Author Topic: Horror  (Read 115331 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

modage

  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 10747
  • Respect: +685
    • Floating Heads
Re: Horror
« Reply #150 on: October 18, 2004, 09:59:57 AM »
0
Quote from: MacGuffin
Quote from: themodernage02
haha, this is a terrible idea.  apparently the best way to try to get people to watch horror movies is to watch a dozen or so and not like any of them.  i'm the worst.


Being that your dad is such a horror fan, at what point will he officially disown you for all these negative reviews of the 'classics'?

well, you know i will say i started this with the best intentions.  i mean, the past few years when we try to do a little catch-up on a bunch of horror films we havent seen, we've always yielded some great undiscovered stuff.  we're just having a harder time this year.  and watching this stuff with my dad, who hasnt seen a lot of it in 30 years (or more) sometimes i think maybe he is seeing it a little differently too.  i just want to give my honest opinions, and as far as recommendations go, i am figuing most people here dont like horror movies, so anything i recommend should try to stand up to scrutiny of someone who doesnt have an afifinity for them, (not neccesarily would i recommend it to someone who likes these kinds of movies.)  so, to counterbalance this effort i will start reviewing all classics i re-watch!
Christopher Nolan's directive was clear to everyone in the cast and crew: Use CGI only as a last resort.

bonanzataz

  • Electrician
  • *****
  • Posts: 2887
  • Respect: +13
Re: Horror
« Reply #151 on: October 18, 2004, 07:17:28 PM »
0
Quote from: themodernage02
the third was the most famous involving a doll that comes to life and attacks, which MUST be the main inspiration for the Treehouse of Horror where the krusty doll comes to life, probably moreso than any Chucky film.


"My name is Talking Tina, and I'm going to kill you..."
The corpses all hang headless and limp bodies with no surprises and the blood drains down like devil’s rain we’ll bathe tonight I want your skulls I need your skulls I want your skulls I need your skulls Demon I am and face I peel to see your skin turned inside out, ’cause gotta have you on my wall gotta have you on my wall, ’cause I want your skulls I need your skulls I want your skulls I need your skulls collect the heads of little girls and put ’em on my wall hack the heads off little girls and put ’em on my wall I want your skulls I need your skulls I want your skulls I need your skulls

modage

  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 10747
  • Respect: +685
    • Floating Heads
Re: Horror
« Reply #152 on: October 20, 2004, 11:07:57 PM »
0


in a slight bit of luck i enjoyed both of these films: Hush, Hush Sweet Charlotte and Dementia 13.  Hush Hush Sweet Charlotte was the second in director Robert Aldriches 'old ladys in a house' movies after Whatever Happened to Baby Jane? (which i have not seen yet...)  The cast was incredibly A list: Bette Davis, Olivia DeHavilland, Joseph Cotten, although all starts were probably not en vogue at the time of the films release in 1964.  the movie, however lets you know right off the bat that it isnt going to pull back from the horror with a startling scene of violence right up front.  from there the movie sort of relaxes for a while pulling you into the story and getting away from any scares, before things start to go a little wild at the end.  overall, pretty good and RECOMMENDED.  Dementia 13, one of Francis Ford Coppolas first films, about an axe murderer loose in an irish familys mansion was a cheapie he shot for Roger Corman.  its worth checking out for coppola fans, there is a variety of cool stuff here as its interesting seeing what creativity can come from a talented director who has no budget.  the thing that struck me about the film was it basically set up a lot of things that would go on (for better or worse) to be standbys of slasher series like Friday the 13th, making this film about 20 years ahead of its time (and smarter than any of those).  score was good, reminded me a little of the Frighteners.  the movie has a few twists and was enjoyable overall.  RECOMMENDED.
Christopher Nolan's directive was clear to everyone in the cast and crew: Use CGI only as a last resort.

Ghostboy

  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 4892
  • Respect: +376
    • http://www.road-dog-productions.com/
Re: Horror
« Reply #153 on: October 21, 2004, 02:15:21 AM »
0
Hush Hush, Sweet Charlotte scared the CRAP out of me when I was younger. I was never able to watch Bette Davis in anything else afterwards without feeling creeped out (Baby Jane is also great).

Anyway, I watched Session 9 tonight and thought it was barely okay. It achieved some pretty good moments of sustained tension, but in an entirely arbitrary way -- it was just a random assortment of scary elements put together, and it doesn't get under your skin like good horror films do. The Shining seemed to be the obvious inspiration for the story, and it just goes to show how brilliant Kubrick was (like anyone needs any more proof). Good cast and a great location, though.

modage

  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 10747
  • Respect: +685
    • Floating Heads
Re: Horror
« Reply #154 on: October 21, 2004, 09:47:53 AM »
0
Quote from: Ghostboy
[Anyway, I watched Session 9 tonight and thought it was barely okay. It achieved some pretty good moments of sustained tension, but in an entirely arbitrary way -- it was just a random assortment of scary elements put together, and it doesn't get under your skin like good horror films do. The Shining seemed to be the obvious inspiration for the story, and it just goes to show how brilliant Kubrick was (like anyone needs any more proof). Good cast and a great location, though.

i watched that on IFC a month or two ago and agree.  the damn JUST A MINUTE thing made me think it was going to be creepy as hell but it was not.  the funny thing is, when we were visiting an abandoned mental hospital in WV over the summer (dont ask), we kept thinking the whole time 'what a great place for a horror movie' and started brainstorming and then we watched this and its funny how many similarities there were to our idea.  i guess that happens all the time...
Christopher Nolan's directive was clear to everyone in the cast and crew: Use CGI only as a last resort.

modage

  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 10747
  • Respect: +685
    • Floating Heads
Re: Horror
« Reply #155 on: October 22, 2004, 11:39:34 PM »
0



Its Alive I was with it through the birth scene which was pretty shocking, but then the movie devolved quickly into a stupid slasher movie with a mutant baby as the killer.  (sounds good right?)  although i suppose, it does pre-date Halloween in setting up a lot of slasher movie conventions (first person POV shots, etc.).  despite his best efforts to say something about smog and drugs causing baby mutation, and some interesting handheld cinema verite 70s camerawork, the movie just wasnt very good.  i'm a little surprised Bernard Herrmann and Rick Baker had anything to do with this.
2000 Maniacs was basically an explotation film that makes the work of Roger Corman stand up like the work of Alfred Hitchcock.  (no seriously, it gave me a whole appreciation for the standard of quality found in cormans films).  about a few 'yankees' who get stuck in a southern town full of crazed lunatics,  this is apparently the 'masterpiece' from Herschell Gordon Lewis who made a series of splatter films and was remembered fondly by my dad which is why i watched it.  i guess you have to see it to believe it.
Phantom of the Opera (1925) Hey!  this was really good.  and i cant believe i had never seen it before after staring at that image of Chaney all these years.  it was actually 1. my first lon chaney film ever, (even though i saw the over-the-top melodrama of his life Man of A Thousand Faces starring James Cagney earlier this month), and 2. my first time seeing ANY version of the Phantom of the Opera.  the movie is worth watching for several reasons: -the first reveal (!) -the color sequences ! -lon chaneys makeup = awesome.  so, if you like silent movies, this is worth watching.
Christopher Nolan's directive was clear to everyone in the cast and crew: Use CGI only as a last resort.

modage

  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 10747
  • Respect: +685
    • Floating Heads
Re: Horror
« Reply #156 on: October 23, 2004, 09:56:05 PM »
0


Dracula (1979) had been dismissed by my dad as not very good (hence not worth watching) but since it just came out on dvd and i'm interested to see this story as many times as possible i decided to watch it anyways.  for the first 15 minutes of the movie, i was really enjoying it.  john williams score!  great sets and costumes, seemed like a different approach starting the movie not in transylvania, but on the boat over to england.  and then, frank langella finally showed up as dracula and all the anticipation/fear disappated immediately and the movie just sunk.  i guess i would have to compare it to Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, which seems like its almost great but is brought down (for me anyways) by one factor: robert deniro as the monster.  it just doesnt work, and thats not to say that i dont like robert deniro or think he can act, but just that he was fatally miscast and the movie never had a chance.  same story here.  langella was all wrong for the part (in my mind although apparently he was successful on stage doing it which won him the role), but is too romantic and cheezeball.  his hair was too feathered, his costume did not look very good, and he just didnt work.  so, despite some cool roles given to donald pleasance and lawrence olivier the movie just didnt work.  it was cool to note some of the shots/scenes picked out by coppola in his version of dracula a decade or so later (climbing down the building, lighting the cross on fire), making that just a great amalgam of all the draculas/nosferatus of the previous filmed versions.  (i love that film).  also, a lot of the movie seemed to deviate from most versions, like was jonathan with mina or lucy?  who went to transylania?  which one does drac bite first?  anyways...
Zombie, my first lucio fulci film which is apparently an unauthorized sequel to Dawn of the Dead.  for those of you who watched Jaws and then watched Dawn of the Dead and thought 'man it would be cool if a zombie fought a shark', then this is the movie for you!  haha, actually there is a lot of grisly zombie death and gore in this and if you liked dawn of the dead, this is very similar although involving a voodoo curse on an island apparently bringing people back as zombies.  very similar in tone to the hopeless apocalypse of romeros films but without much humor.
Christopher Nolan's directive was clear to everyone in the cast and crew: Use CGI only as a last resort.

Ghostboy

  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 4892
  • Respect: +376
    • http://www.road-dog-productions.com/
Re: Horror
« Reply #157 on: October 24, 2004, 02:22:05 AM »
0
Oohh, if you liked Zombie you gotta check out The Beyond. It's Fulci's masterpiece.

Me, I watched Eyes Without A Face tonight. I think Criterion just put it out, but I saw a midnight screening of it. It's a great French thriller from 1960, sort of along the lines of Diabolique. Gorgeous b/w photography, black humor and some gore that will really get under your skin (I'm speaking of the surgery scene, and I didn't mean to make a pun there but I did). The entire theater tonight was cringing in horror and disbelief throughout that one particular scene. It gets a little boring before the grand finale, but makes up for it with a rather lovely ending.

modage

  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 10747
  • Respect: +685
    • Floating Heads
Re: Horror
« Reply #158 on: October 24, 2004, 10:46:28 PM »
0
on AMC tonight they had a Entertainment Weekly presents the 20 Scariest Movies list, which was not numbered.  Bruce Campbell hosted but the thing was lame.  the list for those interested...

Halloween
Evil Dead
Night of the Living Dead
An American Werewolf In London
Jaws
Texas Chainsaw Massacre
The Shining
A Nightmare on Elm Street
Psycho
Silence of the Lambs
The Exorcist
Poltergeist
Seven
The Thing (1982)
Carrie
The Omen
Rosemarys Baby
The Hitcher
Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer
Lost Highway
Christopher Nolan's directive was clear to everyone in the cast and crew: Use CGI only as a last resort.

Ghostboy

  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 4892
  • Respect: +376
    • http://www.road-dog-productions.com/
Re: Horror
« Reply #159 on: October 25, 2004, 04:48:40 AM »
0
That seems like a pretty accurate lists. There could be a few substitutes made here and there, but if you had to just pick 20, you wouldn't go wrong with any of these...I think. I haven't seen The Hitcher or (gasp) Jaws.

Lost Highway, while very appropriate, is the only really oddball choice -- it's terrifying, but it's so unknown to wide audiences. I was happy to see it there.

Chest Rockwell

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 1596
  • Respect: 0
Re: Horror
« Reply #160 on: October 25, 2004, 04:11:41 PM »
0
No matter what anyone else says, Lynch movies scare the shit outta me.

modage

  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 10747
  • Respect: +685
    • Floating Heads
Re: Horror
« Reply #161 on: October 25, 2004, 11:18:18 PM »
0
Quote from: Ghostboy
That seems like a pretty accurate lists. There could be a few substitutes made here and there, but if you had to just pick 20, you wouldn't go wrong with any of these...I think. I haven't seen The Hitcher or (gasp) Jaws.

Lost Highway, while very appropriate, is the only really oddball choice -- it's terrifying, but it's so unknown to wide audiences. I was happy to see it there.

i havent seen the Hitcher in years, and i've never seen Henry: POASK.  the special was lame because they told you the list in the first two minutes and preceded to waste an hour with lame things like 'hey, two of these movies involve chainsaws' and show scenes that werent very good.  they spent like 6 minutse talking to michael rooker and like 2 minutes talking to tobe hooper.  it was just put together badly.  it also bugs me that there are no movies before 1960, as is usually the case on lists like this.  its okay that lost highway is on there cause its 'scariest' list, not 'horror' list, but yeah it was pretty left field and they did little to explain why they chose it.
Christopher Nolan's directive was clear to everyone in the cast and crew: Use CGI only as a last resort.

Ghostboy

  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 4892
  • Respect: +376
    • http://www.road-dog-productions.com/
Re: Horror
« Reply #162 on: October 26, 2004, 12:05:09 AM »
0
Yeah, at first I was going to cry foul because Bride Of Frankenstein wasn't there -- but then I remembered that it was 'scariest' movies, and I guess it's fair since those older films just aren't as scary any more ('Freaks,' maybe, would be the only one to qualify). I remember reading that the original Howard Hawks version of The Thing made people faint, but I watched that the other night and while it was highly enjoyable, the lack of suspense and horror was rather surprising...

Dtm115300

  • The Vision Quest
  • **
  • Posts: 122
  • Respect: 0
Re: Horror
« Reply #163 on: October 26, 2004, 01:51:59 PM »
0
I never saw Last House On The Left
is it worth renting?


Im in the mood for a horror movie that more creppy then bloody. But i don't know of anyone out that i haven't seen.[/quote]

Ghostboy

  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 4892
  • Respect: +376
    • http://www.road-dog-productions.com/
Re: Horror
« Reply #164 on: October 26, 2004, 02:11:33 PM »
0
Last House On The Left isn't creepy. It's just violent exploitation. If you want non bloody creepiness, I always recommend Repulsion.

 

DMCA & Copyright | Terms & Conditions | Privacy Policy