things like the treatment of women. I mean there’s another reason. You can be like me and have a stupid compulsion to finish things and go years having abandoned a Phantasm watch before V and kept looking back at it annoyed you didn’t finish. So like I actually did get what I wanted out of this. I silenced that voice telling me to finish Phantasm. It can move on to telling me to finish Howling or Hellraiser or something. But I dunno. if you need some kind of closure from Phantasm that’s why this movie exists. Its a closing of the book. Otherwise? There’s really not anything here worth seeing.  33 (50). The Entity (1982) Directed by Sidney J. Furie; Screenplay by Frank De Felitta; Based on The Entity by Frank De Felitta sigh This is a tough film to get through and a tough one for me tor really sum up. On one hand its a remarkable performance from Barbara Hershey, some effective scenes of horror, and a fairly coherent theme of the lack of help and further degradation a woman who is the victim of rape or abuse suffers when she goes looking for help. On the other hand this is a sleazy and exploitative film that takes a “true story” and flashes it up with very much not “based on a true story” elements and really kind of degrades Hershey over and over. A lot of people seem to feel the former outweighs or even justifies or cancels out the latter but to me it was just this very uneasy give and take that never felt worth it. I really can’t overstate how good Hershey is here as a woman overwhelmed and scared with no one giving her any help. I also can’t overstate how brutal the work she’s given with it, whether its multiple scenes of her being graphically raped or spread eagle naked crying out for help. Its an ugly film and I feel as much for the actress as I do the character she played. I also feel for the original woman. Look, I don’t know what her deal is. I’m inclined to think we’re talking about a mentally ill woman and not a victim of ghost rape. But either way her story is being exploited and twisted and whatever pain she experienced is being simulated in a graphic and terrible way. Its just gross. Another gross element of the film is the implication of incest. Apparently this was much more explicit in the original screenplay and the director removed a number of scenes to try and get rid of it, but the roots of it are still there and you can clearly see them. And not only is that incredibly gross but it seems fundamentally counter to the better idea of a woman who is the victim of abuse being unfairly maligned when she seeks help. Why would you counter that with a plausible implication that SHE is the abuser? What purpose does that serve except shock and sleaze? And I think that’s a big problem. The film feels tonally at odds with what it wants to be. Furie is apparently one of those “I didn’t make a horror film” guys and for big parts of the film it definitely does feel like he’s trying to tell a psychological melodrama about a disturbed woman. But the problem is this is at direct odds with the genuinely supernatural horror elements we’re seeing. We know she really is being assaulted by something. So the sheer amount of time spent discussing how she isn’t, and the actual real clues the script leaves that this is repressed guilt for his incestous feelings or sexual regression and unhealthy relationships with men just feel hosed up and out of place. It feels like the film is trying to say she’s haunted AND she’s these things too. The tone and narrative is just so confused and clumsy that it felt undecided. Ron Silver plays another one of these confused elements as the psychologist who very much feels like the villain of the story but doesn’t feel like the movie wants him to be. I’m not sure. What’s clear is that he’s taken an inappropriate and one sided interest in his patient and that no matter how many people come to her defense that she’s telling the truth he never even considers truly listening. He’s also incredibly patronizing and way crosses the line towards the end of the film to the point where he’s physically wrestling with Hershey. On the other hand he’s shown to push back against the other doctors who dismiss Hershey’s accounts as purely text book psychosis and in all fairness to him not feeding his patient’s likely delusion is probably something born out of a genuine desire to help. And ultimately he DOES save her life. Literally. And the paranormal scientists aren’t much better. They’re clearly putting her at risk in a giant mouse trap for their own purposes. He’s right about that and while things don’t quite work out as he expected he’s not entirely off either. I’m not saying he’s NOT a villain. There’s a clear pattern in this film of the roadblocks and condescension Hershey’s character faces. And Silver’s doctor is not just a roadblock, he’s also one of the people who basically wants to use her in his case because of his own attraction to her. Its gross and messed up and obviously that’s the big thing a lot of people take away from the film but I’m not sure how much of it is consistent or intentional. Ultimately I think there’s strong ideas here and a brave and excellent performance at its core from Hershey but maybe the director of Superman IV and some guy who writes sleazy haunting books weren’t prepared to execute it properly. I don’t know. Obviously it does work for some people and maybe if you’re not as squeamish about repeated rape scenes or incest or “true story” exploitation or the possible mistreatment of actresses when they’re asked to do stuff like this then this will work a lot more for you. But I just felt gross the whole time and I feel like the messages the film is sending are very confused and not worth the effort.
|
|
#
¿
May 20, 2022 20:00
|
|