XIXAX Film Forum

Film Discussion => News and Theory => Topic started by: TenseAndSober on April 22, 2003, 05:01:56 PM

Title: Horror
Post by: TenseAndSober on April 22, 2003, 05:01:56 PM
I'm not that into horror movies, but have seen and liked a few.
I love The Exorcist(William Friedkin)probably my fav.
Of course Psycho (Hitchcock)
Texas Chain Saw Massacre was definitely a good one (Tobe Hooper)
The Omen Series...1, 2 and The Final Conflict..(not the fourth one)
American Werewolf in London, (John Landis) (Paris sucked)
The Fly(David Cronenberg)
The Shining(Kubrick)
Carrie(De Palma)
Rosemarys Baby(Polanski) i love this one.
The first Nightmare on Elm Street, Friday the 13th and Halloween were good.
I cant remeber any others right now.
David Lynch made some freaky films as well...Eraserhead... Elephant Man.
I guess theyre not exactly horror but are pretty disturbing.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: MacGuffin on April 22, 2003, 05:20:53 PM
Quote from: TenseAndSober
David Lynch made some freaky films as well...Eraserhead... Elephant Man.
I guess theyre not exactly horror but are pretty disturbing.


How is Elephant Man disturbing?  :yabbse-huh:

Alien
Halloween
Jaws
Silence Of The Lambs
Se7en
Misery
Jacob's Ladder
Fatal Attraction
Evil Dead
Re-Animator
Poltergeist
Henry: Portrait Of A Serial Killer
Night Of The Living Dead (original)
Stepford Wives
Repulsion
Peeping Tom
I Spit On Your Grave
Last House On The Left
The Hills Have Eyes
The Thing (both versions)
Cat People (original)
Diabolique (original)
Suspiria
War Of The Worlds
The Day The Earth Stood Still
The Haunting (original)
The Universal Classics: Frankenstein, Bride of Frankenstein, Dracula, The Mummy, The Werewolf, Creature From The Black Lagoon, etc.
Invasion Of The Body Snatchers (original)

I could go on. I know I'm forgetting a lot.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: bonanzataz on April 22, 2003, 05:56:28 PM
Quote from: MacGuffin
Last House On The Left


now did anybody REALLY think this movie was scary. I thought it was one of the funniest movies ever made. I nearly pissed myself when they made that girl piss herself! When the mom bites off the guy's dick... PRICELESS! It was one of the best worst movies ever made, not one second of it even made me shudder. What's even funnier are the interviews on the dvd where wes craven is like, "this scene was very hard to shoot because, it's just so...uncomfortable. i even get squeamish when i watch it..." is he kidding? it's like a scene out of spinal tap or something, i couldn't believe anybody could take this movie seriously.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Pedro on April 22, 2003, 06:49:01 PM
Quote from: bonanzataz
Quote from: MacGuffin
Last House On The Left


now did anybody REALLY think this movie was scary. I thought it was one of the funniest movies ever made. I nearly pissed myself when they made that girl piss herself! When the mom bites off the guy's dick... PRICELESS! It was one of the best worst movies ever made, not one second of it even made me shudder. What's even funnier are the interviews on the dvd where wes craven is like, "this scene was very hard to shoot because, it's just so...uncomfortable. i even get squeamish when i watch it..." is he kidding? it's like a scene out of spinal tap or something, i couldn't believe anybody could take this movie seriously.

I found the rape scene pretty disturbing...when the parents get involved it gets a bit riddiculous though.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Ernie on April 22, 2003, 07:38:09 PM
Quote from: MacGuffin
Quote from: TenseAndSober
David Lynch made some freaky films as well...Eraserhead... Elephant Man.
I guess theyre not exactly horror but are pretty disturbing.


How is Elephant Man disturbing?


I could be way off but he was probably talking about the way he was treated in the film. I know I found that aspect pretty damn disturbing, like a wake up call for how freaking cruel people can be, you know...I don't know.

Anyway, some of my favorite horror movies.....

the birds
fear (96 version)
halloween
jaws
psycho (original, just saw it)
rear window
rosemary's baby
the shining
signs
silence of the lambs
sleepy hollow

Yeah, I know I need to see a lot more. I've actually always wanted to see Last House on the Left...I hope it's not that horrible, I love the idea. I would fucking beat a guy inside out if he raped my sister...or my daughter if I had one...how does it get ridiculous when the parents get involved?
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Gold Trumpet on April 22, 2003, 07:48:50 PM
Even though Silence of the Lambs begins and ends through genre formula, it is my favorite because of how it presents the horror. Most horror films seem to be exercises in moods and tempos, yes, but brought along with that how to kill someone or show something terrible in the most effective way. Whatever the case, you are getting the end result of what the imagination by feeling the fear that Hannibal Lector has in all the possibilities of things he can do to you. In the film, he does absolutely nothing to the protaganist, Clarice Sterling, which is great because the imagination can bring so much more in possibilities of violence and such that can be never shown in movies. Hannibal Lector is my favorite bad guy in the movies, even if he was butchered in character in two movies afterwords. Hannibal was a throw away because it was an obvious removal of Lector's character into Jason mode. Red Dragon was for more dangerous in destroying the prestige he had in Silence because it made all the famous scenes in Silence up as farce, as routine scenes that could play in normal drama. In Dragon, all magic and terror with Hannibal is gone, though the actions remain the same. It reduced everything that was great about Silence into scenes of convenience for plot build up to other things. Fuck Brett Ratner. He is even more insulting than Jerry Bruckheimer ever could be.

~rougerum
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: budgie on April 23, 2003, 07:28:20 AM
I haven't seen The Last House on the Left, but your comments reminded me of The People Under The Stairs. Has anyone else ever seen that? Hilarious-horrible.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: polkablues on April 23, 2003, 02:35:38 PM
Quote from: budgie
I haven't seen The Last House on the Left, but your comments reminded me of The People Under The Stairs. Has anyone else ever seen that? Hilarious-horrible.


Yeah, that's another example of Wes Craven not knowing the difference between scary and goofy.

As far as horror movies I like, there's the "Hellraiser"s, "Candyman", the remake of "House on Haunted Hill", the not-remake of "The Vanishing", and "Event Horizon".  Despite the funny looks people give me, I love "Event Horizon".
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Sleuth on April 23, 2003, 03:31:34 PM
Everyone's about named them all

Quote from: polkablues
Despite the funny looks people give me, I love "Event Horizon".


I like it too man
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: RegularKarate on April 23, 2003, 03:34:37 PM
Ick... the Non-Thomas Anderson

Blasphemers

Candyman is good

I like some good zombie flicks
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: budgie on April 23, 2003, 04:14:14 PM
Quote from: MacGuffin
Invasion of the Body Snatchers (original)


I like the '78 version too.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: SubstanceD on April 23, 2003, 04:19:03 PM
What about Dawn of the DEAD!
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: RegularKarate on April 23, 2003, 04:23:47 PM
Quote from: SubstanceD
What about Dawn of the DEAD!


Quote from: RegularKarate
I like some good zombie flicks
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: MacGuffin on May 14, 2003, 02:22:41 AM
De Laurentiis Developing The Lecter Variation

Screen Daily says that producer Dino De Laurentiis will be developing The Lecter Variation which is currently being plotted by Lecter's creator Thomas Harris.

The film, which is being subtitled "The Story Of Young Hannibal Lecter", follows the serial killer from his childhood in Lithuania through a period in Paris in his teens to his arrival in the US. De Laurentiis said that four actors will be required to play young Lecter at the ages of 12, 16, 20 and 25.

"Lecter was born into a very rich family but the war destroyed his family and killed his parents," explained De Laurentiis. "He was left with his sister with whom he had a very close relationship."

Universal, which handled international distribution on Hannibal and the world on Red Dragon for De Laurentiis, will again distribute The Lecter Variation.

Harris has written the story for the producer and is likely to write the screenplay himself as well as a book. The title refers to Bach's Goldberg Variations which have been a recurring musical reference in the Lecter saga to date.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Ghostboy on May 14, 2003, 02:32:23 AM
You all should check out Bergman's 'The Virgin Spring,' which is the basis for Last House On The Left. Wes Craven basically took a beautiful and tragic story and turned it into an exploitation slasher movie. It's efective in some parts, but man, that last act really is cornball.

I remember Event Horizon scaring the crap out of me. It seems to have that effect on some people. Other than that, Paul Anderson's work has been rather excrable.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: RegularKarate on May 14, 2003, 08:36:19 AM
Quote from: MacGuffin's sources
De Laurentiis Developing The Lecter Variation

blah blah blah

The film, which is being subtitled "The Story Of Young Hannibal Lecter", blah blah blah.


What makes this even more unfortunate than it already is, is the fact that a few months ago Vin Deisel was on the Daily Show telling Jon Stewart about how he was going to play Hannibal in this movie.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: MacGuffin on May 14, 2003, 10:25:03 AM
Quote from: RegularKarate
What makes this even more unfortunate than it already is, is the fact that a few months ago Vin Deisel was on the Daily Show telling Jon Stewart about how he was going to play Hannibal in this movie.


Wrong Hannibal, RK:

LOS ANGELES -- While making the promotional rounds for his extreme sport action picture XXX, actor Vin Diesel took a moment to talk about his next film role, as famed Carthaginian general Hannibal in the film project of the same name.

“He’s a character I’ve always wanted to play, and not unlike how Mel Gibson wanted to play the Wallace character in Braveheart,” Diesel enthusiastically explains. “He redefined war strategies. He was for the 3rd century B.C. -- for that whole era -- he was the classic underdog. He was the only guy who thought of attacking Rome. And he did it in a shrewd way.”

“I can go on for hours talking about how fascinating he is,” adds Diesel about the legendary general who used elephants to cross the Alps in a bid to bring down the Roman Empire. The red-hot actor will begin shooting the planned epic in the spring of 2003.

Hannibal is based Ross Leckie’s 1996 fictional autobiography that follows Hannibal from his boyhood, to his assaults on Rome, and finally his death on the Greek island of Bithynia. The novel is being adapted for the screen by David (Gladiator) Franzoni.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: RegularKarate on May 14, 2003, 11:06:18 AM
You know... that's what I thought he was talking about too.  
Because I was saying to myself "This franchise is going south, but that's a casting choice a sixteen year-old metal head would know better than to make"

I figured it was probably the other Hannibal, but when you posted that and that fact that he said "Young Hannibal" I got frightened.

Still a bad idea though... I already saw this film, it was called The Talented Mr. Ripley.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: godardian on May 14, 2003, 12:03:06 PM
I love The Virgin Spring. I like Wes Craven more as a person than I care for any of his films. He seems like a very decent person who's not dumb at all. His movies, on the other hand...

Anyone seen The Changeling? I remember that being pretty well made and effective. Everyone's already mentioned the horror masterpieces (The Shining being one of my absolute favorites, screw Stephen King for dissing it).

Scorsese's Cape Fear.

Carnival of Souls; The Blob; Sisters (mention inspired by a heated exchange on Sisters in the De Palma item). De Palma's horror: In addition to Carrie, Dressed to Kill should be included, esp. if we're going to consider Psycho horror.

Hope I haven't mentioned too many people have already brought up...
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Derek237 on May 15, 2003, 06:19:48 PM
The Shining, Evil Dead II, and The Fly are the best horror flicks IMO.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: oakmanc234 on May 15, 2003, 07:23:16 PM
Fave horror flick:

'JAWS'

Others:

'The Exorcist'
'Psycho'
'Child's Play'
'Scream'
'Evil Dead' 1 & 2 ('Army' is fun but it ain't scary)
'The Blair Witch Project'
'Wes Craven's New Nightmare'
'Halloween'
'Alien'
'Poltergeist'
'The Texas Chainsaw Massacre'
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: eward on May 15, 2003, 08:31:38 PM
that part in suspiria where the girl falls and gets stuck behind all that wire on the floor freaks me out every time i see it.....so does the score

dawn of the dead is fucking genius.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: RegularKarate on May 15, 2003, 11:05:29 PM
Quote from: godardian

Anyone seen The Changeling? I remember that being pretty well made and effective.


YES!  I love the Changling... I'm always trying to tell people about this movie, but they never listen... it's very good and very scary and I really have no idea why no one has heard of it.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: modage on May 18, 2003, 12:29:30 AM
although this is really more of a comedy than a horror movie has anybody else seen BLOOD DINER?  it came out in the late 80s although it looks like it was made a decade earlier and is pretty silly.  

here is the imdb description...
Two cannibals/health food diner owners are on a wacky quest to restore life to the five million year old goddess Sheetar. Aided by their uncle's brain and penis, the two set about getting the required parts - virgins, assorted body parts from whores, and the ingredients for a "blood buffet". Their adversaries are the police: the chief with a russian accent, the "player" detective, and the new Yorker with an Australian accent.

my personal favorite scene is the running over scene in the van.  the look on his face is priceless.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: godardian on May 18, 2003, 12:41:07 AM
Anyone seen Paperhouse? I haven't, but I always wanted to. Wonder if it's out on DVD...?
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: oakmanc234 on May 18, 2003, 05:20:04 AM
'Paperhouse'. Damn, I remember seeing that YEEEEEEEEARS ago, about 2am in the morning on the box. I remember enjoying it but dont remember the film too well. I vaguely remember some girl who draws stuff, whatever she draws comes true (I'm getting shitloads of flashbacks while typing this), she draws a house, it comes true, she draws a picture of her father and then scribbles out the face, next thing you know, he stalks her with a deformed face etc.

Man, that is messed up thinking back to stuff that you haven't thought about AT ALL in years and years..........
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: godardian on May 23, 2003, 03:36:01 PM
Just watched Fiend Without a Face and The Blob last night... you can see my thoughts on them by clicking the "www," but I'm just wondering if anyone else has seen these?
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Banky on May 23, 2003, 06:32:35 PM
Barely anyone here has mentoined Scream.  I love horror films and i am not gonna give it unfair criticism just because it was recent.  It reinvinted the genre.  Scream was a great balance of many factors from comedy,to gore, to "whodunit", to suspense, and to homage.  It was a great movie and spanwed a slew of cheesy rip offs just as Halloween did in the 70s.  I honestly can say that Scream is in the top 5 slasher flicks of all time.  Wes Cravens and Kevin Williams best work to date.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Derek237 on May 23, 2003, 06:51:28 PM
Yeah Scream was actually really good now that I think about it. So was Scream 2, but definatley not Scream 3 and all the other knock-offs of Scream...
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: godardian on May 23, 2003, 06:53:11 PM
It was fun to watch, but I don't know if I see it going down in the Horror Canon. We'll have to give it a few years, I think.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Banky on May 23, 2003, 07:16:32 PM
Quote from: Derek237
Yeah Scream was actually really good now that I think about it. So was Scream 2, but definatley not Scream 3 and all the other knock-offs of Scream...


just wondering why you didnt like 3?
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: MacGuffin on July 10, 2003, 05:41:24 PM
The DVD debut of The Hills Have Eyes, the notorious Wes Craven cult classic, gets the two-disc treatment from Anchor Bay Entertainment on September 23rd. Featuring a new 1.78:1 anamorphic widescreen transfer and Dolby Digital and DTS remixes, extras include audio commentary with Craven and producer Peter Locke, the new documentaries "Looking Back on The Hills Have Eyes" and "The Directors: The Films of Wes Craven" career retrospective, an alternate ending, still galleries, storyboards, trailers and TV spots and the complete screenplay via DVD-ROM. Retail is $29.95.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: rustinglass on July 10, 2003, 05:59:48 PM
Did any of you see Amenabar's "Tesis", That's a very good and scary movie. An urban legend picture. Maybe the most scared I ever was watching a film.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Fernando on July 10, 2003, 06:28:45 PM
Quote from: rustinglass
Did any of you see Amenabar's "Tesis", That's a very good and scary movie. An urban legend picture. Maybe the most scared I ever was watching a film.


Great film, more than Horror for me it was a really good thriller, obviously that if snuff film exists it would be horrific, anyway, the film really has you at the edge of your seat all the time and it's very well acted and directed.

Amenabar is really a director to look for, so far he hasn't made a bad film (IMO).

Tesis 1996
Abre los ojos 1997
The Others 2001

And just saw on IMDB a new film listed, the plot outline says:
The real-life story of Spaniard Ramon Sampedro, who fought a 30 year campaign in favor of euthanasia and his own right to die.

http://us.imdb.com/Title?0369702
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: oakmanc234 on July 10, 2003, 07:46:33 PM
Banky wrote: just wondering why you didnt like 3?

I really like 'Scream 3'. Maybe my favourite of the trilogy. Certainly the weakest (horror and violence wise) but it was fast & slick, boasting the best ending of the three (at least in my opinion). 'Scream 2' is under-rated, so many genius moments in that one with some genuine scares (Jamie Kennedy's murder in broad daylight or the soundproof room scene).

Damn, that was a good trilogy.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Banky on July 10, 2003, 08:14:20 PM
Quote from: oakmanc234
Banky wrote: just wondering why you didnt like 3?

I really like 'Scream 3'. Maybe my favourite of the trilogy. Certainly the weakest (horror and violence wise) but it was fast & slick, boasting the best ending of the three (at least in my opinion). 'Scream 2' is under-rated, so many genius moments in that one with some genuine scares (Jamie Kennedy's murder in broad daylight or the soundproof room scene).

Damn, that was a good trilogy.


I totally agree.  Except i dont think that 3 had the best ending.  I think that award goes to 2.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: MacGuffin on July 14, 2003, 11:51:36 AM
Article from The Los Angeles Times:

Movies put the R back in horror
Eschewing PG-13 ratings, a spate of "grisly, stomach-turning adrenaline" thrillers is coming up, ready to give adults a good scare.

There are a lot of great date movies this year. But if you're thinking of such romantic comedies as "How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days" or "Alex & Emma" or any other "chick flicks," you're stuck in the wrong genre.

The truth is, the best date movies are the current critically acclaimed, virus-infected zombie jamboree "28 Days Later"; the upcoming cannibal chiller "Jeepers Creepers 2"; and the cheeky, flesh-eating-disease shocker "Cabin Fever."

"People forget that horror movies are the best date movies," says Eli Roth, director of "Cabin Fever." "You don't take a girl to 'How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days.' You take her to a horror movie because you have a great excuse to hold each other's hands. You are grabbing onto each other. She has her head buried in your chest. That is a fun experience. It's like going to an amusement park or riding a roller coaster. People like to be scared, but they don't like to be scared in real life."

"There has always been and always will be an audience for the horror movie because we want to be scared," says noted special effects artist Stan Winston ("The Terminator," "Aliens," "Jurassic Park"), who produced the early-summer horror flick "Wrong Turn" and created the film's insatiable, inbred mountain men-cannibals. "We all want to be scared."

Horror films as date movies are nothing new, especially when you think of the old drive-in movie experience. In the 1950s, couples snuggled to "Creature From the Black Lagoon"; in the 1960s it was "Night of the Living Dead"; and in the 1970s it was "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" and "Last House on the Left."

But because studios have become obsessed with securing PG-13 ratings to broaden the age range of the youth audience, older moviegoers, Roth laments, haven't had the opportunity to experience "hard R, kind of grisly, stomach-turning adrenaline" horror films.

Not to worry. Low-budget, R-rated horror flicks are making a comeback. One can look to the R-rated 1999 phenomenon "The Blair Witch Project" for helping turn things around, although some observers would note that the film didn't get its R for visceral thrills. The Motion Picture Assn. Web site cites only "language" (it had an abundance of four-letter words). Shot on video with a no-name cast for a threadbare $60,000, the indie flick went on to gross $140.5 million in the U.S. It performed spectacularly on home video, making $53.4 million in video rentals and $15.7 million in DVD sales.

Two years ago, the $10-million cannibal horror movie "Jeepers Creepers" hit screens, bringing in $37.5 million, another $45.3 million in video rentals and $10.7 million in DVD sales. "It did great on video," says Peter Adee, head of marketing for MGM. "The fact that we did so well on video bodes well for the upcoming release."

In general, these horror films have a long shelf life. In the case of Tsui Hark's "Vampire Hunters," the film opened in May to good reviews as a midnight movie and came out on Columbia TriStar Home Video less than a month later. Michael Stadford, vice president of DVD content and programming for Columbia, says the window between theatrical and video release is decided on a film-by-film basis. "The strategy is designed given what we see as the real opportunity in terms of longevity in home video. We try to figure out a good theatrical window. The theatrical window is used to generate awareness and helps set up the DVD release."

This year alone has seen the release of rocker Rob Zombie's long-delayed gore fest, "House of 1000 Corpses," the vampire-kung fu thriller "Vampire Hunters," "Wrong Turn" and now the apocalyptic virus thriller "28 Days Later." On Aug. 15, New Line Cinema pits two indestructible '80s slashers against each other in "Freddie Vs. Jason"; two weeks later marks the arrival of "Jeepers Creepers 2." Lions Gate unveils "Cabin Fever," which has been a favorite on the festival circuit, on Sept. 12, and the following week, Screen Gems unleashes its vampires-versus-werewolves thriller "Underworld," with Kate Beckinsale, in which ferocious vampires are the good guys. Another remake of Tobe Hooper's 1974 blood-and-guts classic, "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre," hits theaters Oct. 17, and come Halloween, Ridley Scott's landmark 1979 horror thriller, "Alien," will be rereleased.

"When I was a kid, within a span of five years I saw 'Invasion of the Body Snatchers,' 'The Shining,' 'Texas Chainsaw Massacre' and 'Evil Dead,' " Roth says. "It was kind of the golden era of horror. You had really good A-list directors like Philip Kaufman, Richard Donner and Stanley Kubrick stepping in and making horror movies. There was no stigma attached, and then you had this youth crop like Sam Raimi and John Carpenter who wanted to kick down the door of Hollywood. So there was this infusion of top-level directors and a young emerging wave."

But the era ended, Roth believes, after the release of Wes Craven's 1984 "Nightmare on Elm Street," which was extremely scary and gory but also occasionally wickedly funny.

"I think what happened was a lot of horror filmmakers didn't want to be pegged as a horror person or they just got tired or lazy," Roth said.

"There was also a backlash in censorship," adds Roth. "It wasn't until 'Reservoir Dogs' [1992] and 'Pulp Fiction' [1994] that Quentin Tarantino brought back violence into movies. Now the ratings board is really strict about sex People got much more conservative. As a result, you had horror movies that had nothing."

"We go in waves of different kinds of horror movies from camp to hard core to A-list to B movies," Winston says. "Around the '50s, the horror movie was the B movie, but the horror movie started out literally as the A movie of feature — classic Hollywood movies from Universal. Boris Karloff's 'Frankenstein' and Lon Chaney Jr. as 'The Wolf Man' were the A movies."

It's all about the terror

Winston says he has nothing against campy and funny horror films, but, like Roth, he prefers the "down and dirty, gritty hard-core" thrillers.

"When I was a younger 12-year-old than I am today," Winston quips, "I couldn't wait to go to a movie and be scared. If I wasn't scared when I went to a horror movie, then it failed. You have to have a focus to a movie, and the true focus of a horror movie is not necessarily poetry. It's not necessarily about leaving a message behind. It's about scaring you. It's about going in and having that thrill of being terrified and then being able to walk out of the theater and go, 'You're OK.' "

"You try to give the audience who likes this kind of movie a fairly steady diet," offers Peter Adee, director of marketing at MGM. "You don't want to give them all of these movies at the same time, because they can burn out, and you also don't want to have that time where there is just a drought of these type of movies."

When director Len Wiseman began developing his werewolf-vampire flick "Underworld " a few years go, he continually checked the Internet to see if there were any other fangs-and-fur flicks being developed. Initially there weren't, "but then all of a sudden there are 15 werewolf movies that are in the works. Luckily, ours is the first. Obviously things go in waves."

Originally he had developed the idea for another studio, but then executives wanted him to gear it more for a teen audience. Wiseman took the project to Screen Gems.

Zombie's "House of 1000 Corpses" was originally made for Universal, which delayed, then dropped it like a hot potato because of its extreme violence. MGM picked it up for a Halloween release, then backed out. Eventually, Lions Gate aquired rights to the $7-million production for a bargain-basement price. It has taken in more than $13 million at the box office and is set for home-video release Aug. 12.

The movie is apparently successful enough that Zombie and Lions Gate are teaming up for a second "Corpses," set for production in October. "The movie stands on its own merits," says Tom Ortenberg, president of Lions Gate. " 'House of 1000 Corpses' is a good, old-fashioned movie. We recognized the film for what it was, and we were able to successfully exploit and market the picture, and it's turning into a big win situation for the company and it's now going to be a franchise for us."

Although he won't go into specifics, he says Lions Gate's acquisition and marketing costs "were exceptionally low, and a $13-million gross on 'Corpses' is going to turn into a big win for us. We are in profit just coming out of the theatrical, and it's going to be a great ancillary [home video and cable] title."

"Corpses" initially appealed to guys, Ortenberg says, "but as the film played in its successive weeks, the audience began to shift from overwhelmingly male to more of a 50-50 split between men and women. I think 'Cabin Fever' will still lean male, but my guess right out of the gate is that we will have close to a 50-50 split because it's been getting great buzz on the Internet and stars a lot of pretty young faces. It's sexy without being sexist. One of the unique things about 'Cabin Fever' is the film has played many film festivals; it's going to be the best-reviewed horror film in a long time."

Not that long.

"28 Days Later" has also received generally strong reviews.

'Rough around the edges'

Alex Garland, the English scriptwriter of "28 Days Later," has been a fan of post-apocalyptic horror stories since he was a youngster. Those stories and movies inspired him to write the film, which cost less than $9 million to produce and which grossed $20 million within days of its release in the U.S. It grossed $10 million in its British run late last year.

"The first time I ever came across that stuff is through reading books like 'The Day of the Triffids,' rather than watching films. They had a big impact. I always had a real appetite for these films or stories. It can be a badly done B movie, and I still really get sucked into it."

The film was shot in England on digital video, which gives it a raw, disturbing quality.

"There are times when slickness in a horror film can work, but they tend to be ironic, self-referential, sort of playing on a kind of knowing game with the audience," Garland says. "But there is this other tradition of the genre which is much more visceral and much more rough around the edges. I think we have a lot of that clumsiness in our film. Some of it is just because we were struggling to get [the shots] and we couldn't. It sounds like I am covering our tracks for mistakes, but in a way, I generally do believe that that kind of clumsiness can be an asset."

With so many horror films coming out, Ortenberg believes "there will be something of a shakeout. Where everybody kind of jumped on the bandwagon, there will be a few high-profile failures in addition to some successes, and that will probably make studios, both independent and major, analyze the genre a little bit more carefully. There is no such thing as a no-brainer. You will have to start with a good movie, a good concept. Something you can sell."
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: eward on July 14, 2003, 12:23:05 PM
Quote from: Banky
I totally agree.  Except i dont think that 3 had the best ending.  I think that award goes to 2.


oh come on, the first one had the best.  it doesnt get much better than skeet ulrich saying, through that creepy sounding voicebox, "What's the matter, Sidney?  you look like you've seen a ghost."

no sir it doesn't.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Banky on September 17, 2003, 02:30:07 PM
Quote from: eward
Quote from: Banky
I totally agree.  Except i dont think that 3 had the best ending.  I think that award goes to 2.


oh come on, the first one had the best.  it doesnt get much better than skeet ulrich saying, through that creepy sounding voicebox, "What's the matter, Sidney?  you look like you've seen a ghost."

no sir it doesn't.


yeah i agree.  Ive watched them a lot recently and changed my opinions.

anyways, i dont know where else to post this so here

Jason, Freddy, Michael and Chucky, get ready to rumble. Devilish little well-dwelling gal Samara just may ignite a horror franchise of her own, kicking off with a sequel to the supernatural hit "The Ring."

Producer Walter Parkes has confirmed plans for a second "Ring" flick set to include Naomi Watts as emotionally troubled reporter Rachel Keller. The sequel may also see the return of director Gore Verbinski and writer Ehren Kruger.

Based on a Japanese horror movie, "The Ring" has rung up more than $100 million at the box office. A slow-building mystery centered on a videotape that kills viewers seven days after they watch it, "The Ring" drew heavily from Japan's "Ringu," but the sequel's plot will steer clear of its overseas counterparts.

"In Japan, there is both a sequel and a prequel, as well as a movie that was part of a trilogy that the original novel of 'Ring' was part of," Parkes said. "What was interesting about the original Japanese 'Ring' was that it was a real merging of two different sensibilities, as is our version, I think. It offers the conventions of classic horror genre. It starts with almost a homage to those teen horror movies. But the mystery that it leads you to is rather unanswerable and ambiguous, which is very typical of Japanese film and literature. ... The Japanese prequel and sequel are way over on the Japanese side of things. They're extremely abstract and confusing."

So what will we see in the American sequel?

"It's gonna be tough because the original sell of the movie was the idea of this haunted video tape," he explained. "Really the movie is much more involved in Rachel following the clues and discovering this girl named Samara, and what's her story? So it's really more the revelation of the mystery of how the tape came to be. Since we've now told that story, we're going to have to go back and create another mystery for the sequel. I don't think the sequel can merely be the story of the videotape going out in the world again, because that will only take you so far."

So the sequel may focus more on Samara, the scary youngster with the long black hair and the vacant stare, than on the tape itself.

"Samara is the thing that lives on," Parkes said. "It might be interesting to explore how she was created in the first place, because we don't know that. We just know that she was adopted. We don't know how she came into this world. One of the things we've talked about is doing a dual point perspective — cutting between how Samara came into this world and what's happening in the present day. The only thing we know [for sure] is that we're going to try to come up with a really good idea."
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Finn on September 17, 2003, 03:07:11 PM
I think my favorite horror movie is The Exorcist because it had more meaning and psychological edge than most horror movies. I also really liked Psycho. I guess Jacob's Ladder would also be on my list, but I don't know if I really consider that to be a horror flick. I liked The Omen more than most.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: budgie on September 18, 2003, 06:07:41 AM
Quote from: Sydney
I also really liked Psycho.


What do you think of Gus Van Sant's remake?
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Finn on September 18, 2003, 06:21:36 AM
I never saw it.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: budgie on September 18, 2003, 06:37:16 AM
Oh, you must.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Derek on September 18, 2003, 03:44:18 PM
Psycho 98 is great because it bends so many things and intones new meanings.

Even though its set in 98, the time period is essentially alien. It mixes clothing styles of the 50's, psychadelic (garishly great) colors of the 60's with weird sexual undertones. Obviously Norman's obsessions, but Juliannes intonnations of her characters homosexuality, Anne Heche's homosexuality and Viggo Mortensen's wanton sexuality. Not one of these characters fits in the world of today.

And the pulsating score which you won't find in many movies nowadays.

I don't know if that was relevant or made sense, all I know is that I would rather watch this Psycho rather than a 'classic' like Lawrence of Arabia.

I could be fucked up.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: modage on October 11, 2003, 09:57:34 PM
just watched Dead Of Night, at the recommendation of my dad, which was an excellent excellent british horror-ish movie from the 40's.  a guy shows up at a house that he's never been to before and meets a bunch of people there only to realize he's been having nightmares about that very place and those very people over and over recently.  he says that if he stays something horrible will happen, and as he begins to convince the others there that he had dreamt all this before they each tell a story of the supernatural that had happened to them.  so the movie turns into a series of shorts all of which were good, kind of like creepshow or twilight zone: the movie.  and the ending which i wont spoil if anyone wants to check it out, was also great.  
also watched Magic with anthony hopkins which is kind of a take-off on the last story of dead of night about a ventriloquist and his dummy who sort of loses it.  which was kind of neat as well.  more interesting though, seeing 2 versions of the same story back to back.  recognized several nods to the former during magic which made it kind of cool.
also watched Suspiria, which was my first Dario Argento film.  really really crazy.  the lighting and music in that movie was insane.  i'd like to see some more, anyone have any suggestions?
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Find Your Magali on October 12, 2003, 01:10:24 PM
Quote from: themodernage02
i'd like to see some more, anyone have any suggestions?


older stuff
Night of the Demon/Curse of the Demon
The Haunting (the original)
The Innocents

70s stuff

The Changeling (underrated, spooky, cerebral haunted house flick)
Burnt Offerings (a bit cheesey, but some great shocks)
The Sentinel (a bit too over the top, but, again, some great shocks)

Completely obscure 70s ripoff of Night of the Living Dead that's worth a look and a laugh if you can find it

Children Shouldn't Play with Dead Things*

*-Directed by Bob Clark, who directed Porky's, A Christmas Story and Baby Geniuses.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: modage on October 12, 2003, 01:31:57 PM
Quote from: Find Your Magali
The Haunting (the original)
The Changeling (underrated, spooky, cerebral haunted house flick)


so funny, the haunting is on its way from netflix as we speak.  and the changeling is on the queue as well (at my dads recommendation.)
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: prophet on October 12, 2003, 01:49:00 PM
can someone tell me the scarryest movie ever that will scare the crap out of me i havent been scare by a horror film lately.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Find Your Magali on October 12, 2003, 02:02:32 PM
Quote from: themodernage02
Quote from: Find Your Magali
The Haunting (the original)
The Changeling (underrated, spooky, cerebral haunted house flick)


so funny, the haunting is on its way from netflix as we speak.  and the changeling is on the queue as well (at my dads recommendation.)


You will love them both. I envy you.


Quote from: prophet
can someone tell me the scarryest movie ever that will scare the crap out of me i havent been scare by a horror film lately.



Any answer would depend partially on what part of the horror genre you prefer: quiet, psychological films; classics; gory slasher flicks; very recent stuff.

Also, it depends on what you've seen.

So, what kind of horror films do you like? I'll try to make a recommendation from there.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Weak2ndAct on October 12, 2003, 02:38:54 PM
Quote from: prophet
can someone tell me the scarryest movie ever that will scare the crap out of me i havent been scare by a horror film lately.


I just saw 'The Eye,' which had me screaming "holy shit!" at a couple parts.  But sadly, the movie loses it's momentum in the 3rd act for a Scooby-Doo resolution.  But it does have a kick ass ending.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: ***beady*** on October 12, 2003, 03:20:37 PM
Really scary?

The original of 'The Ring', the japanese version.....fucked up and very scary.

'Event Horizon' always gets me scared.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: modage on October 12, 2003, 11:01:46 PM
Quote from: prophet
can someone tell me the scarryest movie ever that will scare the crap out of me i havent been scare by a horror film lately.


check macguffins list on the first page of this thread, or my dad, (big horror movie fan), just made a list of 31 great movies to watch during the halloween season.  you can check out his list here (http://www.calsmodels.com/column2oct.htm).
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Find Your Magali on October 13, 2003, 12:30:29 AM
Quote from: themodernage02
my dad, (big horror movie fan), just made a list of 31 great movies to watch during the halloween season.  you can check out his list here (http://www28.brinkster.com/calsmodels/column.htm).


Fantastically good list!  :-D

Two more I thought of ...

In fact, two films that have two titles each

Black Sunday (aka The Mask of Satan)

(http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B00002NDM3.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg)

Quatermass and the Pit (aka Five Million Years to Earth)

(http://images.amazon.com/images/P/6305095477.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg)
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Mesh on October 13, 2003, 10:41:50 AM
Quote from: eward
that part in suspiria where the girl falls and gets stuck behind all that wire on the floor freaks me out every time i see it.....


Boo!
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: modage on October 13, 2003, 12:59:08 PM
i always wondered what that was from and the other night when that scene came on i was like "MESH!"  and everything made sense.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: samuelclemens on October 16, 2003, 01:16:44 AM
IT scared the crap out of me when i was younger.  i  don't know if it would now, but anytime i'm around clowns (and it happens often) i'm always watching their every move...we all know that clowns are  :twisted:
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: modage on October 17, 2003, 01:01:59 PM
Amityville: With 'Texas' and 'Body Snatchers' being redone, expect some other famed horror classics to undergo a renovation including this 70's family in a haunted house classic. Much like 'Texas' this spawned numerous poorly received sequels, the story is based on previous material (in this case a book), and now according to Creature Corner it seems that MGM is in negotiations to develop a remake of the first movie. The studio owns the rights to the film series, however there's legal problems that have to be sorted out first as this incarnation wants to remain more faithful to the book - no cast or crew is onboard yet. This is also not to be confused with the rumoured sequel talk involving George Romero which sprung up earlier this year. Admittedly the original wasn't exactly a cinematic classic and there's definitely room for a remake, it does however make one wonder what other reduxes may be in the works (if they touch "Poltergeist", "Halloween" or "A Nightmare on Elm St" I'm outta here) .
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: modage on October 20, 2003, 12:55:18 PM
wow...

Dutch director Richard Raaphorst (he made the title sequence of Beyond Reanimator) is making a hardcore zombie-flick called 'WORST CASE SCENARIO' based on the book 'Woensdag Gehaktdag (Wednesday Meatday; The Only good german is a living german). The plot is simple; The Dutch and The Germans heve been on bad foot since WW2 (in real life) in the movie it's escalating and people want it to be fought out and the best way to do so (obviously) is to revive dead GERMAN NAZI ZOMBIES and DUTCH WHITE TRAILERTRASH ZOMBIES and let them have the ultimate faceoff. I know it sounds ridiculous but it is true and it's coming in december 2004. Hardcore horror mixed with dark humor is how Dutch newspaper 'De Telegraaf' described it.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

I Saw What You Did: Warners may be remaking this old William Castle flick.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: MacGuffin on October 24, 2003, 07:34:37 AM
The Amityville Horror Getting the Remake Treatment
Source: Variety

Platinum Dunes partners Michael Bay, Andrew Form and Brad Fuller have been tapped by MGM to mount a remake of the 1979 hit The Amityville Horror.

The Jay Anson book on which the original was based purported that the residents of a tree-lined home in a Long Island suburb were terrorized by a haunted house. The home had been inhabited previously by a disturbed young man who murdered his family. The film became a bit hit and hatched seven sequels.

Platinum has been courted by studios after the success of its Marcus Nispel-directed The Texas Chainsaw Massacre. Bay said the company is firming other projects, but it doesn't look like a sequel to its current hit will happen.

"We've heard from the rights holders on 'Texas Chainsaw Massacre' that they want what Hillary Clinton earned for writing her book," Bay told Variety. "That simply isn't worth it to us."
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: modage on October 24, 2003, 10:55:17 PM
for anyone who is still interested, here is my dad's list of 31 cool movies to watch during halloween...

http://www.calsmodels.com/column2oct.htm

i had put up a link before, but i think the traffic overloaded the site. so we moved it onto some real webspace.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Weak2ndAct on October 25, 2003, 02:52:10 AM
Quote from: themodernage02
I Saw What You Did: Warners may be remaking this old William Castle flick.

I was actually up for this job (the script, I mean).  My take was pretty close to the original, but it was a little too f'ed up and 'small' for them.  Instead, they took to some idea that had a bunch of teens at a ski lodge.  Go figure.  I hope it tanks.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: cine on October 25, 2003, 03:39:18 PM
Sadly, I bet it won't.

I wish somebody would make your stuff...
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Weak2ndAct on October 25, 2003, 08:39:34 PM
Quote from: Cinephile
I wish somebody would make your stuff...

Give it time.  At least that's what 'my people' tell me.  I hope to be able to announce some news soon (once I sign my name on the contract-- I feel like it's a jinx to say anything sooner).
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: NEON MERCURY on October 28, 2003, 12:22:33 PM
..jack frost 1 and 2 are chillingly scary......
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: modage on October 28, 2003, 12:28:53 PM
i dont know about 2, but the first one chilled me to the bone...

(http://online.swank.com/publicity/Synopsis/images/jackfrost.jpg)
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: NEON MERCURY on October 28, 2003, 12:44:51 PM
i couldn't find the a pic. of the first one ..but this is the sequel to a diferent jack frost film.....


(http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B0000A2ZR1.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg)




..now that is horror at it's chillingly finest
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: RegularKarate on October 28, 2003, 01:21:07 PM
A friend of mine came up with the catch line for the first one "He's Chillin' and Killin'"
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Ghostboy on October 28, 2003, 01:27:07 PM
I only saw the first one, but it was pretty sweet. When the killer snowman took the carot out of his nose and stuck it in his nether regions so that he could rape the girl in the shower...man, that was creative.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: NEON MERCURY on October 28, 2003, 01:32:47 PM
Quote from: Ghostboy
I only saw the first one, but it was pretty sweet. When the killer snowman took the carot out of his nose and stuck it in his nether regions so that he could rape the girl in the shower...man, that was creative.


..and the one-liners he would say after killing poeple were perfect..
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: bonanzataz on October 28, 2003, 04:09:53 PM
i only caught the end of the movie where they kill him with the blow drier.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: modage on October 28, 2003, 04:19:14 PM
hello?!?! spoiler alert!
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Sleuth on October 28, 2003, 05:13:41 PM
JACK FROST SPOILER

I love the part when he is melting so that he can go under the door and reform to kill the people in the other room, so the water starts coming through and they are shooting the puddle of water saying, "IT'S NOT WORKING!"
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Banky on October 28, 2003, 06:41:37 PM
CREATURE FEATURES: THE MACHINES
8/7pm & 11:30/10:30pm
This three-part Bravo original special looks back at the most memorable and most feared monsters ever put on film. Tonight, technology runs amuck.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: bonanzataz on October 28, 2003, 06:50:24 PM
too bad  we can't watch it because WE'LL ALL BE WATCHING EVIL DEAD TOGETHER IN AN HOUR AND 15 MINUTES!!!!!! seriously, guys. go.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Fernando on October 30, 2003, 12:09:30 PM
‘Shining’ scene voted scariest.
 
British viewers also pick scenes from ‘Exorcist,’ ‘Jaws’ .

LONDON, Oct 27 — Actor Jack Nicholson’s cry of “Here’s Johnny!” as he axes his way through the bathroom door in “The Shining” has been voted the scariest big screen moment by viewers of Britain’s Channel 4 Television.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/985674.asp?cp1=1


Other top ten scenes (Source: The Herald Dispatch):

1. "Psycho" -- The Shower Scene (Janet Leigh, 1960): When this movie opened, it’s hard to imagine that many audience members were eager to rush home and take a shower. Oddball motel clerk Norman Bates (Anthony Perkins) peeks through a hole in the wall just when comely embezzler Marion Crane (Leigh) is about to step into the shower. Next thing you know, here comes the butcher knife, the noise and the shower curtain rings, popping off one by one. Nobody ever looked at a tub the same way again.


2. "The Shining" -- Here’s Johnny! (Jack Nicholson, 1980): All work and no play make Jack a dull boy, but his blade seems pretty sharp in this adaptation of the Stephen King novel about an unstable author who lands a job as caretaker at a spooky old resort in the dead of winter. After the local ghosts work him over, Jack decides to pay a surprise visit to his wife (Shelley Duvall) -- by hacking through the bathroom door. And she knows it’s not the postman -- he always rings twice.

3. "The Exorcist" -- The Head Spin (Linda Blair, 1973): Either little Regan (Blair) is one heck of a ventriloquist or she’s possessed by demons. Guessing the latter, her mom calls up a local priest, who brings in the title character (Max von Sydow) to do a little housecleaning. We’re already pretty raggedy around the edges when she pulls off the always-difficult spinning-head trick. And she nails the landing!


4. "Poltergeist" -- Mr. Clown gets Frisky (Oliver Robins, 1982): There are plenty of scary moments in this movie -- the evil tree, the face disintegration, the corpse-filled swimming pool -- but for our money, you just can’t beat a doll that comes to life. During filming, the prop doll malfunctioned and actually nearly strangled Robins (who plays Robbie Freeling). The young actor was rescued by director Spielberg.


5. "The Silence of the Lambs" -- Basement Blackout (Jodie Foster, 1991): Man, Agent Clarice Starling (Foster) finally tracks down Buffalo Bill and what does he do? Locks her in the basement and then stalks her with infrared gear. The guy just doesn’t play fair. Unfortunately for him, this particular Starling is equipped with ultrasensitive hearing. Oops.

6. "The Sixth Sense" -- Late Night Visitor (Haley Joel Osment, 1999): Poor Cole Sear just wants to spend the night making a tent, but he keeps getting interrupted by a ghostly girl, who’s just a bit sick to her stomach. Actually, the most frightening part of this sequence is when a ghost passes behind Cole, unseen to him, but visible to the audience. Like, creepy, man.


7. "Alien" -- Severe Indigestion (John Hurt, 1979): Upon repeated viewings, this sequence is more gross than scary, but the first time it happens, you really have no idea what’s happening to the poor guy. You figure maybe he got hold of some bad huevos rancheros. No such luck. If you’re dying to see it again, it’s being re-released for Halloween, with additional scenes and the usual digital cleanup.


8. "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" -- Hello, Leatherface (Gunnar Hansen, 1974): OK, looks just like a regular farmhouse, nice front porch, nobody around -- hmm, what’s this giant metal door here? Aaaaaieeeeeee! The movie spends the first half building suspense, punctuated by the sudden appearance of Leatherface, who turns a nosy guy into, well, tomorrow’s dinner. If you ever visit the family restaurant, one piece of advice -- avoid the sausage.

9. "Jaws" -- Hello, Mr. Head (Richard Dreyfuss, Craig Kingsbury, 1975): Matt Hooper (Dreyfuss) and Chief Brody (Roy Scheider) are on a late-night fishing expedition (sharks, after all, are fish) and come across the wrecked boat of local fisherman Ben Gardner (Kingsbury). Hooper goes scuba diving to check out the boat’s hull, and just when you think he might bump into, say, the shark, Gardner’s head pops out of a hole. I jumped a mile.

10. "Freaks" -- One of Us (Olga Baclanova, 1932): Working in a traveling circus, Cleopatra (Baclanova) performs on the flying trapeze by night and by day romances the midget Hans, while secretly scheming to marry him (and then kill him) to steal his newly acquired fortune. When her plot is discovered by the other performers (many of whom are actual circus "freaks"), she’s dealt some cruel carny justice.
 
Link:
http://www.herald-dispatch.com/2003/October/26/LFedge1.htm
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: MacGuffin on November 08, 2003, 10:37:38 AM
Interesting story from The Los Angeles Times. I noticed a higher female audience ratio when I went to see "Cabin Fever" and "Texas Chainsaw."

The female fear factor
Young women are flocking to, and revolutionizing, horror films

(http://images.calendarlive.com/media/photo/2003-11/10140819.jpg)

The infrared cameras caught them.

The girls screamed. They covered their eyes. They squirmed, scrunched down in their seats or grabbed the kid next to them, seeking protection from the horrors unfolding on the big screen.

When the movie ended, one young woman left the theater shaking uncontrollably.

This, the studio's marketing gurus knew, was a sure sign of success.

"I have to see this movie again, and next time I have to bring two guys," she told the studio's researchers at the end of the sneak preview. "I need one on either side."

Illustrating a continuing trend that defies conventional wisdom, on the opening weekend of New Line Cinema's remake of "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre," women younger than 25 made up the majority of the audience.

With the help of this demographic, the $9.2-million-budget picture has grossed more than $68 million at the box office and has been at or near the top of the charts for the last three weeks.

Young women also made up half, if not a majority, of the audience for such successful spine-tinglers as "The Ring," "Scream," "Jeepers Creepers 2," "Final Destination" and "Identity." Even horror spoofs like the megahit "Scary Movie 3" had an audience that was 50% female.

While female fascination with horror can be traced back a couple of centuries, at least to the Gothic novels, it is hitting new heights today as young female horror fans increasingly drive Hollywood's creation and marketing of scary movies. The casting in these films of popular young actresses, such as Jessica Biel in "Texas" and Christina Ricci in Dimension Films' upcoming werewolf movie, "Cursed," is calculated specifically to help studio marketers sell their movie effectively.

"You would think they would be the last audience to be excited about a scary thriller or a horror movie," said Sony Pictures Entertainment's head of marketing, Geoffrey Ammer. "They are the first audience."

Invigorating the genre

No marketing decision on these horror films is made without considering how to attract girls and women younger than 25, added Russell Schwartz, head of marketing for New Line Cinema, which distributed "Texas."

"This young audience has been such a boon to movies over the past five years," he said, noting that "Scream" and "I Know What You Did Last Summer" reinvigorated the genre and introduced it to a new generation of girls. "They can go in groups on a Friday night.

"It becomes a pack thing, the same way an action movie is a pack thing for guys."

Female support has revolutionized the genre, concurs horror filmmaker and novelist Clive Barker ("Hellraiser").

"Women have changed the genre just by the way they have viewed it, by the pictures they have supported and pictures they have not supported," he said.

Thirteen-year-old Elissa Carfagna remembers watching her first horror film, "Leprechaun," when she was 6 years old in her older brother's room with a group of friends.

She has seen "The Ring" seven times and can recite lines from the movie. (The remake of a Japanese chiller ended up grossing $128 million domestically while costing DreamWorks about a quarter of that to make and market. A sequel is in the works for next year.)

Carfagna and her friends even went on a search for the original Japanese version of "The Ring," called "Ringu," at an art house video store in their suburban hometown of Glendale, Ariz. The subtitled Japanese thriller was the featured attraction, in addition to foosball and nachos, at her friend's 13th birthday slumber party.

To Carfagna, there is something therapeutic in being scared. It is also a communal activity where she can hold hands, scream and grab her friends without anyone thinking she is weird.

"You have a reason to go with your friends because you are scared," she said. "You can be close to somebody when you are scared. I don't like the gore, [but] I don't really mind the violence because it's part of how it's scary....

"I think it's the part of the thrill and the adrenaline that comes with it."

It is the same kind of adrenaline rush that comes from riding a roller coaster, said Glen Gabbard, professor of psychiatry at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston and author of "Psychiatry and the Cinema."

"What happens in a horror movie is that they tap into anxieties that are very much present in adolescence," he said. "A teenage girl watching this can see some of her anxieties on the screen at a safe distance.... That fright in the movie theater is followed by an immediate laughter and release of 'I'm OK.' "

These movies allow a safe way of dealing with the real threat of violence against women, said Patricia Leavy, a sociologist and pop culture scholar at Stonehill College in Easton, Mass.

"In reality, women are most likely to be the victims of violence," she said, noting that in these horror films the females are often attacked but then turn the violence on their male/monster predators.

"It's a form of escape, of looking at something that is an epidemic and looking at it as a form of entertainment."

Is it exploitative, as some feminists have contended for years?

"The shortest route to getting that audience is to put Jessica Biel in a tank top," she said. "If you mix sex and violence, you are sure to get a crowd."

Beverly Gray, who worked as a writer and producer for producer Roger Corman, said she sees these films as female empowerment tales.

"The young female lead [faces] the dangerous, though sometimes sexually enticing, male head-on and triumphs, bloody but unbowed," she wrote in an e-mail exchange. "No wonder young female moviegoers find such films appealing."

For the horror movies to strike a chord with young females, the lead must be a strong, take-charge character, said Bob Weinstein, chairman of Dimension Films, which released and marketed the "Scream" and "Scary Movie" franchises.

"The female audience wants to see a female heroine," he noted, but women serve a dual purpose. "From a filmmaker's point of view, who else but a female seems more vulnerable?"

The mother of all vulnerable but strong horror heroines was Ripley, many observers believe.

Sigourney Weaver's fierce, sweaty, alien-fighting astronaut in Ridley Scott's 1979 "Alien" changed the gender roles in horror thrillers forever, said Barker.

Twentieth Century Fox's head of production at the time, Alan Ladd Jr., suggested that the filmmakers change the lead to a female, recalled Ronald Shusett, who served as executive producer of the film and co-wrote the story with Dan O'Bannon.

"We thought they should all be equal so you wouldn't know who was killed next," he said.

Equal-opportunity killing

Today's female audience wouldn't fall for the helpless, dim-witted, curvaceous female who "tripped in the forest or went into a dark basement with a faulty flashlight," Barker said.

"Cinema never leads, it always follows sociologically," he said. "It is a reflection of what we think. Women were fed up with watching themselves as empty-headed bimbos. They wanted equal-opportunity murder.

"If you were going to murder some cute girl at Camp Crystal, you were going to have to murder some cute boys too."

Weinstein, who began distributing Barker's "Hellraiser" movies starting with the third in the series after he launched Miramax's Dimension Films label, said Barker had to convince him that females should be targeted in the marketing campaign.

"I questioned that," said Weinstein. "I didn't realize that women were as big an audience as men. It's not perception of action or violence" that draws them. "What you are selling is fright."

"Texas" producer Michael Bay said New Line executives were very wary of the gore factor because girls ordinarily don't like blood and guts.

They warned him that women would not like the movie unless some of the gore was eliminated. Bay, who had the final cut of the film, says he toned it down a bit but was still "very surprised that they would like this movie that much. There are groups of girls that have seen this movie three times."

He said he learned something new in his first horror movie venture:

"The girls run the show."
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: modage on November 08, 2003, 10:46:51 AM
Quote from: MacGuffin
The casting in these films of popular young actresses is calculated specifically to help studio marketers sell their movie effectively.


god, does that make me sick.  remember when they used to cast who might be good for the role?
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: coffeebeetle on November 08, 2003, 11:07:14 AM
:lol:

You're so right dude.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: modage on November 08, 2003, 11:14:47 AM
seriously, it is the filmmakers job to MAKE THEIR MOVIE.  then, when its done, its the marketing dept.'s job to make people want to see it.  when did the marketing dept. start becoming a part of the pre-production?  *(i'm puking as i'm typing this).  

also, the notion of the 'female herione' in all these horror movies is so worn out and was never really a good idea to begin with.  ripley was great.  thats about it.  in all these goddamn horror movies i watched last month with the female always being the one to survive; ridiculous!  would not happen.  no offense to any women, but c'mon, who's more likely to survive that kind of thing?
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: MacGuffin on November 08, 2003, 02:56:07 PM
Quote from: themodernage02
seriously, it is the filmmakers job to MAKE THEIR MOVIE.  then, when its done, its the marketing dept.'s job to make people want to see it.  when did the marketing dept. start becoming a part of the pre-production?  *(i'm puking as i'm typing this).


But I don't really see much difference when a studio has a project and wants to go after a Tom Cruise or a Julia Roberts or any other 'A' list talent for it. It's because they want to have a 'name' attached. Same thinking here, just on a much smaller (pay) scale.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: pinkerton310 on November 08, 2003, 05:09:15 PM
Hardly a comparison. Tom Cruise and Julia Roberts, or "A-list" stars as it were, have years of experience in film to back them up. They may or may not sometimes get cast because of there "names", but when they do get cast you know you will more than likely get an excellent performance out of them. TCM people cast Jessica Biel because she was on the WB and has been on magazine covers. Catering to the younger generation I guess.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: MacGuffin on November 08, 2003, 05:50:57 PM
Quote from: pinkerton310
Hardly a comparison. Tom Cruise and Julia Roberts, or "A-list" stars as it were, have years of experience in film to back them up. They may or may not sometimes get cast because of there "names", but when they do get cast you know you will more than likely get an excellent performance out of them.


But don't tell me studios don't think we'll get Tom Hanks or Tom Cruise because he's a box office draw rather than he's a good actor. The reason they are 'A' listers is because they bring in the most box office receipts. The money is first and foremost in their thinking. That's why they're studios in show business.

Quote from: pinkerton310
TCM people cast Jessica Biel because she was on the WB and has been on magazine covers. Catering to the younger generation I guess.


And that's exactly what I'm talking about. She is a 'name' just on a lower scale. She has a following of fans based on long running, hit TV series. Same idea as putting Jennifer Love Hewitt (Party Of Five) and Sarah Michelle Gellar (Buffy) in "I Know What You Did Last Summer" or adapting "Lizzy MacGuire" to the big screen and making Hillary Duff a star.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: modage on January 08, 2004, 03:55:32 PM
great fucking news for me....

» THE BOX OF FRANKENSTEIN
Source: Davis DVD
Universal Home Video will begin re-releasing its classic monster titles this year, starting with Frankenstein on April 27th. The two-disc Frankenstein: The Legacy Collection will feature the original Frankenstein, The Bride of Frankenstein, Son of Frankenstein, Ghost of Frankenstein and House of Frankenstein all with remastered fullscreen transfers and Dolby Digital 2.0 mono audio. Retail is a nice $26.98

five films for 25 bucks is fantastic!  (i believe Son, Ghost and House have never been released on dvd before either).  remastered is great, mono is not.  but this is a sigh of relief that theyre re-releasing all the monsters this year because the ebay prices on the previous incarnations are more than i want to spend.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: MacGuffin on January 15, 2004, 07:39:49 PM
Source: The Digital Bits

On April 27th, you'll get the Dracula: The Legacy Collection, a 2-disc set which will include Dracula (1931), Dracula: Original Spanish Version and Dracula's Daughter on Disc One, with Son of Dracula and House of Dracula on Disc Two.

Also streeting on that day will be the Frankenstein: The Legacy Collection, another 2-disc set including Frankenstein, Bride of Frankenstein and Son of Frankenstein on Disc One, with Ghost of Frankenstein and House of Frankenstein on Disc Two.

Not done yet - you'll also see the 2-disc The Wolf Man: The Legacy Collection on 4/27, which will include The Wolf Man and Werewolf of London on Disc One, and Frankenstein Meets the Wolfman and She-Wolf of London on Disc Two. The SRP on each of these collections will be $26.98.

Finally, 4/27 will also see the release of The Monster Legacy Gift Set 6-disc set (SRP $79.98 ), which will include all three of the above Legacy collection discs, along with collectible Dracula, Frankenstein and Wolf Man figurines in a boxed set.

(http://www.thedigitalbits.com/articles/miscgfx/covers3/newmonster.jpg)

We don't know if the previously released titles are going to have the same extras as before, but we'll post any additional details regarding bonus material when it comes in. We do know that the packaging for these releases will be Digipaks with outer boxes, and that all of the films will be in their original full frame aspect ratios with audio in Dolby Digital 2.0 mono.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: modage on January 15, 2004, 07:41:47 PM
*shits pants! :shock:
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: modage on January 21, 2004, 06:17:50 PM
Universal has finally confirmed that their Monster Legacy discs, due on April 27th, indeed will come with extras! Dracula: The Legacy Collection will include feature commentary from film historian David J.Skal (on the first film) and "The Road to Dracula" original documentary. Frankenstein: The Legacy Collection includes a commentary from film historian Rudy Behlmer, "The Frankenstein Files: How Hollywood Made a Monster" original documentary by David J.Skal, another documentary on the making of the Frankenstein films and more. The Wolf Man: The Legacy Collection will include commentary from film historian Tom Weaver, "The Wolf Man" making-of documentary and more. Retail is $26.98 per two-disc set.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Chest Rockwell on January 21, 2004, 06:56:54 PM
Anybody ever seen Seven Doors of Death? Anyone? Anyone?
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: MacGuffin on February 06, 2004, 01:08:17 AM
Dimension Films Heads for the Hills
Source: Variety

Dimension Films co-chairman Bob Weinstein will remake The Hills Have Eyes. Wes Craven, who wrote and directed the 1977 original, will produce. Alexandre Aja and Gregory Levasseur will write the script and Aja will direct.

The original film centered on a hapless family that makes a detour to a desolated desert to visit a silver mine they've inherited. There they are preyed upon by a disturbing clan.

Aja and Levasseur are the French fright film tandem behind Haute Tension and Furia, which the duo wrote and Aja directed.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: modage on February 06, 2004, 12:28:27 PM
remake remake fucking remake.  get a clue hollywood.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: modage on February 25, 2004, 12:06:06 PM
Friday the 13th Series Box Set Due 2004?
Source: Bloody Disgusting

One of my good buddies on the inside, whom wishes to remain anonymous, had some good news regarding the Friday the 13th box set, "Paramount has confirmed that Special Editions of ALL eight Paramount owned Friday the 13th flicks ARE DEFINITELY coming out in 2004!!" This may not sound like news to you, considering the speculated September release, but notice he said "special editions of all eight." That means every disc could be jammed packed with hockey mask goodness! Watch this spot for more in the future.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
i wonder if special edition just means a few featurettes or if it means they will be restoring the films to their original glory(gory)?  the ones on dvd/vhs right now are heavily heavily edited even from their theatrical releases (making bad movies UNWATCHABLE).  hopefully this will set things right.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: mogwai on February 25, 2004, 12:37:23 PM
good news, yes. uncensored? no. or?
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: MacGuffin on March 11, 2004, 12:38:02 AM
Quote from: themodernage02
remake remake fucking remake.  get a clue hollywood.


Face/Off Scribes Penning Pet Sematary Redo
Source: Variety

Paramount has signed the Face/Off screenwriters Mike Werb and Michael Colleary to script a remake of the horror thriller Pet Sematary, reports Variety.

The proejct is based on Stephen King's story of a family moving to a small Maine town with a pet cemetery and an Indian burial ground, for Par-based Alphaville to produce. King also wrote the screenplay for Paramount's 1989 release, directed by Mary Lambert and starring Denise Crosby, Dale Midkiff and Fred Gwynne.

The duo, who got together after Werb wrote spec The Mask, most recently wrote the pilot for the small-screen version of S.W.A.T. for Sony Pictures Television and Original and the sci-fi drama Alien Prison for Columbia Pictures with Red Wagon.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: modage on March 11, 2004, 10:25:49 AM
Quote from: MacGuffin
Quote from: themodernage02
remake remake fucking remake.  get a clue hollywood.

Face/Off Scribes Penning Pet Sematary Redo

well thats good news!
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Banky on March 11, 2004, 11:27:24 AM
what is the deal with all the horror remakes that hollywood has a hard on for these days.  I miss the concept of original ideas.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: modage on March 11, 2004, 11:31:52 AM
Quote from: Banky
what is the deal with all the horror remakes that hollywood has a hard on for these days.  I miss the concept of original ideas.

hell, i'd even settle for stealing/paying homage to other peoples ideas without giving credit.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: grand theft sparrow on March 11, 2004, 11:33:48 AM
Quote from: themodernage02
Quote from: Banky
what is the deal with all the horror remakes that hollywood has a hard on for these days.  I miss the concept of original ideas.

hell, i'd even settle for stealing/paying homage to other peoples ideas without giving credit.


Worked for Danny Boyle...
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: MacGuffin on March 17, 2004, 10:39:39 AM
Oh Yeah!  :yabbse-thumbup: "Thanks, lady. Thanks for the ride."

CREEPSHOW 2 (1987) - DIVIMAX SPECIAL EDITION

The sequel to George A. Romero and Stephen King's comic horror classic returns to DVD in an extras packed edition complete with a new DiviMax approved hi-def widescreen transfer.  Extras will include a new audio commentary with Director Michael Gornick, Never-Before-Seen Behind-the-Scenes footage and much more!  Turn the page this Fall!
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: rustinglass on March 17, 2004, 01:13:12 PM
Quote from: hacksparrow
Quote from: themodernage02
Quote from: Banky
what is the deal with all the horror remakes that hollywood has a hard on for these days.  I miss the concept of original ideas.

hell, i'd even settle for stealing/paying homage to other peoples ideas without giving credit.


Worked for Danny Boyle...


please explain.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: MacGuffin on March 17, 2004, 01:23:57 PM
Quote from: rustinglass
Quote from: hacksparrow
Quote from: themodernage02
Quote from: Banky
what is the deal with all the horror remakes that hollywood has a hard on for these days.  I miss the concept of original ideas.

hell, i'd even settle for stealing/paying homage to other peoples ideas without giving credit.


Worked for Danny Boyle...


please explain.


If you've seen "Omega Man" and "Day Of The Dead" you know how much was 'stolen' to make "28 Days Later".
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: bonanzataz on March 17, 2004, 11:14:17 PM
Quote from: MacGuffin
Oh Yeah!  :yabbse-thumbup: "Thanks, lady. Thanks for the ride."

CREEPSHOW 2 (1987) - DIVIMAX SPECIAL EDITION

The sequel to George A. Romero and Stephen King's comic horror classic returns to DVD in an extras packed edition complete with a new DiviMax approved hi-def widescreen transfer.  Extras will include a new audio commentary with Director Michael Gornick, Never-Before-Seen Behind-the-Scenes footage and much more!  Turn the page this Fall!


was the original creepshow the one with julianne moore and steve buscemi and christian slater? b/c that was on last night... and it really really sucked so bad. not to the point of being good, but to the point of, i hate this movie so much, yet i'm still watching it? why does this movie attract me so?
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: MacGuffin on March 17, 2004, 11:15:53 PM
Quote from: taz.
was the original creepshow the one with julianne moore and steve buscemi and christian slater? b/c that was on last night... and it really really sucked so bad. not to the point of being good, but to the point of, i hate this movie so much, yet i'm still watching it? why does this movie attract me so?


No, that was:

(http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B00005NG6B.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg)

And you're right it wasn't very good. Only the cat story was of interest.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: bonanzataz on March 17, 2004, 11:16:52 PM
:yabbse-thumbup:

spank you!
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Stefen on March 22, 2004, 06:31:23 PM
The horror channel is going to rock! It premieres in october 04.

www.horrochannel.com

And the coolest part from the faq.

Q.  Will the Horror Channel show movies edited or cut?  
A.  All films will be presented unedited and uncut. And whenever possible in the letterbox format.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Chest Rockwell on March 22, 2004, 06:34:52 PM
Quote from: Stefen
The horror channel is going to rock! It premieres in october 04.

www.horrochannel.com

And the coolest part from the faq.

Q.  Will the Horror Channel show movies edited or cut?  
A.  All films will be presented unedited and uncut. And whenever possible in the letterbox format.

Nice! Can't wait for it.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: modage on March 22, 2004, 06:37:55 PM
Quote from: Stefen
The horror channel is going to rock! It premieres in october 04.

http://www.xixax.com/viewtopic.php?t=4717
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Stefen on March 22, 2004, 06:41:37 PM
Quote from: themodernage02
Quote from: Stefen
The horror channel is going to rock! It premieres in october 04.

http://www.xixax.com/viewtopic.php?t=4717


I didn't even think to search for I climaxed all over the place.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: modage on March 22, 2004, 06:42:48 PM
haha that'll teach you to not read, when banky clearly says 'just read'.  it is clearly going to rule though, clearly.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Stefen on March 22, 2004, 06:47:02 PM
Im just happy they are unedited and hopefully shown the correct way, no modified to fit your screen crap.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Banky on March 22, 2004, 06:54:29 PM
yeah it will be awsome
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: grand theft sparrow on March 22, 2004, 07:32:16 PM
Everything in widescreen they can get?  I'd like to suggest a John Carpenter marathon.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: MacGuffin on March 26, 2004, 12:34:37 AM
Quote from: themodernage02
remake remake fucking remake.  get a clue hollywood.


Dave Kajganich Writing Body Snatchers Remake
Source: Variety

Dave Kajganich will write an Invasion of the Body Snatchers remake for Warner Bros. Pictures. The studio owns the remake rights to the film after making 1993's Body Snatchers, directed by Abel Ferrara.

Kajganich is also penning an update of the 1979 ghost tale The Changeling for Focus Features. He recently wrote Town Creek, which is also set up at Warner Bros. and is currently out to directors.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: modage on March 26, 2004, 12:40:54 AM
body snatchers?!@ UHH< we already had a fucking remake of that you assholes!!! and the fucking changeling?!?!
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: bonanzataz on March 28, 2004, 06:44:01 PM
Quote from: themodernage02
body snatchers?!@ UHH< we already had a fucking remake of that you assholes!!! and the fucking changeling?!?!


more like 5 remakes.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: modage on April 04, 2004, 10:55:36 PM
just watched Beyond Re-Animator since the first two are pretty good, but unfortunately it was a piece of shit.  i figured it might be, it being straight to video (with the exception of a few film festivals), but it was pretty bad.  the first sequence/5 minutes was good and then i was kind of into it, but it degenerated pretty quickly into a badly scripted badly acted steaming pile.  the worst part about it was jeffrey combs, who was the best part, was a supporting character to these other two douchebags.  why!???!  its like, i can see if an actors too busy, or wants too much money or something you just give him a cameo or something.  but more him could've actually made the movie okay!?  oh well.  macguffin you liked the first one, did you see this?
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Banky on April 12, 2004, 08:30:12 PM
(http://images.amazon.com/images/P/0783227507.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg)




I just saw this a little while ago and it really is completley awsome and is on par with Halloween.  Everyone should see this it really is awsome.  Also thanks to mod for helping guide me through the Carpenter collection.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Just Withnail on April 14, 2004, 05:15:50 PM
I thought it was really good until the terribly executed monster puppet made its appearance. Hate it when good movies are "ruined" by way to ambitious effects that turn out lousy.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: grand theft sparrow on April 14, 2004, 05:23:35 PM
Quote from: Withnail
I thought it was really good until the terribly executed monster puppet made its appearance. Hate it when good movies are "ruined" by way to ambitious effects that turn out lousy.


Aww, cut them some slack.  It was 1982.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: modage on April 14, 2004, 05:38:48 PM
This film is considered a benchmark in the field of special makeup effects. These effects were created by Rob Bottin, who was only 22 when he started the project.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Banky on April 14, 2004, 05:53:17 PM
the only special effect that was slightly off was the very last scene with the monster.  Other than that all those great practical effects were fucking superb
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Stefen on April 14, 2004, 06:55:36 PM
Lets talk about an american werewolf in london.  :-D
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Banky on April 14, 2004, 08:43:23 PM
i wrote the arrow from joblo.com giving him props for all the good work he does and he wrote me back thanking me which is pretty fucking cool
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Just Withnail on April 15, 2004, 03:34:36 AM
1982 or not, Carpenter is (was?) smart enough to know there's no need to show the monster, or at least the need to show it that much, or for it to be that overblown and baldy designed.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Ghostboy on April 15, 2004, 03:45:27 AM
That's what ruined In The Mouth Of Madness for me, too.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: modage on April 15, 2004, 10:49:54 AM
Quote from: Ghostboy
That's what ruined In The Mouth Of Madness for me, too.

aww, i love that movie.  its creepy as hell.  it sucks you into this world that starts out normal and ends up totally insane.  banky wasnt too impressed with it either when he watched it recently.  whens the last time you saw it ghostboy?
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: MacGuffin on September 14, 2004, 12:55:07 AM
Pangs have eye on indie 'Scarecrow'

Hong Kong horror maestros Oxide and Danny Pang are set to make their English-language debut directing "Scarecrow" for Blue Star Pictures and Ghost House Pictures, a joint venture of Senator International, Sam Raimi and his producing partner Rob Tapert. Written by Stuart Beattie ("Collateral") from an original script by Todd Farmer, "Scarecrow" is a horror tale that follows the lives of a family moving into a run-down sunflower farm. As the farm begins to revive after years of disrepair, the family begins to notice uncomfortable and alarming changes in their father's behavior. Principal photography is slated for the spring. "I'm thrilled that the Pang brothers have agreed to direct 'Scarecrow,' " Raimi said. "I've been a big fan ever since 'The Eye.' Danny and Oxide have an exciting and unique vision and are at the forefront of the neo-horror movement in Asian filmmaking."
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: modage on October 02, 2004, 12:12:37 PM
okay, apologies to everyone in advance to everyone for the immense spamming of this thread for the next 30 days.  i know i'm not a very good reviewer, but hopefully my enthusiasm for the genre will inspire some people to join in and see some movies this month.

(http://www.calsmodels.com/images/XIXAX/halloweenhorror.jpg)

(http://cdn.nflximg.com/us/boxshots/large/342780.jpg) (http://cdn.nflximg.com/us/boxshots/large/70001738.jpg)

last night i started my Halloween Horror Month with 2 films i'd never seen before, The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari and Freaks.  while neither seemed much like a horror film as you would imagine it today, there were traces of things that were undeniably horror elements that would go onto create a genre.  

Cabinet of Dr. Caligari is usually credited with being the 'first horror film', and with the images i'd seen from the film over the years, my expectations were pretty high.  the story is basically that of a Dr. Caligari who claims to have a sleepwalker who can tell the future and ends up sending him out to commit his heinous crimes.  but all is not as it seems...

the movie, while being incredible visually, was just too (for lack of a better word) old.  by comparison the buster keaton films i watched a few days ago seemed as brand new as the latest brett ratner vehicle!  so, while i could admire the film for its set design, and its attempt at telling a story as complex an idea as this in 1919, i could not ever fully engage in it as a viewer.  unlike say, metropolis or nosferatu, which i could still watch and really enjoy, this felt like something that i should've seen in a museum (or a class in school).  but maybe its because i watched the Image version when i know i should've gotten the Kino....  damn you netflix!

Freaks, director Tod Brownings infamous follow-up to Dracula, banned in several countries, and recently available on dvd...  when the studio asked for a film more terrifying than dracula, i'll bet they didnt expect this.  while not really a horror movie, the film is still shocking because they used 'real freaks'.  the movie is about a traveling sideshow and a midget who falls in love with a (normal) woman who marries him because she learns of his fortune and plans to murder him.  the bulk of the film is just a drama between these characters who are portrayed surprisingly human despite their abnormalities.  it isnt until the film starts winding down that a real sense of terror is brought about.  bizarre, but interesting.

so, overall two mild recommendations.

(http://www.german-cinema.de/archive/images/the_cabinet_of_dr_caligari.jpg) (http://www.brightlightsfilm.com/32/32_images/freaks3a.jpg)
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: modage on October 03, 2004, 10:55:11 PM
(http://www.calsmodels.com/images/XIXAX/halloweenhorror.jpg)
(http://cdn.nflximg.com/us/boxshots/large/821155.jpg) (http://cdn.nflximg.com/us/boxshots/large/60000261.jpg)
well, unfortunately tonight was a couple of duds.  i watched The Old Dark House and White Zombie, both of which i'd heard some good things about and neither of which is worth ever re-watching.  both of which were released in 1932, a year after those involved had made Dracula & Frankenstein (!)  old dark house was interesting as it was probably (one of ) the first movies to take place on a dark and stormy night as a bunch of strangers gather in an old house with weirdohs living there.  it was actually decent, and i thought the end built a decent amount of tension but overall not great.  white zombie was pretty bad though.  supposedly it was filmed in 11 days on the leftover sets from dracula and frankenstein  and it shows, because it seems like a cheapie, hastily thrown together with not much of a story.  why the hell did someone name their band after this?  but, at the very least seeing these gave me even more appreciation for how good the big Universal Monster movies are.  neither of these are recommended.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: modage on October 06, 2004, 11:51:15 PM
(http://www.calsmodels.com/images/XIXAX/halloweenhorror.jpg)
(http://cdn.nflximg.com/us/boxshots/large/60023681.jpg) (http://cdn.nflximg.com/us/boxshots/large/60026319.jpg)
well looks like tonight was my SPOILER sadistic torture double feature.  Last House on the Left was a pile of turd.  but even worse than that, it WASNT A HORROR MOVIE!  dont be misled by the (misleading) cover, how this got lumped into the genre over the years is a mystery.  its no more a horror film than Irreversible or Straw Dogs, (not that its anywhere near as interesting as either of those), its more on the level with I Spit on Your Grave (which sucks HARD.)  the movie, really had little or no intentions of even being a horror movie.  (as evidenced by the score), it was an attempt at some sort of social commentary because the score undercut any possible terror that could've been witnessed.  (put that score ontop of Texas Chainsaw Massacre, and you'd have the same result).  not that theres a problem with mixing horror and commentary, its just, it helps if you have the horror part and the movie part doesnt suck.  so DONT SEE THIS UNDER ANY TIME WASTING CIRCUMSTANCES!

Audition was my first takashi miike film, and it was interesting....  i've really only seen a few japanese horror films, so i'm really out of my league here.  it was interesting, and there was certainly some mounting tension towards the end (when everything started to go insane), but overall it just seemed okay.  so will someone who knows SPOILER was it a dream or not explain it to me?  or is it supposed to be unknown?  the guy in the bag ruled.  it too, was not a horror movie, more like a thriller.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: 03 on October 07, 2004, 12:33:04 AM
i would like to recommend two for your next session:
Repulsion by Roman Polanski
Valerie and Her Week of Wonders by Jaromil Jires
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: MacGuffin on October 07, 2004, 12:51:54 AM
Quote from: themodernage02
I Spit on Your Grave (which sucks HARD.)


While I will agree "Spit" is not a true horror film in the sense of the genre (although it is a horror what she does to the guy in the bathtub), it hardly "sucks HARD." I think it's a better revenge movie than "Kill Bill."
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Stefen on October 07, 2004, 01:20:11 AM
I think it has a kind of charm that is lacking in most of those type of movies. I can't really put my finger on it, but I think the fact that it is so gritty and unaologetic has something to do with it.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Ghostboy on October 07, 2004, 04:12:20 AM
I agree that Last House On The Left was pretty disappointing. I guess I should see I Spit On Your Grave.

Me, I've just watched the second two installments of Romero's original zombie trilogy, and while there's surely an appropriate thread for me to comment on those, I figure I'll add to the seasonal fun here.

Dawn Of The Dead was everything I'd always heard it was -- I loved every minute of it. I was pretty shocked by the gore -- I forgot that these went out unrated back then. It was pretty exciting at times, which I hadn't expected -- I figured it would be simply horror and social satire, which there were plenty of, but I was getting all caught up in the action elements too. Ken Foree is awesome. While I really liked the remake, I think this is still superior; the shortage of characters made them stand out far more than the gaggle of survivors in the remake.

Day Of The Dead was pretty good -- not nearly as bad as I'd heard over the years. It was entertaining throughout, and it had some interesting ideas -- it seemed an intelligent direction to take the zombie concept (although the Bub stuff might have gone a little too far -- he's more human than the humans, we get it).  One big problem was that the characters were really hard to sympathize with (even the heroic ones). Also the score really worked against it -- something that I didn't find as much a problem with Dawn, where the cheesy synth stuff sorta worked with the setting. Savini outdid himself with the gore....although it actually got a bit repetitive after a while. It's worth seeing, but I think the last half hour of 28 Days Later (which definitely owes an enormous amount to this) improved the concept ever so slightly.

So between these and Shaun Of The Dead, I think I've decided I definitely like slow zombies best, although I do like the fast ones quite a bit too.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Weak2ndAct on October 07, 2004, 04:23:40 AM
Mod, so about Audition: First viewing I took it as face value, second I flip-flopped.  There are strong arguments to be made for both sides, but I say F it, it's just cool.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: modage on October 07, 2004, 09:38:18 AM
Quote from: 03
i would like to recommend two for your next session:
Repulsion by Roman Polanski
Valerie and Her Week of Wonders by Jaromil Jires

i saw repulsion last year and liked it, (although its one of macguffins fav's), and i've never heard of the second one.  whats that like?

Quote from: MacGuffin
Quote from: themodernage02
I Spit on Your Grave (which sucks HARD.)


While I will agree "Spit" is not a true horror film in the sense of the genre (although it is a horror what she does to the guy in the bathtub), it hardly "sucks HARD." I think it's a better revenge movie than "Kill Bill."

haha, okay. maybe i was extra annoyed while watching it last year because the dvd had 1000 scratches and kept trying to skip every 20 minutes.  so, to each his own, my friend...

Quote from: Weak2ndAct
Mod, so about Audition: First viewing I took it as face value, second I flip-flopped.  There are strong arguments to be made for both sides, but I say F it, it's just cool.

yeah it did seem cool.  i just wish more of the horror/tension stuff would've started before an hour in but i guess the movie had no intention of doing so and probably should be appreciated for going against convention and not giving any easy answers.  the guy in the bag was definitely cool though.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: 03 on October 07, 2004, 02:15:53 PM
Quote from: themodernage02
Quote from: 03
Valerie and Her Week of Wonders by Jaromil Jires
whats that like?

it's czech surrealism about vampires and budding sexuality. it's very beautiful; facets released it a little while ago, before that it was very difficult to find.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: modage on October 08, 2004, 04:16:59 PM
(http://www.calsmodels.com/images/XIXAX/halloweenhorror.jpg)
(http://cdn.nflximg.com/us/boxshots/large/70001704.jpg) (http://images.amazon.com/images/P/1559409002.01._PE10_SCMZZZZZZZ_.jpg)

yesterday i watched the original Village of the Damned and its sequel Children of the Damned and then Carnival of Souls, none of which i had seen before.  in Village of the Damned, all the women in town become pregnant on the same day whether or not they've mated and all give birth to blonde-haired children who are emotionless and have mind control abilities.  suspicion and panic insues. i hadn't seen either damned movie nor have i seen the john carpenter remake so the idea was original to me.  i will admit to having a slight prejudice against horror movies featuring evil kids or evil puppets/dolls.  because for me, its really hard to make a child or doll scary, and not many movies can find a way to do it.  the exceptions for myself being The Omen (for a creepy kid) and Poltergeist (for a scary doll).  (exorcist too for kid, but i think when possession comes into it, its a whole other thing).  so, while the damned movies are old, which dates most of their creep-factor, they are surprisingly well made, especially considering their budgets.  (50,000 i think for the first one?)  so, the first one was a good original story and a pretty decent movie (except for the fact that the terror lies in little blond children with funny eyes).  the second one was a little lame but still well made (acted, shot, etc.)  it had just been done and they didnt expand on the idea very much except for making the children 'international' and not all blondes.  Village is MILDLY RECOMMENDED. children is NOT RECOMMENDED.

Carnival of Souls, cited as being one of Romero's main influences in making Night of the Living Dead, was one i was looking forward to since last year i didnt get around to it.  in it, during a drag race that goes awry the lone survivor of a car accident starts seeing visions of a creepy guy (from macguffins old avatar) everywhere she goes.  from the beginning of the movie i was hooked.  i thought the film was really 'cool' in that low budget 60s kind of way and the first few times she saw the Man, it was really freaky!  but, after an hour of the same thing without really going anywhere or exploring deeper it became evident the movie had run out of ideas.  and with an ending that (probably mind-blowing in '62 but) today you can see coming from the opening minutes thanks to dozens of twilight zone episodes etc. it just doesnt have enough to keep itself together.  while i can appreciate the film for being EXTREMELY low budget (11,000 i think?), i had hoped for a gem to put alongside Night of the Living Dead, which this is not.  so if for nothing else, thank god for this movie because without it we wouldnt have one of the greatest horror movies of all time!   its MILDLY RECOMMENDED
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: modage on October 10, 2004, 12:09:36 AM
(http://www.calsmodels.com/images/XIXAX/halloweenhorror.jpg)
(http://www.horror-asylum.com/database/data-covers/00669cov.jpg) (http://cdn.nflximg.com/us/boxshots/large/999855.jpg)

briefly since its late.  i watched Night of the Creeps and The Stepford Wives recently.  for some reason i had a real itchin' to see night of the creeps this year and i dont know why.  the closest reason i can find is that the guy who wrote and directed it, fred dekker, did one of my childhood favorites the awesome, MONSTER SQUAD!  this was like the year before and i read a good review of it somewhere so i wanted to check it out.  it was pretty bad in a total cheeseball 80s way.  it was actually somewhere between a bad john hughes movie and a bad horror movie, kind of like the worst of both worlds.  haha, but the only thing that made it interesting was seeing a few gags/setups/themes that he would re-use/recycle/re-improve upon in his masterpiece the following year.  stepford wives was pretty good, but (once again, all together now!) not a horror movie.  also, the films impact was ruined since i knew the ending before i watched the film.  katherine ross was good.   so, see stepford wives for its groovy womens lib message (just dont see it in october) and skip night of the creeps but watch monster squad again.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: MacGuffin on October 10, 2004, 01:10:35 AM
Quote from: themodernage02
stepford wives was pretty good, but (once again, all together now!) not a horror movie.


How are you defining "horror"? The movie does have a mystery/suspense factor in finding out with the Ross character what the secret of the town is. And that is where it is kind of like "Rosemary's Baby" (since both novels are written by the same author). And if you think about it, there's also an "Invasion Of The Body Snatchers" twist to what the secret is.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: modage on October 10, 2004, 10:38:43 AM
Quote from: MacGuffin
Quote from: themodernage02
stepford wives was pretty good, but (once again, all together now!) not a horror movie.


How are you defining "horror"? The movie does have a mystery/suspense factor in finding out with the Ross character what the secret of the town is. And that is where it is kind of like "Rosemary's Baby" (since both novels are written by the same author). And if you think about it, there's also an "Invasion Of The Body Snatchers" twist to what the secret is.

i thought about the rosemarys baby last night as a good comparison (but didnt know it was by the same author).  although i would consider rosemarys psychological horror and this more like a mystery thriller, so umm, i dont know.  i have a set of guidelines but its not as strictly defined except for 'ill know it when i see it'.  the movie definitely had mystery/suspense but i dont know that its goal (till the very end) was really to be a horror film?  i think it had other interests than playing up the horror angle with more of a social commentary.  whereas body snatchers is commentary but the terror is still in the forefront?  does that make any sense?
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: modage on October 10, 2004, 10:49:48 PM
(http://www.calsmodels.com/images/XIXAX/halloweenhorror.jpg)
(http://cdn.nflximg.com/us/boxshots/large/605556.jpg) (http://cdn.nflximg.com/us/boxshots/large/60011438.jpg) (http://images.amazon.com/images/P/6302526159.01-ATVPDKIKX0DER._PE_SCMZZZZZZZ_.jpg) (http://cdn.nflximg.com/us/boxshots/large/11518969.jpg) (http://cdn.nflximg.com/us/boxshots/large/60023007.jpg)
okay, since i'm working late the next few days i had a little mini-marathon today: vampires, werewolves, haunted houses and giant bugs!  
first up was William Castle's House on Haunted Hill with vincent price.  the only other william castle flick i've seen before is 13 ghosts which i also enjoyed.  if anyone else has seen the movie Matinee with john goodman, thats loosely based on the kinds of things he did for his movies.  anyways, this was fun and probably my favorite new discovery this year so far.  i'd seen the remakes of this and 13 ghosts neither of which were very good (or faithful) to the originals so it didnt matter much. RECOMMENDED!  
Them! was a pretty good sci-fi B movie about giant ants that must be destroyed.  again, surprisingly well shot/acted/written considering its subject matter.  B movies were actually done with a lot of care back then i guess.  the highlight of the film (for me anyways) was a scene where they go into the giant ants cave underground and find the queens lair with a bunch of eggs lying around and a bunch of fog on the ground and they torch the eggs, hmmm.... where have i seen this before?  ALIENS!  it was great, cameron MUST've seen this movie when he came up with that scene.  and aliens is one of my favorite films of all time, so that was a minor thrill.  movie was RECOMMENDED!
Werewolf of London, which apparently was the FIRST werewolf movie ever made.  for some reason although i'd always seen pictures from it, i'd never seen the film.  it was pretty good (although i still prefer Wolf Man), had good werewolf makeup and a few cool transformation scenes.  the main guy was sort of unlikable and the fact he put on a coat and hat as a werewolf was a little silly but overall it was pretty good.  MILD RECOMMENDATION!
The Night Stalker, starring Darren McGavin who will forever be Dad from a Christmas Story for me, but thats a different holiday... anyways, this TV movie apparently was so huge it spawned another tv movie (the night strangler) and went onto be a successful tv series, which Chris Carter has cited as being one the the main inspirations for the X-Files.  supercool, also script by Richard Matheson.  it was great!  i want to see more of this character, even downbeat 'the mans got us down' 70s ending.  the only thing that stunk was a few of the fighting scenes with the vampire and the 'fadeouts' to commercial breaks.  probably the second best thing i've seen this halloween, RECOMMENDED!
Silver Bullet, based on Steven Kings 'cycle of the werewolf' story was a movie that probably could've been better had a different director been on the case.  as it was it was decent, watchable but not great werewolf story.  corey haim and gary busey were in it.  NOT REALLY RECOMMENDED BUT NOT TERRIBLE!
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: cowboykurtis on October 11, 2004, 11:04:34 AM
just watched carpeter the thing -- wasnt impressed quite boring
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: grand theft sparrow on October 11, 2004, 11:41:07 AM
Quote from: cowboykurtis
just watched carpeter the thing -- wasnt impressed quite boring


Should you ever get a chance to see it on the big screen, give it a second shot.  Its impact is kind of lessened on TV unless you have a surround sound system cranked up to 11.

But if you still don't like it, THEN there's something wrong with you.  ;)
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: modage on October 14, 2004, 11:08:05 PM
(http://www.calsmodels.com/images/XIXAX/halloweenhorror.jpg)
(http://cdn.nflximg.com/us/boxshots/large/1103939.jpg) (http://cdn.nflximg.com/us/boxshots/large/60029263.jpg) (http://cdn.nflximg.com/us/boxshots/large/60004063.jpg)
last night was some classic sci-fi with War of the Worlds, and tonight was a Vincent Price is horribly burned beyond death and seeks revenge double feature with House of Wax and The Abominable Dr. Phibes.  war of the worlds was interesting, and certainly set the stage for movies like Independence Day or Mars Attacks.  the last 40 minutes or so of the film is pure carnage and destruction with nary a moment of silence without something blowing up or being blasted by death rays.  although the action was relentless and there were a handful of good moments in the film (like the first appearance of the aliens, very reminiscent of Signs), there just wasnt enough character even for this 'type' of film.  FOR FANS OF THE GENRE ONLY.  house of wax stars vincent price as a sculptor whose studio is burned down with him inside it.  he seeks revenge on the man who burned it down and attempts to re-create his works. but since his hands are horribly scarred he finds another way to capture likenesses.... it was watchable, and again had a handful of moments but nothing classic.  abominable dr. phibes was very thin on plot, not quite sure when it took place and seemed to be made under the influence of mind-altering 70s drugs.  NOT RECOMMENDED!
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Ghostboy on October 16, 2004, 01:30:55 AM
I watched Riding The Bullet tonight, a decision based on the quotes on the poster from Stephen King and Frank Darabont and stuff. Man, it was AWFUL. So bad that I left fifteen minutes before it was over because I couldn't conceive of wasting any more time. It's horror at its cheesiest. I think it's a cable TV movie that somehow managed to get a theatrical release, but even still, it's pretty insipid. I'm glad I was theater hopping tonight or else I'd have wasted six bucks.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: eward on October 17, 2004, 11:08:26 PM
so yeah, i just finished watching dead alive and it was one of the most disgusting/hilarious things ive ever seen
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: modage on October 17, 2004, 11:35:52 PM
Quote from: eward
so yeah, i just finished watching dead alive and it was one of the most disgusting/hilarious things ive ever seen

yeah i havent seen it in a few years but i remember it being good.  i'm holding off buying it because the only version available in america is cut down by about 10 minutes, even the 'unrated' or whatever.  maybe mac can help me out with the specifics...  the lawnmower scene is great.

(http://www.calsmodels.com/images/XIXAX/halloweenhorror.jpg)
(http://cdn.nflximg.com/us/boxshots/large/60021050.jpg) (http://cdn.nflximg.com/us/boxshots/large/20766874.jpg) (http://cdn.nflximg.com/us/boxshots/large/60029656.jpg)
so over the past few days i saw a few more movies for the first time including two from writer Richard Matheson (he's all over this holiday!) and my first Ken Russell film.  Legend of Hell House was a haunted house movie that started off promising but didnt have anywhere to go and since there are so many others that are better its NOT RECOMMENDED.  Trilogy of Terror was a horror anthology with three stories all starring Karen Black.  the first two were watchable but very predictable as we've (now anyways) seen tales like these 1000 times.  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.  Lair of the White Worm was apparently based on a Bram Stoker story, but i cant imagine he had anything in mind like this!  some of the dream sequences were way out there. i had been curious about seeing it though forever because of images of the snakewoman i had seen from the film.  overall the movie wasnt terrible, but seemed like 'if david lynch werent very good, he might be ken russell'.  but really thats just a first impression, i dont really know what the hell i'm talking about.  none of these are recommended.  

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.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: cine on October 17, 2004, 11:46:24 PM
take your girlfriend out sometime..
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: modage on October 17, 2004, 11:55:06 PM
Quote from: Cinephile
take your girlfriend out sometime..

what like, out to a movie?
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: cine on October 18, 2004, 12:10:21 AM
Might be wise to get off the movie kick.. you've been having bad luck with those lately..
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: MacGuffin on October 18, 2004, 12:13:45 AM
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'?
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: modage on October 18, 2004, 09:59:57 AM
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!
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: bonanzataz on October 18, 2004, 07:17:28 PM
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..."
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: modage on October 20, 2004, 11:07:57 PM
(http://www.calsmodels.com/images/XIXAX/halloweenhorror.jpg)
(http://images.amazon.com/images/P/6301798562.01._PE10_SCMZZZZZZZ_.jpg) (http://cdn.nflximg.com/us/boxshots/large/17512136.jpg)
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.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Ghostboy on October 21, 2004, 02:15:21 AM
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.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: modage on October 21, 2004, 09:47:53 AM
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...
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: modage on October 22, 2004, 11:39:34 PM
(http://www.calsmodels.com/images/XIXAX/halloweenhorror.jpg)
(http://cdn.nflximg.com/us/boxshots/large/70005127.jpg) (http://cdn.nflximg.com/us/boxshots/large/26615196.jpg) (http://cdn.nflximg.com/us/boxshots/large/854375.jpg)

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.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: modage on October 23, 2004, 09:56:05 PM
(http://www.calsmodels.com/images/XIXAX/halloweenhorror.jpg)
(http://cdn.nflximg.com/us/boxshots/large/458589.jpg) (http://cdn.nflximg.com/us/boxshots/large/11518942.jpg)
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.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Ghostboy on October 24, 2004, 02:22:05 AM
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.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: modage on October 24, 2004, 10:46:28 PM
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
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Ghostboy on October 25, 2004, 04:48:40 AM
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.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Chest Rockwell on October 25, 2004, 04:11:41 PM
No matter what anyone else says, Lynch movies scare the shit outta me.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: modage on October 25, 2004, 11:18:18 PM
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.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Ghostboy on October 26, 2004, 12:05:09 AM
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...
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Dtm115300 on October 26, 2004, 01:51:59 PM
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]
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Ghostboy on October 26, 2004, 02:11:33 PM
Last House On The Left isn't creepy. It's just violent exploitation. If you want non bloody creepiness, I always recommend Repulsion.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: modage on October 26, 2004, 02:54:17 PM
Quote from: Dtm115300
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.

yeah its not creepy at all and it doesnt aim to be.  read my review a page or two back.  how about Suspiria?  or Dead of Night?  or as GB recommended, Repulsion?
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: NEON MERCURY on October 26, 2004, 09:36:09 PM
Quote from: Dtm115300
I never saw Last House On The Left
is it worth renting?



i in the monority but i actaully liked it.  its nothign revelatory. just rent it w/ decent expectations.  someonementioned earlier that its a remake of an bergman film [or craven draws inspiration from it]..either way i would like to see [virgin spring] someday.  

spoiler::::::::::::::::::::::


i will say that the rape scen was very effetive [it ranks w/ irreversible] as most disturbing raping.  the worst part is the closeup of her face and sh*t and she starts to slobber and drool on the grass and leaves....its twisted......and i thought the music was phuckign cool.  its doesnt fit the vibe of the film..that song that goes "and road leaves to nowhere"....i like it...and it was neat to hear it again in cabin fever..........and the mom who gives a nasty blowjob  deserves some love. :yabbse-thumbup:
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: modage on October 27, 2004, 11:33:19 PM
(http://www.calsmodels.com/images/XIXAX/halloweenhorror.jpg)
(http://cdn.nflximg.com/us/boxshots/large/70005151.jpg) (http://cdn.nflximg.com/us/boxshots/large/812771.jpg)
and now for something completely different....  watched The Hunger today, which was sort of like if you took an art film about vampires and had it directed by tony scott.  pretty weird, huh?  it features Catherine Deneuve, David Bowie and Susan Sarandon and is most famous for its lesbian vampire scene.  it had some interesting ideas about aging and was a completely different sort of movie but didnt really explore the ideas as much as they could have.  i guess i would recommend this to someone who thought any of the above sounded cool or they dont usually like horror movies.  
Nosferatu the Vampyre, was my first Herzog film and while it wasnt bad it just wasnt my thing.  however, i dont know the first thing about german movies so all i could judge it on was the story of dracula which i've seen many times before.  this was very very slow, which i was fine with through the first 30 minutes, in anticipation of draculas first appearance hoping things would pick up a bit when he was introduced.  but they didnt, and the movie never really got out of first gear.  so, was this movie a disappointment for Herzog fans, or do they embrace the film as one of his good ones?  well, while it wasnt my speed, again perhaps this would be recommended to someone who usually doesnt care for horror movies as something out of the ordinary.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Ghostboy on October 29, 2004, 01:10:29 PM
(http://images.amazon.com/images/P/1559409002.01._PE10_SCMZZZZZZZ_.jpg)

I saw this last night and it was awesome! Wow. Themodernage mentioned that it was similar to episodes of The Twilight Zone, and that's definitely so -- but it was also very 'artsy' in its execution, something I wasn't quite expecting. But then, somewhere on the Criterion Disc it is written that Herk Harvey wanted the film to have the look of Bergman and the feel of Coctoau, and I think he definitely pulled it off. The opening drag race reminded me of Monte Hellman's Two Lane Blacktop, and later I realized that this, like that film, was a B-movie saved from obscurity by incredibly strong auteuristic sensibilities.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: MacGuffin on October 29, 2004, 02:32:12 PM
Paramount Molding 'Blob' Remake

Paramount Pictures, fast becoming the home of the remake with such recent pictures as "The Italian Job" "The Manchurian Candidate" and "The Stepford Wives" is resurrecting "The Blob"

Starring Steve McQueen, the 1958 campy cult classic followed a mysterious creature from another planet that resembled a giant blob of jelly and went on a path of destruction as it grew bigger. The movie was remade in 1988 with Chuck Russell at the helm.

The update will be produced for the studio by Jack Harris, who produced the original, and Scott Rudin.
 
Other remakes in the works at Paramount include "The Last Holiday" starring Queen Latifah, "A New Leaf" with director Barry Sonnenfeld and "The Naked Jungle" with director Jonathan Hensleigh.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Just Withnail on October 29, 2004, 05:09:48 PM
I think a remake thread is long overdue.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: MacGuffin on October 29, 2004, 05:25:56 PM
Quote from: Withnail & Garfunkel
I think a remake thread is long overdue.


You mean like a hodge-podge Grapevine thread, or this kind?
http://xixax.com/viewtopic.php?t=5872
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: modage on October 29, 2004, 06:18:48 PM
Quote from: MacGuffin
Quote from: Withnail & Garfunkel
I think a remake thread is long overdue.


You mean like a hodge-podge Grapevine thread, or this kind?
http://xixax.com/viewtopic.php?t=5872

how about a hodgepodge grapevine kind?  i've been thinking about starting one for a while.  that way they are all given the initial disrespect of being posted about there first whether they end up being any good or not.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Just Withnail on October 29, 2004, 07:49:54 PM
Definitely hodge-podge Grapevine kind.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: ono on October 29, 2004, 10:45:08 PM
This is your chance, modage!  Overcome that thread-starters phobia!  WE KNOW YOU CAN DO IT!
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Pubrick on October 29, 2004, 10:48:26 PM
as sumone who suffers from a similar condition, i hav found a reason to not start a remake thread..

the remake stuff could easily go here: http://xixax.com/viewtopic.php?t=402&start=135
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: modage on October 30, 2004, 12:25:59 AM
can it be the 'official' remake thread?
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: MacGuffin on November 14, 2004, 11:50:14 PM
Moritz, Col put new fear into 'Tingler'

Neal Moritz is set to bring back the 1959 horror classic "The Tingler" for Columbia Pictures. Greg Pace is set to write the feature.

The original movie starred Vincent Price as a scientist who discovers an organism that grows along a person's spine when that person enters a state of extreme fear. One way to defeat the creature is to scream.
 
The movie was directed and produced by noted horror master William Castle, who was known as much for his gimmicks as his movies. For "Tingler," Castle wired theater seats so that when a scream occurred during the movie, audiences felt a jolt.

The new version will follow a scientist who, in the search for a medical cure for fear, unleashes the Tingler, an entity that kills its victims with fear.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Ultrahip on November 15, 2004, 12:29:31 AM
I recently saw Tod Browning's "Freaks."


WHOA!!!!!!!!!!!
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: MacGuffin on December 02, 2004, 06:12:08 AM
Brit Filmmaker Lights Way to 'Fog' Remake

British director Rupert Wainwright has signed on to direct the remake of John Carpenter's classic horror thriller "The Fog"

Wainwright, whose credits include the 1999 supernatural thriller "Stigmata," had been due to direct MGM's "Blood and Chocolate" but is now expected to leave that project.

"Fog" is set in a northern Californian town about 100 years ago where a ship sank under mysterious circumstances in a thick, eerie fog. The ghosts of the deceased mariners return from their watery graves to seek their revenge. Carpenter shot the original in 1980. The remake is set up at Sony-based Revolution Studios.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: MacGuffin on March 31, 2005, 05:53:45 AM
"Horror" reigns
Source: Los Angeles Times

Showtime is planning an anthology series called "Masters of Horror," featuring original one-hour films directed by such genre veterans as Tobe Hooper, George Romero, Joe Dante, Stuart Gordon, John Carpenter and Roger Corman.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: eward on March 31, 2005, 06:28:35 AM
holy shit, i'm definitely watching that.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Find Your Magali on May 14, 2005, 11:56:53 PM
saw this on darkhorizons.com

"LA-based director-producer Bob Clark and Toronto producer Victor Solnicki have pacted to produce a slate of films with budgets ranging from $10 million to $40 million. The slate will include a remake of "Children Shouldn't Play With Dead Things," the 1973 Canuck zombie horror pic that was Clark's debut as a writer-director. He has penned the new script and will helm the $12 million-budgeted pic. Pic will shoot in September in British Columbia.

I really don't know how to respond to this. ... Love the schlockiness of the original ... I'm not sure the film works if it has an actual BUDGET, though. ...
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: modage on October 05, 2005, 08:43:00 PM
(http://www.coryeverett.com/images/XIXAX/halloweenhorror.jpg)
(http://cdn.nflximg.com/us/boxshots/large/60002141.jpg)
not good.  very dated, hard to believe it came only a year before The Shining.  it was like The Shining/Poltergeist made as a Lifetime TV movie.  random minor spooky events just kept going on and on without really picking up steam.  ends with a whimper.  :yabbse-thumbdown:
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: MacGuffin on October 05, 2005, 11:54:18 PM
Quote from: MacGuffin
"Horror" reigns
Source: Los Angeles Times

Showtime is planning an anthology series called "Masters of Horror," featuring original one-hour films directed by such genre veterans as Tobe Hooper, George Romero, Joe Dante, Stuart Gordon, John Carpenter and Roger Corman.


Premieres Oct. 28 @ 10pm:

"Incident On and Off a Mountain Road" - Directed by Don Coscarelli ("Phantasm," "Bubba Ho-Tep")
 
"Dreams In A Wtch-House" - Directed by Stuart Gordon ("Re-Animator," "Dagon")
 
"Dance Of The Dead" - Directed by Tobe Hooper ("The Texas Chainsaw Massacre," "Poltergeist")
 
"Jenifer" - Directed by Dario Argento ("Suspiria," "Terror at The Opera")
 
"Chocolate" - Directed by Mick Garris ("Riding the Bullet," "The Stand")
 
"Homecoming" - Directed by Joe Dante ("The Howling," "Gremlins")
 
"Deer Woman" - Directed by John Landis ("An American Werewolf in London")
 
"Cigarette Burns" - Directed by John Carpenter ("Halloween," "The Thing")
 
"Fair Hair Child" - Directed by William Malone ("House on Haunted Hill," "FearDotCom")
 
"Haeckel's Tale" - Directed by John McNaughton
 
"Imprint" - Directed by Takashi Miike
 
"Pick Me Up" - Directed by Larry Cohen ("It's Alive," "The Invaders")
 
"Sick Girl" - Directed by Lucky McKee
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Ravi on October 05, 2005, 11:57:16 PM
I watched Hellraiser a few weeks ago.  It was kind of dumb.  Not much motivation for that woman to try to save the guy in the attic, and how does nobody ever find out about it?
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: 72teeth on October 05, 2005, 11:58:07 PM
Quote from: MacGuffin

"Homecoming" - Directed by Joe Dante ("The Howling," "Gremlins")
 
"Deer Woman" - Directed by John Landis ("An American Werewolf in London")



 :onfire: Oh how ill be waiting for these...
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: ᾦɐļᵲʊʂ on October 06, 2005, 12:12:25 AM
Quote from: modage

not good.  very dated, hard to believe it came only a year before The Shining.  it was like The Shining/Poltergeist made as a Lifetime TV movie.  random minor spooky events just kept going on and on without really picking up steam.  ends with a whimper.  :yabbse-thumbdown:


I was scared of some parts of this as a kid, watched it again and wondered what sort of freshly painted, unventilated room I had watched it in.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: modage on October 09, 2005, 10:14:41 PM
(http://www.coryeverett.com/images/XIXAX/halloweenhorror.jpg)
(http://cdn.nflximg.com/us/boxshots/large/70021631.jpg)
Amityville Horror (2005) was not terrible but not very good.  the original sucks but this still loses points for being a remake and even more for not really improving much on a crappy movie.  ryan reynolds isnt really belivable as a psycho and the movie isn't scary.  the texas chainsaw remake was much better though a much more heinous crime.

(http://cdn.nflximg.com/us/boxshots/large/11518969.jpg)
and watched the second film with Kolchak, The Night Strangler.  not as good as the first film, it suffers a bit of sequel-itis where the story is so similar and even the characters remark on how 'all of this seems familiar', if it werent for Darren McGavin being so entertaining i would've asked why they bothered.  but as it was it was a fine, if unspectacular follow-up.  i would still like to see the series though.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Thrindle on October 09, 2005, 11:31:04 PM
Psst... I've been halfway through The Shining for three days.  Every time I try to watch the rest of it, I get scared and turn it off.  Scary movies, alone in the basement, are not good times.

 :cry:
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Tictacbk on October 09, 2005, 11:37:32 PM
Scary movies only scare the shit out of you until you finish them and feel better...haven't you ever seen that episode of Doug?
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: ᾦɐļᵲʊʂ on October 10, 2005, 12:19:33 AM
Quote from: Tictacbk
Scary movies only scare the shit out of you until you finish them and feel better...haven't you ever seen that episode of Doug?


Damn you for making me remember that.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: modage on October 10, 2005, 09:48:34 PM
(http://www.coryeverett.com/images/XIXAX/halloweenhorror.jpg)
(http://cdn.nflximg.com/us/boxshots/large/584120.jpg)
not a horror movie, and i don't know why it gets lumped in with them so often.  its a realistic (almost documentary) like portrait of a serial killer.  it's not scary or fun, but its also not that good and not that shocking anymore.  the only part that really got to me was the video footage of them in the house around the 1 hour mark.  that was messed up.   :shock:
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Gamblour. on October 10, 2005, 09:54:27 PM
ooh, a similar film (based on the description) is Man Bites Dog. Fucking hilarious mockumentary, yet horrifically graphic and graphically horrific.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: modage on October 10, 2005, 11:46:45 PM
(http://www.coryeverett.com/images/XIXAX/halloweenhorror.jpg)
(http://cdn.nflximg.com/us/boxshots/large/70037164.jpg)
Hammer film (<~) Curse of the Werewolf i hadn't seen until tonite that i had wanted to for years.  the image of this werewolf is one i had seen in pictures in books and such for a long time so it was interesting to finally see it in action.  the movie is actually pretty good, but the werewolf isn't seen until the last 5 minutes.  and in the most bizarre history i've ever seen he is made a werewolf because his mother is raped by a scuzzy homeless prisoner and he's born on christmas?  

also the weirdest thing: the film takes about an hour to get to what the film is about.  its the longest backstory i've ever seen that has little or nothing to do with the film.  it opens about a homeless man who is brought in front of a king (or something) who treats him like shit and locks him up.  as a prisoner he befriends a mute girl who is the daughter of the prison guard.  the girl grows up to be incredibly hot and is thrown in the cell with the homeless dude who rapes her.  she escapes into the wild where she is found by a couple who takes her in.  they discover she's pregnant and she has a baby, then dies.  then the couple raise the baby as her own.  the baby ends up being a werewolf when he grows up.  now isn't that a lot of goddamn backstory to get through?!?  its actually comical how long it takes to get to where the hell the story is going.  it's just been released on dvd, watch it.  notice, and laugh.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Pubrick on October 11, 2005, 03:17:58 AM
Quote from: modage
and in the most bizarre history i've ever seen he is made a werewolf because his mother is raped by a scuzzy homeless prisoner and he's born on christmas?

'Jesus was a werewolf and his father was a deadbeat' <--- future country classic.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: modage on October 11, 2005, 10:38:06 AM
hahahah.  :yabbse-grin:
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: modage on October 13, 2005, 11:16:28 PM
(http://www.coryeverett.com/images/XIXAX/halloweenhorror.jpg)
(http://cdn.nflximg.com/us/boxshots/large/60023989.jpg)
watched House tonite, not sure why.  i always had remembered the video box with the severed hand pushing the doorbell and the tagline "Ding Dong, You're Dead."  how to describe it?  it is a vietnam flashback haunted house comedy from the makers of Friday the 13th.  yep, it's as ridiculous as it sounds.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Ghostboy on October 13, 2005, 11:25:03 PM
I remember drifting in and out of sleep while watching House a few years ago and being so confused.

I also remember seeing the video box when I was a kid. This one and The Ghoulies and Dead Alive and that Jennifer Connelly bug movie had some incredibly memorable poster art, at least from a five year old's point of view.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: modage on October 13, 2005, 11:34:43 PM
yep, i remember those.  actually its funny now to go back and watch all these movies i remember seeing the boxes for when i was little. and in my mind they were the scariest things on the planet, (so scary i could barely even walk near the aisle in the video store!)  so now to find out most of them are pretty goofy and nowhere near as horrific as i had imagined them is strange.  and a little disappointing, but it leaves room for me to think that somebody out there someday will be able to capture on film what little kids carry around in their imaginations and it will scare the crap out of EVERYONE.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: MacGuffin on October 14, 2005, 12:15:36 AM
The sequel has the best subtitle behind Breakin' 2 - Electric Boogaloo: House 2 - The Second Story.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Ghostboy on October 14, 2005, 12:22:59 AM
Quote from: modage
yep, i remember those.  actually its funny now to go back and watch all these movies i remember seeing the boxes for when i was little. and in my mind they were the scariest things on the planet, (so scary i could barely even walk near the aisle in the video store!)  so now to find out most of them are pretty goofy and nowhere near as horrific as i had imagined them is strange.  and a little disappointing, but it leaves room for me to think that somebody out there someday will be able to capture on film what little kids carry around in their imaginations and it will scare the crap out of EVERYONE.


What you just said, coincidentally, reminded me of what I wrote about Jeepers Creepers in the review I wrote back when it first came out:

Quote from: Ghostboy, circa 2001
What I think I love about this film is that it is filled with all the imagery that will scare little kids to death; little kids believe in things that grown-ups dismiss, and those things run rampant in this film.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: RegularKarate on October 14, 2005, 04:41:34 PM
I still really enjoy House and watch it every now and again.  

I've seen all of the house movies and almost all of the puppetmaster movies... I haven't gone back to watch the puppetmasters, but HOUSE... how can you not enjoy it?  It still even has a couple startling scares, but mostly, it's just funny.  BULL, From Night Court... HA!
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: 72teeth on October 14, 2005, 04:46:59 PM
is it part 1 or 2 that has the dog-apillar...
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: modage on October 15, 2005, 08:25:20 PM
(http://www.coryeverett.com/images/XIXAX/halloweenhorror.jpg)
(http://cdn.nflximg.com/us/boxshots/large/70033368.jpg)
SPOILERS MAJOR>
i enjoyed it though the twist almost ruins it.  it would've been really great if this had ruled though.  man did the poster and those pictures from a year and a half ago seem like it could've ruled.  i was aware that 'a twist ruins the film' but didnt know what it was.  so from the beginning i was thinking please be ANYthing, ANYTHING but split personality.  even 'it was all a dream!' would be better than that!  but unfortunately, i didnt get my wish.  if i could erase that and make it just a crazy guy killing people for no explainable reason it would've been better.  but not the case.  when will it be officially over to use that?  if only the writer/director had realized that its so much more GUTSY to make this film WITHOUT the twist than with it.  why does everything need a clever twist?  it would've kicked more ass as a senseless relentless hardcore nightmare (like texas chainsaw original), though i did prefer this to the remake of that.  i liked the filmmaking for the most part though, so again, like several other filmmakers their scripts are getting in the way of their potential talent.  C+
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: modage on October 15, 2005, 10:26:15 PM
Quote from: cowboykurtis
If you like The Others I suggest watching the film in which it's derived - The Innocents - far better in my opinion (I guess they're technically both derived from the book, but...)

(http://www.coryeverett.com/images/XIXAX/halloweenhorror.jpg)
(http://cdn.nflximg.com/us/boxshots/large/70037980.jpg)
i watched The Innocents tonite.  it was good and i liked it about as well as The Others though they were quite different from each other overall.  though i do give credit to this film for being made in 1961 and still managing to have a few good scares and very creepy tone.  (favorite scene was when she is hiding behind the curtain.)  i had a good time trying to figure out SPOILERS MAJOR whether the kids were murdering everyone, or whether the 'ghosts' were dead or not, or whether the housekeepers had a conspiracy or whether she was going insane END SPOILERS the movie itself is GREAT LOOKING on dvd.  so let me further your recommendation to anyone who likes The Others or other spooky house movies of that ilk.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Ghostboy on October 17, 2005, 01:32:03 PM
Finally taking part in the Halloween viewing season, I watched Cronenberg's Scanners for the first time last night.

(http://www.fantascienza.com/magazine/imgbank/DVD/scanners.jpg)

It's okay. I think it would have been really great had the lead actor actually been an actor. I'm trying to think of a performance that's actually worse, and at the moment, I really can't. It reduces many potentially great scenes to levels of unintentional comedy.

It's too bad, because the script is pretty smart, the concept is really damn intriguing. The exposition-free setup is terrific, and I love the revalation about the pregnant woman. And the special effects are awesome. The exploding head is flawless, of course, but the bulging vein effects at the end are fantastic, too, and do what special effects never do anymore: they make you wonder how did they do that? Cronenberg's direction is a little lax at times, but his touch is still quite recognizable (and the gunshot wounds predicate those in A History Of Violence quite nicely).

And Michael Ironside channels Jack Nicholson really well. It's a shame he had to act opposite a block of wood.

I give this six skulls out of ten.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: modage on October 17, 2005, 09:08:24 PM
(http://www.coryeverett.com/images/XIXAX/halloweenhorror.jpg)
(http://cdn.nflximg.com/us/boxshots/large/60002169.jpg)
watched the Dead Zone, which despite being a David Cronenberg film of a Stephen King novel (and having the word "dead" in the title), is NOT a horror film.  doh!  i think my dad had told me that last year after netflixing it but not having time and i meant to update my list, oh well.  it was a decent movie overall though except for his martin sheen vision which was pretty cheesy.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: ᾦɐļᵲʊʂ on October 17, 2005, 09:20:28 PM
Quote from: modage
i'm not saying theres a true top ten either.  i'm saying whats YOUR top ten?


I've arranged them in the order that they scared me.  This is off the top of my head...

10 - Nosferatu (I was mostly scared by the way he floated around when he walked, and the muisic that plays through it is very chilling to me)

9 - Eyes Without a Face (The idea of it was pretty creepy, but what topped it was the ending which was a bad idea to watch before going to sleep)

8 - Night of the Living Dead (The thing that stuck with me the most was the man walking in the beginning and now I'm pretty much afraid of strangers in graveyards)

7 - Exorcist (Do I have to explain this one? I wouldn't say it's the scariest movie of all time, but holy shit... they really crossed the line at some points)

6 - Jaws (I used to be scared of being stranded out in the middle of the ocean, now it's completely solidified.)

5 - Carnival of Souls - (It could've just been the time I was watching it, but the images in this movie really stayed imprinted in my brain... really creepy faces...)

4 - Freaks (The ending.  Oh, God... The ending.)

3 - Alien (I wanted to see it so bad when I was a kid, even though I had no idea what it was about.  Many, many nightmares followed.)

2 - Event Horizon (Contorted my brain, fucked it, and then scared it.)

1 - The Shining (Everything a scary movie should have.)
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: modage on October 17, 2005, 11:20:59 PM
Quote from: walruS
10 - Nosferatu
9 - Eyes Without a Face
8 - Night of the Living Dead
7 - Exorcist
6 - Jaws
5 - Carnival of Souls
4 - Freaks
3 - Alien
2 - Event Horizon
1 - The Shining

-2 points for letting Criterion tell you what good horror films are.
-1 point for not having a good famous monster film made after the silent era.  (dracula, frankenstein, werewolves, etc.)
-2 points for including freaks because its not a horror film.
-1 point for ranking event horizon so highly, because no matter how freaky it is there is no way it ranks above exorcist or alien or night of the living dead.
-3 points for not including an evil dead film.  c'mon, who are you?
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: ᾦɐļᵲʊʂ on October 18, 2005, 12:28:26 AM
Quote from: modage
Quote from: walruS
10 - Nosferatu
9 - Eyes Without a Face
8 - Night of the Living Dead
7 - Exorcist
6 - Jaws
5 - Carnival of Souls
4 - Freaks
3 - Alien
2 - Event Horizon
1 - The Shining

-2 points for letting Criterion tell you what good horror films are.
-1 point for not having a good famous monster film made after the silent era.  (dracula, frankenstein, werewolves, etc.)
-2 points for including freaks because its not a horror film.
-1 point for ranking event horizon so highly, because no matter how freaky it is there is no way it ranks above exorcist or alien or night of the living dead.
-3 points for not including an evil dead film.  c'mon, who are you?


to refute...

I probably won't ever get the Carnival of Souls Criterion, it doesn't really compel me past the actual movie itself... it just creeped me out at certain points, and Eyes Without A Face was really twisted, especially how haunting it was at the end.

The post-silent movie monsters didn't really do much for me.

Freaks wasn't horror, you're right, but to tell me that you weren't a little frightened at the end means you made yourself laugh, because the midgets with knives and the torso with a knife in his teeth was freaky.

At the time that I saw it, Event Horizon really messed with my head (granted, I was pretty young) and all that twisted thinking scared me.

Evil Dead was more entertaining (and very, at that) than scary to me.

I don't see how you can consider Freddy Vs. Jason and Jeepers Creepers good movies and critique my list.  I'd figure you'd just nod and accept it without calling attention to yourself.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Pubrick on October 18, 2005, 12:33:43 AM
Quote from: walruS
I'd figure you'd just nod and accept it without calling attention to yourself.

if he was gonna take that approach he wouldn't hav asked u to list anything in the first place.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: MacGuffin on October 18, 2005, 12:35:54 AM
Quote from: walruS
Evil Dead was more entertaining (and very, at that) than scary to me.


I think you're confusing the second one with the first one.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: ᾦɐļᵲʊʂ on October 18, 2005, 12:39:40 AM
Quote from: MacGuffin
Quote from: walruS
Evil Dead was more entertaining (and very, at that) than scary to me.


I think you're confusing the second one with the first one.


Maybe I should go watch Evil Dead again, but I don't remember being scared much... some of the lines were quite humorous, though.

Quote from: Pubrick
Quote from: walruS
I'd figure you'd just nod and accept it without calling attention to yourself.

if he was gonna take that approach he wouldn't hav asked u to list anything in the first place.


On second thought, it was a rude thing to say, anyway.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: modage on October 18, 2005, 08:47:34 AM
Quote from: walruS
I don't see how you can consider Freddy Vs. Jason and Jeepers Creepers good movies and critique my list.  I'd figure you'd just nod and accept it without calling attention to yourself.

well SEE.  i never put them in my top 10, but that doesn't mean i can't like them.  but rather than saying 'hey, The Shining.  i love that movie...' or 'hey, Alien...' you only chime in to tell me what terrible choices i make.  if you were coming from a vast horror knowledge like rk or mac then i might be more inclined to take your opinion seriously, but since you seem to be a more casual observer without much of a taste for it, i'll continue on and hope my future choices can meet with your approval.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Gamblour. on October 18, 2005, 08:59:51 AM
Quote from: modage
but since you seem to be a more casual observer without much of a taste for it, i'll continue on and hope my future choices can meet with your approval.


Don't you mean disapproval?
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: ᾦɐļᵲʊʂ on October 18, 2005, 01:26:09 PM
Quote from: modage
but rather than saying 'hey, The Shining.  i love that movie...' or 'hey, Alien...' you only chime in to tell me what terrible choices i make.  if you were coming from a vast horror knowledge like rk or mac then i might be more inclined to take your opinion seriously, but since you seem to be a more casual observer without much of a taste for it, i'll continue on and hope my future choices can meet with your approval.


I've agreed with your list all except Freddy Vs Jason and Jeepers Creepers.  It's a very good list, and it's cool you're going through and naming them.  I didn't mean to cause shit over saying they were bad movies, but to me they were just horrible.

To each his own.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: modage on October 18, 2005, 10:52:15 PM
(http://www.coryeverett.com/images/XIXAX/halloweenhorror.jpg)
(http://cdn.nflximg.com/us/boxshots/large/70032580.jpg)
finally saw Land Of The Dead after missing it in theatres due to my moving to new york during its like 2 weeks in theatres.  i am in the boat with most people when i say its nowhere near the first two but still kinda good.  i guess the biggest problem is while its never 'bad', it never really gets going either or has any 'hell yeah!' moments for me.  i could've used more asia argento too.  in some ways the sacrilgeous dawn remake is better than this and in some ways i wish they could be smooshed together to make one badass movie without the guilty feeling afterwards.  dead reckoning reminded me of the vehicle in the dawn remake.  :yabbse-undecided:
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: RegularKarate on October 20, 2005, 09:42:20 PM
(http://actresses.pick2web.com/pics/938609/isabelleadjani_tenant.jpg)

This one really worked as a horror film.  I wasn't really scared, but I felt a little creeped out.
It did a great job at keeping me intrigued, but it didn't pay off like I wanted it to though the scene at the end is really amazing and almost Lynch-like, I felt llike it went for the ironic kind of twilight zonish end (with a more artistic touch of madness, of course).

A lot of people complain about it being Polanski instead of a "real" actor, but I thought he was pretty unique and kept me watching.

It doesn't appear that I'm supposed to give skulls in this thread, but if it were in the other thread, I would probably give it five.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: hedwig on October 20, 2005, 10:22:04 PM
Quote from: modage
finally saw Land Of The Dead after missing it in theatres due to my moving to new york during its like 2 weeks in theatres.  i am in the boat with most people when i say its nowhere near the first two but still kinda good.  i guess the biggest problem is while its never 'bad', it never really gets going either or has any 'hell yeah!' moments for me.


I thought this was a "hell yeah" scene:
(http://www.pathe.nl/gfx_content/films/filmstill/18267.jpg)

But I agree on Argento; then again, any film would benefit from more scenes with her.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Tictacbk on October 22, 2005, 02:12:44 AM
Ok so reading these horror threads has made me realize my dvd collection lacks horror movies.   The only films i do own are Friday the 13th and The Shining.  These happen to be two of my favorites, but i'm looking to blind buy atleast 1-2 more.   I'm thinking maybe Dracula but other than that i'm not sure.  Suggestions please?
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: hedwig on October 22, 2005, 02:24:31 AM
Halloween.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: modage on October 22, 2005, 10:20:11 AM
Quote from: Tictacbk
Suggestions please?

check out Best Horror.  pretty much anything in there is good, but some essentials are Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Evil Dead & II, Exorcist, Halloween, Night of the Living Dead, & Frankenstein (Legacy Collection).  just try to see more, and buy what you like best.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: modage on October 22, 2005, 11:30:34 PM
(http://www.coryeverett.com/images/XIXAX/halloweenhorror.jpg)
(http://cdn.nflximg.com/us/boxshots/large/60023678.jpg)
it's almost amazing how inconsistent John Carpenter is as a director.  how some of his films can be so great and some so bad is baffling to me.  there is almost no middle ground.  nothing is like 3/4's good.  it either IS great, or SUCKS HARD.  so, where does the Fog fall?  to take Adrienne Barbeau's line from the film "Stay away from the fog."
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: ᾦɐļᵲʊʂ on October 22, 2005, 11:39:23 PM
Quote from: modage

check out Best Horror.  pretty much anything in there is good, but some essentials are Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Evil Dead & II, Exorcist, Halloween, Night of the Living Dead, & Frankenstein (Legacy Collection).  just try to see more, and buy what you like best.


I dont' know why, but I thought it said "some exceptions are" and at that point, I don't even know how I would've reacted.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: RegularKarate on October 23, 2005, 06:20:13 PM
(http://www.horreur.net/img/lifeforce.jpg)

This is a great example of unmet potential.
I love films that are outrageous (as long as they work) and this one is VERY outrageous.  It's based on a story called "The Space Vampires"... how can you go wrong with something as cool as space vampires?  Unfortunately, the bland dialogue, terrible acting, and about 30 minutes too many run time pretty much ruin the film.

It's almost still worth watching it, if for no other reason than to witness a (poorly executed) cool story with some pretty decent special effects for it's time.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: hedwig on October 23, 2005, 06:21:19 PM
Haha, the poster's cool, though.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: polkablues on October 23, 2005, 06:27:49 PM
Quote from: Hedwig
Haha, the poster's cool, though.


It successfully highlights the movie's main reasons for being, which are Mathilda May's breasts.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: modage on October 23, 2005, 06:28:47 PM
Quote from: RegularKarate
This is a great example of unmet potential.

(http://cdn.nflximg.com/us/boxshots/large/60023525.jpg)
funny you mention that.  this isnt a horror movie, but i remember thinking the same thing about unmet potential when i watched this movie Time After Time http://imdb.com/title/tt0080025/.  it was an okay movie, but a letdown after such a great premise:  "Imagine! A scientific genius named H.G. Wells stalks a criminal genius named Jack the Ripper across time itself, in the most ingenious thriller of our time... "  sounds cool, right?
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: RegularKarate on October 23, 2005, 06:35:12 PM
I remember Time After Time... felt like a made-for-television... I kind of thought it was, actually.

(http://www.frightfest.co.uk/pix/posters/2001/FF064.jpg)

While this is nowhere the genius piece of horror that the first is, it's still pretty cool.  There's not a TON of gore, but the gore in it's pretty damn good.  Dennis Hopper's character is pretty cool, the underground maniac hideout is really neat, and there's a chainsaw to chainsaw battle towards the end.

As I was watching it this time, I realized that the chainsaw store Hopper buys chainsaws from has been turned into a bar here I go to a lot.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: RegularKarate on October 23, 2005, 11:01:41 PM
(http://www.hillcity-comics.com/movie_reviews/movie146.jpg)

I plan on watching a few different versions of Dracula this year.  I just started with this one because it's one I hadn't seen yet.

This is the much ignored 1979 version starring the future Perry White (Superman returns) as Dracula and non other than Laurence Olivier as Van Helsing.

John Williams scores it, which really helps get you through the slow parts, but doesn't really help the cheese factor (when Dracula turns into a bat, the movie turns into a comedy and I don't think it's intentional).

There are some slick shots that make it fun and it's overall pretty entertaining, but it doesn't do the title much justice.

This was directed by John Badham after he did Saturday Night Fever and right before he jumped into the eighties and made some of the most memorably mediocre eighties films (Short Circuit, Stake Out, Blue Thunder, War Games, Bird on a Wire) and it kind of shows in this movie.  It's like you can see the eighties creeping up.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: modage on October 24, 2005, 08:19:13 AM
Quote from: modage
(http://cdn.nflximg.com/us/boxshots/large/458589.jpg)
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....

yeah i saw that one last year for the first time and felt the same.  but since i'd heard it was so bad, i was like REALLY loving the whole beginning because it was clearly a big-budget deal.  and then dracula shows up...  :(
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: modage on October 24, 2005, 05:57:21 PM
(http://www.coryeverett.com/images/XIXAX/halloweenhorror.jpg)
(http://cdn.nflximg.com/us/boxshots/large/593795.jpg)
watched The Hitcher last night.  i can't remember if i had seen it before like 10-15 years ago or not.  it seemed somewhat familiar though i didn't recall much of what happened.  it was pretty good actually though probably more of a suspense and not horror.  if you can forgive the preposterousness of the lengths that rutger hauer goes to torment c. thomas howell it's a good film.  almost like duel but with a guy instead of a truck.  relentless torture.  hauer is great, i only wished that their time in the car together were longer.  could've gone atleast like 30 min with that tension and maybe let it be at ease for a few more minutes before you realize he's psycho.  yeaaah, so this is getting remade too i think.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: modage on October 24, 2005, 08:36:24 PM
(http://www.coryeverett.com/images/XIXAX/halloweenhorror.jpg)
(http://cdn.nflximg.com/us/boxshots/large/60029630.jpg)
for some reason i had a vague notion this might've been an okay/good sequel but that rumor was dispelled tonight.  this was a lame pretty horrible sequel.  really makes me appreciate the original even more.  you know it's bad when the sequel is far more dated than the original film.  to make things worse, the dvd copy looks like it was taken from a vhs rental and transferred.  it's pretty bad (and fullscreen).  :yabbse-thumbdown:  stay away, i felt bad for the cast that returned.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: RegularKarate on October 24, 2005, 10:51:33 PM
Yeah, Brewster was not "so cool" in that one.  

Funny that it was by the same director as Halloween III: Season of the Witch

(http://www.film.org.pl/images/carpenter/prince%20of%20darkness.jpg)

And we come to the worst movie I've seen this halloween season.
See Mod's Fog review... it's pretty much how I feel about this one.
There are some moments that could have been scary had they not been surrounded by the million other horrible scenes.  Bad Acting, Bad Screenplay, Bad Story, Bad Everything.

I'm going to need to see at least three good horror movies to make up for this one.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: modage on October 24, 2005, 11:01:17 PM
haha!  i totally agree.  PoD was TERRIBLE!  i think we watched that one 3 years ago in philadelphia and were just like 'you have got to be kidding me!'  it was AWful.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: RegularKarate on October 26, 2005, 01:07:40 PM
(http://www.technofile.com/images/horror_of_dracula.jpg)

This was fun.  

I was a little disapointed because I remember Lee being a bad-ass Dracula, but he hardly has any lines at all and when he DOES speak, he speaks way too quickly and casually... like a coked-up business man.  He looks cool coming at you with bloody fangs though... and I guess that's the kind of Dracula they were going for.

The key to this was that it was short and old-school.  Enjoyable... made me want to see some of the sequels.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: w/o horse on October 26, 2005, 02:00:49 PM
I once worked in a second run theater, the dollar movie sort.  My manager was a film buff.  Now and again he'd screen movies after the theater closed, just him and his buddy who also collected prints.

One time he invited me to join them.  The movie was Horror of Dracula.  I don't know what the print was, but it was me, my manager, and his friend in the theater, it was my first Hammer horror film, and it was my first time smoking in a theater.

It's got a special place in my heart.  Is what I'm saying.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: bonanzataz on October 26, 2005, 06:04:21 PM
Quote from: modage
(http://cdn.nflximg.com/us/boxshots/large/60023678.jpg)
it's almost amazing how inconsistent John Carpenter is as a director.  how some of his films can be so great and some so bad is baffling to me.  there is almost no middle ground.  nothing is like 3/4's good.  it either IS great, or SUCKS HARD.  so, where does the Fog fall?  to take Adrienne Barbeau's line from the film "Stay away from the fog."


i like the fog. they're creepy monsters with hooks that come out of the fog! come on! that's scary!
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: modage on October 27, 2005, 01:04:22 PM
(http://www.coryeverett.com/images/XIXAX/halloweenhorror.jpg)
(http://cdn.nflximg.com/us/boxshots/large/60011017.jpg)
watched The Bad Seed last night, probably because it came out on dvd recently and i've been brushing up on that 'evil kids' subgenre.  the film was okay but kind of more of a melodrama than a horror film, village/children of the damned did a better job with that kind of thing.  there are some really over-the-top performances in this too which make it pretty watchable and the ending is great.  pretty much the only problem with it is that its 2 hours and 9 minutes long!  ouch, it probably could've/should've been like 85 minutes and you could've really gotten the same thing across.  there is a lot of padding and it stretches to an almost unbearable length considering what it is.  but if anyone watches it stay tuned after the film for hilarious credits sequence where all the actors come back out and smile just to let you know "its only a movie!"
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: polkablues on October 27, 2005, 03:28:25 PM
Quote from: modage
(http://www.coryeverett.com/images/XIXAX/halloweenhorror.jpg)
(http://cdn.nflximg.com/us/boxshots/large/60011017.jpg)
watched The Bad Seed last night, probably because it came out on dvd recently and i've been brushing up on that 'evil kids' subgenre.  the film was okay but kind of more of a melodrama than a horror film, village/children of the damned did a better job with that kind of thing.  there are some really over-the-top performances in this too which make it pretty watchable and the ending is great.  pretty much the only problem with it is that its 2 hours and 9 minutes long!  ouch, it probably could've/should've been like 85 minutes and you could've really gotten the same thing across.  there is a lot of padding and it stretches to an almost unbearable length considering what it is.  but if anyone watches it stay tuned after the film for hilarious credits sequence where all the actors come back out and smile just to let you know "its only a movie!"


Apparently when they did "The Bad Seed" as a stage show (with all the same actors), they would end the performance with a bit where the little girl would get spanked by the actress who played the mom.  Nowadays you'd have to go to a very bad part of town to see that on stage.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: modage on October 27, 2005, 03:51:52 PM
yeah thats the last thing in the credits.  they're laughing and mom's giving her a good spanking.  ha, i guess thats the release the audience needs after seeing that vicious brat reign free for over 2 hours.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: MacGuffin on October 27, 2005, 03:58:34 PM
Quote from: polkablues
Apparently when they did "The Bad Seed" as a stage show (with all the same actors), they would end the performance with a bit where the little girl would get spanked by the actress who played the mom.  Nowadays you'd have to go to a very bad part of town to see that on stage.


Or just hang out with ono.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: modage on October 29, 2005, 01:59:42 PM
(http://www.coryeverett.com/images/XIXAX/halloweenhorror.jpg)
(http://cdn.nflximg.com/us/boxshots/large/60023385.jpg)
now i cant remember who because the thread is gone and maybe somebody can help me out with this but a few years ago i started a Halloween Horror Survey thread and one of the questions was Best Werewolf Film.  somebody, unhappy with my choices which i believe included (American Werewolf In London, The Howling, Wolf Man among others) instead wrote in that Wolfen was the best werewolf film they had seen.  so i remembered this and tried to get around to checking it out which i finally did today.  i would like to smack that person in the face.  it wasnt a bad film, it was actually really well made and the only things that threatened to date the film is the inverse colored film from the wolf's pov.  however, its not really a werewolf film.  

to me, you're either a wolf man or a werewolf and this neither.  it was about indians who can shapechange into wolves (but not werewolves).  maybe you dont see a distinction there but i do.  like i mentioned, it was actually kinda good and i was enjoying it for most for being different and well done but by the time the end rolled around i realized it was missing the most crucial centerpiece of any werewolf film: the transformation sequence.  this had none, so i feel a bit gyped by that.  so it was okay (C-) overall, but to hold this above any of those other films is ludicrous.  and again, not technically a werewolf movie.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: killafilm on October 29, 2005, 03:36:57 PM
Wolfen is a Classic!

I like the description from netflix:

A brash Manhattan industrialist, his coke-bingeing wife and a slum wino have something grisly in common: They're the latest victims in a series of seemingly motiveless murders. Albert Finney headlines this shivery tale about brutal New York City murders pointing to a heretofore secret breed of wolflike creatures. Michael Wadleigh (Woodstock) directs this innovatively shot modern classic full of mood and menace.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: modage on October 29, 2005, 03:51:22 PM
Quote from: Find Your Magali 2 years ago
Black Sunday (aka The Mask of Satan)

(http://www.coryeverett.com/images/XIXAX/halloweenhorror.jpg)
(http://cdn.nflximg.com/us/boxshots/large/22465068.jpg)
thanks Magali.  again, only took me about 2 years to get around to it but this was kinda good.  it starts out amazingly as a couple of suspected witches are tied up and a mask with nails is brutally hammered onto their faces!  amazing.  then we flash forward to much later and the witches are attempting to rise again where the film loses some steam.  i can definitely see the influence on Tim Burton.  (edit: imdb says Tim Burton names this as his favorite horror film.)  this was only my 2nd bava film after Black Sabbath and it was pretty cool.  i'd be interested to see more.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Figure 8 on October 30, 2005, 02:21:33 PM
I watched Candyman and Event Horizon this weekend because of all the good things I heard about them here.  I really liked both of them.  Event Horizon was kind of like a really fucked up version of Solaris.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: RegularKarate on October 30, 2005, 02:48:38 PM
Funny that you watched Wolfen because I had that as my film to watch yesterday, unfortunately this was the first broken disc I've received from Netflix (giant crack down the middle).

Instead, I watched:

(http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B000056V6T.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg)

Okay, it's not really a horror movie, it's a documentary, and not even one that  BASED in horror, but the opening scene and the detail of the actual murder are so disturbing that I'm putting it here.

I sat down to watch it while I ate dinner... that was a mistake... I had to turn it off in order to finish eating without vomiting.  Then I watched the rest of the film and felt hatred and fear run through my veins.

-----------
I also watched Bram Stroker's Dracula again just because Mod has been praising the film so much lately and I hadn't seen it since it was in the theater.

This wasn't that great at all.  It had some cool scenes and some "fun" parts, but it just tried too hard in parts and the acting for the most part is just plain horrible.  Still way better than the '79 Dracula, but has NOTHING on Bella.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: MacGuffin on October 31, 2005, 02:30:09 PM
Impaling Most Common Horror Film Death

Sharp objects are more terrifying than bullets: A new horror movie survey says that impaling is the most common way for celluloid evildoers to do away with their victims.

The new Web site FamilyMediaGuide.com surveyed 100 of the most popular horror movies produced since 1975. It found more than 1,700 violent acts, with nearly a quarter of those involved victims being impaled.

The most violent film was 2003's "Freddy vs. Jason," with 167 violent acts, according to the site. Steven Spielberg's 1975 film "Jaws" came in a surprising second, largely because of the number of times the great white shark chomped into its victims.
 
Honorable mention went to Tim Burton's 1999 film "Sleepy Hollow," which featured 27 beheadings.

Oddly enough, the "Halloween" films didn't receive a mention.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Gamblour. on October 31, 2005, 06:58:57 PM
Wait, how many could Jaws possibly have?

Tonight, I have a marathon of Shaun of the Dead, Dawn of the Dead, and 28 Days Later. Maybe I will trade in American Werewolf in London or Texas Chainsaw  Massacre (original).
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: RegularKarate on November 02, 2005, 10:07:01 PM
I know Halloween's over and everything, but because of some problems I had  I wasn't able to watch The Innocents until tonight.

FANTASTIC!!!!  One of my new favorites, I shall think.

Quote from: modage
SPOILERS MAJOR whether the kids were murdering everyone, or whether the 'ghosts' were dead or not, or whether the housekeepers had a conspiracy or whether she was going insane END SPOILERS


SPOILERS MAJOR I think it's quite possible that the ghost aspect was completely imagined, that the kids were psychologically scarred from the previous caretakers' exploits and Kerr's character was a little nuts and she was projecting the situation to explain why a child would act in such a way.END SPOILERS
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: MacGuffin on January 04, 2006, 05:38:21 PM
Horror Movies Return to Grisly Roots

Today's horror movies are more likely to be dripping with blood than irony, with films like "Wolf Creek," the "Saw" series and this week's "Hostel" representing a return to their grisly, low-budget '70s roots.

While the "Scream" trilogy grossed hundreds of millions of dollars in the late 1990s with characters who winked at the camera in playful mockery of the genre's conventions, horror flicks like "Hostel," Eli Roth's follow-up to his gory 2003 debut "Cabin Fever," will show you a character whose eye is dangling from its socket after a long afternoon of torture.

"Self-referential, ironic humor ran its course," said Roth, a 33-year-old writer-director who grew up loving the graphic slasher movies of the 1970s and '80s and also cites Asian cinema as an influence.
 
"Kevin Williamson did it brilliantly," he said, referring to the writer of the original "Scream." "At the same time `Scream' was huge, `Dawson's Creek' was the most popular show. ... People got tired of that. That was the gimmick. Even Kevin Williamson got tired of that.

"I think scary movies are back," Roth added. "People clearly don't want to see a horror movie to laugh."

Lions Gate Films apparently thinks so, too, having released several of the really grisly horror movies that have come out in the past few years: Rob Zombie's "House of 1,000 Corpses" and its sequel, "The Devil's Rejects," about a family of redneck serial killers; "Saw" and "Saw II," about a kidnapper who torments his victims with elaborate mind games; the French "High Tension," about two young women who are terrorized in the woods; and now "Hostel," which follows a trio of twentysomething guys on a European vacation that begins as an orgy of sex and drugs and descends into brutal, bloody sadism.

Lions Gate President Tom Ortenberg says this particular kind of horror movie is alluring because "it's got touches of realism that audiences today can relate to.

"We're never going to outspend the competition in the marketing or production of a movie. Were not going to blow people away with the latest million-dollar special effects. We're never going to do that better than the studios," Ortenberg said. "What we can do as well or better than the studios, perhaps in retro fashion, is a realistic, gut-level, visceral horror movie that doesn't rely on special effects, and audiences are responding to that."

While they're not exactly critical favorites the first "Saw" received only 45 percent positive reviews on the Rotten Tomatoes Web site, with "Saw II" earning just 35 percent positive reviews these movies can be enormously profitable. "Saw" had a $1 million budget and grossed $55 million-plus; the sequel cost $4 million and grossed nearly $87 million.

"Our economic model is much different than the studios," Ortenberg said. "When a Rob Zombie movie like `The Devil's Rejects' grosses $17 million, or Eli Roth's first movie grosses $20 million, that's very successful for us."

Meanwhile, the Weinstein Co. is in theaters with the low-budget "Wolf Creek," about a madman who targets tourists in the Australian outback. Harvey and Bob Weinstein released the star-studded "Scream" trilogy and several other horror movies under the Dimension Films branch of their former company, Miramax.

Bob Weinstein, who ran Dimension, bought "Wolf Creek" for $3.5 million a month before it screened at last year's Sundance Film Festival because "it was very hard-edge, very real," he said. The company released it on Christmas Day amid the family films and Oscar contenders.

"There were a lot of comedies out in the marketplace, a lot of prestige movies for older audiences. We thought this was for younger audiences," Weinstein said. "We felt there would be an opening in the marketplace that wanted to see something like this at this particular time."

Paul Dergarabedian, president of the box-office tracker Exhibitor Relations, believes this kind of graphic fare is making a comeback because "when people want to be scared, they really want to be scared." "With video games and all the entertainment options, it really takes a lot to impress audiences today," Dergarabedian said. "The level of violence and gore cannot be too intense for a lot of people. Horror fans in particular are very keen on seeing the most intense, violent images they can.

"Some might say it's a reflection on society, how desensitized we've become to violence," he added. "I still believe people know the difference. It's a vicarious thrill. I look at it more as entertainment: You can have that fear but in a safe environment."

The trend toward old-school terror has spread to television with Showtime's "Masters of Horror" series, in which veteran directors including Tobe Hooper, John Landis, Dario Argento and Takashi Miike have created one-hour original programs.

Joe Dante's contribution, titled "Homecoming," takes traditional zombie movie imagery and turns it into an indictment of the war in Iraq: Soldiers return from the dead not to eat people's brains but to vote the president out of office who sent them into battle.

Dante, a Roger Corman protege whose films include "The Howling" and a segment of "Twilight Zone: The Movie," pointed out that zombie films have always had underlying social statements, from 1950s West Indian movies about race and class to George A. Romero's 1968 classic "Night of the Living Dead," with its subtext about the Vietnam War.

"It didn't seem to me like much of a stretch to use that template for a political story," he said. "The great thing about the `Masters of Horror' series is that it was an opportunity that already existed in lieu of money or time I was given creative freedom, so I was able to sneak in a political story into this series that I probably never would have gotten made."

As for the renaissance of grisly horror, Dante said: "Everything goes in cycles."

"After about 15 years, there's a whole new group of people who haven't seen this kind of material. In the world we live in, we like to push the envelope, so today's gory horror movies are gorier than the last generation's gory horror movies. There is a limit to what you can do to horror, and frankly I thought we reached it in the mid-'80s, but apparently not."

And more are on the horizon specifically, remakes of the classic movies that provided the inspiration for this new wave in the first place. "When a Stranger Calls" is scheduled for release in February, with "The Hills Have Eyes" (from "High Tension" writer-director Alexandre Aja) following in March.

In October, expect a "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" prequel there's already been a remake of the iconic film, which grossed $80 million in 2003 as well as "Saw 3." Autumn also brings "Grind House" from Weinstein, in which horror aficionados Robert Rodriguez and Quentin Tarantino join forces to co-direct. John Jarratt, the serial killer from "Wolf Creek," is the star.

"Everyone has a fascination with death," said Roth. "Violence is cinematic. It looks great on film. It's a great release watching the bad guy get it seeing someone get brutally maimed in a movie, your worst nightmare, you see it and scream about it and it feels great."
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: MacGuffin on May 03, 2006, 11:38:39 PM
A Dracula Sequel that Might Not Suck

Back in December, we totally failed to pick up the news that someone had written a screenplay for a sequel to Dracula. Whatever, right? Hollywood has sequel-itis, and a whole lot of the results suck. It turns out, though, that the film, entitled Un Dead, is the first Dracula movie to win the approval of author Bram Stoker's family since Tod Browning's 1931 masterpiece. Not only that, but it was written by a gentleman named Ian Holt who, according to the always-reliable internets, is a Dracula scholar, and actually traveled around Europe, scouting locations while he wrote. Plus, it's NOT a sequel to Francis Ford Coppola's Dracula, but rather to Stoker's original story.

Variety is just reporting the story today, which probably means that all the dotted lines are finally signed, and that the project might actually be getting off the ground. Action king Jan de Bont (he's busy right now directing Meg -- fear his power) will produce the film, which picks up 25 years after the end of Dracula and brings all the surviving characters together, along with an Inspector Cotford, who appeared in Stoker's original draft of Dracula, but was cut prior to the story's publication.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: MacGuffin on May 11, 2006, 12:57:35 AM
Yuzna Announces New Re-Animator Trilogy

Longtime Stuart Gordon collaborator and bona-fide horror geek of the most colorful variety, Brian Yuzna has some big plans. He recently closed up shop on his Fantastic Factory shingle (a Spanish production company that yielded Faust, Dagon, Rottweiler, and Beyond Re-Animator) and kick-started an outfit called Halcyon, and guess what Mr. Yuzna will be doing there. That's right: making splattery horror flicks.

According to Fango, the company has a few titles in the can already (with titles like Doomed, Battlespace, and Darkworld ... cool), but their big plan is to reunite the original Re-Animator / Bride of Re-Animator gang (producer Yuzna, director Stuart Gordon, screenwriter Dennis Paoli, and actors Bruce Abbott & Jeffrey Combs) for a White House-based sequel entitled House of Re-Animator (the gang hopes this will be chapter one in an all-new Re-Animator trilogy). Yuzna also hopes to get William H. Macy to play the president, and it might not be all that difficult; Macy recently starred in the David Mamet adaptation Edmond -- which was directed by Stuart Gordon.

Also in Yuzna's blood-soaked pipeline: Sprawl: Grizzly, which is about a whole PACK of ravenous man-eating bears, and Everdark, a "based on actual events" ghost story ... like we really need another one of those.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: modage on May 11, 2006, 08:21:53 AM
Yuzna Announces New Re-Animator Trilogy
According to Fango, the company has a few titles in the can already (with titles like Doomed, Battlespace, and Darkworld ... cool), but their big plan is to reunite the original Re-Animator / Bride of Re-Animator gang (producer Yuzna, director Stuart Gordon, screenwriter Dennis Paoli, and actors Bruce Abbott & Jeffrey Combs) for a White House-based sequel entitled House of Re-Animator (the gang hopes this will be chapter one in an all-new Re-Animator trilogy). Yuzna also hopes to get William H. Macy to play the president, and it might not be all that difficult; Macy recently starred in the David Mamet adaptation Edmond -- which was directed by Stuart Gordon.
so a 2nd trilogy?  like 4,5,6?  as long as they're morel like the first two and less like the ODIOUS Beyond... then thats cool.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: MacGuffin on May 17, 2006, 03:13:03 PM
so a 2nd trilogy?  like 4,5,6?  as long as they're morel like the first two and less like the ODIOUS Beyond... then thats cool.

President Macy vs. Herbert West!

Just one week ago, we shared some news about an all-new Re-Animator trilogy that producer Brian Yuzna seems pretty darn psyched about, and today Fangoria brings us some even cooler news:

William H. Macy, one of the most talented, admired, and gosh-darn likable character actors in the known universe, has been signed to play the President of the United States in Stuart Gordon's House of Re-Animator! Returning for the third trilogy are director Gordon, producer Yuzna, screenwriter Dennis Paoli, and Dr. West himself: Jeffrey Combs. (Someone get Bruce Abbott's agent on the phone ... or his wife if he doesn't have an agent anymore. And please don't forget the lovely Barbara Crampton...)

Ready for the plot? The U.S. President dies, so one high-ranking moron calls Dr. West in to bring the Commander-in-Chief back to life ... and if you've ever seen, say, 5 random minutes of Re-Animator, then you know precisely what happens next.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: polkablues on May 17, 2006, 06:32:26 PM
and if you've ever seen, say, 5 random minutes of Re-Animator, then you know precisely what happens next.

He fixes the cable?
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: MacGuffin on June 10, 2006, 11:29:50 PM
Scared for life
As the spawn of the devil returns to our screens in The Omen, top horror directors reveal their favourite chilling movies to Jon Bentham
Source: The Guardian

Eli Roth, director of Hostel
Audition (Takashi Miike, 1999)

Takashi Miike makes around seven or eight films a year. Nobody knows how he does it, not even Miike (I've asked him: I gave him a cameo in Hostel as an excuse to talk to the guy). He claims he's like a shark, always moving forward, and will direct absolutely anything. That is evidenced by the unevenness of his films; some are total misfires, while others like Audition are masterpieces.

Audition is the story of a man who, after losing his wife to cancer, holds an audition for a non-existent movie as an excuse to meet women only to be caught up in a surreal living nightmare. It's a slow-burn horror film and brutally sadistic, so when the violence finally arrives, you ve completely let your guard down. Even the most jaded horror fans have to watch the last 10 minutes through the cracks of their fingers.

Audition is a horrific film you have to commit to, but if you can make it to the end, you'll probably wish you'd never seen it.

Robin Hardy, director of The Wicker Man
Psycho (Alfred Hitchcock, 1960)

Horror is the oddest genre in all moviemaking. For the most part it relies on rearranging visual, verbal and musical cliches. Only X amount of time must pass before shock, blood, pain and screams all proclaim that a horror film is up there on the screen. The music and sound effects slither ahead of the action, sounding the alarm that ever more horror is on the way. Do we really believe in the people involved or care about the plot? Not the point. The scary images are old friends, the terror they induce appalling but welcome.

Hitchcock's Psycho breaks all these rules. We are introduced to down-at-heel characters whose adulterous, near hopeless lives are all too believable. And we believe there is hope for Marion (Janet Leigh) until the famous shower scene. Until the knife and sheer Hitchcockian genius slash the shower curtain into the most horrifying, shocking 30 seconds in any horror film that will ever be made.

(Robin Hardy's new novel Cowboys for Christ is out now on Luath Press).

Hideo Nakata, director of Ringu and Dark Water
The Haunting (Robert Wise, 1963)

An American fan wrote to me last year, saying how much he liked Ringu. He described my work as quiet horror a phrase I like. The best example of quiet horror has to be Robert Wise's The Haunting about a group of people investigating a haunted house.

The Haunting proved to be a big influence on Ringu my scriptwriter at the time insisted I see it, and it absolutely intrigued me. I must have watched the film at least five times before we started shooting Ringu: it reminded me of some excellent advice Alfred Hitchcock used to give about how to draw an arc of anxiety and fear. He said you must slowly, slowly, slowly build up the tension until it's unbearable, then suddenly bring it right down. And then just when your audience is feeling a sense of relief that's when you must really shock them. The Haunting employs this extremely effectively. You never actually see any ghosts or blood, but you experience the fear and anxiety through the psychic protagonist Eleanor, who can sense the ghosts herself. This idea of building up gradually, then dropping quiet before a sudden bang is quite common in classical music I think about that sometimes when I m listening to Bach or Mozart.

James Gunn, director of Slither
Night of the Living Dead (George A Romero, 1968)

Vampires, Frankenstein's monsters, and werewolves are all really remnants of an older generation of horror films. The one truly modern classic monster is the zombie. And no other film was more important in defining that monster than Night of the Living Dead. Horror films scare us at three primal levels our fear of predators, disease and of being betrayed by loved ones. Night of the Living Dead burrowed to the core of all three: we're afraid of being eaten by the zombies, of being bitten and catching whatever it is they have, and we're afraid of those we love and trust turning against us.

In addition, the movie features the scariest scene of all time (the little girl eating her father in the basement) and has a bleak, shocking and sadly powerful ending. All done for roughly $100,000 by Hollywood outsiders. It made me believe that with a few bucks, a camera, a house in the country, and some Kayo syrup and red food dye for blood, maybe I could make a classic, too.

Christopher Smith, director of Creep
The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (Tobe Hooper, 1974)

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre has a raw, almost snuff-movie quality that gives the impression that it has been made by a twisted film student. This feeling of being in unsafe hands of knowing that anything might happen gives the first act, as they approach the house, an incredible sense of foreboding.

What follows are some of the most powerful horror images ever put to the screen, not least when a girl is placed on a meat hook to watch her boyfriend's head being chainsawed off. And yet that scene doesn't feel exploitative. It has a strange sensuality that pushes it to a place where the actions feel almost poetic a kind of pure savage horror that transcends itself. The movie finishes with Leatherface throwing the chainsaw around his head in a dance of death, followed by a hard, mute cut to black. I am always left speechless. It's the ultimate slasher movie.

(Christopher Smith's Severance is released on August 25).

Rob Green, director of The Bunker
Rosemary's Baby (Roman Polanski, 1968)

On paper this film shouldn't work, but Polanski really makes us believe. The build-up is masterful brilliantly sustained and very Hitchcockian, with an incredible sense of dread. The casting of Mia Farrow as Rosemary was inspired; we see everything from her perspective she's so fragile, vulnerable and trusting that you're immediately drawn into her character and feel hugely protective towards her. She has this thing growing inside her, and we watch her gradually change from loving it, to beginning to hate it, to then fighting desperately to protect it.

The climax features one of my favourite lines ever. When Rosemary sees the baby for the first time, she cries: What have you done to its eyes? And Roman, head of the witch's coven, replies proudly, He has his father's eyes. And Polanski never shows us even a glimpse of the baby just the cradle and the upturned crucifix. Chilling.

John Moore, director of The Omen (2006)
The Shining (Stanley Kubrick, 1980)

In 1966, Stanley Kubrick supposedly told a friend that he wanted to make the world's scariest movie. It only took him 14 years. It's the mastery of atmosphere and location that Kubrick uses to elevate the piece to the pressure cooker it is. The film chills you right from its opening aerial shot, which seems to go on forever as the camera tracks the Torrances' car through the frozen waste that leads to the Overlook Hotel a delightful wordplay itself. The shot tells the audience without whispering a word: You are alone now, you are far too far away from anything that can help you.

And it gets worse from there. Although Jack Nicholson's character does indeed turn into a monster, it's hard not to feel a tinge of pity for him as he sits dead, frozen at the end of a fatal game of hide and seek, grinning into camera, offering himself up as a mirror we have all looked into at some point.

(The Omen is out now).

Neil Marshall, director of The Descent and Dog Soldiers
Alien (Ridley Scott, 1979)

I 've always loved films about monsters, and Alien is the perfect monster movie. It's the darkness of the piece that's so enthralling its twisted nature, its explicit sexuality. There's the life cycle, the impregnation by the face hugger, the obvious phallic nature of the alien somebody's taken the trouble of working out an entire biology for this creature. But Scott knew not to show us the alien in its entirety until it is unveiled towards the end; for most of the film we just have back-lit shots or close-ups of it hissing steam or dripping mucus.

Crucially, Scott managed to create an utterly believable environment for the action to take place in; he establishes this atmosphere of reality, then places on top of it a fantasy creature. None of it would have worked if you didn't believe the environment could be real.

Michael J Bassett, director of Deathwatch
The Thing (John Carpenter, 1982)

Forget Halloween, John Carpenter's true horror masterpiece is The Thing about a team of scientists in the Antarctic stalked by an alien life-form with the ability to take over other bodies. It has the perfect combination of suspense, extravagant gore, compelling story and pitch-perfect acting, with an intelligent and meaningful subtext played out to one of the best endings ever. The threat to the characters and the wider world feels genuine, the paranoia palpable, and the monster brilliantly realised.

I was stunned when I first saw the movie on video as a teenager, but as an adult revisit it frequently, simply, to remind myself how a visceral and very serious-minded horror movie should be done.

(Michael J Bassett's Wilderness is released in August).

Robert Pratten, director of London Voodoo
The Excorist (William Friedkin, 1973)

What sets The Exorcist apart is a unique plot and an absorbing style of storytelling and characterisation all taking precedence over special effects. The plot centres on a priest who doubts his faith because God won't cure his sick mother, but is called upon to exorcise a young girl. The movie can claim some of the most iconic scenes and images in film history: the older priest's residence wallpapered with the Bible, the priest standing outside the young girl's house and, of course, the possession the girl floating above the bed, her head spinning 360 degrees.

By today's standards, the special effects feel dated. But compare the original to the recent remakes and sequels and there's all the evidence you need that when you're making a horror film, it's the story that's king.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: grand theft sparrow on June 12, 2006, 02:40:47 PM
This would have been a better article if they had interviewed some better directors (like who?) or if these directors hadn't given largely stock answers.

Title: Re: Horror
Post by: MacGuffin on July 01, 2006, 09:28:31 PM
'Going to Pieces: The Rise and Fall of the Slasher Film' on Starz!
Source: Bloody-Disgusting

Today we received an official release on the film. Read on for more details...

Official release:


FREDDY'S DEAD?
STARZ ENTERTAINMENT GROUP PRODUCES SLASHER DOC
GOING TO PIECES: THE RISE AND FALL OF THE SLASHER FILM

Original Production Traces the History, Popularity and Resurgence of Genre

Freddy, Jason and Michael Myers - oh my! Starz Entertainment Group has produced an original new film entitled GOING TO PIECES: THE RISE AND FALL OF THE SLASHER FILM. The film provides a comprehensive and original look at the importance, prominence, and newfound legitimacy of the horror film genre and, more specifically, the sub-genre of the "slasher film." The feature-length documentary contains an abundance of clips from classic films of the genre, as well as many current hits, and interviews with pre-eminent actors, directors, and producers, many of whom are themselves founders and masters of the genre. Based on the book of the same title by Adam Rockoff, the film premieres on Starz in October (EXACT DATE TBD).

Rockoff's book studied and lauded such seminal films as Halloween, Friday The 13th, A Nightmare On Elm Street, Psycho, Prom Night, When A Stranger Calls, Sleepaway Camp, Last House On The Left and Black Christmas. The film includes clips from many of these seminal films, as well as interviews with icons, filmmakers and cultural critics.

GOING TO PIECES is executive produced by Michael Ruggiero, vice president of programming for SEG. "Slasher films have always been extremely popular with audiences," said Ruggiero. "Everyone has their favorite film with each having a fan base. These films are intricately explored for every nuance in magazines, websites and blogs. But there has never been a stand alone tribute documentary until now. It's also interesting to note how the socio-political climate at the '80s had it's affects on the genre. Truly a sign of the times, everything from Reaganomics to the AIDS epidemic found its way into these films in one form or another."

Those appearing in GOING TO PIECES: THE RISE AND FALL OF THE SLASHER FILM (alphabetically) include John Carpenter (dir. Halloween), Bob Clark (dir. Black Christmas), Wes Craven (dir. The Last House on the Left, The Hills Have Eyes, A Nightmare on Elm Street, Scream trilogy), Sean S. Cunningham (dir. Friday the 13th), Amy Holden Jones (dir. Slumber Party Massacre), Jeff Katz (prod. upcoming Friday the 13th sequel and exec. producer Snakes on a Plane), Henry Manfredini (composer Friday the 13th and all sequels), Armand Mastroianni (dir. He Knows You're Alone and Friday the 13th television series), Gregory Nicotero (special effects/makeup Day of the Dead, Evil Dead II, A Nightmare on Elm Street: Dream Child, Scream, Kill Bill Vol. 1-2), Betsy Palmer (actress Friday the 13th - "Mrs. Voorhees"), Tom Savini (special effects/makeup Dawn of the Dead, Friday the 13th, Maniac, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre II), Robert Shaye (Chairman and CEO of New Line Cinema - prod of A Nightmare on Elm Street and its sequels), Joseph Stefano (screenwriter of Alfred Hitch****'s Psycho), Anthony Timpone (editor of horror magazine Fangoria), Stan Winston (dir. Pumpkinhead, special effects/makeup Friday the 13th Part III, Aliens), Joseph Zito (dir. Friday the 13th: The Final Chapter, Bloodrage) and Rob Zombie (dir. The Devil's Rejects, House of 1000 Corpses).

The film is produced by Candy Heart Productions' Rachel Belofsky and Rudy Scalese and directed by Emmy®-nominee Jeff McQueen. Rachel Belofsky has come to prominence in the industry as the Founder and Director of LA's Screamfest Horror Film Festival, arguably the world's most important horror festival. Scalese joined Screamfest and Candy Heart Productions in the summer of 2004. As both an expert and an ardent fan of slasher films, Scalese brought the project to Belofsky, who also produced the award-winning women in racing documentary Fast Women. They both felt the time had come for a comprehensive study and tribute to the films that had made such an impact upon them, their colleagues, and their festival participants.

"There's such a rich history of film to cull from, we started to make a short list of seminal films to draw upon," said Belofsky. "That short list quickly became very long, as did the list of interviews. It's a real testament to the significance of these films." Scalese adds, "To look at the body of the work of the Slasher films is a reminder of what began as a tiny group of films that became the little engine that could and left a significant imprint on the history of American cinema."
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: modage on October 01, 2006, 01:58:08 PM
WELCOME to another year of Mod's Halloween Horror Marathon.  For the next 31 days I'll be watching as many Horror films as I possibly can and reviewing them briefly on this site.  For those of you who do not remember, this thread will be for all the Horror films I'm checking out for the first time while Best Horror Movies (http://xixax.com/index.php?topic=4600.msg232881#msg232881) will be reviews of favorites I'm rewatching.  While I wont be having the same Marathon 46 films like I did last year, there are atleast a dozen gems I havent reviewed the past two years that I'd like to get to, as well as countless films I still need to see.  So for recommendations beyond this you can always scroll back through the pages to see what has already been reviewed.  As always I encourage everyone to join in and watch some Horror movies if you can, whether its checking out one from my lists or recommending something of their own.  And on with the show...

(http://www.xixax.com/images/halloween/horror06.gif)

(http://cdn.nflximg.com/us/boxshots/large/60021099.jpg)

i lucked out because this was a pretty great way to kickoff my marathon.  a few years back i saw the original and enjoyed it but this film was really a surprise.  like John Carpenters update of The Thing, The Blob has taken a 50's scifi premise as the jumping off point for an 80's horror film.  from a really smart script by director Chuck Russell and Frank Darabont, (also the team behind the 2nd best Nightmare on Elm Street film), the film economically introduces us to a townfull of likable characters and then begins to dispense with them.  what makes this so different is by giving each character a couple scenes to make you like them, its all the more shocking when they're killed off.  and the film takes no prisoners, characters that would probably end up heroes in another more predictable film are the first to go here, even young kids arent off limits.  even the special effects are surprisingly good, moreso when you consider the film was made almost 20 years ago.  since there is almost no way to actually make a blob of goo scary, the film does its best atleast making it fun.  there was a wave of 80s directors who grew up loving the films of the 50s and ended up making films that were remakes of or paid homage to those films with sometimes mixed results.  i guess it shouldnt surprise me that now in the 00's there are so many remakes of 70s horror films.  but somehow these 80's films feel different, like the work of filmmakers who genuinely loved their goofy 50's originals and thought there was really something they could offer to update them for todays audiences. while todays remakes seem to be generated by the studio execs picking films that have a brand and recycling them for mtv kids.  one look at the horror offerings in theatres this month only goes to prove that: TCM: The Beginning (a prequel to a remake), The Grudge 2, (a sequel to a remake) and Saw III (a sequel to a sequel, but hey atleast the original was original).  oh, it was a simpler time.   :yabbse-undecided:

THE BLOB: (http://elouai.com/images/yahoo/43.gif) RECOMMENDED
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: RegularKarate on October 01, 2006, 09:29:28 PM
(sorry, I had forgotten the difference between this and Best Horror Movies... moved now)

RK's Low Rent Horror Movie Marathon

(http://www.theglasslab.com/pics/below.jpg)

BELOW

I hadn't seen this and had heard very mixed things about it.  Pitch Black made me sleepy and I didn't like that it was riding on the whole Aronofsky thing so I avoided it for a long time.

It's almost a spoiler to put this in the Horror Movie thread, but since it's just a so-so film, I don't feel bad about it.

This had some good scenes that built suspense well enough and the camera work was decent enough to stay on board.  Where it fails is that it takes way too long to get around to anything very interesting.  It assumes that we'll enjoy a cliched horror mystery enough to just sit through an hour and twenty minutes of set up for a pay-off that barely pays off.
The lighting is like bad television in a lot of the scenes, pushing painful gels on us in a non-campy way, but in other scenes, it really works.  This makes it feel a little disjointed in parts.

I don't have skulls, but if I did, I would give this five out of ten just because there were some decent scenes of interest.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: modage on October 01, 2006, 10:23:41 PM
(http://www.xixax.com/images/halloween/horror06.gif)

(http://cdn.nflximg.com/us/boxshots/large/569099.jpg)

surprisingly i'd only previously seen the first Halloween and Halloween H20 (during the post-Scream teen horror boom).  i had assumed that most of the sequels would be crap, though i do plan to get through them all oneday.  so i was surprised when this started out so promisingly.  it begins with the last several minutes of the first film and picks up right where it left off incl. a reprise of the famous titles.  and i have to admit there was a certain thrill there to think that the story really was going to continue, unfortunately after about 20 minutes the film settles into neutral is we are introduced to characters only to wait for their deaths.  the most interesting strand of the film is introducing the notion that myers and laurie are actually brother and sister (recalling the empire/jedi familial revelations makes me wonder if this was always an idea, or tacked on after the fact?).  unfortunately the film doesnt get much time to explore this because there is a bodycount to tend to.  myers gets inventive with his tools of death here (or maybe he was just jealous of the Friday The 13th series), and it gets a bit ridiculous.  cant hold a candle anywhere near the first film, and yet, my guess is it's probably the best of the sequels.  though carpenter did co-write and produce this i kinda have to give him credit for never directing a Halloween sequel, especially considering it would've always (and still would be!) easy money.  for a man whos films can be as AWFUL as his sometimes are, he does have his standards.  anyone more familiar with this series than i am?  are any of the sequels worthwhile or is this as good as it gets? 
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: RegularKarate on October 01, 2006, 11:34:50 PM
  anyone more familiar with this series than i am?  are any of the sequels worthwhile or is this as good as it gets? 

Stay tuned for my review of the franchise through H20.

If you're not already aware of the contents of Halloween 3, then you should just watch it.  You'll be all "huh?"
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: polkablues on October 01, 2006, 11:44:22 PM
Halloween 3 is one of the worst movies ever made.  You should definitely watch it.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: MacGuffin on October 02, 2006, 01:09:44 AM
Halloween III is worth watching just for the catchy subliminal song. It works because you'll never get it out of your head.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: modage on October 02, 2006, 08:13:24 AM
  anyone more familiar with this series than i am?  are any of the sequels worthwhile or is this as good as it gets? 

Stay tuned for my review of the franchise through H20.

If you're not already aware of the contents of Halloween 3, then you should just watch it.  You'll be all "huh?"
ooh i'm interested.  a few years ago my dad and i watched all the Nightmare on Elm Streets and then all the Friday the 13ths and it got PAINFUL at times.  i've always planned on doing the same for Halloween, but have not yet gotten around to it.  i might just end up chipping away at them one at a time.  i'm aware that III tried to ditch Myers for a different Halloween themed story about a doll factory or something? 
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: MacGuffin on October 02, 2006, 11:20:10 AM
i'm aware that III tried to ditch Myers for a different Halloween themed story about a doll factory or something? 

Masks. The plan is for the all the kids to have their faces turned into maggots after the chip in the mask is activated by watching the subliminal message on TV... Yes, I've seen it a few times and own the DVD. It's a guity pleasure of mine.

(http://www.dreammovies.net/photosL/Halloween%20III%201.jpg)
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: modage on October 03, 2006, 10:54:33 PM
(http://www.xixax.com/images/halloween/horror06.gif)

(http://cdn.nflximg.com/us/boxshots/large/70038791.jpg)

i root for films like this, i really do, but while it was miles ahead of straight-to-video trash it is ultimately pretty forgettable.  the problem is that you can sort of see where its going too quickly so you wait for 40 minutes for the film to catch up with you, and thats never good.  it has some nice atmosphere, the acting is good, the special effects (though minimal) are flawless, and seeing bruce campbell (or patricia clarkson (for mac)) is always good, but it's not quite as unique as May was.  the finale was awesome though.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: RegularKarate on October 04, 2006, 01:25:13 PM
(http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y74/regularkarate/horror061.gif)

(http://cdn.nflximg.com/us/boxshots/large/70039179.jpg)

This is the original 2001 Japanese version, but I kind of want to see the remake just to see how much they stray from the original for an American audience because while this movie is a little boring, it does take an existential turn from "haunted internet" into something deeper.  I don't think it handles this turn very well, but I'm curious how they treated this in the remake (which is bound to be worse than this).

Overall, not a very good movie, it's starts out really well and has some very creepy scenes and cool imagery, but the final product isn't really worth sitting through in the end.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: squints on October 05, 2006, 11:40:23 AM
(http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/P/6305841985.01._AA240_SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg)

This is one from my childhood. My sister was a giant fan of really shitty/cheesy horror movies and I just got the boxset with all three movies. its not scary anymore, but just for the nostalgic value as well as some decent make-up effects its a lot of fun.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: modage on October 05, 2006, 01:21:05 PM
you know i've never seen that film but my girlfriend also grew up with it.  there was a period in middle school where some friends and i would rent every ridiculous looking horror movie we could find, stumbling on awesomely awful gems like Blood Diner, so i'm not sure how we missed that.  our Blockbuster probably just didnt carry it.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: RegularKarate on October 06, 2006, 01:55:27 PM
(http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y74/regularkarate/horror061.gif)

(http://cdn.nflximg.com/us/boxshots/large/60023682.jpg)

Return of the Living Dead

I saw this when I was MUCH younger, but just watched it again last night.  I don't think Mod likes this one, but despite everything telling me I should hate this, I really liked it.  It's Campily Delicious.

It's origin is a funny story, of course.. if you're not aware John Russo wrote the Night of the Living Dead screenplay with Romero and afterward, they both agreed they could each continue with sequels seperately... Romero would go on to make one of the best zombie movies ever made and Russo wrote a serious sequel with the very sequelly title "Return of the Living Dead".... Meanwhile , Dan O'Bannon, who wrote Alien, is looking for a movie to actually direct... he agrees to work with Russo and says "you know what, I don't want to step on what Romero's doing.. let's make this a COMEDY".

The end product is worth it to me... it's got a scene where a girl takes ALL her clothes off and starts dancing a strip tease on top of a gravestone for no reason and her clothes pretty much stay off the rest of the movie, including when she's a zombie herself.
There's some decent gore and effects in this.. they're really low budget and it shows, but it's the kind of low budget effects that make you smile. 
The zombies in this not only run, but talk (whether they have lips or not) coherantly (at one point, after a slew of zombies eat the brains out of a bunch of police officers, one of the zombies gets on the police cb and says "Send more cops").
Of course, it has a very nice and bleak ending.


I enjoyed it so much I plan on renting the next one, even though I've heard it's terrible and the DVD has a new soundtrack (I hate when they do that shit).
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: JG on October 06, 2006, 02:51:51 PM
haha i remember this one.  this is a classic.  so many great lines. 
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: squints on October 06, 2006, 06:36:48 PM

(http://cdn.nflximg.com/us/boxshots/large/60023682.jpg)

Return of the Living Dead


I love this movie so much. This guy used to scare the crap out of me when i was a kid:

(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f149/squints06/tarman.jpg)
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: RegularKarate on October 08, 2006, 12:27:50 AM
(http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y74/regularkarate/horror061.gif)

(http://cdn.nflximg.com/us/boxshots/large/540822.jpg)

Ghost Story

Unfortunately, my original post was deleted.

This was another movie that I remembered being scary when I was a kid and just watched it again to be bored this time around.
It's too bad because the story is pretty good (I've heard the book is good, but I don't typically like Peter Straub) and the technique of shooting the movie like a classic horror movie with a cliched old-time horror score makes it so you're actually surprised to see some pretty gruesome scenes.

Overall, pretty boring though.. it takes almost half the movie for them to "reveal" what has been obvious the whole time.


Edited for box art
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: RegularKarate on October 08, 2006, 02:07:53 AM
(http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y74/regularkarate/horror061.gif)

(http://cdn.nflximg.com/us/boxshots/large/70019513.jpg)

Cursed

I have no idea how I got talked into watching this movie.  There's no reason to actually review it... it's a really pathetic attempt at making a werewolf version of scream.

Netflix puts it best:

Enjoyed By Members Who Enjoyed

The Haunting   
Boogeyman   
The Ring Two   
Van Helsing   
Catwoman   
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: modage on October 08, 2006, 02:17:29 PM
(http://www.xixax.com/images/halloween/horror06.gif)

(http://cdn.nflximg.com/us/boxshots/large/70050002.jpg)

very odd film.  starts out great and i thought i was really going to be in for something fun and awesome.  but sort of turns into showtime porn with zombies.  maybe thats not so bad, and i know this film has a pretty good reputation but it didnt come together for me.  i do give it credit for its unique tone, mixing black comedy and obsessive vertigo romance in with zombies and casual gore, but it never quite became as good as it should've been.  also, i'm surprised it was only made 10 years ago because it LOOKS like it could've been made 20.  it's like an italian production where even the credits are in italian but the actors speak english?  it's weird. 

I don't think Mod likes this one, but despite everything telling me I should hate this, I really liked it.
that is a facinating backstory for Return of the Living Dead.  i had heard parts of it, but the details make it even better.  i saw it a few years ago and wasnt a huge fan but it was ridiculous fun.  never seen Ghost Story, but will check it out eventually (despite your mixed review).  and Cursed i also have not seen, though i may someday even knowing it will surely be a cinematic abortion.  (poor Wes).  and i have not seen either version of Pulse though kristen bell might tempt me to sit through the remake at some point.  i'm just so disinterested in that brand of asian horror at this point, the originals the remakes, i've had enough. 
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Ghostboy on October 08, 2006, 02:39:29 PM
I watched Cemetary Man when it was finally released a few months ago, having wanted to see it for years. It's really odd, and around the third act it sort of lost me -  I think that might be because I wasn't expecting it to take a turn into such bizarre territory, but regardless, it gets rather episodic and repetitive towards the end, to the point that all the gore and violence and black humor lose their effect. But it's beautifully made, in that old fashioned Italian style, and certainly worth watching. When it's good, it's great...and the last scene, which is very Donnie Darko-ish, convinced me I'd missed somethign and made me want to rewatch the whole thing.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: modage on October 08, 2006, 03:25:09 PM
yeah, exactly.  i fell asleep last night watching it and today rewound the last 20 minutes like 3 times trying to see where i lost the thread.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: RegularKarate on October 08, 2006, 03:50:25 PM
I saw it when it first came out on VHS and remember loving the shit out of it (watched it three times in the same week), but it's been so long that I guess I need to see it again.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: RegularKarate on October 09, 2006, 12:21:37 AM
(http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y74/regularkarate/horror061.gif)

(http://cdn.nflximg.com/us/boxshots/large/70005169.jpg)

Return of the Living Dead 2

I enjoyed the first so much that I ran out and rented this one (hearing from a friend that it was good, despite what I've read).
It's very much a sequel.  It's too blantantly comedic and the "jokes" are really obvious and unfunny and they're delivered in an early Facts of Life bad child acting kind of way.

There are some funny scenes and some okay gore, but the camp isn't as pure and the gore isn't as low-budget fun.

Oh, and the score change was pretty obvious to me.  I could tell something was off even though I don't specifically remember the original music and while I was watching the credits, I noticed songs that were never in the movie... what a cheap move.

Title: Re: Horror
Post by: squints on October 09, 2006, 05:36:10 PM
Don't even bother with Part III
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: I Don't Believe in Beatles on October 09, 2006, 05:47:23 PM
I bought a copy of Cemetery Man at Goodwill today.  Here's hoping to loving the shit out of it like RK.

(http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a110/StonerSunRising/cheersunnie.jpg)
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: RegularKarate on October 09, 2006, 11:06:01 PM
(http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y74/regularkarate/horror061.gif)

(http://cdn.nflximg.com/us/boxshots/large/951235.jpg)

The Seventh Sign

If Rosemary's Baby and The Omen were brother and sister and then had a child, it would be The Seventh Sign and it would have down syndrome.  Also according to the ideas in this movie, it would be the will of God for it to pour gasoline all over it's parents and set them on fire.

I really need to stop watching movies I saw as a kid because they never pay out.

This movie is just absolutely terrible and doesn't even know what it's doing half the time.  Characters defy their apparent eternal goals just to deliver information about the weak plot of the movie and Jesus doesn't seem to know much about why his dad, God sent him back.... he's so clueless that at the end, he tells a Jewish man to write down what happened and spread the word... why would he do that?  he doesn't believe you've even been here once, let alone twice!

oh, and it's boring
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: modage on October 09, 2006, 11:21:13 PM
(http://www.xixax.com/images/halloween/horror06.gif)

(http://cdn.nflximg.com/us/boxshots/large/60022822.jpg)

hard to believe this was made by the same guy who did A Christmas Story, (though it maybe harder to believe so is this. (http://imdb.com/title/tt0270846/)  it's mostly pretty dull until the end which is so ambiguous that i almost wanted to re-evaluate it.  it is interesting to see the use of the killer POV before halloween and the "the call's coming from inside the house!" before When A Stranger Calls (or Scream for that matter).  there was a particularly creepy shot of the killers eye coming from behind a closet but the film is very low/non-existent on gore making it almost more of a suspense film than horror.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: RegularKarate on October 11, 2006, 12:07:43 AM
(http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y74/regularkarate/horror061.gif)

(http://www.exxagon.it/Locandine/cannibal%20holocaust.jpg)

Cannibal Holocaust

This is a movie I had kind of avoided for years while at the same time was dying to see.  I have seen really gory stuff with far more realistic depictions of human torture, but there was something else that was keeping me from watching this until tonight.

Sensationalism against sensationalism is (I assume) the point of this film.  Deodato said he wanted revenge taken on sensational journalists so he did and how.  So realistically that he was tried numerous times by courts that were sure he had made a real snuff film... but most know this story... here's my reaction to finally seeing the film:

I couldn't not watch this while at the same time couldn't turn it off.  I feel almost upset at myself for sitting through the thing.  Like I said, I've seen all forms (simulated and in some cases real) of human torture and dismemberment, but what really bothered me about this film is on camera mutilation of animals.  A giant turtle is decapitated and torn apart piece by piece...  a pig is shot... a monkey's head is cut off... all of these really happened and it was very disturbing to watch.  Evidently, the cast and crew cooked and ate everything they killed, but that doesn't change the reason they did it.  I'm not a vegetarian, but after seeing that, I'm one step closer.

Obviously if you can stomach this sort of movie, you've probably already seen it (I'm late to this game, I know), but if you can take this sort of thing and haven't seen it, you probably should... it's an amazing thing to witness (though I don't know if I'll ever watch it again).

edit: fixed image
edit #2: fixed fixed image (?)
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: polkablues on October 11, 2006, 12:34:14 AM
Side note to anyone into Cannibal Holocaust-type films who might be interested in watching films from the "Guinea Pig" series: Don't Fucking Do It.  Not because they're too disturbing or anything like that... they just happen to be the most ass-numbingly boring films ever made.  I watched three of them, "Flowers of Flesh and Blood", "He Never Dies", and "Mermaid in the Manhole".  "Flowers of Flesh and Blood" was thought by some to be an actual snuff film.  Those "some" are idiots.  A real snuff film would be far better shot and edited.  "He Never Dies" is the closest of the three to actual entertainment; it's actually kind of funny, in a way reminiscent of a Frank Henenlotter film ("Basket Case", et al).  "Mermaid in the Manhole" almost even had a story to try and keep you interested, and some enduring imagery, but still feels much longer than the hour that it is.  So, to recap: bad, bad, bad.  Just a fair warning.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Ravi on October 11, 2006, 12:52:43 AM
I watched Final Destination 3 the other day.  Pointless.  It mostly looks and feels like a TV movie and the actors are some of the blandest I've seen.  There are three or four generic-looking brunettes in the film and I had difficulty discerning them at times.  There's no real suspense.  It felt like a list of required elements was being checked off.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: ᾦɐļᵲʊʂ on October 11, 2006, 03:57:24 PM
I know this isn't news to a lot of people here, but I forgot just how good Rosemary's Baby was.  It is very well paced and shot, very bizarre and it never really lets up.  I highly recommend watching it this Halloween (or in general) if you haven't seen it.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: RegularKarate on October 12, 2006, 12:32:56 PM
(http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y74/regularkarate/horror061.gif)

(http://cdn.nflximg.com/us/boxshots/large/60021401.jpg)

Session 9

I'm sure most have seen this, but I hadn't.  Hearing mixed reviews, I decided to finally see for myself.

It started out pretty creepy and actually got me a little spooked during a couple of scenes.  It was actually well made for the first half an hour.

Once I realized it was basically a rip off of the Shining (with almost none of the brilliance), I got a little disappointed, but was still engaged enough to stay with it.  Unfortunately the "pay off" at the end ended up very cliched and almost ruined the movie.

It's worth checking out for the set up, which was handled pretty well.. the mood is established and gets your hooked and abandoned mental hospitals are just fucking creepy, but it's like a piece of really good candy with a poorly placed razor blade inside... fortunately, you can see the razor blade coming before it cuts you so you don't get so excited that you get a mouth full of blood, but it's still a disappointment.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: modage on October 12, 2006, 10:17:34 PM
(http://www.xixax.com/images/halloween/horror06.gif)

(http://cdn.nflximg.com/us/boxshots/large/1050517.jpg)

this was a lot of fun.  completely ridiculous but fun.  it was a pretty famous william castle film where they actually rigged the seats in the theatre with buzzers and planted people in the audience to faint and be carried out.  the film Matinee with john goodman is loosely based on castle.  anyway, the film stars vincent price as a scientist/surgeon who discovers that fear causes a large parasite to crawl up your spine that can only be relieved by screaming, (yep, i'm serious), and the film has some utterly ridiculous moments like when "the tingler" is finally revealed and you can see the wires but like 13 Ghosts and House On Haunted Hill, they are pretty well made films and vincent price makes the ridiculous dialogue almost convincing.  at one point he even injects(!) himself with lsd so he can experience fear.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: modage on October 16, 2006, 08:33:57 PM
(http://www.xixax.com/images/halloween/horror06.gif)

(http://www.postercheckout.com/PrintImages/MOV/thumbs/142670.jpg) (http://cdn.nflximg.com/us/boxshots/large/1086342.jpg) (http://cdn.nflximg.com/us/boxshots/large/60035960.jpg) (http://cdn.nflximg.com/us/boxshots/large/405796.jpg)

watched a few movies recently.  London After Midnight, for those of you that don't know is one of the most famous "lost" films of all time.  the last known copy of the film was destroyed in a vault fire at MGM over 50 years ago though i had always been curious to see the film having grown up seeing pictures of Lon Chaney in his famous makeup.  so randomly, recently, while flipping channels i noticed that Turner Classic Movies had London After Midnight on the guide for later that night.  i thought "thats impossible, it's a lost film" and surely if they'd found it, it would've made SOME kind of news?  i checked the description and it said it was indeed the Lon Chaney film.  upon watching it i discovered the film is still lost, but an archivist had actually re-constructed the film using stills and a new score.  it was interesting but difficult to sit through as curious as i was.  watching a black and white film takes a certain getting used to at first, as does one with subtitles, as does one that is silent, but to take away ALL these things and have a film that does not MOVE either is really a discipline. 

Vampyr, which is actually Carl Dreyers follow-up to The Passion Of Joan Of Arc which i enjoyed but the quality of the transfer really affected my viewing experience.  i'd like to see it again, especially if someone takes the time to clean it up a bit, but it was no Nosferatu or more importantly no Dracula (which was released the same year), making this seem inexcusably ancient. 

somehow i don't believe i ever saw the original Godzilla, and definitely never the Japanese version Gojira which had not been released in the US in some time (if ever).  though i had seen many of the ridiculous sequels the original is obviously quite different.  i'd really like to see the American version now to see how drastically the story was changed by inserting Raymond Burr into new scenes, redubbing the film and cutting 20 minutes.  this had a great score, used the actor from many Kurosawa films, and had a lot of good destruction.

Creepshow i didnt like.  like most anthology films it just doesnt work more than it does. the tone of the shorts is all over the place as is the length, though none are scary (now).  the film goes WAY out there with some of the comic book editing (20 years before The Hulk and American Splendor!) but it gets a little obnoxious.  the costumes are ridiculous, tom savini, tell me you are NOT responsible!   at the very least i have to imagine the film paved the way for Tales From The Crypt which works much better on the whole.  maybe Creepshow 2 is better?
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: MacGuffin on October 16, 2006, 08:48:13 PM
maybe Creepshow 2 is better?

Yes.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: RegularKarate on October 16, 2006, 09:02:54 PM
(http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y74/regularkarate/horror061.gif)

(http://cdn.nflximg.com/us/boxshots/large/405741.jpg)

Phenomena

Originally released in the states as Creepers with almost half an hour cut, this is Dario Argento combining the feel of his Supernatural films with that of his Giallo films.

Argento's never been very good with dialog... or with actors, really... he writes strong situations rather than strong characters.  There are some boring scenes with the characters basically explaining who they are and why they're there, but when it comes down to the overall film, this is really fun.

The music gets jarring at points... it goes from creepy ambient stuff to literally Iron Maiden... I like the effect, not that I know how intentional it was.

This is also one of Jennifer Connely's first roles and considering she was only fifteen at the time, it's a little creepy how sexualized her character is... Running around in slips and "Exciting" a beetle.  Donald Plesence's character has some kind of gross old man scenes with her as well.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: RegularKarate on October 16, 2006, 09:09:27 PM

Creepshow i didnt like.  like most anthology films it just doesnt work more than it does. the tone of the shorts is all over the place as is the length, though none are scary (now).  the film goes WAY out there with some of the comic book editing (20 years before The Hulk and American Splendor!) but it gets a little obnoxious.  the costumes are ridiculous, tom savini, tell me you are NOT responsible!   at the very least i have to imagine the film paved the way for Tales From The Crypt which works much better on the whole.  maybe Creepshow 2 is better?

This absolutely belongs in the Best Horror Movie thread.  One of the best camp horror movies ever.

How can you not LOVE the translation of the EC comic style?  How can you not LOVE Ted Danson gargling "If you can hold your brrrreeeeeeeeaaaaaaattthhhhhh!"?

My copy is signed by Romero!
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Ghostboy on October 16, 2006, 09:15:50 PM
I loved Creepshow, but I haven't seen it in years. I'm pretty sure I'd still love it, just for nostalgia value if nothing else.

RK, I felt exactly the way you did after I saw Cannibal Holocaust (and I saw it on the big screen!). Over time, though, that dirty feeling fades and it becomes sort of campy and funny in your head. I never want to see it again, though.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: modage on October 17, 2006, 09:21:03 PM
(http://www.xixax.com/images/halloween/horror06.gif)

(http://cdn.nflximg.com/us/boxshots/large/70044372.jpg)

this was bad.  really really bad.  how bad was Feast?  MASTERS OF HORROR bad. 
i'm sorry Gulager, i will give you the benefit of the doubt.  the script sucked ass, you were underbudgeted and you did the best you could. 
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Astrostic on October 17, 2006, 10:52:00 PM
totally agree.  I was unfortuante enough to catch it with a friend at a midnight screening in Houston in mid-late September and it was so bad.  The opening along made me hate with it's "clever" introductions to all of the characters and lame "suspenseful" build up to the monsters outside.  My friend was downright angry at how bad it was, and said it was the worst movie she's ever seen.  I don't think it was THAT bad, but the fact that so many people seem to be loving it has me worried.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: MacGuffin on October 18, 2006, 12:00:01 AM
My friend was downright angry at how bad it was, and said it was the worst movie she's ever seen.

Your friend obviously hasn't seen Jeepers Creepers.



Just kidding, mod. Blair Witch 2 is FAR worse.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: RegularKarate on October 20, 2006, 12:19:02 PM
(http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y74/regularkarate/horror061.gif)

(http://cdn.nflximg.com/us/boxshots/large/70003583.jpg)

Night of the Demons

So, in a rush while loading up my Netflix queue and working at the same time, I made a mistake that is probably made most with horror movies... I was attempting to rent the 1957 Night of the Demon when I accidental got the 1988 Night of the DemonS (and last night's Office had Pam saying how she rented 28 Days Later thinking it was 28 Days).

Well, so this was one of those movies that was just someone going "hey, Horror movies are easy, let's do one... someone get me some bad makeup and some tits"... it's awful.. I watched a good deal on fast forward.  There was one scene though that really just made me wonder... the movie is just filled with nothing but bad horror cliches... this one is teenagers getting possessed by demons in a house that's evidently possessed because an Indian died there, but there's this scene were a girl who's gone demon has her shirt open to let everyone get an eyefull of the reason they think people come to see horror movies and she's rubbing lipstick all over her chest and just randomly shoves the lipstick container through her nipple INSIDE her breast... not like a magic trick...like they built a prosthetic and actually showed it go into her boob.

anyway, this movie is garbage, but that one scene was so bizarre I posted this anyway.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: MacGuffin on October 21, 2006, 12:45:27 PM
Blame this guy for your anxiety
"Halloween" director John Carpenter believes in giving audiences what they don't want.

NEW YORK — The toughest part about making a truly frightening film, according to director John Carpenter, is keeping a straight face.

"The movies that are the most fun are horror movies — you laugh a lot, they're fun," says Carpenter, who should know — his résumé of terror includes classics "Halloween" with Jamie Lee Curtis, "The Fog" with ex-wife Adrienne Barbeau and "Vampires" with James Woods.
 
The director might be smiling, but the audience at a good horror flick is cringing, or gasping, or covering their eyes. Horror fans get a chance to do all three, over and over and over, when the 10th annual "Monsterfest" arrives Sunday on AMC.

The 24-hour-a-day, nonstop festival of fright runs through Halloween and covers more than 70 years of horror, from 1931's "Dracula" and "Frankenstein" through 2003's "Gothika" — more than 230 hours of films over 10 days. Three horror films will make their "Monsterfest" debuts: "The Exorcist," "The Lost Boys" and "Wolfen."

"The Exorcist," one of the all-time great horror films, is a perfect example of a scary movie that leaves Carpenter in stitches. From laughing, not slashing.

"I love watching that movie," said Carpenter. "The dialogue the devil has, the bad language used by the devil, is hilarious."

For Carpenter, making a good horror movie involves creating anxiety for the audience.

"They should be frightened that you're going to show something they don't want to see," Carpenter said. "You need to go off the tracks, do something grotesque, something they don't want. They like that."

Carpenter, whose work outside the horror genre included "Starman" with Jeff Bridges, the original "Assault on Precinct 13" and the Kurt Russell vehicle "Escape From New York," is a fright film aficionado.

His favorites include old Roger Corman classics like "It Conquered the World," along with movies such as "Bride of Frankenstein." Although a fan of early monster movies, he believes the modern horror movie began in 1960 with Alfred Hitchcock's "Psycho."

"Before then, there was a lot of gothic horror — monsters, like Frankenstein, Dracula, the Wolfman, the Mummy," Carpenter said. " 'Psycho' was modern, deliciously directed, with well thought-out scenes."

It was that sensibility that Carpenter wanted to bring to his low-budget "Halloween." Made in 1978 on a budget of $320,000, the film grossed an estimated $55 million and spawned an assortment of sequels.

On Oct. 31, AMC will air all five "Halloween" movies along with a behind-the-scenes look at Carpenter's classic original with Curtis and Donald Pleasence. Among the fun facts revealed: the mask sported by murderous Michael Myers was a Captain Kirk mask, covered in white spray paint. ("Halloween" also is being released in 150 theaters nationwide for special screenings on Oct. 30 and 31.)
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: OrHowILearnedTo on October 21, 2006, 02:44:11 PM
his résumé of terror includes classics "Halloween" with Jamie Lee Curtis, "The Fog" with ex-wife Adrienne Barbeau and "Vampires" with James Woods.

Yeah, vampire$ is such a classic. Much better than that stupid one set in... you know... the place where it snows, and has that thing where it does stuff. What was that called again?
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: MacGuffin on October 22, 2006, 09:40:43 PM
The Splat Pack
Wondering where all those ultraviolent movies are coming from? Meet horror's new blood
By REBECCA WINTERS KEEGAN; Time Magazine

The shuddering naked woman strung up in the meat locker was not the problem. Neither was the guy ripping through chains embedded in his flesh to dismantle a ticking bomb in front of him. What worried the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) when the ratings body screened Saw III, the latest installment in the lucrative, torture-based horror franchise, was the disturbing "tonality," according to the film's director, Darren Lynn Bousman. "This movie is too dark?" asks Bousman, a 27-year-old Elvis Costello look-alike from Kansas. "That's what I set out to do! It's a horror movie." Before altering Saw III to garner a more box-office-friendly R-rating, Bousman called up another director who specializes in movies people watch through their fingers, Rob Zombie, the tattooed heavy-metal vocalist. "I told him to talk to the MPAA as a filmmaker," says Zombie, 41, whose depraved gorefest The Devil's Rejects contains what many consider cinema's most artful human-roadkill scene. "Explain why the extreme violence is necessary to tell the story in a way that's more socially responsible." When pressed, Zombie admits he doesn't actually care what's socially responsible. He just wanted to help out a kindred spirit, another guy who understands the unique beauty of a properly lighted viscera shot.

Bousman and Zombie are both members of an emerging and collegial band of horror auteurs--unofficially known as the Splat Pack--who are given almost free rein and usually less than $10 million by studios or producers to make unapologetically disgusting, brutally violent movies. If they get it right, there's a fervid fan base, composed mostly of people far too young to take death seriously, who will send those movies into almost gruesome profitability (some of the films have made more than $100 million). The group is loose knit, and other members include the director of the first Saw movie, James Wan, and his co-writer, Leigh Whannell; Hostel writer-director Eli Roth; The Descent's Neil Marshall; and Alexandre Aja, who remade Wes Craven's 1977 cannibalistic film, The Hills Have Eyes.

The gore-happy gang owes a lot of its recent good fortune to Whannell and Wan, who ushered in the latest iteration of big-screen bloodlust with the first Saw movie in 2004, just as eerie Japanese horror movies like The Ring were peaking. Whannell was a Melbourne, Australia, TV host who thought he had a brain tumor. His film-school buddy, Wan, was unemployed. "I would have done anything to be healthy again," says Whannell, now 29, who, it turned out, was actually just suffering from stress headaches. When he felt better, he wrote the script for Saw, in which a terminally ill cancer patient, Jigsaw ultimately played in all three movies by the creepy character actor Tobin Bell forces people to consider what they're prepared to do to stay alive. Using $7,000 of Whannell's savings, the pair shot a shocking 10-min. film in which Whannell played one of Jigsaw's victims who has to dig a key from the digestive tract of a paralyzed cellmate before Whannell's character's jaw is split open by a reverse bear trap. On the strength of that short, Los Angeles--based Evolution Entertainment ponied up $1.2 million to make a feature. The sets were grungy--most of the film takes place in a dirty bathroom--and the actors, Danny Glover and Carey Elwes, weren't too expensive. Wan got to direct, and Whannell starred as another of Jigsaw's victims.

Bought and savvily marketed by Lionsgate, Saw was a huge hit, proving that mainstream audiences have an appetite for sadism--at least if it's cleverly conceived. Another Saw quickly followed. So far the franchise has earned more than $250 million worldwide, and Saw III will open in roughly 3,000 U.S. theaters Oct. 27, the biggest release of the films to date. Saw films skew to the under-25 audience and are as popular with girls as with guys. "Good horror movies don't need stars, and they don't need special effects," says Tom Ortenberg, Lionsgate president of theatrical films. "They earn their scares through twists, through intelligent writing and great up-and-coming directors." Most of the Splat Packers are on only their second or third film in a genre that many critics willfully ignore. If there's a nascent Stanley Kubrick or Steven Spielberg in the mix, it's still too soon to tell. But there's certainly innovative filmmaking under way that rises above the mindless slasher sequels of the '80s or such predictable teen-star killfests of the '90s as I Know What You Did Last Summer.

The basic plotline of most of these films is that people are stuck somewhere and have to endure horrible things--or indeed, do horrible things to each other--to escape. The more deviant and repulsive the treatment, the better. Bousman, who directed the later Saw films, says he got inspiration for that meat-locker scene from shoveling the driveway during endless Kansas winters. "I always thought I was gonna die 'cause it was so cold outside," says Bousman. "What happened if you were stuck outside with no clothes on? The ideas start off in the real world, and then we take them beyond."

Roth's film Hostel, about young backpackers caught in a pay-for-torture club in Slovakia, was inspired, he says, by a website he saw advertising a club in Thailand that claimed to let you shoot someone for $10,000. The torture scenes Roth devised came from researching European witch trials and Nazis and from some trips he made to the tool aisle at Home Depot (one shot guarantees you'll never look at bolt cutters the same way again). In the scene that won Roth the Most Memorable Mutilation prize at this month's Scream Awards, a kind of horror Golden Globes, a rich American pays to blowtorch a Japanese girl's eyeball. "I don't know if it's medically accurate that the white goo would come out of her eye," says Roth. "It just looked so disgusting we had to go with it." He later found out that torture by blowtorch has been used by Iraqis both during and after Saddam Hussein's rule. Roth, 34, has taken heat for the brutality in Hostel, the DVD of which knocked the family-friendly film The Chronicles of Narnia off the top-selling spot at Wal-Mart last spring. "People say, 'How can you put this stuff out there in the world?' Well, it's already out there," says Roth. He appeared on Fox News and proclaimed that it was because of George Bush, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld that Americans are watching horror films: "You're so scared, you want to scream."

O.K., the Splat Packers are brash. But considering their work, they're actually a very normal bunch. In fact, the writers and directors of the new wave of horror movies seem to be mild young men from the suburbs who grew up watching The Shining at sleepovers while Mom and Dad slept in the next room. The Old Guard of horror directors, including Craven and Tobe Hooper (The Texas Chain Saw Massacre), has welcomed the newcomers, inviting them to its Masters of Horror dinner parties in Hollywood (also occasionally attended by Quentin Tarantino and Robert Rodriguez, who are co-directing a slasher double-feature called Grindhouse, due next year). And for men (and it is all men) who spend their lives coming up with vile ways to kill people, the horror club is awfully warm and fuzzy. "I'm just so happy to be part of this wave," says Roth. "Everybody's so psyched for each other."

The only thing that could end this horrorteurs lovefest, it seems, is if the extreme gore craze starts to suffer from, well, overkill. After Saw III comes Turistas, which is sort of like Hostel with Brazilian bikini girls instead of Slovakian ones. In addition to Tarantino and Rodriguez's Grindhouse, 2007 will bring a full sicko slate, including Hostel: Part II, a retooling of Halloween by Zombie and The Hills Have Eyes II. "These movies aren't for everybody," admitted Zombie, the day after he turned in his Halloween script. But they don't have to be. "I see trailers for movies like [romantic weepie] The Lake House, and I think, I would have to rip my eyes out of my head to sit through that. But that's somebody's favorite movie." And somewhere, at some sleepover this weekend, someone is watching Saw or The Devil's Rejects while Mom and Dad sleep in the other room, and appreciating that, yes, it does feel good to scream when you're safe.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: MacGuffin on October 23, 2006, 03:02:39 PM
First 'Halloween' to Return to Theaters

Horror-film fans with a taste for `70s-style slasher antics can indulge themselves next week when the original "Halloween" movie returns to theaters for the first time in 27 years.

A digitally remastered, high-definition version of the 1978 film, which turned Jamie Lee Curtis into a star, will play at 8 p.m. Oct. 30 and 31 in 150 movie houses.

A new 20-minute featurette about "Halloween," including interviews with original cast members and a look at the movie's impact on pop culture, will precede the screening.
 
"Halloween," which spurred a spate of multi-sequel slasher films, tells the story of an escapee from a mental institution, Michael Myers, who goes on a murderous spree on Halloween night.

Seven sequels have followed. The eighth is on the way, to be written and directed by aptly named rocker Rob Zombie. "Halloween 9" is slated for release on Oct. 19, 2007.

"I take the original film very seriously, and I want to make it terrifying again," said Zombie.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: RegularKarate on October 23, 2006, 04:36:44 PM
(http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y74/regularkarate/horror061.gif)

(http://www.accomics.com/accomicsdvd/HAUNTED%20STRANGLER%20color.psd.jpg)

The Haunted Strangler

An older Karloff stars in this as what starts off as a relatively sweet role.  He's a novelist that is trying to find out who the REAL Haymarket strangler was as he believes that man that was hanged twenty years earlier was innocent.  As he (literally) digs deeper, he finds himself becoming the strangler.

I really like watching Karloff transform himself.. it's funny, but neat.  It's kind of like watching an early Jim Carrey without the goofy noises and exagerated body movements.

I don't want to ruin anything, but this movie catches you by surprise a couple of times.  Overall, a really good time for a movie I hadn't really heard much about until recently.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: modage on October 24, 2006, 10:41:44 AM
(http://www.xixax.com/images/halloween/horror06.gif)

(http://cdn.nflximg.com/us/boxshots/large/70042610.jpg)

watched the Last Man On Earth portion of this disc last night.  it is the film that heavily influenced Night Of The Living Dead (man, nothing is original!) and stars Vincent Price as a scientist who is the last living (non-vampire) on earth.  the film also appears to have inspired 28 Days Later though whether it was thru Romero or not is questionable.  Price goes about his days doing routine tasks like eating, gathering supplies and burning bodies.  in flashbacks we see what happened to the rest of the humans and why he may be immune to the virus.  the film is sort of hollywood in that scenes that would play much creepier and more realistic without are covered in score.  one scene in particular has price laying on the couch listening to jazz records while vampires try to break into the house!  so the film shows the monotony of life and also the sadness of being alone.  until he discovers he may not be.... dun dun dun.  RECOMMENDED>
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: MacGuffin on October 24, 2006, 11:01:25 AM
it is the film that heavily influenced Night Of The Living Dead (man, nothing is original!) and stars Vincent Price as a scientist who is the last living (non-vampire) on earth.  the film also appears to have inspired 28 Days Later though whether it was thru Romero or not is questionable.

Actually, all of these films are influenced by Richard Matheson's novel, "I Am Legend."

One of the most influential vampire novels of the 20th century, I Am Legend regularly appears on the "10 Best" lists of numerous critical studies of the horror genre. As Richard Matheson's third novel, it was first marketed as science fiction (for although written in 1954, the story takes place in a future 1976). A terrible plague has decimated the world, and those who were unfortunate enough to survive have been transformed into blood-thirsty creatures of the night. Except, that is, for Robert Neville. He alone appears to be immune to this disease, but the grim irony is that now he is the outsider. He is the legendary monster who must be destroyed because he is different from everyone else. Employing a stark, almost documentary style, Richard Matheson was one of the first writers to convince us that the undead can lurk in a local supermarket freezer as well as a remote Gothic castle.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: modage on October 25, 2006, 02:37:39 PM
The Splat Pack
such a lazy article.  these filmmakers have nothing to do with one another.  most probably have never met or neccesarily even LIKE one anothers work.  can we quit trying to group everything into some imaginary movement?  the Three Amigos, ok, they actually are friends who actually help one another out on films.  this is just ridiculous.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Ghostboy on October 25, 2006, 03:37:40 PM
Actually, I think a lot of them are members of the Secret Society Of The Pizza Knights in LA. So they do at least know each other.

Anyway, as October winds to an end, I'm trying to make it through a horror film a night. Last night I watched Miikes Imprint.

MINOR SPOILERS  It's definitely the best from the Masters Of Horror series I saw (which doesn't necessarily mean much, does it?). Very beautifully designed and shot, to the point that sometimes you forget about the atrocities you're witnessing because the composition is so impressive. It's not exactly scary, but there's a torture scene that's incredibly hard to watch (and fairly original, as these things go) and lots and lots of dead fetuses to warm up your cool autumnal nights. The acting isn't too great, but after a while you get used to it. The ending gets downright goofy - it involves a muppet that's as hilarious as it is grotesque, and it's a testament to Miike's mastery of tone that it doesn't derail the entire film.


The DVD has a documentary that, I think, is longer than the film itself, and is incredibly in depth about every aspect of the production. Miike seems like a pretty gentle, laid back guy with a sense of humor about his own work.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: RegularKarate on October 25, 2006, 04:49:02 PM
(http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y74/regularkarate/horror061.gif)

(http://cdn.nflximg.com/us/boxshots/large/60004331.jpg)

C.H.U.D.

That's right.

Most people know what CHUD stands for even if they haven't seen the movie: Canabalistic Humanoid Underground Dweller.  It actually DOESN'T stand for this though... that's just to throw you off.. the origin of C.H.U.D. is hidden in a government cover-up.  This government cover-up is what keeps the movie from being good.

I've heard the commentary is just the cast and director making fun of the film the whole way through... I wish I had watched it like that.  Instead, I had to sit through almost an HOUR of boring "plot" and "character establishment" before we even get to the eye-glowing creatures what live under your own feets.

There are a couple of decent scenes of monsters and gore, but it's hardly worth it.  All I could think while watching this was "Less chat, More C.H.U.D.!".
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: RegularKarate on October 26, 2006, 12:16:22 AM
(http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y74/regularkarate/horror061.gif)

(http://cdn.nflximg.com/us/boxshots/large/60024023.jpg)

Don't Look Now

Another classic I had never seen.  This one was a pleasant surprise, however, because it was really entertaining.  It begins with the well edited death of a child and the rest of the movie from that point forward is so erie and mysterious that you can't stop watching despite a naked Donald Southerland and some scenes that seem to kind of go nowhere.  The movie plays around with psychic ability and death.  Once the movie ends, you realize there was something going on throughout the entire film, though not as obvious as say, the Sixth Sense which has a similar feel to it's finale (no, not like that).  I have my theories, but I'll need to watch it again.

And I can honestly say that there were some truly creepy scenes.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: modage on October 26, 2006, 08:14:08 AM
(http://www.xixax.com/images/halloween/horror06.gif)
(http://cdn.nflximg.com/us/boxshots/large/60024023.jpg)
whoa me too!  watched this 2 nights ago for the first time and also enjoyed it.  had heard a lot about it over the years showing up on Scariest Lists and such so i was looking forward to it.  though i wasnt sure it was neccesarily a horror film even through most of the movie, but the final minutes convinced me that it was.  yeah, the editing was insane.  it was the sort of "art/horror" that i would imagine xixax to enjoy.

(http://cdn.nflximg.com/us/boxshots/large/858742.jpg)
this was not, but i enjoyed this anyway.  i would have expected this to be a total Jaws knock-off, and a few scenes were, but the film was actually quite different.  it was the first film from the Howling team of John Sayles and Joe Dante so i guess i should've expected a little more because like that film this was different, fun and definitely had a few nods to previous horror films.  plus, any movie that has entire groups of KIDS eaten by piranhas has got to be atleast worth a rental.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: modage on October 26, 2006, 10:06:32 PM
(http://www.xixax.com/images/halloween/horror06.gif)

(http://cdn.nflximg.com/us/boxshots/large/70044876.jpg)

this is another one i was really rooting for.  but also another one where i admire the filmmaker and his intentions a little bit more than the final film.  i love films where you arent just dealing with one thing, like the slugs, but the zombies, and all the other crazy creatures in here as part of this things life cycle.  i liked nathan fillion and elizabeth banks, there were some great makeup effects, and some incredibly gross stuff. but i think the parts that didnt quite hold together as well were the beginning character bits and the lack of (what i can only refer to as) "holy shit!" moments.  it ALMOST had them, it had moments that SHOULD'VE been them, but for the most part they didnt quite hit the bullseye.  i had also expected more of a comedy or a wink wink 'hey remember these silly 80's films' kinda deal, but the film played it mostly straight and was probably better off for it.  like i said its even tough for me to give a lukewarm review because i just wanted to love it for NOT being a "Splat Pack" ultraviolent film, or a Japanese horror remake, or a sequel or a remake of a classic film but in the end it reminded me of The Blob remake i watched earlier this month but much grosser and not quite as good.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: modage on October 29, 2006, 09:34:17 AM
(http://www.xixax.com/images/halloween/horror06.gif)

(http://www.xixax.com/images/halloween/markofthevampire.jpg) (http://cdn.nflximg.com/us/boxshots/large/60024208.jpg) (http://cdn.nflximg.com/us/boxshots/large/70014452.jpg)

with Halloween just around the corner i'm having a full-on marathon this weekend, watching the last few 'new' films for the year and trying to get a handful more favorites in as well.  yesterday included 3 new ones the first of which was Mark Of The Vampire.  this was another film that i had seen images from over the years but never actually seen the film.  one of the reasons for this is possibly because it was produced by MGM, instead of Universal, so has never been included in various horror sets and has only recently become available on dvd, (though i actually watched it on TCM).  the film itself which reunites Bela Lugosi with his Dracula director Tod Browning in what is essentially a remake of Brownings own (lost film) London After Midnight.  several odd things about the film are that Lionel Barrymore has top billing (and not Lugosi), Lugosi has what appears to be a bloody bullethole in the side of his head which is never explained! (though Robert Osbourne did in his TCM intro), and the film which is essentially a straightforward vampire tale has a twist ending that is so strange it makes it almost to have been a comedy.  it wasnt very good, especially coming a few years after Dracula, but the ending almost made it worthwhile. 

also finally got around to watching Bad Taste after several years of procrastination, though i'm not sure now how much of a horror film it was.  this was Peter Jacksons first film and it was definitely interesting to watch and see what he was able to accomplish with friends on weekends over 4 years (!).  some really disgusting moments along with some off the wall humor, you can see him building towards Dead Alive though i still can't imagine how he got to LOTR. 

and a year later, after a minor wave of xixax (and otherwise) hype, i finally saw Eyes Without A Face.  the circus-y music was a strange fit, the mask itself was really creepy and the transfer looked incredible.  i liked it.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Pubrick on October 29, 2006, 10:35:12 AM
and a year later, after a minor wave of xixax (and otherwise) hype, i finally saw Eyes Without A Face.  the circus-y music was a strange fit, the mask itself was really creepy and the transfer looked incredible.  i liked it.

be sure to check out its lesser known sequel, Face Without A Nose..

(http://img71.imageshack.us/img71/9094/eyesra6.jpg)
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: RegularKarate on October 29, 2006, 12:52:39 PM
(http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y74/regularkarate/horror061.gif)

(http://www.tonyearnshaw.com/img/demoncloseupSOLO.jpg)

Night of the Demon

There... this is what I was shooting for.

Based on the short story "Casting of the Runes", this movie was very cool.  The actual demon was cheezy looking (very rubbery), but seeing as how it's hardly in the movie, it managed to be kind of creepy in spots. 

Using the same kind of formula Lovecraft became of a fan of, this is about a scientist researching the supernatural death of a scientist who was researching the same thing (see Call of Cthulu).  The best part was where the main character goes to see the evil cult leader and he's dressed as a clown, entertaining kids just minutes before he displays his evil powers.

The oldschool scary music and titles ruled as well.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: modage on October 29, 2006, 09:43:03 PM
(http://www.xixax.com/images/halloween/horror06.gif)

(http://www.xixax.com/images/halloween/madlove.jpg) (http://cdn.nflximg.com/us/boxshots/large/60024028.jpg) (http://cdn.nflximg.com/us/boxshots/large/60023662.jpg)

first up today was Mad Love which was kind of awesome!  starring Peter Lorre as a brilliant but deranged surgeon who becomes obsessed with an actress who is already engaged to a pianist.  when the pianists hands are badly injured in an accident, Lorre performs a procedure to replace them with the hands of, you guessed it, a killer.  Peter Lorre is great, and incredibly creepy looking with his head shaved completely bald, and Colin Clive (Dr. Frankenstein) adds some interest as the pianist.  the highlight of the film comes midway through when Clive meets with the man whose hands he has gotten, who has supposedly been beheaded, who informs him that Lorre has sewn it back on!  RECOMMENDED.

secondly was The Tenant, which i'd wanted to see for a while.  the first hour and a half i really enjoyed the film, though it was not horror in the least.  even Polanski as an actor is really natural and great to watch.  then it takes a turn for the weird, Polanski starts crossdressing and going insane.  it all gets pretty obvious from that point and pretty damn disappointing.  oh well, Ebert hated it too.

and last was Return Of The Vampire which stars Bela Lugosi as 'Armand Tesla' the vampire.  though according to the Netflix description he plays "Dracula", which he pretty much does.  this film was made by Columbia, (not Universal who owned the rights to the name Dracula), so they pretty much decided to just make a sequel to Dracula almost 15 years later using everything but the name.  it's set during WWII where Nazi's drop bombs that end up disturbing Tesla from his graveyard.  and he has a wolfman servant who looks more like a dog and it's all pretty goofy but fun halloween fluff. the whole thing feels like the people involved really didnt take it too seriously as it seems like this was more aimed at kids.  but it really does make me appreciate the original Universal films EVEN MORE at what they accomplished because this is probably more what people imagine those films are probably like: cartoon halloween cards.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Ghostboy on October 30, 2006, 01:03:07 AM
I was really going to try to watch a lot of horror films this October, but somehow I completely let time get away from me. In addition to Imprint, which I wrote about above, here's what I've seen so far - I've got three more coming from Netflix next week, so I'll be extending my faux-marathon into the first few days of November.

(http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/DVDReviews16/a%20Robert%20Aldrich%20Hush...%20Hush%20Sweet%20Charlotte%20Bette%20Davis%20DVD%20Review/cover%20Robert%20Aldrich%20Hush...%20Hush%20Sweet%20Charlotte%20Bette%20Davis%20DVD%20Review%20.jpg)

This movie scared me to death when I was younger. Looking at it now, it's a whole lot of fun. It's Robert Aldrich's follow-up of sorts to Whatever Happened To Baby Jane? and like that picture, this is an opportunity for Bette Davis to chew up some gothic scenery as only she can. The opening sequence is pretty amazing...a fifteen minute pre-title setup that is just beautifully staged and has some really unexpected gore. The rest of the movie is pretty short on scares, but it's highly enjoyable.

(http://www.dvdmaniacs.net/Features/Digital_Domain/covers/cronos.jpg)

I'd seen this ages ago, but I wanted to revisit it because I'm preparing a big article on Del Toro for my website. It's really great - a beautiful, slightly cheesy but very touching vampire fairy tale. It has all the earmarks of Del Toro's later work. The commentary and documentary on the DVD were really great - they really show how much Del Toro cares about horror as a genre.

(http://www.1000misspenthours.com/posters/postersh-m/hellraiser.jpg)

I just finished watching this, and was pretty impressed. For all its disgusting gore, it's really an elegantly staged horror film, and its story seemed pretty original, too. I was surprised by how well it holds up - most horror films from the 80s have such a high cheese factor now, but there wasn't much here to break the mood. It's got some pretty horrifying stuff in it, and the makeup effects, by and large, are pretty amazing. Especially the early stages of the skinless Frank. The direction was pretty top notch, which I wasn't expecting - I'd watched Barker's Nightbreed earlier this year, and couldn't believe how AWFUL it was. Now there's a horror film that would have been cheeesy in any decade (David Cronenberg's cool serial killer notwithstanding). So anyway, thumbs up for Hellraiser - are any of the sequels worthwhile? I'm guessing not, especially since Alan Smithee directed one of them...
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Gamblour. on October 30, 2006, 09:44:57 PM
I have finally gotten into the Halloween spirit by watching a few films, a classic and a newer one, that I had never seen.

Audition and The Exorcist. Audition was great, obviously, very cringe-inducing, I liked it a lot. The Exorcist was interesting in that I'd always thought the exorcism was a much larger part of the film, and I had NO IDEA that Ellen Burstyn was in it. That was especially embarassing because I didn't even know it was her until the end credits...yikes. I liked how the built up the priest character, but then why is it called the exorcist, which I think is referencing Max von Sydow (also didn't know it was him)? He's not a very integral part of the film, but then I guess he is. He just bookends the film in his own way. Anyhow, both films were awesome and now I've got two other movies to watch tomorrow night, It's Alive and Feast, two very different movies that I haven't seen.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: polkablues on October 30, 2006, 10:35:38 PM
It's Alive

Oh, man... I have this longstanding twisted love affair with the It's Alive films.  You almost have to get all three and watch them consecutively to achieve the full experience.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Pubrick on October 30, 2006, 10:44:44 PM
and I had NO IDEA that Ellen Burstyn was in it.
that's odd.. she is synonymous with that role, it's mentioned every time she is mentioned.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Gamblour. on October 31, 2006, 11:28:25 AM
It's Alive

Oh, man... I have this longstanding twisted love affair with the It's Alive films.  You almost have to get all three and watch them consecutively to achieve the full experience.

That's just what I needed to hear, I was worried I hadn't picked a good flick, but that image on the back cover sold me.

and I had NO IDEA that Ellen Burstyn was in it.
that's odd.. she is synonymous with that role, it's mentioned every time she is mentioned.

In my brain, I know her from Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore and Requiem for a Dream. But mostly from Ya-Ya.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: modage on October 31, 2006, 11:40:03 AM
WARNING!  Feast is HORRIBLE and It's Alive (outside of the first 10 minutes) is not much better. 
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: polkablues on October 31, 2006, 09:10:15 PM
It's Alive (outside of the first 10 minutes) is not much better. 

(http://www.xixax.com/images/departed2.jpg)
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Gamblour. on November 01, 2006, 01:41:15 PM
WARNING!  Feast is HORRIBLE and It's Alive (outside of the first 10 minutes) is not much better. 

I didn't read this in time.... :(

It's Alive, sorry polka, is so fucking boring. I could not even believe how abysmal it was. You never see the fucking baby! It was such a waste. And Feast....while mildly entertaining and a few times funny, it was like a freshman idiot wrote that film. There were some lines (such as Emmanuelle's "Blah blah morose mother fuckers"...any time Jay and Silent Bob are referenced, things can't be good) that I scoffed at, and the characters were so poorly handled. And Gulager is basically a genius for making this work in any way, except his propensity for very very dark rooms. It was interesting to see how it lands after all the Greenlight nonsense. The best part is definitely the monster work, very good for such a low budget. If only the ideas behind It's Alive had met the willingness to show the monster's like in Feast, maybe something could have been close to good.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: MacGuffin on November 03, 2006, 12:24:06 PM
Fox News Argues Over the Splat Pack!
Source: Bloody-Disgusting

Fox News has some seriously explaining to do- especially since they're projecting their unwanted opinion on the horror genre to the sheep of the Nation. Click here (http://g6publish.videodome.com/newsinteractive/videopage/videoplayer/?channel=Fox+Life&clipid=1198_43386) to watch a six-minute (one-sided) argument, which will reveal Fox's opinion on horror films. This video makes me think that they don't want us to see The Hills Have Eyes 2 or 28 Weeks Later because if they think Lionsgate (this is how it's spelled morons) is evil, why should they get a hall pass? It's quite obvious the people being interviewed are being led on, but whatever, our genre is getting press. My only question is... Fox releases horror films, why aren't they under fire in this segment? Horror lives and there's not a damn thing they can do about it. 
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: MacGuffin on December 29, 2006, 09:34:32 PM
so a 2nd trilogy?  like 4,5,6?  as long as they're morel like the first two and less like the ODIOUS Beyond... then thats cool.

President Macy vs. Herbert West!

Just one week ago, we shared some news about an all-new Re-Animator trilogy that producer Brian Yuzna seems pretty darn psyched about, and today Fangoria brings us some even cooler news:

William H. Macy, one of the most talented, admired, and gosh-darn likable character actors in the known universe, has been signed to play the President of the United States in Stuart Gordon's House of Re-Animator! Returning for the third trilogy are director Gordon, producer Yuzna, screenwriter Dennis Paoli, and Dr. West himself: Jeffrey Combs. (Someone get Bruce Abbott's agent on the phone ... or his wife if he doesn't have an agent anymore. And please don't forget the lovely Barbara Crampton...)

Ready for the plot? The U.S. President dies, so one high-ranking moron calls Dr. West in to bring the Commander-in-Chief back to life ... and if you've ever seen, say, 5 random minutes of Re-Animator, then you know precisely what happens next.

Brian Yuzna Still Shooting for a New Re-Animator Trilogy
Source: Cinematical

About six months ago we heard that filmmaker Brian Yuzna (Society, The Dentist, From Beyond and a whole bunch more) was aiming to kick-start a whole new Herbert West trilogy. The first entry would be called House of Re-Animator and star Jeffrey Combs as the troublemaking Dr. West ... and none other than William H. Macy as the President of the United States. Seems like the project might still be moving forward -- but not any time real soon, sorry to say.

In this excellent interview from Gli Occhi Sol Cinema, the veteran horror-maker discusses a wide array of past successes and future projects, from Society and Re-Animator to Dagon and ... Silent Night, Deadly Night Part 4. But the part that'll prove most exciting to the old-school gorehounds is Mr. Yuzna's long-term plans for his long-running Re-Animator series. The plan is to follow House of Re-Animator with Re-Animator Unbound! and Re-Animator Begins ... maybe as a way to reboot the franchise with some new blood.


http://www.occhisulcinema.it/Dos-Brian%20Yuzna%20USA.htm
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Gamblour. on October 02, 2007, 12:06:44 AM
After receiving Mod's graces, I will also be contributing some reviews of horror films and things, such as this review, that really capture the aura of October and Halloween.

(http://www.xixax.com/images/gamblour07.gif)
(http://images.rottentomatoes.com/images/games/coverg/25/684125.jpg)
Extra Weird Sampler - Something Weird Video (2003)
"Warning!! This program contains violence, nudity, gorillas, wrestlers, and mutant sheep!”

WHATS IT ABOUT? A collection of trailers for various cult films, ranging from horror to nudist films to gore and sexploitation. All from the 50s, 60s, and 70s. Grindhouse's fake trailers take their cues from these, which are hilariously real.

IS IT SCARY? Well, they are just trailers. The subject matter isn't always in the horror genre, but they are always laughable. Some are incredibly gory, so yes, it's scary in many ways.

(http://www.esplatter.com/images/am/2000maniacs.jpg)(http://www.ryandvds.com/images/dvd/large/colorMeBloodRedLarge.jpg)
(I will work on fancier images later)

WHAT’S GOOD ABOUT IT? The content and the presentation of the trailers, complete with warnings about weak hearts and sensitive constitutions, and their efforts to coax you into the theater. It's hard to tell you in words how amazing it is watching the trailer for "Confessions of a Psycho Cat" or its many counterparts (there are a strange amount of movies involving cats). You'd be amazed at the prevalence of mingling feet during sex scenes. Bettie Page and others romp around these trailers. Some trailers include 2000 Maniacs, Blood Feast, Deadly Weapons, Kiss Me Quick, Double Agent 73, Dracula the Dirty Old Man, and so many others.

SCARIEST MOMENT: You will become numb to breasts and rape scenes after about thirty minutes. Oh and there's a trailer (like many others, it's really just a scene from the movie) where a guy kills a woman and pokes out her eye and eats her butt.

(http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/b/b3/180px-630587123X.01._SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg)(http://images.greencine.com/images/movies/amg/dvd/cov150/drt200/t220/t22001musoe.jpg)

WHY SHOULD I WATCH IT? The sheer number of films represented here clues you into how rich the history is, in all of its terrible glory. Plus, if you didn't get this, it's fucking hilarious. You may only last about an hour. Plus, it's only $5 on Amazon (http://www.amazon.com/Extra-Weird-Sampler/dp/B0000C23H3/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/103-8842708-4175823?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1191301477&sr=8-1).

(http://www.xixax.com/images/halloween/skulls.gif)
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: RegularKarate on October 02, 2007, 01:48:19 AM
(http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y74/regularkarate/RKHalloweenBannercopy.jpg)

PSYCHO II

and why not start with a super shitty, completely unnecessary sequel to one of the best horror films made?

When you take the subtlety of Perkins in the original and put it in a more modern setting, you lose creepy psycho and just get boring weirdo.  It doesn't help when all the other performances are totally wooden.

Add that to a mess of a plot and you get a really truly crummy movie that I'm surprised I sat through (okay not that surprised... it's October and I'm running out of options).

A couple kind of brutal kills, but in the end it's just one unbelievable and completely boring plot point after another.

Can't wait to watch part 3.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Gamblour. on October 02, 2007, 09:33:46 PM
(http://www.xixax.com/images/gamblour07.gif)
(https://www.student.gsu.edu/~jgaar1/cover.jpg)
The Devil's Backbone (2001)
"What is a ghost? A tragedy condemned to repeat itself time and again?"

WHATS IT ABOUT? Set during the Spanish Civil War, the film follows a boy, Carlos, who is brought to an isolated orphanage. The ghost of an orphan, Santi, inhabits the orphanage and delivers an ominous message to the boys.

IS IT SCARY? Not really. The ghost boy provides some jumps, but my fiancee didn't scream, which says something. It is, however, quite depressing.

(https://www.student.gsu.edu/~jgaar1/backbone1.jpg)

WHAT’S GOOD ABOUT IT? The film is very similar to "Pan's Labyrinth", in its setting and child protagonist and his encounters with apparitions. It's not as engrossing, but still good. The child actors are amazing and the camera work is nice to look at. This film definitely sets up del Toro on his way to making the similar and superior "Pan's Labyrinth."

SCARIEST MOMENT: There isn't really a scariest moment, although the film's final scenes are incredibly tense and frightening.

(https://www.student.gsu.edu/~jgaar1/backbone2.jpg)

WHY SHOULD I WATCH IT? It's a good flick that's really well made and the ghost is handled well, unlike so many horror films that inundate the cinemas today.

(http://www.xixax.com/images/halloween/skulls7.gif)
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: bonanzataz on October 03, 2007, 12:02:02 AM
i just watched the 7th victim. it was pretty good. sometimes the plot made no sense, and it was (obviously) incredibly dated, but there was enough mystery and eeriness to keep me interested. i felt like an asshole for thinking it, but i think it could benefit from a remake. i kinda want to waste a lot of time writing a spec script for one.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: RegularKarate on October 04, 2007, 01:33:11 AM
(http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y74/regularkarate/RKHalloweenBannercopy.jpg)
(http://www.popmatters.com/images/film_art/v/vacancy-poster.jpg)
Vacancy

At first I was kind of on the fence about the movie.  It's obvious that it's going to be really cliched, but that's what I'm looking for anyway tonight... cheap thrills.
It starts to gain my interest though.. taking a really shitty script loaded with lame plot points that make little sense and actually making it kind of tense (even though you know what's going to happen).
Unfortunately, the last few minutes are so incredibly bad that it doesn't even out.

Sorry, Nimrod... you got points for not changing your name, but you couldn't keep me interested through this thing.

At least it was really short and I'm not mad I watched it.

Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Gamblour. on October 04, 2007, 01:05:38 PM
(http://www.xixax.com/images/gamblour07.gif)
(https://www.student.gsu.edu/~jgaar1/creepshow_poster.jpg)
Creepshow (1982)
"I want my cake."

WHATS IT ABOUT? A series of short stories as written by Stephen King and directed by George Romero. In order, they are "Father's Day," "The Lonesome Death of Jordy Verrill," "Something to Tide You Over," "The Crate," and "They're Creeping Up On You."

IS IT SCARY? Depends on which story. "Father's Day" is frightening, if only for the image of Ed Harris dancing. "Jordy Verrill" is scary for Stephen King's performance (it's really bad, and I know it's supposed to be campy). The last three are truly the best -- "Tide" and "The Crate" have very suspenseful, scary premises, and "They're Creeping Up On You" is just really gross.

(https://www.student.gsu.edu/~jgaar1/creepshow1.jpg)

WHAT’S GOOD ABOUT IT? "Tide" is I think the best known part of this film and also just plain fucking brilliant. Leslie Nielson gives a really amazing performance and kinda surprised me. Even Ted Danson was great. "The Crate" is equally good, with a great twist and great acting. "They're Creeping Up On You," like I said, is really gross and kind of good. The stories in "Tide" and "The Crate" really make those just jump out as great parts of the feature. Adrienne Barbeau's performance in "The Crate" is a lot of fun, too. However, "Jordy Verrill" is not fun and very stupid.

SCARIEST MOMENT: The studious Charlie Gereson going after the boot.

(https://www.student.gsu.edu/~jgaar1/creepshow2.jpg)

WHY SHOULD I WATCH IT? I would rank each one of these individually, but that's a bit much. "Jordy" would get 1 skull and kill all of it. I really did enjoy "Tide" and "The Crate" so much, the performances, the stories, they all coalesce into a great pair of shorts. The others aren't as good, but I won't count that against the whole feature.

(http://www.xixax.com/images/halloween/skulls8.gif)
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: modage on October 04, 2007, 01:32:01 PM
Creepshow i didnt like.  like most anthology films it just doesnt work more than it does. the tone of the shorts is all over the place as is the length, though none are scary (now).  the film goes WAY out there with some of the comic book editing (20 years before The Hulk and American Splendor!) but it gets a little obnoxious.  the costumes are ridiculous, tom savini, tell me you are NOT responsible!   at the very least i have to imagine the film paved the way for Tales From The Crypt which works much better on the whole.  maybe Creepshow 2 is better?
8 skulls is pretty high praise, i don't know why but i didn't care for Creepshow.  maybe because i never saw it until last year so there was no built-in nostalgia.  i'm about to netflix Creepshow 2 soon anyway.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Gamblour. on October 04, 2007, 01:53:10 PM
I did see this as a kid, when I was in love with all things horror, and I kind of let the bad shorts slide and really got into "Tide" and "The Crate." I don't think nostalgia had a lot to do with it, because I don't remember anything from the movie. Well, the nostalgia of loving short horror stories, eg Alan Schwartz, probably did play into it. I love short horror stories. 8 skulls was mostly for those two specific ones. I really did hate "Jordy Verrill." Rated individually:

"Father's Day" - 4/10
"Jordy Verrill" - 1/10
"Tide" - 10/10
"The Crate" - 9/10
"Creeping" - 6/10

So, if you average that, it should really be about 6/10 skulls. But why punish the whole class for a few bad apples?
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Gamblour. on October 05, 2007, 10:12:14 PM
(http://www.xixax.com/images/gamblour07.gif)
(https://www.student.gsu.edu/~jgaar1/cemeterymancover.jpg)
Cemetery Man (1994)
"No, please don't! He's only eating me!"

WHATS IT ABOUT? Fracesco Dellamorte (played by Rupert Everett looking like himself and very different at the same time) works at a cemetery. His job: rekill the ever-rising undead. He is quite good at his job, until he realizes he may have accidentally murdered someone. At this point, the distinction between the dead and the living blur, and the film takes quite an existential turn.

IS IT SCARY? There is some terrifying imagery, but no scares.

(https://www.student.gsu.edu/~jgaar1/cemetarytryp1.jpg)

WHAT’S GOOD ABOUT IT? I was flipping through past Halloween marathons and discussions, and this film came up several times. This film looks like it was shot in 1981, so I was surprised to find it was only shot in 1994. I've only seen (and hated) Suspiria, but I think it's safe to assume, considering the fact that the credits, names of the people, and the movie's locale are all Italian, that it's very much in the vein of the Italian horror genre. The humor in the film is starkly different in that it plays on the zombie moments, but some parts (Dellamorte's visit to the doctor, for example) are just plain hilarious.

The tone of the film, while a bit inconsistent, is incredibly thought-provoking, and I found myself considering the existential questions posed by Dellamorte moreso than a film with a pretense of thought provocation. The film sets up several metaphors (the phone book, the gun, to name a few) and pays them enough attention to add a layer of depth I found rather refreshing. Additionally, the imagery in the film is quite lovely. I feel like the filmmakers tried to make this something different than another Evil Dead film, and they really do succeed.

SCARIEST MOMENT: I found Dellamorte's discussion with death to be pretty scary.

(https://www.student.gsu.edu/~jgaar1/cemetarytryp2.jpg)

WHY SHOULD I WATCH IT? Again, the film poses many interesting questions regarding Dellamorte's job and his subsequent behavior, while adding depth and a great deal of humor to the zombie genre, although it's a bit rough around the edges. The more I think about it, the more I love this film. Plus, Anna Falchi is gorgeous.

(http://www.xixax.com/images/halloween/skulls8.gif)
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: RegularKarate on October 08, 2007, 05:07:08 PM
I guess I'm the only one that's going to be posting in this thread?  (note to mod: this two threads thing is silly, we should combine them and just have one "Halloween Movie" thread)

(http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y74/regularkarate/RKHalloweenBannercopy.jpg)

Note:   I'm behind at least one horror movie this month because I remembered being scared by Return to Oz and also remembered Disney going though a dark period, but I watched it and I guess I was just scared the same way kids are scared by Oompa Loompas.

Every Sunday, some of my improv friends hang out at the theater and watch a bad movie on the projector.  We've been doing horror movies this month. 

Last week:

(http://www.bad-good.org/troll2/end.jpg)
Troll 2

Most people are aware of this one by now, but if you're not, this is one of the absolute unintentionally funniest movies ever made (it;s actually funnier after multiple viewings).
It's getting such a big following here in Austin that the child actor from the film is actually making a documentary about it called "Best Worst Movie".

Troll 2 has nothing to do with the first Troll (also terrible, but not as laughably bad as this one), in fact there aren't even any trolls in it.. they're all Goblins (who live in the town "Nilbog" a name that takes the characters over half the movie to realize is goblin spelled backward). 

This thing is loaded with the most wooden delivery of some of the worst dialogue ever written... characters explain what is clearly already happening on camera... there's also a scene at the very begining where a mother is talking to her son about his grandfather and she actually says "and me, his daughter". 

Oh, and the goblins... amazing... evidently the masks were made by some ex porn star.


and this week:

(http://www.themoviebinge.com/images/stills/20060913wickerman.jpg)
The Wicker Man (2006)

Yes yes... I know.

This one isn't as funny as Troll 2, but is definitely fun to watch and make fun of.

Almost all of the good stuff has been put on Youtube, but it's still great to watch it play out... one thing the YouTube clips don't capture is the ridiculously bad editing.

Part of me thinks that this was made bad intentionally... there are just some scenes that are too ridiculous... like when Cage is leaving a message on someone's answering machine and his cell phone reception goes out and he starts saying "hello?!  hello?!" then hangs up.

now on to my next batch!
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: MacGuffin on October 09, 2007, 01:11:11 AM
Re-Animator Sequel Not Likely

Blame it on Stuart Gordon shooting his mouth off too much about it being a political movie or just the climate of the times, but star Jeffrey Combs told SCI FI Wire that it looks unlikely that the much-anticipated House of Re-Animator sequel likely won't be happening.

"I wish I could give you a better prognosis, but that is one of the most-asked questions I've been getting lately, and it's not even close to getting made," Combs said in an interview. "Too many people feel the heat, and studios are wary of the subject matter."

Gordon, who helmed the f1985 first Re-Animator, wanted to make the latest installment with Combs, reprising the role of Dr. Herbert West, who can bring people from the dead. Gordon and Combs plan to talk about the series at the Full Moon Convention in Little Rock, Ark., on Oct. 26. The original film was based on a story by H.P. Lovecraft.

Combs (USA's The 4400) described the movie's problem: "The latest idea is too on the nose, because it's about a vice president who has a heart attack and dies, which is terrible, because he runs the country, and a kind of Karl Rove-ian character brings Herbert to the White House to revive him. All is well for a little while, and then, of course, havoc has its day. A lot of people they took the idea to didn't want to touch it. And, of course, the real power in it would be to get it out before they are out of power."

Combs has discussed with Gordon the idea of masking the people in the White House. "My argument is that you can make it a corrupt [presidential] administration, but not necessarily this one, and then it's in Dr. Strangelove territory and the people are not so recognizable," Combs said. "Believe me, I've had this conversation many times with Stuart."

In any case, Combs said that he doesn't really agree with mixing politics and Re-Animator. "Melding political humor and reanimation hasn't happened before, so why now all of a sudden is it Michael Moore Meets Re-Animator?" he asked. "I'm as outraged as the next guy about what's going on in the country, but I think we can be less on-the-nose about it and still make the same points. But Stuart is rather tenacious, so he may still get his way someday."

Combs can next be see reprising his role as another doctor in the Oct. 16 DVD release of Return to House on Haunted Hill.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: RegularKarate on October 09, 2007, 11:31:28 AM
(http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y74/regularkarate/RKHalloweenBannercopy.jpg)

(http://www.filmhai.de/kino/kinoplakat/bilder_0007/flatliners/gallery1/flatliners_001.jpg)
Flatliners

I usually avoid the J to the S, but I remember thinking this movie was kind of creepy when I first saw it, but I really think it was just one slo-mo shot of some pumpkin headed dude riding a bike in the trailer.

This movie barely counts as horror, it's really more of a sci-fi drama with horror elements... it's also pretty damned boring.

A bunch of people in med school kill themselves just long enough to experience death, but all thier pasts come back to haunt them.  It could have been alright, but it's just so bland.  All the drama relies on "will they be able to revive this person once they die?" and "oh my gosh, this person is really bothered by his/her past".

I might have to go back and watch a horror movie I KNOW is good soon.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: modage on October 09, 2007, 11:53:49 AM
I might have to go back and watch a horror movie I KNOW is good soon.
that's what the Best Horror thread is for.  :yabbse-grin:

as for myself, my visits to this thread have been delayed because Netflix apparently didn't receive the last three movies i sent them last Friday so it'll be a few days before i get to see something new.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Stefen on October 09, 2007, 11:57:36 AM
When I was a kid, I used to have nightmares about that little shit Billy Mahoney.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Gamblour. on October 09, 2007, 06:56:13 PM
These aren't part of a movie, obviously. But I feel like these should be reviewed.
(http://www.xixax.com/images/gamblour07.gif)
(https://www.student.gsu.edu/~jgaar1/simpsonscover.jpg)
The Simpsons’ Treehouse of Horror 1-4 (1990-1993)
"Well, I’m sure glad we didn’t turn into mindless zombies."

WHATS IT ABOUT? Ah, Treehouse of Horror. These episodes of the Simpsons have become a staple every Halloween season, and they’re still the only episodes that are almost guaranteed to be good, despite how current seasons are fairing. They’ve become a tradition with their returning gags – spoofed crew names and crumbling gravestones packed with irony. They typically directly parody a film or Twilight Zone episode or play of generic horror elements.

IS IT SCARY? Plenty of gruesome images, but no big scares.

(https://www.student.gsu.edu/~jgaar1/simpsons1.jpg)

WHAT’S GOOD ABOUT IT? What isn’t? These episodes not only pack in the most jokes, but they carry definitely the best jokes of the entire series. Season Four’s third installment features quite possibly my favorite exchange of dialogue in all of the Simpsons:

Shopkeeper:       I must warn you the doll is cursed.
Homer Simpson:       That's bad.
Shopkeeper:       But it comes with a free frogurt!
Homer Simpson:       That's good.
Shopkeeper:       The frogurt is also cursed.
Homer Simpson:       That's bad!
Shopkeeper:       But it comes with a free choice of toppings!
Homer Simpson:       That's good!
Shopkeeper:       The toppings contain sodium benzoate.
      [Homer looks puzzled.]
Shopkeeper:       That's bad.
Homer Simpson:       Can I go now?

And I guess my childhood naivety led me to never understand when Smithers said “Women and seaman don’t mix.” My god. The episode “Dial ‘Z’ for Zombies” alone has more funny lines than I can remember from any recent season. “He was a zombie?” “Excuse me, I’m John Smith” – “John Smith, 1882?” – “My mistake.” “See you in Hell” – “Still pushin’ that boulder?”

Aside from the great batches of dialogue, these episodes are so brilliant in their concept and execution. Rewatching “The Raven” in the first installment of Treehouse of Horror, I was definitely belly-laughing at hearing Homer recite Poe’s words, something I could never appreciate as a kid.

The second Treehouse of Horror is probably my least favorite of these four, but it’s not without it’s brilliance. Homer’s nightmare and the Monkey’s Paw segment are both damn funny. I’ve gone on and on about the third episode. The fourth installment features the best intro of this batch, where Bart walks through a hallway of surreal and impressionistic art – Miro, Dali, Escher, Munch, and Van Gogh are all represented. Additionally, Conan helped write this episode, and it features the scene where Homer is fed an interminable portion of donuts in the Ironic Punishment Division of Hell, which I have on display on my DVD shelves.

SCARIEST MOMENT: The ghoul in “Terror at 5 ½ Feet” holding Flanders’ severed head.

(https://www.student.gsu.edu/~jgaar1/simpsons2.jpg)

WHY SHOULD I WATCH IT? If you haven’t seen these by now, do yourself a favor. They represent the best the Simpsons have to offer, and I haven’t even gotten to the episode with The Shinning.

(https://www.student.gsu.edu/~jgaar1/skulls9.gif)
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Gamblour. on October 10, 2007, 11:10:46 AM
(http://www.xixax.com/images/gamblour07.gif)
(http://lh3.google.com/jamiegaar/RwzmW88n3mI/AAAAAAAAAGc/TuAvTWMSt1g/s800/stephen_king_1408_poster_final2.jpg)
1408 (2007)
"It's an evil fucking room."

WHAT'S IT ABOUT? Mike Enslin (John Cusack) is a ghost writer, in the sense that he writes about haunted houses and spooky locales. His career's embarrassing, but he's very seasoned. He receives a mysterious note about room 1408 at the Dolphin Hotel in New York. He's convinced the hotel manager (Samuel L. Jackson) is just hyping up the room to spook him and get a good plug in his new book, but his stay in 1408 turns into one hellish fucking evening.

IS IT SCARY? This is definitely the scariest movie I've watched so far. It was very dark, and every time the phone would ring or my dog would bark, I would jump out of my seat.

(http://lh6.google.com/jamiegaar/RwzmWs8n3kI/AAAAAAAAAGM/qAuqDzWqhyo/s800/1408-1.jpg)

WHAT’S GOOD ABOUT IT? The atmosphere and tone of this film are absolutely dead on. This room is fucking creepy, and the fact that it's another man alone in a room for the entire film, yet it still remains compelling and scary, is due to the psychological exploration Cusack undergoes. Also, the claustrophobia created is disturbing, and the film doesn't use cheap jump scares -- it's all about mood, and this film nails it. The film also features very beautiful imagery and compositions, which I was surprised to find. The director, Mikael Håfström, has quite an eye.

SCARIEST MOMENT: The scariest moment may be in Cusack's encounter with his neighbor across the street, or the final moments with Samuel L. Jackson.

(http://lh3.google.com/jamiegaar/RwzmW88n3lI/AAAAAAAAAGU/3QEWVqbb-cM/s800/1408-2.jpg)

WHY SHOULD I WATCH IT? Yeah, I definitely recommend it. It's an easy watch and legitimately scary. Perfect Halloween fare.

(http://www.xixax.com/images/halloween/skulls7.gif)
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: RegularKarate on October 10, 2007, 01:47:22 PM
Just pushed it to the top of my queue (thought I skipped most of your review).

I do have to ask though... was this your first time watching this?  I think you need to be putting some of these into the "Horror" thread instead of this one... While I still think this whole marathon should be in one thread, Mod set it up to where this is for movies that are already established as being "great" and the "Horror" thread is for stuff you're just checking out.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Gamblour. on October 10, 2007, 01:56:41 PM
The organization of these posts does not really matter at all to me. I'd rather just have them collected in one thread and be consistent.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: RegularKarate on October 10, 2007, 02:43:42 PM
The organization of these posts does not really matter at all to me. I'd rather just have them collected in one thread and be consistent.

agreed... I wish it had started like that, actually.

Also... did you watch the theatrical version of 1408 or the "unrated" version?... I understand that the unrated version has a different ending and you don't get both endings on the same disc.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Gamblour. on October 10, 2007, 03:16:17 PM
The unrated version, and from what I've read about the theatrical ending, I would get this one.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: modage on October 14, 2007, 08:42:47 AM
(http://www.xixax.com/images/halloween/horror07.gif)

(http://cdn-4.nflximg.com/us/boxshots/large/60024234.jpg) (http://cdn-9.nflximg.com/us/boxshots/large/60020719.jpg)

my first two new viewings this year were both duds.  i was not a fan of the original Creepshow but the 2nd installment makes the first one look like a masterpiece of macabre.  all the stories are lame, besides george kennedy there are no recognizable actors (where art thou ed harris!) and the whole thing is as unscary as shit.  CRAPSHOW 2. 

candyman 2 was a classier piece of crap.  bill condon directs (god only knows why) and moves the action to new orleans where we are treated to an hour and a half retread of the first film but worse.  the score is good and phillip glassy still and condon shows lots of poor people which must mean something.  but there are 100 fake scares and no real ones and i'm not sure why i am supposed to care.  thats the trouble with a sequel when you have only one character (your villain) returning, the audience already knows whats up and their patience is much shorter for introducing a new batch of characters who are inevitably much less interesting than the characters from the previous film.  so you're watching but you're not sure why.  theres no hook.  ZING!
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: modage on October 14, 2007, 06:23:49 PM
(http://www.xixax.com/images/halloween/horror07.gif)

(http://cdn-3.nflximg.com/us/boxshots/large/60022623.jpg) (http://www.xixax.com/images/itterror.jpg)

my first sherlock holmes film (if you don't count The Great Mouse Detective) was a fairly okay hammer affair.  with the look that christopher lee gives on the box you'd expect him to be some sort of villain but unfortunately thats not the case and the film sags a bit because of it.  still, good acting, sets, and script from the typically dependable hammer studios.

It!  The Terror From Beyond Space is probably most notable for being the template for the first Alien film.  only made within a year or two of the above hammer film it feels like it could've been decades older but i suppose thats due to the budget and acting.  still, for what it is, not a bad film and definitely worth watching for the similarities to the first Alien.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: RegularKarate on October 15, 2007, 12:45:59 PM
(http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y74/regularkarate/RKHalloweenBannercopy.jpg)

Bad movie night again... we actually watched two movies because the first one was so bad we had to get the taste out of our mouths.

(http://www.valley411.com/headers/the-number-23.jpg)
The Number 23

This was just plain horrible.
Does Jim Carrey just accept any non-comedic role he's offered?
We kind of had to dig to find things to laugh about during this one.  Of course, it was fun to point out the stupid appearances of the number 23 before they were discovered by the characters and everytime Carrey's character has a saxophone in his hands, it's hilarious... he just randomly has it and looks so ridiculous with it.
Most movies that have some kind of "what's going on?" mystery like this, I'll sit through just to find out what's happening or to see if my predictions are right, but with this one if there hadn't been other people watching and laughing, I would have turned it off because I haven't cared less about how a mystery ends in years. 

(http://www.headinjurytheater.com/images/hllo3%20opening%20mystery.jpg)
Halloween 3:Season of the Witch

This was much more fun to watch than I remembered from the last time I saw it.
Dan Challis's alcoholic Doctor is amazing... he's always got a drink and he's a total asshole.  I'm pretty confident he was a strong influence for Josh Brolin's Doctor Block in Planet Terror.
As most know, this was an attempt to pull the Halloween franchise away from Michael Meyers and it failed miserably.
There are so many problems with the plot (They were able to steal a giant pillar from Stonehenge and secretly get it across the ocean and the reason the mad scientist character wants to murder all the children in the US (and I assume their parents) is "why not?"), but it's really fun to watch it all happen (assuming you're in the mood to make fun of the movie).
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Stefen on October 15, 2007, 01:12:23 PM
I'm going to watch Carpenters The Thing tonight. Anyone seen this recently? How does it hold up? I remember this movie scaring the shit outta me.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: modage on October 15, 2007, 01:21:57 PM
I'm going to watch Carpenters The Thing tonight. Anyone seen this recently? How does it hold up? I remember this movie scaring the shit outta me.
its still excellent, kurt russell is a total badass and i think its one of the best (horror) remakes ever.

check out my review here: http://xixax.com/index.php?topic=4600.msg205995#msg205995
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: w/o horse on October 15, 2007, 02:01:35 PM
The Thing gets better with each viewing.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: diggler on October 15, 2007, 11:35:43 PM
i'll jump in and say carpenters the thing holds up very well today. (i realize how weird that sentence would sound if i left the word "the" out of it)
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Pubrick on October 16, 2007, 12:05:55 AM
(i realize how weird that sentence would sound if i left the word "the" out of it)

it would change from true to false. considering his age and steady stream of flops from the last 20 years.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: john on October 16, 2007, 12:11:03 AM
The Thing really is seminal Carpenter.

Speaking of JC, I just watched Someone's Watching Me. It came in the Twisted Terror collection Warners released... which, so far, has been a great purchase for the Halloween season. I got it because it seemed like six negligable horror films for a good price... including a couple "forgotten" films from Carpenter, Stone, and Craven (whose entire career is almost comprised of forgettable films)... anyway, so far I've been pretty impressed.

Eyes of a Stranger is a commendable enough little slasher pic... a few absurdly overblown murders, a young (briefly nude) Jennifer Jason Leigh, and a couple genuine scares.

But, anyway, Someone's Watching Me... Carpenter working within the frame of a made-for-tv movie, and it shows... the cinematography is flat, some of the acting's a bit stilted, but the low budget really helps.... there's a fine scare in the first act that makes the whole film worthwhile. A scare that is simple and effective.

That's really what I like best about The Thing (and most of Carpenter's better work, really) with the exception of the monster effects, he really uses simplicity to elicit interest and fright. It's not over-wrought, it's not over-thought, it's just fine-tuned and fucking fun. (see also: the Fog, Prince of Darkness).

Title: Re: Horror
Post by: RegularKarate on October 16, 2007, 02:46:52 PM
(see also:  Prince of Darkness)

actually, don't
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: modage on October 16, 2007, 03:32:17 PM
yeah The Fog and Prince Of Darkness are both pretty damn terrible. 
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: john on October 16, 2007, 05:29:07 PM
(see also:  Prince of Darkness)

actually, don't

Well played, sir.

yeah The Fog and Prince Of Darkness are both pretty damn terrible. 

Alright, I guess sentiment clouds objectivity when it comes to me and Prince of Darkness... but The Fog? Terrible? Really?

I've never really heard any totally negative responses to The Fog... so do tell...
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Gamblour. on October 18, 2007, 08:36:22 PM
(http://www.xixax.com/images/gamblour07.gif)

Ravenous (1999)

What a fucked up movie. I've been wanting to see this for quite some time, probably since it came out. It's very interesting in terms of the horror genre. Many elements of horror are transferable -- vampirism, lycanthropy, zombieism -- but here's something not exactly usual to the realm, cannibalism. The movie had a really strong four-act structure, with the two halves of the film being very clearly divided. The second half is marked by a couple of great twists that I did not see coming. It's pretty gory, not very scary, and pretty funny. The music is just plain embarrassing at points, but it's an interesting soundtrack nonetheless. And Robert Carlyle gives a great performance.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: modage on October 18, 2007, 10:10:44 PM
(http://www.xixax.com/images/halloween/horror07.gif)

(http://cdn-7.nflximg.com/us/boxshots/large/22698097.jpg)

i never saw the other "i see dead people" movie from summer '99 until just now.  i had heard a pretty good word of mouth about it recently which made me decide to check it out after all these years. but after watching it i can see why it was swept under the rug.  its not a bad film but you are a bit ahead of the curve in terms of plot.  kevin bacon also goes a little overboard on the chicago accent and it actually is more of a thriller (of the supernatural variety) than a horror film.  it also doesn't really offer any explanation for why he or his son can see these dead people.  and the detour in the middle of the film where bacon's wife goes to see the black man who also see's dead people is just plain weird.  a decent film, but mostly succeeds in making me want to revisit The Sixth Sense for the first time in years. 
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: RegularKarate on October 20, 2007, 07:14:42 PM
Stir of Echoes

I'll never see this movie again because A: I know it's not that good, B: I read the book and that ruined the movie, and C: it will never hold up to the first time I saw it, which, because of the circumstances, was very scary.

When this came out, I was a projectionist and I was in charge of watching the print Thursday before it came out because no one else wanted to... so I watched it alone at about 1 in the morning.

One thing that they did in the theatrical release (again, haven't seen it since) was put distractions in the sound mix coming from the rear surround speakings to throw you off before the scares... at one point, someone starts whispering... I think the idea is that you're in your seat and think the people behind you are whispering and you turn around to look and then when you look back at the screen.. "GHOST FACE!!!  aaaahhhhh", but since I was alone, I just thought the theater was haunted.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: modage on October 20, 2007, 07:25:55 PM
(http://www.xixax.com/images/halloween/horror07.gif)

(http://cdn-8.nflximg.com/us/boxshots/large/822868.jpg)

since i saw the Vincent Price version Last Man On Earth last year, i figured with I Am Legend coming out in a few months i should see Omega Man as well.  this film is not very good.  its incredibly dated, the worst offender being the score which is just awful and ever-present.  it drains the film of any mood other than "groovy".  somebody should strip it out for an alternate audio track and see if it could build up any tension without it.  without even looking it up on imdb (which i did later to confirm my suspicions) you can tell the director comes from TV.  and looking over his credits its A LOT of tv.  the acting, editing, scoring is that of just bad 70's TV.  but at the bones of it, despite their stupid updates (no vampires!  black power girlfriend) the story is still good and the film has a few memorable scenes (like the opening).  but i will assume this will be the worst of the 3 versions.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: RegularKarate on October 22, 2007, 01:38:55 PM
(http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y74/regularkarate/RKHalloweenBannercopy.jpg)

Bad movie night =

(http://cdn-4.nflximg.com/us/boxshots/large/60002224.jpg)
The Watcher

HO - LY SHIT!

Wow... this was maybe the MOST formulaicly bad serial killer movie I've ever seen.  EVERYTHING could be quoted before it was even said.  There were at least three times througout the movie where someone I was watching it with would yell out the line and that exact same line would be said in the movie.

It's also shot like someone who got kicked out of filmschool made it.  Bad flash-frames, silly editing... OH, and the car chases... oh fuck, these are the most boring car chases ever.

Hilarious... We laughed almost non-stop during the second half of the movie.

(http://cdn-5.nflximg.com/us/boxshots/large/60000995.jpg)
Dreamscape

I saw this as a kid and remembered it being scary and cool... I must have been a dumb kid.

This was just boring.

The only thing redeemable about this DVD is that the menu options are:

Scene Selection
Special Features
Play Movie
Monster!

When you click on Monster!, it just shows the rubbery snake man from the movie.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: RegularKarate on October 22, 2007, 02:01:46 PM
(http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y74/regularkarate/RKHalloweenBannercopy.jpg)

This one is here because Gamblour put his here:

(http://www.popmatters.com/images/film_art/1/1408-2007-1.jpg)
1408 - Director's Cut

After hearing from a number of people that this was actually good, I got kind of excited about seeing something that wasn't terrible.

Kind of a let-down.

The movie starts out alright... super cheesy and cliched setup, but executed in a way that set a decent tone.  The first big scare is also really good...

it's all downhill from there though.  It's basically just a man in a room, getting scared over and over again with nothing ever being revealed that wasn't already obvious (the psychological aspect is so played out that it just got in the way).  At one point, the film turns into a bad episode of Freddie's Nightmares, the telivision series where we don't know or care if what's going on is really going on.

I'm curious how the theatrical version ended though, because the ending of this was cheesebag times nine.

(http://cdn-3.nflximg.com/us/boxshots/large/60002403.jpg)
Rosemary's Baby

I'm sure this has been reviewed and covered in this thread many times (maybe even by myself) so I won't put a lot here, but I really like this movie.  It's a great mix of cheesy and serious.

What would YOU do if you were raped by the devil?

(http://cdn-8.nflximg.com/us/boxshots/large/60023678.jpg)
The Fog (1980)

I hadn't seen this since I was pretty young.  It's another that doesn't really hold up, but it wasn't completely worthless.

The first twenty minutes are really pretty good and while it gets the wrong kind of ridiculous as it goes, it's fairly entertaining along the way... just not as entertaining as, say Halloween or The Thing.

I still always love it when some beefy ugly old guy hooks up with a really young attractive girl in an 80s movie... it cracks me up.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: modage on October 24, 2007, 10:17:37 AM
(http://www.xixax.com/images/halloween/horror07.gif)

(http://cdn-0.nflximg.com/us/boxshots/large/70053460.jpg)

this was indeed pretty awful and deserved to flop.  its also the first movie that can appropriately wear the label "torture porn".  if you see this, and i recommend that you do not, you will know why.  a few things that are dumb:

i have not been a huge eli roth fan or anything but i wasn't a hater either.  i think he's annoying but that Hostel was a pretty damn scary good original horror film and i had to give him credit for that.  this quickie cash-in effort is exactly the sort of crap that he had been criticized for making in the past, except now the criticisms are valid.  the twists are dumb, the movie is a xerox, and the fact that he calls it Part II cause like Porkys 2 it picks up moments after the first one ends only to kill off the original character (duh, thats not even a spoiler cause you know this is about 3 chicks), is totally worthless.  the flashes to the first movie are also extremely lazy.  the explanation of how the club operates is absurd and the more you learn about it the less scary it becomes (oh Michael Myers had a shitty childhood, thats why he's scary!)

Lauren German is quite watchable but don't watch this film.  i know you wont.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Stefen on October 24, 2007, 02:38:24 PM
The most frustrating thing about Eli Roth is that he has such excellent ideas but executes them (pun intended) terribly.

I watched a movie I used to like from my childhood the other night called Leviathan. It was awful, but Peter Weller has an awesome voice and he's really handsome.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: diggler on October 24, 2007, 08:55:18 PM
i remember watching leviathon when i was much younger and it scaring the crap out of me. haven't seen it since but from what I remember i'm sure it doesn't hold up.

I don't think Hostel II was THAT bad, but scary it was not. He's got a sense of humor, but I wonder why he would make such a humorless film. 
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: modage on October 28, 2007, 11:46:53 AM
(http://www.xixax.com/images/halloween/horror07.gif)

(http://cdn-0.nflximg.com/us/boxshots/large/18817570.jpg)

ridiculous plot, awful dubbing, over the top gore, a cockrock 80's soundtrack, in other words: perfect halloween viewing.  there is only enough story to fill a blurb on the back of a video box "A special screening of a horror movie takes possession of the viewers and transforms them into zombie demons who attack other theatergoers."  And once the shit hits the fan in the first 10 minutes or so its just 75 more minutes of gore and monsters.  my mistake was watching this alone on a saturday afternoon.  there should be a warning on the box that advises anyone viewing the film to do so with friends and alcohol.  this could have been really fun.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: bonanzataz on October 28, 2007, 12:57:09 PM
my mistake was watching this alone on a saturday afternoon.  there should be a warning on the box that advises anyone viewing the film to do so with friends and alcohol.

nearly made the same mistake with this one. started it at around 8pm by myself last summer. i was getting really into it, but i hated that i was by myself. all of a sudden, people just start stopping by unannounced. it was bizarre. before i knew it, there were about five people getting drunk and cheering for demoni. was very nice. this is a great movie.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: modage on October 30, 2007, 11:45:31 AM
(http://www.xixax.com/images/halloween/horror07.gif)

(http://cdn-8.nflximg.com/us/boxshots/large/70058018.jpg)

originally i had no expectations of this because none of the actors or boyle returned.  but the buzz was pretty good so i decided to give it a shot.  and this isnt a bad movie, i think i'm just all zombie'd out.  its got a couple of cool sequences SPOILERS (helicopter death, mom n dad biting it early on) END SPOILERS but really i think this can be the end to the genres resurgence.  kicked off by 28 Days Later a mere 4 years ago it's already been run into the ground.  and not even by a series of bad zombie movies, but just by too many damn zombie movies. 
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Gamblour. on October 30, 2007, 01:16:10 PM
(http://www.xixax.com/images/gamblour07.gif)

Night of the Living Dead (1968)

This obviously belongs in the Best Horror thread, but I'm just doing a short write-up. It was very refreshing watching this film after many years. The beginning chase sequence, the news reports, the action all surprised me because I did not remember them at all. I imagined the movie as being a lot slower, when it's actually very intense and well orchestrated. The twists are very powerful (the truck explosion and the ending are all big fucking downers) and you know they really got it right the first time. No other zombie movie comes close.

2001 Maniacs (2005)

Fucking terrible.

The Forbidden Zone (1980)

Fucking brilliant. Danny Elfman is amazing (for Buffy fans, he really reminded me of Sweet from "Once More with Feeling"). And there's lots of nudity. It's very insane and playful and goes 100%, which makes it work.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: modage on October 30, 2007, 01:56:59 PM
i was wondering where you were! 

RK, got any last minute additions?
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Gamblour. on October 30, 2007, 02:06:55 PM
i was wondering where you were! 

Sorry, this month also features my birthday, which occupied a lot of my time. I've been watching horror movies, just not as many as I would have liked. Tonight or tomorrow, I will be watching the new Shining dvd, which seems appropriate.

This has been a lot of fun, working on reviewing films while watching horror movies I never would have considered.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: RegularKarate on October 30, 2007, 02:46:37 PM
RK, got any last minute additions?

(http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y74/regularkarate/RKHalloweenBannercopy.jpg)

October's (not so) bad movie night =

(http://cdn-4.nflximg.com/us/boxshots/large/70070134.jpg)
Monster Squad

We decided we would actually show a good movie on the big screen since it's the last weekend before Halloween.

I would put this in the Best thread, but I hadn't seen it since it first came out on VHS.

There's not much to add about it other than I hadn't realized how much Monster House is emulating this movie.  If I ever have kids, this and Monster House will be their first "scary" movies.

(http://cdn-4.nflximg.com/us/boxshots/large/70000504.jpg)
Alone in the Dark

We decided that since we watched a good movie first, we would have to watch something absolutely miserably horrible second.

This was my first Uwe Boll movie and what a delight.
This thing is so unbelievably bad.  I know that everyone already understands how bad this guy's movies are, but this one is SO RIPE for drunken commentary.
The best thing about it is Christian Slater facing off with Stephen Dorff.  They're the same level of bad except that Dorff never got the popularity Slater once had.  Seeing them stare eachother down was more impressive than seeing Tara Reid pretend to be smart.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: MacGuffin on October 30, 2007, 02:52:49 PM
Seeing them stare eachother down was more impressive than seeing Tara Reid pretend to be smart.

The best part is her mispronouncing Newfoundland as "New-Found-Land."
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: w/o horse on October 31, 2007, 03:42:25 PM
We didn't watch a lot of horror films this year for a couple reasons but I did get to see:

(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51HNYRGNNYL._AA240_.jpg)

Has a strong beginning and end, and all the scenes with Carlo I enjoy (especially the one in the plaza), but the pianist/reporter love story was useless.  But not too boring.  The ending's triple play was enough to make this a great viewing.  Argento makes everything so exciting!  I want to walk down all of his halls always.

(http://www.beepworld.de/memberdateien/members78/stummfilm-fan/west_of_zanzibar.jpg)

Sure did like this.  Browning's Hollywood films have become absolutely my favorite early Hollywood films.  You know what was surprisingly better than this?

This:

(http://www.haddontwphistoricalsociety.org/hadtwp--unknown.jpg)

I had higher expectations for Zanzibar what with the African setting, but Browning just fucking rules the carnival.  The carnival by the way being an extinct American landscape that can only be superficially recreated.  Seeing this movie is really like traveling back to another time, and it gripped me today probably more than it did the audience  then because of how uncommon these people are today.  The escapist appeal in a film like this is emphasized by seeing what I cannot see in my daily life.  And it's a really over the top kind of story.  Good stuff.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: w/o horse on November 01, 2007, 10:40:15 AM
(http://deepdiscount-content.vcommerce.com/products/599/24116599/main-205.jpg)

My Halloween selection.  And what a good one.  I also read Bava's biography and the guy was apparently a fucking genius of the hardworking kind.  This one was really atmospheric and had incredible photography.  Danger: Diabolik is definitely not all there is to this guy.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Gamblour. on November 01, 2007, 11:33:01 AM
I watched The Shining last night, and needless to say, I'm not going to go reread that entire thread. So many things felt unfamiliar, which surprises me considering I've seen it plenty of times (or think I have). But what needs to be said? It was widescreen this time, which had me pondering the effect this has on the horror, the art of the film. I emailed David Bordwell who pointed me to his first chapter in Film ART, which discusses this. I have to read that.

And oops, I don't know why I reviewed Forbidden Zone in this thread. We watched Night of the Living Dead, 2001 Maniacs, and Forbidden Zone in a 24-hour period, so I guess the lines of horror blurred.

All in all, I watched 9 movies/tv/dvd. It was a good time. I remember RK saying that we need a foreign film February, and now I couldn't agree more. I like this marathon efforts.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: MacGuffin on October 02, 2008, 01:21:37 AM
Gonna try my best to do one a day for the entire month (are you with me, mod?):

Day 1

(http://l.yimg.com/img.movies.yahoo.com/ymv/us/img/hv/photo/movie_pix/screen_gems/resident_evil__extinction/residentevilextinction_bigteaserposter.jpg)


Call it The Road Warrior with zombies. Just no where near the level of that classic. Has a few good action/gore scenes. In fact, the best parts were the ones with the zombies in them, whether zombie dogs, zombie birds (an obvious nod to The Birds) or the plain ole undead. The best thing this series has going for it is Milla, and she does look great kickin' ass, wielding blades and guns. But like Angelina Jolie in the Tomb Raider flicks, the scripts are what hold these movies back from being much better than a few good action scenes in a mountain of drek.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: john on October 02, 2008, 02:36:10 AM
I'll give it a shot, too, considering I just finished watching...

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/20/HalloweenIII_poster.jpg)

In it's intention, I was actually pretty excited fo this to be my inaugural Halloween month selection. In execution, not so much. I liked John Carpenter's idea that, roughly each October, there would be a new Halloween film - in title only. Each one with a different story and director, with Carpenter serving as producer.

I even liked the story: Evil toymaker, small town, evil masks.

It's pretty overwrought right from he beginning, lumbering from one stock scene to the next. Eventually, it picks up pace. Obviously, the idea is never to be taken too seriously, but it does become a bit fun to be invested in. However, any goodwill it achieves, quickly dissolves again and lumbers to a stageringly, almost applause-worthy, hamfisted ending.

Maybe, had the film been better, audiences would've embraced "Halloween" as a trademark, an annual stamp of approval. Though, I imagine, no matter the quality, the title isn't the trademark - Michael Myers is/was. As proven by the proceeding sequels and remake.

I guess it still manages to be te second-best entry in the Halloween series... but that isn'treally saying much.

Tomorrow: I'm gonna crack open that second Bava box set that's been collecting dust all year. As good a time as ever, I suppose.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: MacGuffin on October 03, 2008, 12:30:37 AM
Day 2

(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51JSGY4J3WL._SL500_AA240_.jpg)


Continuing my hot babes kickin' ass trend, this French horror/action flick is about Mallory and her 'colorful' group of ant-evil killers searching for The Pope who has been kidnapped by demons. What starts off as a great episode of Buffy The Vampire Slayer quickly turns into a bad episode of Charmed. The low budget shows the film's limitations (which is why it all feels like bad TV), but also was a bit refreshing from cliched domestic horror movies. But that is short lived as the movie loses its 'charm.'
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: MacGuffin on October 03, 2008, 08:25:33 PM
Day 3


(http://l.yimg.com/img.movies.yahoo.com/ymv/us/img/hv/photo/movie_pix/lions_gate_films/the_eye/theeye_galleryposter.jpg)


Remember when Stir Of Echoes was accused of being too much like Sixth Sense? Well, this one is a blend of both of those films - She sees dead people! And must translate what her donor wants her to see. Haven't seen the original, but I'm assuming this is not a case like The Ring adaptation where the remake exceeds the original. You know what kind of movie you're in for when the opening scene has her saving a guy from being hit and he thanks her because he didn't see that, to which she replies, "I didn't either." Get it? Because she's blind! It's like the Ray Charles joke about seeing his wife - Neither has he! Alba is passable in this role; one not so unbelievable like she was in Awake; although seeing her in her dark sunglasses makes her look like the Revlon spokemodel that she is. Anyway, the film is low on the horror or fright factor, and any cringe-worthy moments were only induced by my personal phobia of objects in the eyes (which is why I can't wear contacts or involuntarily blink before drops hit my pupils). The movie has a nice twist in the middle, but that's about all I can praise. If had been a drama just about an eye transplant patient adjusting to this new sense it would have been a more interesting story.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: MacGuffin on October 04, 2008, 11:54:06 AM
Day 4


(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/516ODOm6QDL._SL500_AA240_.jpg)


My first recommend so far. Richard Matheson had a hand in screenplay, but felt indifferent to the final script so he used a pseudonym in the credits. Which is ironic because this first adaptation of I Am Legend is the best; sticking to the novel the most, even calling them vampires. Though, no version has completely done justice to that classic book. But where Will Smith's version may have done a better job in conveying the complete loneliness of the character and his suicidal thoughts, this Vincent Price version exceeds in the telling of the virus spread and the total loss his character had to deal with in his family. His wife's return is a pinnacle moment in the film. You can totally see the influence this film had on Romero's Night Of The Living Dead. And no wonder, it's a great classic horror flick.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: MacGuffin on October 06, 2008, 12:51:31 AM
Day 5


(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51GXd-XA-yL._SL500_AA240_.jpg)


Nothing scary just Total 50's Camp! Don't read too much into it otherwise you'll drive yourself crazy at how bad the special effects are. Wish the film lived up to the classic poster, but it's a film that is classic nonetheless, tackling topics such as adultery, feminism and aliens.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: john on October 06, 2008, 05:23:00 AM
(http://www.best-horror-movies.com/image-files/carnival-of-souls-bus-passengers.jpg)

Carnival of Souls

This is a seminal film for me. I can watch it anytime, really, but I love revisiting it every October... usually with someone who hasn't seen it. Such a great horror film, if just for it's sheer efficiency and mood - of which it loses neither throughout the entire film.

On top of that, it's beautiful, every frame. There are a handful of films, in any genre, that create an environment that I feel like a get to escape into every time I watch them. This is one of them.

For me, October can now start. Officially.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: RegularKarate on October 06, 2008, 12:03:12 PM
Bad movie night continues:

(http://images.rottentomatoes.com/images/movie/coverv/76/179976.jpg)

DEMONI - 1985

Argento produced and co-wrote this and it feels like it's trying to feel like an Argento directed film.  The result retains the poorly acted, poorly overdubbed, cheese quality of Argento's films, but lacks the Argento touch that makes you put up with the former.

Great fun though... lots of gore and terrible acting.

At one point, in the movie within a movie, a man finds a cursed mask and his friend finds the instruction manual for the curse that goes along with the mask:

"Don't wear that,you'll become a demon."
"How do you know?"
"It says if you wear it you'll become a demon."

The movie is damn-near amazing for the first third, mostly because of a terrible racially stereo-typical pimp character and his two hoes.  Once he dies, the movie kind of gets dull until the last fifteen minutes, which include a motorcycle sword attack in a movie theater and a bizarre act of deus ex machina.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: w/o horse on October 06, 2008, 02:10:56 PM
Day 3


(http://l.yimg.com/img.movies.yahoo.com/ymv/us/img/hv/photo/movie_pix/lions_gate_films/the_eye/theeye_galleryposter.jpg)

Haven't seen the original, but I'm assuming this is not a case like The Ring adaptation where the remake exceeds the original.


Maybe.  The original was a piece of shit.  Perhaps someone has seen both and will tell us.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: MacGuffin on October 07, 2008, 12:52:35 AM
Day 6


(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51ZKgancZFL._SL500_AA240_.jpg)


Another recommend. Simply fascinating. Browning shows you how 'normal' freaks really are. From the start, it is said that they feel the same emotions as regular people do. And, boy, do they. The film plays like a soap opera with each freak getting their moment and story. But at the core of the film is a tale of love, betrayal and revenge between a normal and a freak. The film isn't exactly scary in presenting the freaks (although for that time it would have seemed so). What got to me was the level of violence. The ending plays like a mob or gangster hit. I can see why the controversy over it. It is a film that will stick with you.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: MacGuffin on October 07, 2008, 04:39:16 PM
Day 7


(http://l.yimg.com/img.movies.yahoo.com/ymv/us/img/hv/photo/movie_pix/twentieth_century_fox/the_happening/thehappening_galleryteaser.jpg)


Review in it's thread:
http://xixax.com/index.php?topic=9840.msg266723#msg266723
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: MacGuffin on October 08, 2008, 06:34:58 PM
Day 8


(http://l.yimg.com/img.movies.yahoo.com/ymv/us/img/hv/photo/movie_pix/freestyle_releasing/an_american_haunting/anamericanhauntingposterbig.jpg)


The marketing tells us that the film is based on true events, but I would gather that the tale handed down from generation to generation would be a far scarier bed time story than the one provided here. As the family gets haunted nightly, the movie gets too redundant with these events (alright, we get it already, it's after the little girl). The entity is presented as the camera and it never becomes a being, just annoying (Think Evil Dead for the correct way). This makes for the actors to look like participants in a bad mime class. The only thing I can praise about this film is the remarkable sound design. As the camera swirls around (as it does many times), the layers of sounds from the voices, to the creaks, to the wind, and so on, kept my surround speakers working.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: squints on October 09, 2008, 02:41:45 PM
I've never done one of these before and I probably won't be able to watch one a day but...
I was digging through the back of my video store and I came across a little treasure trove of horrible horror movies strictly on VHS so i had the idea: Everybody does a horror marathon in October so i'll mix it up by only watching shitty horror movies on VHS. When i was a kid I always remember the terribly poor quality of VHS combined with the terribly poor quality of these movies. So here we go, welcome to:

(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f149/squints06/VHSHorror.jpg)

First up:

(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f149/squints06/GraveyardShift.jpg)

This low-budget movie from 1990 based on one of Stephen King's short stories used to scare the pants off of me when I saw it as a kid on USA's "Up! All night"
Now here I am so many years later and I actually enjoyed it. Sure the Rat/Bat creature at the end was pretty cheesy but there is an exceptional amount of gore and some pretty righteous death scenes. However, the real treasure in this movie is Brad Dourif's performance as crazy-eyed vietnam-vet exterminator Tucker Cleveland. His intense description of what the Viet Cong did to one of his buddies in the war was more frightening than anything in the rest of the movie.
I'm gonna seek out The Exorcist III and Critters 4 just because dourif's in them.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: MacGuffin on October 09, 2008, 04:19:19 PM
Day 9


(http://l.yimg.com/img.movies.yahoo.com/ymv/us/img/hv/photo/movie_pix/twentieth_century_fox/aliens_vs__predator___requiem/avpr_galleryposter.jpg)


Better than the God awful predecessor, but it still doesn't do either franchise any favors. These films have done away with anything that makes the creatures intersting anymore and have come down to tallying up body counts. The basic story is that a spaceship crash lands on Earth and the King Poo-Bah Predator goes down to investigate. He's basically Winston Wolf or Jean Reno's Victor in La Femme Nikita; he's a 'cleaner,' even going so far as to use acid to dispose of the bodies. Except that his job gets harder and harder as the Alien-Predators start having more offspring than Jamie Lynn Spears. I can understand keeping things dark to not show too much (Ridley Scott used it to perfection in the first Alien), but this film was SO dark that you couldn't make out much of anything.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: MacGuffin on October 10, 2008, 11:23:24 PM
Day 10


(http://l.yimg.com/img.movies.yahoo.com/ymv/us/img/hv/photo/movie_pix/warner_independent/funny_games/funnygames_galleryposter.jpg)


Haven't seen the original. But I enjoyed this one. I got what Haneke was getting at, and all throughout was aware of this; taking all the horror/suspense cliches and running with them to the point where we have besome so ingrained with every thriller that has come before, we still can't believe that it will end like it does. I even fell for one of those cliches as I got caught up in the film. From the talk directly to camera, to the loooong take, it is a film that is self aware of it's actions and has a wink and a nod with it's tongue firmly planted in its cheek. It toys with you just as the two villans do; do you root for the victims because of the unnecessary torture inflicted upon them, or do you side with the men in white because their prey are weak and dumb and you just want them to end it already?
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: MacGuffin on October 12, 2008, 01:11:44 AM
Day 11


(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41qiDsKvliL._SL500_AA240_.jpg)


The back of the DVD calls it a "psychological thriller," but I found it to be more of a character study between the two men, who are two sides of the same coin. My favorite Polanski film is Repulsion and would be a better recommend for the horror theme, but this film does show a great director in the making. Also, the black & white cinematography is beautiful; the compositions and the use of close-ups, along with using action in both the foreground and background, make this a film worth watching.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Stefen on October 12, 2008, 01:20:06 AM


Watched Clownhouse this week.

Fucking shit, man. It would have been awesome if Salva didn't molest the main character. Seriously, it's a fucking awesome story and movie with great cinemotography and editing, but it's gay and pedophile as fuck. Always shots of the kids butt's putting a wallet in their back pocket or landing on some crud.

Teenage Sam Rockwell was a fucking bully, man. A Real Grade A dickhead.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: MacGuffin on October 12, 2008, 11:20:49 PM
Day 12


(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51NBNWQRPNL._SL500_AA240_.jpg)


Doesn't really feel like an extention of Talented, and if you didn't tell me that the lead character was Ripley, I would have never made the association. Not expecting a Hannibal-type continuation, but the character (as with the others too) doesn't feel fleshed out enough to warrant that regard. But Malkovich does a great job in the role, and the story is an intrieging one. At times it felt like a DePalma film, and would have made good material for him. But as it is, it's a worthy suspense thriller that's worth a look.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: MacGuffin on October 13, 2008, 05:57:37 PM
Day 13


(http://l.yimg.com/img.movies.yahoo.com/ymv/us/img/hv/photo/movie_pix/columbia_pictures/the_grudge_2/thegrudge2_bigreleaseposter.jpg)


I liked the first one; not excellent, but enjoyable. This sequel starts off promising, but quickly turns redundant and, egads, boring. It could be Crash as a horror film in that seemingly unrelated, yet so, grudges take place in different parts of the world. This makes for cutting back and forth between them and none of them prove to be interesting. Okay, maybe the schoolgirls does, but the movie becomes a series of scares for the characters who have become grudged. That's bascially it; not much of a story, just scare scene after scare scene. So how are the scares? A few are good, but most of them just sort of lay there. The best scare takes place in a photography darkroom. So I can give the film props for not just rehashing Amber Tambyn to the same events that Sarah Michelle Gellar did in the first, but the film would have been more improved by sticking to storyline.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: bonanzataz on October 13, 2008, 06:48:24 PM
when I saw it as a kid on USA's "Up! All night"

oh my god i used to love rhonda! somewhere i have a tape of the first three friday the 13th movies from up all night. i got nostalgic and i found this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1hyhYiAzpv0


yeah, brad dourif rocks.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: RegularKarate on October 14, 2008, 01:38:55 PM
Man, it seems this month the only time I'm able to watch any horror films is during bad movie night.

(http://www.stargatecinema.com/files/cache/86f0e3ebb7c055d066283d0e7a0e0cee.jpg)

The Manitou

Tony Curtis in what is probably his worst performance ever has an ex-girlfriend who has a fetus growing on her back.  The fetus turns out to carry a curse that makes crazy things happen like people throwing themselves down flights of stairs.  It eventually hatches and out comes an ancient Indian spirit (in the form of basically a mutant midget).

The strength of the spirit (Misquamacus) is beyond anything imaginable... he floats in outer space and uses the Manitou (the spirit that surrounds a person or object... like the force) to control everything.  What turns out to be the one thing that it's weak against?  A typewriter that Curtis decides to throw at it.

Totally ridiculous movie with ridiculous acting, bad effects, and a "gypsy" girl who is a white woman with bad brown makeup on.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: MacGuffin on October 14, 2008, 09:29:03 PM
Day 14


(http://l.yimg.com/img.movies.yahoo.com/ymv/us/img/hv/photo/movie_pix/new_line_cinema/texas_chainsaw_massacre__the_beginning/tcmthebeginningbig.jpg)


The problem going into this worthless prequel is that A) you know all of the villians will survive, and B) none of the victims will survive to get away. So the movie is reduced to how will the teens get killed. My beef with both of these films are that R. Lee Ermey is the main bad guy, and Leatherface is reduced to being a cameo part. He's nothing like the looming presence in Tobe Hooper's classic; like Jaws, in that he's always talked about and shows up to give a good scare. It's subtitled as The Beginning, but you really don't get any indication of how Leatherface came to be. It would have played better if it was a biography; show me how he progressed as he grew up and started from kitchen knife to butcher knife, from hatchet to axe, from hack saw to chainsaw. That would have been a better natural born killer story.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: hedwig on October 14, 2008, 10:37:58 PM
ok you guys have finally convinced me. horror movies suck.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: squints on October 15, 2008, 11:57:22 AM
Week 2:

(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f149/squints06/VHSHorror.jpg)

(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/519KXF2RM6L._SS500_.jpg)

Hardware


Now this movie is impossible to find on dvd (amazon price: $140!) so i guess it is fitting that it be included in my VHS marathon. Pretty interesting cast. Aside from the dude who plays "Shades" and Dylan McDermott's character every other character in the movie is some deformed or generally "freakish" character. The story itself and the world that it takes place in (post-apocalyptic future/wasteland/scavengers and what not) really feels like Fallout 2: The Movie, which is actually pretty cool and pretty funny. The special effects are interesting to say the least. Not too cheesy but cheesy nonetheless. It borrows(steals) from every sci-movie that came before it (it came out in 1990) Dune, Alien, Predator, especially Terminator but it has a charm and a quality all its own. I generally would consider it more sci-fi than horror but at about the 30/40 minute mark it turns into straight slasher/gore/horror camp. The robot's rampage gets pretty horrific as it disembowels, rips eyeballs out, destroys any human in its way and its up to Dylan McDermott's ridiculously dressed hero to take it down. The soundtrack is so wonderfully terrible and throughout the whole movie we get Iggy Pop with a little V.O. as the city's resident shock-jock radio announcer "Angry Bob". So the movie has sex scenes and perverts watching from afar, lots of blood and violence, a first person camera view of the killer as he stalks women in their underwear  so I think its safe to say this fits the bill for shitty vhs horror.

the trailer's pretty awesome too:
http://www.imdb.com/video/screenplay/vi4037411097/ (http://www.imdb.com/video/screenplay/vi4037411097/)


edit: I forgot! Lemmy Kilmeister's in this movie too as a cab driver who is blaring "Ace of Spades" on his radio! Fuck yeah Motorhead!
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: MacGuffin on October 15, 2008, 07:35:11 PM
Day 15


(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/5113YQFBZDL._SL500_AA240_.jpg)


Yes, Hedwig, there are some good horror films. This is one. Think of it as Fatal Attraction is David Lynch directed it. The story is about looking for and finding that one person who understands you, then turning into every man's nightmare when that 'perfect' woman is not who you thought she was. For the most part, the film is a build-up and mystery about who this woman is, and you buy into that mystery wanting to know as the lead character does. And when you find out, that's when the fun begin. Both cringe-worthy and hilarious, it's a film that goes "deeper" than a average girlfriend-from-hell flick.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: hedwig on October 16, 2008, 12:50:09 AM
Day 15


(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/5113YQFBZDL._SL500_AA240_.jpg)


Yes, Hedwig, there are some good horror films. This is one. Think of it as Fatal Attraction is David Lynch directed it. The story is about looking for and finding that one person who understands you, then turning into every man's nightmare when that 'perfect' woman is not who you thought she was. For the most part, the film is a build-up and mystery about who this woman is, and you buy into that mystery wanting to know as the lead character does. And when you find out, that's when the fun begin. Both cringe-worthy and hilarious, it's a film that goes "deeper" than a average girlfriend-from-hell flick.

that's more like it!

as long as i don't wake up tomorrow and see this:

Day 16

(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51bWca5NyCL._SL500_AA240_.jpg)
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: SiliasRuby on October 16, 2008, 09:33:41 AM
Yeah, don't see 2...its Horrible! Just Plain Freaking Horrible. At least the first one had some camp to it.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: hedwig on October 16, 2008, 01:10:27 PM
you bought it.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: SiliasRuby on October 16, 2008, 01:49:13 PM
Yeah, the first one, sure.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: MacGuffin on October 16, 2008, 05:01:53 PM
Day 16


(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51SSXzF6KUL._SL500_AA240_.jpg)


Not one of the best Stephen King adaptations, but one of the better ones. There's a lot of set-up leading to the killing spree (about 40 minutes worth), but once Old Yeller From Hell gets his first taste of blood, it's feeding time. From that point on Dee Wallace is perfect in this role. The boy gets a bit annoying, but it only adds to the madness she has to deal with inside the car and out; you feel so much for her in the situation she is put through and are always rooting for her. The film is a little dated, especially the score, but all that falls by the wayside when the excellent suspense and gore kicks in.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: MacGuffin on October 17, 2008, 06:55:28 PM
Day 17


(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51S501AD1AL._SL500_AA240_.jpg)


Imagine a website that gets inside your head, knows you by name and what scares you the most. Yeah, I too thought this was a film about xixax.com, but sadly it is not. What is it with wrongly killed souls and their laziness? Instead of going after the killer themselves, they scare the shit out of innocents and get the living to do their dirty work for them to solve the crime. While the film has a nice look to it, the story is a rehash of what we've seen before. The police investigation is very trite and is basically a series of conversations that take great leaps in putting the pieces together; it's more like very obvious exposition to explain to the audience what's going on. Law & Order this is not. It has a few great images, but as it goes on they just look like bad performance art pieces.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: MacGuffin on October 19, 2008, 12:39:57 AM
Day 18


(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51H37EZV2YL._SL500_AA240_.jpg)


It's amusing to watch Steve McQueen take the part so seriously in this camp classic; like he's channeling James Dean from Rebel Without A Cause. The flick is pure 50's schlock horror at its best; in fact, I was surprised how it was scarrier and more suspenseful than most of the films I've watched so far. The special effects on the Blob itself actually hold up really well. Noticiable are the influences this film has had on a lot of modern movies; Men In Black, Creepshow and The Mist come to mind.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: MacGuffin on October 20, 2008, 12:15:22 AM
Day 19


(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/513EP3TKVEL._SL500_AA240_.jpg)


Excellent. Unnerving. The subtitle is quite apt. It is a character study. The film is less concerned with the killings themselves and more about the acts leading up and the aftermath. There's a wonderful technique of showing the dead bodies and using the soundtrack to convey how their death occured. It's a great introduction to Henry and as the film goes along you actually feel sympathetic towards the guy because you understand him. But all of that is quickly erased because the movie does remind you he is still a killer.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Gamblour. on October 20, 2008, 08:56:18 AM
That's good to know. I do want to see that.

After a few years of recommendations on here, I finally rented "Near Dark." It was pretty fucking awesome. A very cool take on the vampire genre. And Bill Paxton is absolutely nuts.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: MacGuffin on October 20, 2008, 11:50:58 PM
Day 20


(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41YHMEEGG9L._SL500_AA240_.jpg)


Sort of a Fatal Attraction meets Misery thriller. Most notible because it is Eastwood's directorial debut, and he does a nice job, but you can see he is still getting his bearings; like starting off the third act with a documentary-like sequence on the Jazz Festival that breaks the flow of tension. But Jessica Walter does a tremendous job as his "#1 fan;" equally creapy and mesmerizing. The story is probably more appropriate today than it was back then with celebrity stalkers. Worth checking out.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: MacGuffin on October 21, 2008, 06:55:29 PM
Day 21


(http://l.yimg.com/img.movies.yahoo.com/ymv/us/img/hv/photo/movie_pix/rogue_pictures/the_strangers/thestrangers_galleryposter2.jpg)


Review posted in its own thread:
http://xixax.com/index.php?topic=9828.msg267147#msg267147
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: MacGuffin on October 22, 2008, 10:24:31 PM
Day 22


(http://l.yimg.com/img.movies.yahoo.com/ymv/us/img/hv/photo/movie_pix/picturehouse/the_orphanage/theorphanage_galleryposter.jpg)


We're on a roll now, Hedwig. Review in its own thread:
http://xixax.com/index.php?topic=10012.msg267179#msg267179
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: mogwai on October 23, 2008, 10:39:32 AM
has anyone reviewed "eraserhead" in these threads?
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Fernando on October 23, 2008, 01:18:54 PM
Now that you bring Lynch, would any of you (mac, squints, etc) consider TP: Fire Walk With Me a horror film or some of the episodes in the series for that matter*?

For me it has a lot of horror elements but I don't know if it can be categorized as such.


* I'm thinking the last episode of S2 and moments in the black log and when bob appears.


edit: Can't believe mod hasn't reviewed one single film, did he run out of skulls? Maybe this year he's skull-less...
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Reinhold on October 23, 2008, 03:41:15 PM
has anyone reviewed "eraserhead" in these threads?

is eraserhead considered horror?
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: RegularKarate on October 23, 2008, 04:43:21 PM
has anyone reviewed "eraserhead" in these threads?

is eraserhead considered horror?

only by people who want to seem cool when asked about horror movies

ex

Me: What's your favorite horror movie?
Man: Eraser Head
Me: Oh, I get your costume now, you're an asshole
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: MacGuffin on October 23, 2008, 06:39:10 PM
Now that you bring Lynch, would any of you (mac, squints, etc) consider TP: Fire Walk With Me a horror film or some of the episodes in the series for that matter*?

For me it has a lot of horror elements but I don't know if it can be categorized as such.


* I'm thinking the last episode of S2 and moments in the black log and when bob appears.


I would. Because at its core, the macguffin, if you will, is a serial killer.

edit: Can't believe mod hasn't reviewed one single film, did he run out of skulls? Maybe this year he's skull-less...

He left us for his celebrity friends.  :yabbse-cry:
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: w/o horse on October 23, 2008, 09:26:09 PM
has anyone reviewed "eraserhead" in these threads?

is eraserhead considered horror?

only by people who want to seem cool when asked about horror movies

ex

Me: What's your favorite horror movie?
Man: Eraser Head
Me: Oh, I get your costume now, you're an asshole

Who doesn't think RegularKarate would actually be the asshole in this circumstance?  And I don't mean because he makes Eraserhead into two words, though it doesn't help his case. 

Regardless of the hypothetical situation RK has produced in which some unknown taste offender has accidentally placed the obviously genre identifiable (musical) Eraserhead into horror, and mentioned it to RK with hopes of starting a horror related conversation that doesn't follow along the typical lines of discussion, I think it's perfectly fucking acceptable to label Eraserhead horror, Twin Peaks horror, The Elephant Man horror, and The Straight Story horror, etc, because it's fucking David Lynch, and at this party RK can go ahead and talk to someone else.

But rather than take my word for it:

It's assholish to call this out though because anyone who asks that question is setting you up to be judged by them based on what you pick.

Title: Re: Horror
Post by: MacGuffin on October 24, 2008, 01:10:26 AM
Day 23


(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/415BH5XJRTL._SL500_AA240_.jpg)


Another classic; another recommendation. This is Roger Coman's adaptation of three Edgar Allen Poe stories with Vincent Price starring in all three. In Morella, Price is a man long mourning the death of his wife until his forgotten daughter returns. In The Black Cat, he and Peter Lorre give perfect performances as men in love with the same woman. And in The Case Of M. Valdermar, Basil Rathbone hypnotizes a dying Price on his death bed and controls his soul that's in limbo. All three stories are like three great episodes of Tales From The Crypt put together.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: RegularKarate on October 24, 2008, 11:34:10 AM
Who doesn't think RegularKarate would actually be the asshole in this circumstance? 

Haha... horse, sorry.  I was totally making a joke... you even quoted the thread (that I had made about ten minutes prior) that I was referencing.

It's funny too... I posted it, then realized I had written Eraserhead as two words and thought about editing it, but then said to myself (outloud even) "Someone's going to get all mad about that" so I left it.

I watch Twin Peaks at Halloween.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: john on October 24, 2008, 03:18:58 PM
Round-up:

Pumpkinhead

Began with a wonderfully rural gothic tone, but fell victim to repetition and sloppy editing. The premise, the creature effects, and the first forty minutes are all commendable - and I can see why this has established itself loving fan base twenty years later. It's unfortunate that the last half of the film negates everything that came before it, degenerating into a pick-em-off-by-number teen slasher flick. Stan Winston has a keen directorial eye, and I would have loved to have seen what else the man had up his sleeve.

Night of the Demons

Now here's another one that, after twenty years, still has a supportive fan base. Though, this time, it completely befuddles me. Trite, cheap, and tedious - even by the standards of bottom-barrel horror, a genre I can usually give myself over to with great ease. It had all the elements for an enjoyable ninety minutes, too: an abandoned mortuary, Bauhaus, teenage punks from the eighties. Maybe I'm just getting too old to indulge in crap like this the way I used too...

Sleepaway Camp/Sleepaway Camp 2: Unhappy Campers

...or maybe not, because I really enjoyed both of these. A bit tedious, and filled with stock directing and characters - but so much more enjoyable than most "high-concept" ghost stories and overblown CSI episodes that have been getting theatrical releases in the last five years. The first one had a wonderfully trashy twist, the second was in on it's silliness without being too presumptuous.

Trick 'r Treat

Twisted, absurd, and nostalgic without inducing sentiment. I've been hearing a lot of praise lofted at this in the last few years. Mostly due to Warner's complete disregard of this title. Luckily enough, the praise is warranted. Basically a hodgepodge of horror sub-genres skillfully weaved together. There are a couple of storylines that don't stick as well as the others, but I've really came to expect that when dealing with horror anthology. Add to this Dylan Baker giving his most embracingly sleazy performance since Happiness and Brian Cox channeling a completely fucked-up Rip Torn and you've got a really enjoyable Halloween viewing experience.... that you can't see.

Feast 2: Sloppy Seconds

I saw the first one a year ago and, after it slowed down on it's incessant need to be clever, it was actually kind of watchable. Unfortunately, it wasn't too memorable, because I was completely lost in regards to what character's were returning for this one. A sporadically enjoyable, gory, and occasionally funny effort if you wade through the completely self-conscious bullshit the writers and director are continually lofting at the audience.... so pretty much just like the first one with a larger, slightly more enjoyable, set piece.


I've seen more. I'll post more... but looking at most of these titles right now, I just kinda feel a bit ashamed of myself for sitting through them, let alone writing about them. With the exception of Trick 'r Treat... that was pretty fucking enjoyable.






Title: Re: Horror
Post by: w/o horse on October 24, 2008, 11:37:12 PM
Who doesn't think RegularKarate would actually be the asshole in this circumstance? 

Haha... horse, sorry.  I was totally making a joke... you even quoted the thread (that I had made about ten minutes prior) that I was referencing.

It's funny too... I posted it, then realized I had written Eraserhead as two words and thought about editing it, but then said to myself (outloud even) "Someone's going to get all mad about that" so I left it.

I watch Twin Peaks at Halloween.

We laugh at all the same things!
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: MacGuffin on October 25, 2008, 12:09:31 AM
Day 24


(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51m7i5t0WdL._SL500_AA240_.jpg)


So, instead of seeing W., I watched Oliver Stone's The Hand. If you can get past the cheesiness of the concept of a severed hand on a killing spree and see it as the metaphor that it is (if you've seen Secret Window, you know what I'm talking about), it's an alright thriller. Stone does a worthwhile job at a horror film, although still resolving to cheap scares (he employs the cat scare twice), and makes a slight comparision to Sam Raimi/Evil Dead. It would be interesting to see Stone, being the most skill director that he is now, go back and do another horror film.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: MacGuffin on October 25, 2008, 11:01:33 PM
Day 25


(http://l.yimg.com/img.movies.yahoo.com/ymv/us/img/hv/photo/movie_pix/warner_brothers/the_invasion/theinvasion_posterbig.jpg)


Not much to say. Not scary or suspenseful. Felt like two movies with the reshoots; just didn't jive well together. Not worth remaking when the '56 and '78 versions are superior.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: john on October 26, 2008, 04:10:16 PM
Wind Chill

Gregory Jacobs seems to be establishing a directorial career making quietly passable time-fillers. His last film, Criminal, would have been a pretty exceptional debut, had it not been a remake of the much better Nine Queens. He loaded that film with actors competent and watchable enough to almost forget you were watching yet another "Clever Grifting Film". Wind Chill doesn't has a prestigious cast to carry it, with the exception of the always reliable Martin Donovan. And, as a story involving two college students tormented by ghosts (literally) on a road trip, it could be classified as a remake as well.

Thing is, it starts out intriguingly enough. The two leads played by Emily Blunt and Ashton Holmes, their characters unnamed, are traveling home from college. It's winter, they've met through a ride sharing program, and his intentions don't exactly seem honorable. The tension between the two has a really watchable, natural ascension that immediately crushed my cynicism towards this film. In addition to that, it's beautifully shot. For a while, it balances it balances this time-honored male/female distrust with some genuinely creepy elements of the supernatural.

The problem, however, is that the supernatural takes over and all balance is lost. Everything is explained with the level of depth and mystery usually saved for the kind of horror novels written especially for preteens... but until then, it's an engaging, measured, ghost story.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: modage on October 27, 2008, 09:31:19 AM
i've been bad, sorry everyone!
(http://www.calsmodels.com/images/XIXAX/horror08.png)

(http://cdn-5.nflximg.com/us/boxshots/large/372195.jpg)
Childs Play

You know, amazingly enough I had never seen this before.  Which is because I really had no interest in it, until a few weeks ago when I realized (via an AICN interview) that it was done by Fright Night's Tom Holland.  Well, it's hard to believe it was done after Fright Night because it was pretty bad.  The effects with Chucky are good, and it's a simple idea that could've been scary (for kids maybe) but the execution is pretty terrible.  Unlike Freddy Krueger who takes a few films before he starts spouting clever dialogue, Chucky arrives a fully realized asshole.  If you don't have some fuzzy memory of seeing this in middle school, it's not worth revisiting.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: modage on October 27, 2008, 12:56:25 PM
(http://www.calsmodels.com/images/XIXAX/horror08.png)

(http://cdn-9.nflximg.com/us/boxshots/large/60023659.jpg)
Night of the Demon

Well shot and decently acted, this was notable for being one of the earliest films I've seen to deal with Demons and Satanic elements.  The lead investigator into these happenings is a skeptic who attempts to disprove a murder to be the work of supernatural elements.  He's also a self centered asshole, which makes him easy to watch.  The weirdest thing about this film is it's setup like a mystery but we're shown the demon in the first few minutes of the film and spend the next hour waiting for the investigator to realize he's wrong.  If they removed this scene you'd be skeptical like the investigator instead of ahead of him and the film would work much better. 
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Stefen on October 27, 2008, 05:07:00 PM
(http://www.learnaboutmovieposters.com/newsite/movies/1980s/1981/reg/AmericanWerewolfLondon.jpg)

Easily one of the greatest movies of all time. The transformation scene alone is the greatest scene ever committed to film. Rick Baker is fucking god. That poster still scares the shit out of me. This was the ONE movie I could not watch by myself until I was in my late teens. The ending is quite possibly the greatest ending in history. Still the scariest werewolf of all time. When the werewolf is running amock in Piccadilly Circus ripping limbs off and causing mass chaos - I don't even think I need to say it. AWESOME. That scene in the porno theater that goes " I've never met you before in my life!" Oh, sorry" = HILARIOUS.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: MacGuffin on October 27, 2008, 07:06:17 PM
Had birthday party yesterday so I missed a day, but intend to make up that day up with a double-feature sometime this week.


Day 26


(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51PT252DC1L._SL500_AA240_.jpg)


Did I miss something? For all the hype and controversy that looms over this film, I was somewhat disappointed. I was even starting to question if I have become desensitized to horror now. But I don't think so. I so wanted my "senses to be raped" like I haven't had in a long time, but I just wasn't shocked by anything shown here. And I don't blame it on my own expectations; I just think that the film just isn't intense as it's been made out to be. Factors of this could have been that it never felt "real" to me; sure the actual killing and skinning of animals were not faked, but I think all of that just made one not one-up'ed when it finally came to humans. Also, the acting is just so awful and below even B movie acting. I totally saw where Blair Witch got their inspiration, but that movie I bought into; here it just all felt staged.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: MacGuffin on October 27, 2008, 11:52:35 PM
Day 27


(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/61dO2Pp4pIL._SL500_AA240_.jpg)


Hard to believe that the guy that would be in charge of the special effects for the original Star Wars trilogy and Jurassic Park and win multiple Oscars made this cheese ball, grade Z flick. Then again, the Ray Harryhausen type effects are the best thing about this movie. But unlike say Jason And The Argonauts or The Beast From 20,000 Fathoms, this film is missing a story that stretches for the entire film to make the film more worthwhile; it plays more like a demo reel stretched out. But I can't fault the film for its Ed Wood type production (and I'm saying that with much respect to Mr. Wood) since it was made on a showstring budget and the filmmakers went out and just did it.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: MacGuffin on October 28, 2008, 05:36:13 PM
Day 28


(http://l.yimg.com/img.movies.yahoo.com/ymv/us/img/hv/photo/movie_pix/universal_pictures/slither/slither_bigteaserposter.jpg)


I enjoyed this one. It's not on the level of Evil Dead II in terms of a complete blend of horror and comedy, but it works. Not played for cheap laughs; the film has a wink about it. Points for making a new spin on the zombie genre. Good amount of gore and laughs.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: squints on October 29, 2008, 01:38:19 AM
(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f149/squints06/VHSHorror.jpg)
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51uLJJ-n%2BzL._SS500_.jpg)
SO. I actually didn't find this on VHS but as you you can tell from this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3QsKYaRQv-c&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3QsKYaRQv-c&feature=related)

I guess the whole point of VHS i was trying to make is that horror/gore has this special place for me exactly because of this weird lo-fi aesthetic that comes with VHS and You Tube and the like.
So you can either find this on dvd, vhs, or in bits and pieces on youtube...

It is what it is. Its a troma classic. Its the movie Charlie Kaufman wrote right before he wrote Human Nature. I swear.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: w/o horse on October 29, 2008, 02:05:08 AM
Charlie Kaufman is a baker now, and when I met him he gave me a buttered roll.  That's true.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: MacGuffin on October 29, 2008, 04:57:08 PM
Day 29


(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51g1HM7wWEL._SL500_AA240_.jpg)


While I wouldn't put it so high on the pedestal as our beloved Mr. Xixax has, I do appreciate what this film has going for it - a great villian, an awesome death device, great imagery and some genuine scares.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: MacGuffin on October 31, 2008, 12:32:43 AM
Day 30


(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/516165W891L._SL500_AA240_.jpg)


Believe it or not, I never really watched DePalma's version of Psycho before; aside from some scenes here and there. It's DePalma at his best. I may fault him for taking Hitchcock's films and twisting them to his stories, but he is a well crafted filmmaker, and that is what has made me look past what bits he's lifted. The compositions and editing are wonderful, also going for many scenes without dialogue. The museum scene alone is a thing of beauty.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: RegularKarate on October 31, 2008, 11:03:47 AM
(http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/pic/MG/193696~Sleepaway-Camp-Posters.jpg)

This is a movie that I somehow had never seen until last night.

The movie is goofy as all get-up.  Terrible acting, a sherif with a really bad fake moustache, and 80s camp shorts combined with what seems at first to basically be a remake of Friday the 13th make it fun to watch.

Then the end comes and it's truly disturbring.  I laugh about it now... but I actually got a chill while watching it last night.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: MacGuffin on October 31, 2008, 06:58:55 PM
Day 31


(http://l.yimg.com/img.movies.yahoo.com/ymv/us/img/hv/photo/movie_pix/dimension_films/halloween/halloween_posterbig.jpg)


I purposely chose this film to cap off the month. Call it Michael Myers: The Early Years or Behind The Mask. The movie begins with Michael as a troubled youth. This is supposed to show how evil started in him, but all it really does is show us Myers as a Columbine-type kid in dysfuntional family, and the killing of his family seemed to be provoked by a night of heavy binge candy eating. It almost is retroactive to be terrified of the killer as we 'humanize' and understand him. The best part of the movie is Loomis and Myers bonding over time in the asylum, but once Michael escapes, the film really just copies the best parts of Carpenter's original. In fact, instead of an updating, Zombie has almost regressed, for the Lourie Strode of this film is weakened from Curtis's Strode. I like Zombie as a director; enjoyed his other films, but this classic just didn't need to be remade or updated or retold or whatever the term is.



And that's the end of my 31 days of horror. I actually surprised myself by doing this. Hope I didn't bore anyone, and hope some recommendations will be sought out.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: modage on November 01, 2008, 11:13:54 AM
mac, my hat is off to you.   :bravo:
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: w/o horse on November 01, 2008, 12:33:03 PM
(http://www.stomptokyo.com/badmoviereport/pics/T/tingler1.jpg)

Awesome theater experience.  Awesome.  Saw it in the theater that's featured in the movie, Halloween night, and the audience was terrific.  The movie is a b-movie of course, but a great one at that.  Cinematic, tense, well written, and a lot of fun.

Edit - There should be a The Tingler poster there, ideally.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: w/o horse on November 02, 2008, 01:59:39 PM
No Tingler poster appears in my last post, right, so some of you maybe thought I was referring to Zombie's Halloween?  Very different films.

Again demonstrating that Halloween lives strongest and longest in LA, last night there was a horrorthon at the Aero, the first three films of which I watched.  Night of the Creepers, TCM2, and Dead Alive.

While the first two were great, I was there for and ended up most impressed by Dead Alive, which I had never seen before.  Outrageous the whole way through and beyond what I had expected.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: samsong on February 20, 2009, 10:01:40 PM
(http://www.smylesandfish.com/lounge/possession.jpg)

has anyone else seen this?  it's like scenes from a marriage by way of dario argento.  this is one of the most insane movies i have ever seen, equal parts european art film and deliciously 80s exploitive horror film.  isabelle adjani won best actress at cannes for her performance in this, as bold and unsettling as laura dern in inland empire.  all i'll say for now is that i highly recommend it.

there's a sequence where a very emaciated sam neil (circa 1981) is losing his shit, during which time he grows an excess of scruff and sweats a lot, and rolls around/freaks out in his dilapidated bedroom.  he looks like p.t. anderson doing martin sheen in apocalypse now.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: SiliasRuby on February 20, 2009, 11:10:06 PM
I have it on DVD and will try and review it soon, been busy lately.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: SiliasRuby on February 28, 2009, 01:42:40 PM
(http://www.lovefilm.com/lovefilm/images/products/6/26386-large.jpg)

Ok RK, here's my negative review. Even though I HATED 'The butterfly effect'

This was an utter piece of crap. Too sensationisitic for its own good and had many moments than while sick and twisted and horrifying, most of it was just plain fucking bad. I was severley disappointed in the execution and while is completely independent the the Nth degree it there was no use for it to be this savage. I guess that must be the point to make us sick to our stomach but it just made me angry that it was so poorly done. It was as if a low rent oliver stone wannabe decided he wanted to do the story of the manson family like 'natural born killers' was done in. Man, this was fucking terrible.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Reelist on February 28, 2009, 08:55:27 PM
Are those movies about Manson ever any good? It seems like all they do is show a depiction of what was outlined in Helter Skelter which makes them boring and not scary at all. How can they expect a horror film about it to even begin to touch on the fear people were really feeling around the time that it happened? Those events have already affected the way people think about serial killers and probably helped create the Slasher genre to warn us about them. Any attempt to try to recapture it on film for an audience to be entertained is just stupid when there are so many god damn movies out there made about mass murderers anyway.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: MacGuffin on February 28, 2009, 10:42:20 PM
Are those movies about Manson ever any good? It seems like all they do is show a depiction of what was outlined in Helter Skelter which makes them boring and not scary at all.

Helter Skelter is great; the original mini-series, not the recent remake. It's not a scary movie in terms of a slasher pic, it's an adaptation of the book so it's a reenactment of the events (think an extended episode of Law And Order), so that makes for a truth is scarier than fiction type horror.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: SiliasRuby on March 29, 2009, 01:11:46 PM
I saw friday the 13th uncut the original last night and I felt like a stereotypical black person....Man that sounds racist. But seriously this was the Best camp film ever. Another pun Mod. I was yelling at the screen and shouting at the characters on how stupid they were acting and all in blu-ray. So I have yet to see the sequels but they are on my list but so are a bunuel I netflixed and 'scenes from a marriage' which I've had for weeks. This was great though.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Reelist on May 09, 2009, 01:20:04 AM
The whole series of Friday the 13th just has this odor emanating from it , they all seem to have a really good balance of like sort of gritty production design and the right amount of stupid quips combined with straight on violence usually consisting of direct sharp object to body contact that give it an air of realness that isn't so contrived as the other horror movies these days
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Gold Trumpet on May 09, 2009, 01:39:04 AM
The whole series of Friday the 13th just has this odor emanating from it , they all seem to have a really good balance of like sort of gritty production design and the right amount of stupid quips combined with straight on violence usually consisting of direct sharp object to body contact that give it an air of realness that isn't so contrived as the other horror movies these days

Let's not truly compliment this bad series, but I understand what you mean. I just think that any distinction this series has (compared to recent horror films) is based on the good luck the series had in originating during the 1980s. The limited budgets meant for a semi realistic approach to some ridiculous stories. The look doesn't feel unique because all the mechanisms used to make this film have become archaic. Friday the 13th tries to be standard horror (for its time), but the film ages like wine in which years are relatively nice to it.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: SiliasRuby on June 24, 2009, 11:05:42 PM
Are those movies about Manson ever any good? It seems like all they do is show a depiction of what was outlined in Helter Skelter which makes them boring and not scary at all.

Helter Skelter is great; the original mini-series, not the recent remake. It's not a scary movie in terms of a slasher pic, it's an adaptation of the book so it's a reenactment of the events (think an extended episode of Law And Order), so that makes for a truth is scarier than fiction type horror.

'Helter Skelter' was certainly freaky. Disturbing in every sense of the word. The actors were the most realistic and now I feel dirty just rethinking the images from this film in my head, even though essentially like you said Mac..A extended law and order episode. I still really would like Oliver Stone to take a crack at this. I'm watching interviews of the people nowand I shouldn't because it will give me nightmares.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: MacGuffin on June 25, 2009, 12:12:16 AM
Now watch, as a companion piece, The Deadly Tower, with Kurt Russell as U of Texas sniper, Charles Whitman.


http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0072852/
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Stefen on September 28, 2009, 08:48:58 PM
I watched Trick 'R Treat last night and wasn't impressed. I'd heard so many things about it and how it was getting shafted, etc, that I really couldn't wait to see it.

It's a mess. The story makes no sense. It has some cool parts but overall, it's just not a very good movie.

Judging it in context, it's a great direct to video flick, but not a very good movie, otherwise.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Gamblour. on September 29, 2009, 04:15:46 PM
I've been on a renting kick lately, and I think I'll use this wonderful month to catch up on things I still haven't seen. Including

Rosemary's Baby
Mirrors
Funny Games
Dawn of the Dead
some Dario Argento movie
a few Nightmares and Friday the 13ths
50s camp

and anything you fine folks might suggest.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: RegularKarate on September 29, 2009, 04:26:26 PM

Rosemary's Baby
Mirrors
Funny Games
Dawn of the Dead
some Dario Argento movie
a few Nightmares and Friday the 13ths
50s camp

Mirrors is laughably bad.  We watched it for bad movie night.  Unless you're just wanting something really awful, skip it and focus on the good ones on that list, like Rosemary's Baby, DotD, Suspiria, and NoES (first and third).
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Gamblour. on September 29, 2009, 05:28:30 PM
But Mirrors is so scary, Kiefer bought a house without any mirrors in it!!!
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: ᾦɐļᵲʊʂ on September 30, 2009, 01:53:56 AM
Funny Games isn't necessarily Halloween scary as it is mortifying.

Suspiria and Inferno are great, Rosemary's Baby is probably my favorite among your choices, and the first three Friday the 13th's are great, the first Nightmare is outstanding, but immediately tanks afterwards.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: picolas on September 30, 2009, 02:17:23 AM
mortifying
mortifying means embarrassing. i think you mean horrifying.

it's probably the scariest movie i've ever seen. even though i don't think i like it.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Fernando on September 30, 2009, 02:23:21 PM
^^^ I thought it meant like worried, but that's because in spanish that word (mortificado) means to be worried about, to feel angst, maybe walrus meant he was concerned or anxious about the whole situation?

I looked it up...

mortify:
–verb (used with object)
1. to humiliate or shame, as by injury to one's pride or self-respect.
Synonyms: 1. humble, abase

is that the same as embarrassing?

embarrass:
–verb (used with object)
1. to cause confusion and shame to; make uncomfortably self-conscious; disconcert;
Synonyms: 1. discompose, discomfit, chagrin


 :yabbse-undecided: even after all these definitions I'm not sure I get how to use mortify in english.


edit:

from the use in a sentence feature at damn dictionary.com

When Timothy took off all his clothes and jumped in the pool in front of the dinner guests, my mother was mortified.

Then, there is a google hit of the use of that word:
"Mortify means to "humiliate or embarrass." The part of speech is a verb. For example: Jane was mortified when she had a rip in her pants."


so in the end pic is right, i don't get why dictionary.com doesn't include embarrass as part of the definition.


oh well, i hope i didn't bore you to death, but i love to know how to properly use words, and some of you write pretty good so xixax is a good source, although some ppl pretty often make a mistake with they're-there-their.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: MacGuffin on September 30, 2009, 02:27:36 PM
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Q8CWuzd15Ok/SpgECeU5jjI/AAAAAAAAAEQ/Wwyf-Ajz1yg/s320/nbc_the_more_you_know1.jpg)
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Gamblour. on October 01, 2009, 01:35:25 PM
Oooooook, well I went with Les Diaboliques to being with, but made sure not to rent Diabolique with Sharon Stone, because that would have been mortifying.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: MacGuffin on October 01, 2009, 03:38:52 PM
Okay, as I did last year, once again, I will attempt to do thirty-one horror films in the 31 days of October.


Day 1


(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/37/The_Last_House_On_The_Left_Promotional_Poster.jpg)


Vaguely remember the original (maybe I'll get to that later in the month). This remake is only good up to a certain point, then it becomes increasingly annoying. It starts off well enough, albeit some minor cliches and obvious set-ups that will pay off later. But once it presents the rape scene, it shows you what horror really is. That scene alone (and I'm assuming it was harsher for the Unrated version I watched) was so cringe worthy; uneasy and unsettling. And it was done without seeing much of the rape itself; relying on screams, grunts and reaction shots. It was an accident you can't look away from. But from there it's all downhill. The lead girl's character has some spunk to her (no sperm pun intended) rather than a simple damsel in distress role, and the villian's deserve their hatred and revenge upon them (think of Pitt and Lewis from Kalifornia), but once the parents get involved, you're more along the lines of saying "Yeah, right" rather than shouting "That's right!" Some of the kills felt like the scene in Pulp Fiction when Butch goes through the pawn shop and keeps one-upping the level of weapons to use. Here, they use each of those weapons in quick succession because apparently people are really fucking hard to kill! A tacked on ending (again, assuming it was for the Unrated version) was so out of place.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Gamblour. on October 02, 2009, 08:26:12 AM
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/37/Lesdiaboliquesposter.jpg)

So, I've started this month off quite well. In the past, I've tried to find movies that I think I would like, rather than ones that are supposed to be good, which has led me to some poor choices. This time I'm going to try something different.

I went with Les Diaboliques after seeing Le Corbeau just the other day. I was impressed by Clouzot, having never seen any of his films prior, and I didn't realize he had directed Les Diaboliques. Obviously, I remember the original coming on Cinemax when I was a kid, thinking how awful it looked. But it's funny, because the mistress in Clouzot's film looks a LOT like Sharon Stone. But anyway.

The suspense in this film is wonderful, and there's almost no music in the entire film (at least, I think there isn't). This is an interesting contrast to Hitchcock's films, where music is hugely important. The shots of the husband in the bathtub are really fucking creepy and great, and he's such a bastard you sort of love how he 'dies'. Unfortunately, I guessed the ending about halfway through (maybe I even remembered it from knowing about the remake, who knows?), but that didn't ruin things too much. The wife is so naive, it's still painful to watch her be wrecked by her guilt and faint by the pool and everything.

The old man detective was a bit too deus ex machina, but that ending is so tense, it's really great. Clouzot's becoming one of my favorite directors (and I still have Quai des Orfevres here at home to watch, plus I've never even seen Wages of Fear, which I've wanted to see forever now).
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: 03 on October 02, 2009, 03:42:11 PM
re: mac
the virgin spring being close to my favorite film i will probaly not see this.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: MacGuffin on October 03, 2009, 12:51:59 AM
Day 2


(http://classic-horror.com/images/hunger_poster.preview.jpg)


Tony Scott's debut film, so it looks like a slick perfume commercial. Style over substance? Yes, but the substance is still there. Especially using vampirism as metaphor for lesbianism; the homo vs hetero subtext. The seduction scene is nicely done, using a wonderful bit of dialogue about the song "Lakme" (better made famous by Scott's own eggplant scene in True Romance), carrying over to an erotic lovemaking/biting scene. Denueve is just a timeless beauty. I liked how they never use the term "vampire" and most of the rules that go along with it are set aside (day walkers; no fangs, they just drink; etc.) for a story more about love eternal. Bonus points for featuring Bauhaus' Bela Lugosi's Dead.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Gamblour. on October 04, 2009, 02:15:27 PM
Good call, I will have to check that out this month.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: I Love a Magician on October 04, 2009, 05:47:32 PM
I watched Trick 'R Treat last night and wasn't impressed. I'd heard so many things about it and how it was getting shafted, etc, that I really couldn't wait to see it.

It's a mess. The story makes no sense. It has some cool parts but overall, it's just not a very good movie.

Judging it in context, it's a great direct to video flick, but not a very good movie, otherwise.

yeah this was pretty much terrible.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: MacGuffin on October 04, 2009, 11:40:20 PM
Day 3


(http://criterion_production.s3.amazonaws.com/release_images/713/437_box_348x490.jpg)


The Passion of Joan of Arc is my favorite silent film of all time. So when I saw that Dreyer utilized his eye to a horror film, I was immediately intrigued. Based on the novel, Carmilla, that was a precursor to Bram Stoker's Dracula, Dreyer uses other stories from the novella it appeared in for this film. Foregoing the lesbian undertones of the book, he widens the story to includes spirits, visions and, yes, vampires. While he doesn't necessarily use what made Joan so compelling (close-ups, a breathtaking performance by his lead), he does parlay his skill of the camera to set a eerie mood throughout the film, and even using sound to make a mostly silent, yet creepy film.




Day 4


(http://wiki.the-frame.com/images/thumb/5/59/Grace-poster.jpg/300px-Grace-poster.jpg)


A case where the concept is far greater than the execution. Sometimes mesmerizing and connecting; sometimes laughable and unbelievable. But it was entirely attention holding. You will witness what lengths a mother will go to nurse her stillborn child to life. And it was disturbing. I'm on the fence about it. I wanted to like it more, and I do appreciate what it was going for, and Jordan Ladd was great as the lead; giving it her all. But I think that it suffers from low-budget-i-tis and teetering on what tone it wanted, hence some unintended laughs.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: MacGuffin on October 06, 2009, 06:29:22 PM
Day 5


(http://screenrant.com/wp-content/uploads/1a.jpg)


As beautiful as Rhona Mitra is, she is no Kate Beckensale. Which is to say, she doesn't have the ass-kickin', wearing-leather-like-a-second-skin aspects down as Kate did. As most know, Underworld is a fave flick of mine. What's missing is the Matrix, gun-toting, slick action. Understandable because it's a story set far before guns existed. Instead, we are given a Gladiator/Braveheart story. So while this prequel never touches what made that first film so eye-catching, it does present a better and more believable love story between werewolf and vampire than the Selene/Michael one did, and it is more enjoyable than Evolution was.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: ᾦɐļᵲʊʂ on October 07, 2009, 02:27:46 AM
I've been doing a similar trend, renting only Horror movies on Netflix and watching them on Watch Instantly.  My plan is to revisit some from my childhood that I never bothered to watch again for an update.

Sadly, I brought myself to rewatch this:

(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41JYW3ZBJTL._SS500_.jpg)

It wasn't even so bad it was funny.  It is just downright awful.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: squints on October 07, 2009, 02:57:29 AM
Leprechaun: Back 2 Da Hood
is much better. funnier. 
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Gamblour. on October 07, 2009, 01:15:38 PM
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/8e/Ds27.jpg)

I was kind of blown away by how bad and good this was. The bumbling cops are so bad, the music is terrible, but then the acting is alright, it's at least impassioned, and the ending is really good. Not bad for a first attempt by Craven, I haven't seen many of his films, so I'll look forward to checking more of them out.

The special feature was pretty depressing, as mostly everyone looked like they had dressed to go to the grocery store.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: MacGuffin on October 08, 2009, 01:41:51 AM
Day 6


(http://www.moviesonline.ca/movie-gallery/albums/userpics//poster_Skinwalkers.jpg)


I was intrigued by this movie because I always thought this was a kick-ass poster. Unfortunately, this poster is the only memorable part of this movie. Some stiff acting and poorly staged scenes contributed. Even the cliched scares (you know, the ones where a musical stinger makes you jump more than the scare itself) aren't even handled well. More like tickles than frights since they would cut away from any hint of gore or horror.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: modage on October 18, 2009, 09:21:33 AM
(http://www.coryeverett.com/images/XIXAX/horror09.png)

(http://cdn-2.nflximg.com/us/boxshots/large/70124632.jpg)

The Stepfather (1986)

Terry O'Quinn (Locke!) stars as "Jerry Blake", a man searching for the perfect family who will murder them when they don't live up to his expectations.  The opening of the film is surprising because you see him leaving the aftermath of an entire murdered household casually leaving no room for the "IS HE or ISN'T HE?" questions that usually linger in these types of films.  The film also avoids the "slow burn" about a third of the way in when Blake's new suspicious daughter finds him FREAKING OUT in the basement.  O'Quinn's performance and some unexpected nudity towards the end of the film (she's supposed to be 16, right?), save the film from complete obscurity.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Gamblour. on October 18, 2009, 09:42:53 AM
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a0/The_Village_movie.jpg)

I haven't seen this movie probably since it came out, so rewatching it, I was pretty fresh to the material. I found a few things fairly remarkable. First of all, there's an incredible contrast between the quality of the filmmaking and the crappiness of the story, which itself even is good at times. The score is very beautiful, the sound work is great, and Deakins' cinematography renders every tree branch and wisp of red stunning. Bryce Dallas Howard, William Hurt, Brendan Gleeson, and even Joaquin give really incredible performances. Not sure if I liked Brody's performance, because he goes a bit too full-retard. The wide variety of great actors here either says a lot about Shyamalan's appeal (circa 2003) or his casting director.

(obviously if you haven't seen it at this point, there are spoilers below)

But despite these great things that make the movie very enjoyable to watch, you have the plot of the film organizing a veritable mutiny of all of these elements. First, the dialogue. In the context of a village in the late 1800s, it sounds alright. At worst, it's just a bad ear on Shyamalan's part. But these people live in modern times, so why would they bother to do this? Applying logic to this film (such as why the gravestone at the beginning actually says 1890 whatever) completely unspools it, which makes me wonder why he would try so hard to have so many twists. There's the twist of the fake monsters, then discovering that it's actually the present. But if he had just dropped any of the revelations, I feel like the film would have been so much stronger. Make the monsters real, and set it in the 1800s. That would be a fascinating story. Take away the monsters, but just make it about a cult-like, Yearning for Zion styled compound, that would be even more fascinating. Or even making the monsters fake, but keeping it in the 1800s and making the reason for their refusal anything but the fact that it's the present, it would probably have been better.

Even still, I think the story is a good idea with a lot of promise, but he just can't fulfill it. By the end of the film, he made very bad decisions in terms of story-telling. There are so many instances of scenes cutting away waaaaay too early, to where the audience doesn't even hear the beginnings of a conversation that would have led to more development of characters and backstory, but simply asks us to fill in the blanks. He plays a lot of scenes in wide shots, or from behind the actors, so wide that you can't see anything that's actually going on, and it takes away from a lot of crucial scenes. This might've been better in a more capable director, but he kind of botches things that many people might not notice, but contribute to the film being annoying to watch. However, when it's good, it's pretty good, and at the end of the day, his ego is so enormous that he even has that stupid reflection of himself in the medicine refrigerator. You have to earn Hitchcock-type homages to yourself.

But as far as being scary, I think the creatures look terrifying, and if they had been real, that would have been great. The scares are very few and far between, but still good (the sequence of her waiting hand [a motif throughout the film, because Shyamalan thinks he's good enough to make these things matter] and Joaquin grabbing it is pretty damn suspenseful). And Brody dying at the end is more gut-wrenching tragedy than anything (which Shyamalan doesn't really capitalize on as far as the elders being complete hypocrites. In fact, I remember the scene where Jesse Eisenberg tells them the 'monster' has been killed, it got a big laugh in the audience, because we don't feel like they've been punished. It was more like, "oh shit, they fucked up and that is that"). I think everyone participating in the film did an amazing job, but Shyamalan's script and at times poor directorial choices make the film laughable and mark the beginning (if Signs wasn't) of crappy ideas on his part.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: modage on October 18, 2009, 11:13:04 AM
(http://www.coryeverett.com/images/XIXAX/horror09.png)

(http://cdn-2.nflximg.com/us/boxshots/large/70106452.jpg)

[REC] (2007)

This Spanish premake to Quarantine ("that was pretty good, but wouldn't it be REALLY good if they were speaking English!") features a reporter and her cameraman for a late-night show following a group of fireman who are called into a building to investigate a women screaming in her apartment.  The building is quarantined with the firemen, reporter and cameraman inside when zombie hell starts breaking loose inside.  The movie hits a lot of your typical zombie beats but the handheld camera POV is effective here and pre-Cloverfield, so I'll give it credit.  The film is short, tight, I'm imagining a shoestring budget, and the Silence of the Lambs style nightvision climax gives the film a nice way to up the ante for the ending. Recommended.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: modage on October 19, 2009, 08:40:57 AM
(http://www.coryeverett.com/images/XIXAX/horror09.png)

(http://cdn-1.nflximg.com/us/boxshots/large/70059991.jpg)

Rob Zombie's Halloween (2007)

One of the worst remakes I have ever seen.  Rob Zombie positioned himself as a guy who "gets it" with horror movies and I've given him several chances to prove it but this movie proves beyond argument that he absolutely does not get it.  He has the cinematic maturity level of Kevin Smith.  His writing is beyond repair: his characters all speak with the same voice, the film avoids scares and makes the biggest mistake in giving you an extended look at Michael Myers childhood to explain why he might be driven to do such things.  Remember the Phantom Menace?  This is the Phantom Menace of horror movies.

I'll never watch another Rob Zombie film again unless he promises:

1. Not to write the script.
2. Not to remake another movie.
3. Not to cast his wife.

I'm done.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: modage on October 19, 2009, 08:54:50 AM
(http://www.coryeverett.com/images/XIXAX/horror09.png)

(http://cdn-6.nflximg.com/us/boxshots/large/70038566.jpg)

Dracula A.D. 1972 (1972)

A few nights ago I saw a Hammer Films double-feature at FilmLinc (http://www.filmlinc.com/wrt/onsale/scary3.html) of The Horror of Dracula (http://xixax.com/index.php?topic=4600.msg251960#msg251960) & Curse of the Werewolf (http://xixax.com/index.php?topic=1274.msg204734#msg204734).  Horror of Dracula was the first time Christopher Lee played Dracula at the end of the 50's so I thought it would be interesting to fast forward to near the end of his many times playing the character with this film. In it, Dracula is transported to modern day London after he is resurrected in a black magic ceremony by hippies looking for thrills.  Lee's part is a near cameo because Dracula only appears in a few scenes but the film manages to draw you in with Hammers trademarks: great sets, a good script, above average actors, hot chicks, paint red blood and the teaming of Lee & Peter Cushing.  I had expected the film to be campier and cheaper than the earlier films but despite some concessions to "the kids" the film manages to maintain its integrity.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: modage on October 19, 2009, 10:19:39 AM
(http://www.coryeverett.com/images/XIXAX/horror09.png)

(http://cdn-9.nflximg.com/us/boxshots/large/70093339.jpg)

Inside (2007)

Ewwwww.  :yabbse-undecided:  It's really difficult for a horror film to actually disturb me, but this film did.  The film opens with a pregnant woman and her husband in the aftermath of a car accident.  The husband is killed and the woman and her baby survive.  Cut to 4 months later, it's Christmas Eve and the woman is due to deliver her baby any day when a crazed woman shows up at her home intent on taking her unborn baby.  From there the film is relentlessly brutal.  In American horror there is always the safety net of knowing they wont really go too far but there are no such guarantees here and the film isn't concerned with heroes, happy endings or even scares.  The film feels dangerous, it's bleak, and the violence doesn't register with the same "I know this isn't real" of a Friday The 13th.  You will feel dirty watching this.  This is not a recommendation.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Stefen on October 19, 2009, 12:32:46 PM
haha, well, it made me want to watch it.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: matt35mm on October 19, 2009, 12:46:14 PM
It made me want to watch Stefan watching it.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: MacGuffin on October 19, 2009, 03:54:37 PM
Apologies for not continuing my 31 Days of Horror. Was gearing up and shooting my next short film. So glad mod has continued where I left off, though.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: ᾦɐļᵲʊʂ on October 19, 2009, 05:50:31 PM
I was wondering if mod wasn't planning on doing it this year, but five reviews in two days says otherwise.

And, as always, great rundowns of each.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: modage on October 19, 2009, 08:54:16 PM
Thanks!  I was really busy last year and watched a few for Best Horror but never found time to review them.  I've been really busy this year too but my dad is visiting this weekend for the sole purpose of watching as many horror films as we can in 3 days. We're about to watch our 14th and final, Trick R' Treat.

(http://www.coryeverett.com/images/XIXAX/horror09.png)

(http://cdn-8.nflximg.com/us/boxshots/large/70122348.jpg)

Phantasm II (1988)

Such a weird movie.  Not as good as the original (when is it ever?) this expands the scope of the original but doesn't attempt to flesh out the backstory for The Tall Man or other world.  It's sort of like Star Wars in a way where you just have to go with it, this crazy universe exists and you can't really question it. 
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: ᾦɐļᵲʊʂ on October 21, 2009, 04:43:55 PM
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51N1QD08S1L._SS500_.jpg)

I had never seen this growing up, part because my parents were morally opposed to me seeing any movies with "Hell" in the title, but also because it didn't necessarily appeal to me.  I had always known about it, but had no real inclination to go out of my way to see it.  I watched it last night, and Jesus Christ was I missing out. 

The special effects are extraordinary, the story isn't necessarily new, but the take on it is outstanding.  I'm sure some of you have seen this already, but has anyone seen any of the sequels and if so, are they anywhere near as good?  I ask because the only reason I elected to watch Hellraiser was that I saw Hellraiser: Hellworld on TV, mostly out of train wreck syndrome.  Suffice to say, it was godawful but in looking it up I noticed there are a ton of sequels (sort of not surprisingly that most were fan scripts and/or unrelated to Hellraiser, but were adapted to the Hellraiser mythos so that they'd have a fanbase).  This made me want to at least know what the diehard fans are so rabid about.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: polkablues on October 21, 2009, 04:50:19 PM
I like Hellraiser 2 a lot, but it's all diminishing returns after that.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: modage on October 21, 2009, 10:08:32 PM
(http://www.coryeverett.com/images/XIXAX/horror09.png)

(http://cdn-4.nflximg.com/us/boxshots/large/70060004.jpg)

Trick 'R Treat (2009)

The problem with most anthologies is that they are always so uneven, certain stories are great and some aren’t.  Trick ‘R Treat manages to avoid this by weaving all the stories together with a Pulp Fiction-style chronology that jumps backwards and forwards in time during the course of one Halloween night.  The film is actually great fun, a smart fun horror film actually set at Halloween (which is rarer than you would think).  I can see why a film like this didn’t get a theatrical release, nobody knew how to market it.  At times it feels more like a great TV special than what most audiences have come to expect out of a horror film, but it’s worth seeking out and one of my favorite discoveries this year.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Gamblour. on October 23, 2009, 09:08:24 AM
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/ef/Rosemarys_baby_poster.jpg)

This movie fucking ruled. I haven't seen much of Polanski's work (I even remember not liking Chinatown, but I should probably revisit it), but I was amazed at how tight and compelling this film was. For being over two hours, I never felt like it was slow. It constantly propelled forward, even at the risk of cutting scenes short (dear M. Night, this is how you get out early).

It was kind of fascinating too, because you've got Cassavettes from one school of acting and Farrow in the other, but it never clashes. It totally works for her being so willing to go along with things. The dream sequences/hallucinations were really cool, an example of simple, stark visual imagery being more compelling than cheap tricks.

In terms of horror, it was pretty great. Not too scary, just very unsettling with great tension. The film was almost post-Hitchcock in terms of how it was filmed and how it generated suspense. There were moments when I thought there would be a big jump, but that's just the contemporary audience in me. The film was just right, I loved it.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: modage on October 25, 2009, 06:11:39 PM
(http://www.coryeverett.com/images/XIXAX/horror09.png)

(http://cdn-4.nflximg.com/us/boxshots/large/70104894.jpg)

Friday the 13th (2009)

Since the Friday the 13th films were never any good to begin with, I thought this was a chance to finally make a good film with the Jason Voorhees character.  Unfortunately this is not a good film.  Not a remake by any means the film can pretty much be looked at as Friday the 13th Part 11.  The film retains the group of teens and Jason Voorhees and makes up the rest.  Something about a guy looking for his sister who Jason is holding kidnapped.  All the teens are obnoxious, maybe that's part of the charm but the film drags (it spends 23 minutes pre-title sequence dispatching the first group of teens), and I'm not sure the film even mentions "Friday the 13th" or it's significance.  I'm surprised this was written by the same guys who did Freddy vs. Jason, which seemed a lot more fun than this.  Not terrible, but a bit boring and a real missed opportunity.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Gamblour. on October 27, 2009, 07:36:33 AM
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/1d/Omen_ver4.jpg)

Watching this film, I was surprised by how many ideas come from it, and how it's basically just ensconced in how we view things, like 666. It was a bit weird watching it, knowing from the start the being born on June 6th at 6:00am means 666 and that shit is no good. But I guess audiences were unaware until this film came out? And THE SCORE! Oh my god, the music in this film, it's bigger than the film is. What a stroke of genius.

It's the earliest film I can think of that uses the idea of kills or kill scenes as spectacle. We're used to it with Friday the 13th and especially Final Destination (which owes so much to this movie). I mean, that decapitation scene is shot from 10 different angles for a good reason. The first death, the hanging, was probably the most disturbing to me, though. I didn't expect her to break the window, and it just added all of this literal gravity and real-world physics to it, it caught me off guard and made it more real.

The kid on the tricycle. I was really surprised at how much this reminded me of The Shining, and it's the first time I've ever thought, "Kubrick referenced something???" And I think what I mean is, Kubrick's films are so robust with originality that to see something remotely similar prior to his own film, it was sort of shocking. Granted, I don't know if Danny being on a big-wheel is in the book or not, it was just the visual parallel I was struck by, even if he wasn't referencing this film.

Along with Rosemary's baby, I was impressed by how fresh and well-paced this was (except the graveyard scene). I guess maybe I'm getting older, maybe I'm just a better viewer of films, but the pacing of older films used to bother me, but not so much anymore.

Overall I liked it, but not as much as Rosemary's Baby, which was brilliant. This was very entertaining.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: MacGuffin on February 24, 2010, 11:04:17 AM
Watch this movie and win $10,000?

NEW DELHI (Reuters) - A Bollywood filmmaker has issued a lucrative challenge to horror movie fans: a $10,000 reward for anyone who can watch his latest supernatural thriller, alone, in a cinema until the closing credits.

Ram Gopal Varma's "Phoonk 2," a sequel to his 2008 film of the same name, is about an evil spirit that traumatizes a family. "Anyone who says the movie cannot scare him is going to be put in a theater by himself," Varma told reporters in Mumbai at an event to promote the movie.

Varma said the film fan who steps up to the challenge will be wired up to a heart monitoring machine as well as a camera that ensures they keep their eyes open during the whole movie.

Readings from the machines will be shown live on a screen outside the cinema, Varma said, and if the contestant succeeds, they will win 500,000 rupees (approximately $10,850).

Varma issued a similar challenge ahead of the release of the original "Phoonk" but the promotional contest was withdrawn after allegations the selection process was rigged.

Varma said the contest winner ran out 30 minutes after the film started, but newspaper reports said a film fan in the southern Indian city of Bangalore booked an entire cinema to prove the director wrong and watched the film alone with a doctor on call and security personnel stationed outside.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: RegularKarate on March 29, 2010, 01:16:22 PM
TCM is BARELY based on real events.  It's based on Ed Gein, but really it's completely fictional.  They used that crap at the beginning to pull more people in... now they do it all the time in horror movies.



Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Gold Trumpet on March 29, 2010, 02:30:40 PM
This is kind of crazy, the "interactive horror film". I have no idea what to think of it, but I imagine it would be a lot of fun to participate in.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hc_R0gXV5W0
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: squints on March 30, 2010, 09:05:20 AM
Ed Gein is basis for a ton of horror/thriller movies, from Psycho to Silence of the Lambs...any time a horror movie says "Based on a True Story" there's rarely ever any truth to it.

Except for Salo, that shits totally real.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: modage on October 05, 2010, 01:58:56 PM
(http://www.coryeverett.com/images/XIXAX/horror10.jpg)

Who else is excited?  Netflix streaming should make it easier to see more new ones than before and I'm hoping to finally review a couple more favorites in the Best Horror Thread (http://xixax.com/index.php?topic=4600.0) that I've been putting off the past few years.  I know there's a few more 10 Skull films out there.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Stefen on October 05, 2010, 02:17:59 PM
I AM!

I love this time of year. Horror movies!

I think I'm going to start with this one.

(http://galot.eu/Filme/Requiem-Poster.jpg)

Has anyone seen it?
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: RegularKarate on October 05, 2010, 02:37:43 PM
GF hadn't seen Exorcist or Candyman so we watched those on the first.
We're going to get Zombieland and The Shining out of the way next then I should start posting newer (to me) stuff here soon enough.

Super excited about October.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: squints on October 05, 2010, 03:49:17 PM
Everyone should make it a point to watch House of the Devil, if you haven't yet, this Halloween.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: modage on October 05, 2010, 04:59:37 PM
It's on Netflix Streaming and I will definitely be watching that.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: socketlevel on October 06, 2010, 01:18:47 AM
Everyone should make it a point to watch House of the Devil, if you haven't yet, this Halloween.

agreed, what a wonderful film.

it's nice to know someone is still making the kind of horror movies i grew up on.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Ghostboy on October 06, 2010, 01:21:27 AM
Ti West's new movie should be out by this time next year. It's going to be awesome.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: classical gas on October 06, 2010, 02:17:40 AM
stefen, i've seen 'requiem' and it's a good flick, but more on the level of a bergman horror film.  if that makes sense to you.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Neil on October 06, 2010, 10:06:07 AM
I watched Rob Zombie's Halloween II.  Needless to say, it was a shitty way to start out.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Pubrick on October 06, 2010, 11:41:40 AM
i wish every month had a theme as resilient as this one continues to be.

must be a cultural thing, cos halloween doesn't mean shit over here.. the association of horror to this month feels arbitrary to me and every year i am astounded by the dedication ppl show by forcing themselves to trudge through the same films again and again.

if only there was a tarkovsky month, or a bresson month, or whatever.. someone with few films so that you could easily watch them if you FORCED yourself via the same blind automation that takes place every year in october.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Ghostboy on October 06, 2010, 01:04:14 PM
It's not blind, it's just effin' fun!
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Stefen on October 06, 2010, 01:17:13 PM
October is just a fun month in the USA and Halloween kind of epitomizes it. The season is changing and it's getting colder and you're spending more time inside getting ready for winter and horror movies are always fun, but there's just something more fun about them at this time of the year.

To me it's always signaled the time when mindless summer entertainment is over and serious movie watching is set to begin again and horror movies are a nice bridge for that because it's a genre that has mindless drivel and good films.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: RegularKarate on October 06, 2010, 02:02:40 PM
Damn Stefen, you nailed it.

If I weren't so busy editing videos and preparing for my troupes third annual All-Halloween themed sketch show, I'd be watching a lot more Horror movies this week.

Friday is circled to be crammed with as many as possible though.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: squints on October 06, 2010, 02:04:42 PM
if only there was a tarkovsky month, or a bresson month, or whatever.

APRIL is the cruelest month. Maybe it should be in april.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: OrHowILearnedTo on October 06, 2010, 04:00:53 PM
Ti West's new movie should be out by this time next year. It's going to be awesome.

Speaking of Ti West, has anyone seen Cabin Fever 2? Worth checking out?
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: modage on October 09, 2010, 11:33:03 AM
(http://www.coryeverett.com/images/XIXAX/horror10.jpg)

(http://cdn-2.nflximg.com/us/boxshots/gsd/70111322.jpg)

Bad.  I actually liked Juno but Megan Fox is not Ellen Page and the dialogue here is just too much.  However, the constant Diablo Cody-isms are the least of the films problems.  As has been mentioned it's not scary, it's also just not that fun.  Which is the one thing it should have been.  Structurally it makes some extremely amateur mistakes, revealing Jennifer to be a black shit puking demon 25 minutes in to Needy, instead of drawing out the mystery a little?  And logically we're never sure what is going on.  Does Jennifer still have feelings?  Is she all demon?  Why does she go to school?  Why do boys need to be aroused for her to eat them?  Etc. etc.  I could have rewritten this movie while I was watching it and improved it by half.  Oh well.

Also: Yay, Halloween!
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: modage on October 11, 2010, 09:23:18 AM
(http://www.coryeverett.com/images/XIXAX/horror10.jpg)
From my blog (http://modage.tumblr.com/post/1291312352/nyff-the-hole):
(http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_la24uyZVRZ1qzptin.jpg)

Joe Dante started his career making independent films for Roger Corman and by 1980 had turned to the mainstream for a decade of hits: The Howling, Explorers, Innerspace, The ‘Burbs and Gremlins.  After two decades of compromises and disappointments in the studio system, Dante has returned to his indie roots with The Hole.  Two brothers and their single mom move to a new house in the ‘burbs and find their basement has a hole in it that may or may not contain evil.  (Spoiler: it does.)

The film was actually conceived and shot in 3D (which actually makes a difference), and is full of Dante hallmarks: scary dolls, Dick Miller cameo, etc.  It’s the kind of “family horror” movie that doesn’t get made anymore.  The film is basically an expanded episode of Are You Afraid Of The Dark, but because it falls between “target audiences”, it’s probably a little scary for young kids but a little juvenile for teens, the film has yet to find a distributor in the US.  It’s a shame that kids today might not get to see it because it hasn’t been completely whitewashed of anything objectionable.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: RegularKarate on October 11, 2010, 12:14:00 PM
So, I won't give a detailed review of everything I've watched so far since most of it has been really obvious stuff that's been discussed a million times here, but so far:

- Candyman: Said it before: One of my absolute favorites, watch it at least once a year.

- Exorcist: Still holds up, but it's finally stopped creeping me out.

- The New York Ripper: Okay, this is on Netflix Instant and was just a random pick this weekend.  I've read it's Fulci's most gruesome movie.  Gruesome is pretty accurate, but WEIRD is probably the word I'd use.
It's about a serial Killer who goes around new york, quacking like a duck before he kills a (usually naked) woman.  The strange thing is that I don't think the quacking is supposed to be funny.  I think it's supposed to be scary, but it sounds just like Donald Duck gets upset right before you see someone die in an absolutely disgusting way.
The movie also gets confused about who the main character is supposed to be.  We just randomly follow people loosely associated with the killer throughout the movie.
There's lots of nudity, lots of gore, and lots of out-of-sync dubbed voices (Fulci clearly doesn't care if the actor even looks like they could have the voice that's speaking for them).  It's kind of terrible, but also kind of fascinating.

- I Know What You Did Last Summer: I didn't finish it... so boring and dumb.

- The Shining: Nothing needs to be said here (except everything that continues to be said everywhere), simply the best. (though I still want to find the shorter cut)

Title: Re: Horror
Post by: mogwai on October 11, 2010, 03:09:00 PM
Would you throw "The Thing" into the thriller genre or the horror one? It seems a bit of the both but I'd chose that one to see on Halloween.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: socketlevel on October 12, 2010, 10:55:19 AM
I'd say it's horror/sci fi. and yes this should be included on halloween.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: abuck1220 on October 12, 2010, 02:51:36 PM
i watched mike nichols' wolf and it was terrible. i don't really get the point of it.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Stefen on October 12, 2010, 02:55:06 PM
^ haha That's one of the first movies I remember seeing in the theater. I was really into werewolves at the time. For Halloween, I would always be a werewolf and it would piss my mother off because I couldn't go trick or treating just rocking a mask. Nope, she had to spend hours gluing hair to my face.

EDIT: I have a pic!

My brother isn't very happy. He hated Halloween, I guess. I loved it, as you can tell. Scary as fuck.

(http://img52.imageshack.us/img52/8616/stefelliotthalloween.jpg)

Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Bethie on October 13, 2010, 01:54:08 AM
you are kidding me.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: modage on October 14, 2010, 09:15:45 AM
(http://www.coryeverett.com/images/XIXAX/horror10.jpg)

(http://cdn-8.nflximg.com/us/boxshots/gsd/60033108.jpg)

I had never seen Tremors.  And with 3 sequels and a rabid following (I guess?) I figured I had to check it out.  Basically Jaws in the desert but with 60% more comedy, there are giant worms underground that want to eat people.  Kevin Bacon leads an all-star cast that includes the little girl from Jurassic Park, the dad from Family Ties, Egg Shen from Big Trouble In Little China, Reba McEntire and Fred Ward.  I've seen giant underground worms before in Dune and Beetlejuice, so I'm kinda surprised this movie was as popular as it was.  It's fun but the worms are really not convincing at all.  I would expect better effects from 1990. 
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Pubrick on October 14, 2010, 09:47:12 AM
so this year your horror marathon is pretty much a crappy movie marathon.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: modage on October 14, 2010, 09:54:47 AM
so this year your horror marathon is pretty much a crappy movie marathon.

Haha, if you look through this thread pretty much every year I see a fair amount of shit.  That's just in search of finding something great that I've never seen.  But to hedge my bets I also rewatch some favorites/classics which balances everything out.  Those are in Best Horror.   :yabbse-grin:

Also: ATTN NYC
Scary Movies 4
October 27 – 31

In its fourth unearthly year, Scary Movies returns with an onslaught of spine-tingling premieres, rarities, and classics. See the world premiere of Village of Shadows with the director Fouad Benhammou in person! Chill to the New York premieres of Jim Mickle's fresh festival favorite Stake Land and Christopher Smith's bubonic-era Black Death. Don't miss two electrifying films from Australia’s new wave of genre mavens: James Rabbitts' The Clinic and Sean Byrne's The Loved Ones.

Rare repertory revivals include a double dose of fright from star cameraman Freddie Francis (The Creeping Flesh and Dr. Terror’s House of Horrors), as well as the classic multi-tale Dead of Night. And what Halloween would be complete without dear, dear Carrie?

http://filmlinc.com/wrt/onsale/scarymovies.html

Anyone seen/heard anything about any of the new releases here?  I'm thinking about seeing Stake Land and The Loved Ones.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: RegularKarate on October 14, 2010, 10:30:04 AM
I loved Tremors when I was a kid, but I am pretty sure it wouldn't hold up if I watched it again.

I think the original appeal was that it was low-budget and came out of nowhere.  That's why the effects weren't great.
The straight-to-video sequel was almost as good as the original... I never saw the third or forth ones.

And P, half the fun is watching crappy movies.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: socketlevel on October 14, 2010, 12:28:34 PM
I loved Tremors when I was a kid, but I am pretty sure it wouldn't hold up if I watched it again.

I think the original appeal was that it was budget and came out of nowhere.  That's why the effects weren't great.
The straight-to-video sequel was almost as good as the original... I never saw the third or forth ones.

And P, half the fun is watching crappy movies.

It holds up. It's kind of a perfect movie. Actually the first sequel has all the jokes in it, it just suffers from a poor budget.

I've been talking a lot about these kind of films with my friends recently. the horror/sci-fi/adventure/comedy. These film makers are not given the respect they deserve as it is one of the hardest genres to pull off. It's a fine balance, that could seemingly implode if done too over the top.

other films in this genre that i hold at a high calibre:

Slither
Ghostbusters
Big Trouble in Little China
Evil Dead II
Dawn of the Dead
The Thing
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Stefen on October 14, 2010, 01:08:58 PM
Slither is underrated.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: modage on October 14, 2010, 01:59:48 PM
Slither is underrated.

But does not belong in the company of those others.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Stefen on October 14, 2010, 02:05:07 PM
True. Considering a few of those are overrated. Evil Dead II I'm looking at you!
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: modage on October 14, 2010, 02:49:33 PM
No way!  That's a 10 Skull (http://xixax.com/index.php?topic=4600.msg207222#msg207222) Masterpiece.   :elitist:
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Pubrick on October 14, 2010, 03:24:50 PM
yeah evil dead 2 is probably the only evil dead that isn't overrated.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: ᾦɐļᵲʊʂ on October 14, 2010, 03:36:39 PM
I just watched The Burning (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0082118/).

(http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:hqWmiU3Cm7v3VM:http://www.scaredstiffreviews.com/images/news/The%20Burning_headliner.jpg&t=1)

A shameless blend of Nightmare on Elm Street with Friday the 13th, so HOW you ask did this series not go on?  Personally, I'm not convinced it wasn't just a spoof that was shot straight.  In fact, as I'm reading what I've typed, I'm thinking this was that.  A young unbald Jason Alexander is in it and it's written and produced by the Weinsteins.

But seriously, a camp's janitor that is covered in burns because a prank goes wrong comes back to murder each camper a week later since he's a freak and hell bent on revenge?  I mean, each of the elements is pretty textbook, so to use all of them, you're not even writing a new movie anymore.  Ugh... I'm saddened.  So, so saddened.

Actually some cool kills in it, being a slasher and all.  

SPOILER ALERT

Although he carries around gardening shears, he never actually chops anything.  At one point dices off fingers with a slice, but no chopping.  Also pins someone to a wall with the shears in a creative way, but absolutely no chopping.

Like spinning plates


Title: Re: Horror
Post by: modage on October 14, 2010, 04:24:02 PM
Haha, looks like they blended Nightmare On Elm Street 3 years before it was released.  Just another shameless premake.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: socketlevel on October 14, 2010, 04:50:01 PM
True. Considering a few of those are overrated. Evil Dead II I'm looking at you!

they're not overrated, and slither doesn't have the test of time like the others do. but it's pretty great considering it's relatively recent and this kind of fun movie isn't made anymore. it is near the bottom of my list in a sheer point scheme, but it still gets on it.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: RegularKarate on October 15, 2010, 12:17:39 PM
Slither stinks... it tried so hard to be like the others on that list and it's effort was so incredibly visible and unbearable.

Not funny, not scary... but boy did it try to be.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: ElPandaRoyal on October 15, 2010, 04:10:40 PM
Slither stinks... it tried so hard to be like the others on that list and it's effort was so incredibly visible and unbearable.

Not funny, not scary... but boy did it try to be.

I enjoyed quite a bit actually. Saw it at a horror film festival and I'm pretty sure most of the people in the audience liked it a lot too.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: modage on October 16, 2010, 09:07:29 AM
(http://www.coryeverett.com/images/XIXAX/horror10.jpg)

(http://cdn-2.nflximg.com/us/boxshots/gsd/70112022.jpg)

I've never really been a fan of the Friday The 13th films, but I can still appreciate their legacy.  This documentary basically amounts to a special feature on a DVD but it is comprehensive.  They've gotten almost everybody (sans Kevin Bacon and Corey Feldman) ever involved with the series to come back and interview about their part in the series and everyone seems to have a good sense of humor about it.  Structurally it's a little all over the place, at one point it seems like they're just burning off fun interview footage but none of the conversations are really related to each other.  But if you are a fan of the Friday The 13th series, or horror films in general this is definitely worth seeing.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: modage on October 16, 2010, 09:17:35 AM
(http://www.coryeverett.com/images/XIXAX/horror10.jpg)

(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51hylk0wxfL._SL500_AA300_.jpg)

I can remember seeing images from Mark of the Vampire in old monster books I had when I was a kid.  The film, directed by Dracula's Tod Browning, and starring Bela Lugosi was released just 4 years after Dracula.  In the film Lugosi (who has almost no dialogue) looks almost exactly as he did in Dracula, except for an unexplained bullet wound on the side of his head.  (It's never explained (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0026685/trivia?tr0721974).)  But it's Lionel Barrymore who has top billing, as the Van Helsing-esque character trying to track down the vampire.  The film basically moves along like a more comedic (and much more boring) version of Dracula until the film takes a switch about 3/4's of the way through. SPOILERS (BUT SERIOUSLY, DO YOU CARE?) It's revealed that there aren't vampires, everyone is an actor trying to get an actual murderer to try to re-create his crime through some bizarre hypnosis.  It's really a terribly thought out twist thats meant to pull the rug out from the audience in the cheapest way.  There are many scenes of characters reacting to the vampire with the supposed murderer nowhere near them, so why would they be doing this?  END SPOILERS I was wondering why I'd never seen this film and the two reasons are: it's MGM, not Universal who did all the major monster movies of the 30's, and that it's not very good.  Thankfully it's only 60 minutes long!
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Reelist on October 16, 2010, 03:42:58 PM
Anyone see this yet?
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51ahwQWiKNL.jpg)

it was pretty dope. A comprehensive look at the development of horror movies through the years/why we like them and how they have come to make their mark in our society at this point. I liked it because I always enjoyed that special on Bravo! "Scariest movie moments" but I watched all of them and was sick of hearing celebrities go on about how scary a movie was, and really blow smoke up the genre's ass. This one is more in-depth and showed a lot of clips from lesser known films that I really wanna see now!
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: modage on October 17, 2010, 09:01:18 AM
(http://www.coryeverett.com/images/XIXAX/horror10.jpg)

(http://cdn-6.nflximg.com/us/boxshots/gsd/949166.jpg)

Wes Craven's attempt at a different sort of film, it's not really horror, more of a voodoo mystery "inspired by true events".  Bill Pullman plays an anthropologist sent to Haiti looking for some powder that supposedly brings people back from the dead.  I was surprised at how good the film was (for about 2/3rds of it).  Craven was applying his skills to a different kind of film and the results were engaging and not as dated as you might expect.  But the last act of the film starts to unravel as it seems like the studio decided they didn't want a different kind of Wes Craven film and asked him to reshoot the ending like a horror movie.  It even looks like it was filmed on a set where the rest of the film looks like they were actually in Haiti.  Still, not a total waste.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: modage on October 17, 2010, 09:06:33 AM
(http://www.coryeverett.com/images/XIXAX/horror10.jpg)

(http://cdn-4.nflximg.com/us/boxshots/gsd/60020864.jpg)

This is another vampire I'd seen in one of my monster books when I was a kid that I finally got to check out thanks to Netflix streaming.  Set and released in 1970 the film is kind of like an American cousin to late period Hammer films (like Dracula A.D. 1972 (http://xixax.com/index.php?topic=1274.msg282605#msg282605)).  It's also got some very 70's auteur filmmaking flourishes, long walking and talking shots filmed from across the street, zooms, a non-steady cam.  It's an interesting hybrid of a completely outdated Dracula model (Halloween costume and all) with a modern 70's LA feel.  And it's not too bad either.  Altman/Allen regular Michael Murphy (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0614526/) definitely lifts the film a few notches with his sarcasm and Udo Kier doppleganger Robert Quarry makes a good Dracula/Yorga.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: modage on October 17, 2010, 09:15:22 AM
(http://www.coryeverett.com/images/XIXAX/horror10.jpg)

(http://cdn-7.nflximg.com/us/boxshots/gsd/70119457.jpg)

Ugh.  Serviceable but boring.  It's amazing to think that these movies are being remade by people who have NO IDEA what made them work in the first place.  It's bad, but not in the ways I was expecting.  

You would think, if you are remaking something you might do it the same, because it worked the first time, right?  But maybe there are certain changes that should be made in order to make it BETTER, or more palatable to todays audiences, otherwise WHY change it, right?  Well, I have no idea what fucking thoughts were running through the heads of these idiot screenwriters because they seem to be just changing things left and right not aware of how it's going to affect the end result.  (It made it worse.)  And why did they make this about coming to terms with child molestation?  Did they think that was actually WORSE than a child murderer?

Jackie Earle Haley is wrong for the part, it just does not work.  If they ever bring this character back, I hope they get Robert Englund.  He had the body language, the voice, he WAS Freddy.  Jackie is too short and awkward, (sorry dude.)  I don't know what to say about Rooney Mara as Nancy except I hope Fincher knows what he's doing casting her because she is a void in this film.  Completely passive, mumbly and a complete screen non-presence.  

In order of blame, I'd go:

1. Screenwriters (for ruining it.)
2. Director (for making it worse.)
3. Producers (for making it.)

Fuck those people.  In that order.

Freddy vs. Jason was the best reboot of both characters.  I don't know why Platinum Dunes had to go and ruin it by making both of the franchises boring.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: abuck1220 on October 18, 2010, 10:10:59 AM
i watched the 1933 version of the invisible man and i liked it...i don't think i had ever seen it before. i love those old stories from my days of reading pocket classics (anyone?), so it was kind of nostalgic.

also watched the hammer films production blood from the mummy's tomb on tcm. it was kinda stupid, but holy smokes valerie leon was absolutely gorgeous. wow.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: modage on October 18, 2010, 04:37:09 PM
(http://www.coryeverett.com/images/XIXAX/horror10.jpg)

(http://cdn-7.nflximg.com/us/boxshots/gsd/70114337.jpg)

Dominic Monaghan and Larry Fessenden are graverobbers who encounter the supernatural (as well as Ron Perlman and Angus Scrimm).  The film is super super low budget from the looks of it, but not in a shaky DV cam kinda way.  The sets, costumes, actors are all good but the film has a staginess that just reminded me of TV.  (Except TV doesn't even look like this anymore!  TV looks like movies.)  It's a cute film, and the setup has some really strong potential but I'm not sure the director was able to bring it out.  If this had been directed by, say, an 80's-era Sam Raimi it could have really been something special. 
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: modage on October 18, 2010, 04:44:19 PM
(http://www.coryeverett.com/images/XIXAX/horror10.jpg)

(http://cdn-0.nflximg.com/us/boxshots/gsd/70121740.jpg)

This is one of the first movies I've seen that I would actually qualify as "torture porn", it's dark and ugly but also completely preposterous.  The Collector breaks into someones house and ties them up to torture them.  But ALSO booby traps the ENTIRE house (in the event someone else comes home?)  He also seems to pick his victims for no reason whatsoever and there is nothing he wants from them.  He will "collect" only one of them and kill the rest, as we are told by someone previously collected.  Again, we have no idea why.  Nor why he would go to such lengths to booby trap the house like Hannibal Lecter's Home Alone when he had no problem taking everyone hostage in the first place.  And the whole thing pulses with a low bass soundtrack and dark shiny visuals.  (Yeah, dude.  I saw Se7en too, but I don't think you got it.)  I had a newfound respect for Eli Roth watching this.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: modage on October 20, 2010, 09:15:28 AM
(http://www.coryeverett.com/images/XIXAX/horror10.jpg)

(http://cdn-4.nflximg.com/us/boxshots/gsd/70123094.jpg)

After watching Inside last year during our Horror Marathon weekend and being completely disgusted (http://xixax.com/index.php?topic=1274.msg282606#msg282606), my dad and I decided that we would try to watch 1 of these films a year.  One that was truly awful and tested the limits of our viewing.  As soon as I heard about Human Centipede, I knew what we would be watching this year.  I had heard from a few people that had seen it that it wasn't that bad, so I started to think that perhaps the film, knowing its ridiculous conceit (100% medically accurate or not), might allow the audience in on a little bit of a laugh.  I had also figured that the film would be a lot of buildup and near escapes and the actual centipede would be built probably 15 minutes before the end.  I was wrong on both counts.

The film is dark, serious and doesn't allow the audience any moments of levity.  Never winks, never lets you out of this nightmare.  Additionally the centipede gets built halfway through.  I wondered aloud what the hell they were going to do with the other 45 minutes of the film.  I found out.  It was disgusting.  It's not scary, it's not fun, it's just sick.  It's not badly done though.  The actor who plays the doctor, (Dieter Laser!) deserves an Oscar because I believed every moment of his performance.  The film doesn't wallow in gore either, showing only a few moments of the actual operation.  The most unnerving part is just seeing the centipede itself and trying to keep your lunch down.  (Side note: if you order a pizza when the movie starts, it will arrive right when they feed the centipede.  I do not recommend doing this.)  The climax is a bit of a let down and I have no idea how they'll make a sequel to this but I wont be seeing it.

Title: Re: Horror
Post by: modage on October 24, 2010, 09:23:51 AM
(http://www.coryeverett.com/images/XIXAX/horror10.jpg)

(http://cdn-0.nflximg.com/en_US/boxshots/gsd/70135890.jpg)

Thanks to Reelist (http://xixax.com/index.php?topic=1274.msg297279#msg297279) for the recommendation.  This definitely reminds me of a History Channel type special, not an actual documentary but it does a good job of framing horror history in a historical context.  It has some good interviews with the usual horror directors and does a good job up through about 1980.  Then it starts to jump back and forth chronologically and has a harder time finding any particular movements through the 80's and 90's to attribute to the genre.  It also unforgivably skips a few films (like An American Werewolf In London?) but is still a fun viewing overall.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: modage on October 24, 2010, 10:38:25 AM
(http://www.coryeverett.com/images/XIXAX/horror10.jpg)

(http://cdn-1.nflximg.com/en_US/boxshots/gsd/70129461.jpg)

What a great little movie!  A really smart little thriller and probably the biggest surprise of the season.  It's the sort of contained premise that is perfect for an indie movie but can easily be done so poorly.  Three friends are stranded on the ski lift for what could be a week until it re-opens.  From there they must decide how to get down or face death.  The cast and script are both unexpectedly good.  Usually movies in this genre to cast a "type" but the trio here are three dimensional characters.  The film was also shot on location on a freezing, 50 foot high, ski lift and you can tell.  The film has great suspense and I found myself actually talking to the screen during several scenes.  It's a shame more people didn't get to see this after it was pretty well received at Sundance and Butt-Numb-A-Thon.  I've never seen any of writer/director Adam Green's other movies but I'm going to definitely seek them out now.  HIGHLY RECOMMENDED.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: modage on October 28, 2010, 09:44:27 AM
(http://www.coryeverett.com/images/XIXAX/horror10.jpg)
From my blog (http://modage.tumblr.com/post/1423830141/stake-land):
(http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lb06t1HniK1qzptin.jpg)

The opening night selection for FilmLinc’s annual Scary Movies festival (http://modage.tumblr.com/post/1314994796/filmlinc-scary-movies-4), Stake Land is a post-apocalyptic coming-of-age vampire western.  Another one of those.  The film opens with a dark action sequence (involving baby death, frowny face), that leads you to believe the film will be a thrilling uncompromisingly dark ride.  But someone puts the breaks on and the film becomes a road movie with the mysterious badass named “Mister”, helping the orphaned teenager learn to survive in a world plagued with vampires.  These vampires are completely mindless animals, more like zombies with sharper teeth, and almost leads you to wonder “why do a vampire film at all?”

“Mister” is also the co-writer of the film, so you can see he’s tried to give himself a real Charles Bronson/Clint Eastwood part but the film sags a bit around him.  The films pace allows for ponderous narration and shots of the characters moving through the desolate landscape as well as a dreamy score that borrowed from Nick Cave & Warren Ellis Assassination of Jesse James soundtrack’s “Song For Jesse (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_CpOQxA0gJ4)”.  There is also some religious fanatacism and obvious symbolism with the teens first staking coinciding with him becoming a man, but I feel like I’ve seen it all before.  From Near Dark to The Road to this year’s Daybreakers, these elements are well worn and I’m not sure Stake Land was able to make something new with them.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: tpfkabi on October 28, 2010, 10:07:28 AM
is it ok to just talk Horror on here?

anyone have an opinion on the various cuts of Halloween 2?

i've watched some of them on AMC this week. i guess the original is the only one i've ever seen unedited.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Ghostboy on October 28, 2010, 06:50:33 PM
I've been watching a lot of old scary movies this October, plus a few new ones that showed up on Netflix instant. Most of which have been bad (lookin' at you, THE BURROWERS) but one of which was pretty great, albeit in an unexpected way...

       (http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:jQiW7L2S8F5XKM:http://www.musingcontinuum.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/lake-mungo.jpg&t=1)

Has anyone seen this? It's another haunted house documentary using surveillance footage - in fact, for the first forty minutes, it follows the plot of Paranormal Activity fairly closely. But it's done in a completely different style, almost like an Errol Morris documentary, and it's pretty damn scary. The most terrifying part isn't even one of the 'ghosts-caught-on-camera' scenes, but one in which a character describes something that happened. Listening to his retelling is pretty horrifying, because we believe him - which is where this movie really works. It really convinces us that this family is real, and there's a strong emotional connection that isn't there in other films of this ilk. There aren't any 'gotcha' moments, but the atmosphere and creepiness and sadness of it all really hit home nicely. I had to stop watching it the first time I started it, late at night, and finished it the next morning.

Admittedly, it does almost jump the shark at one point, and there are a few things that don't add up, but still - a really strong take on this sort of material, and really scary in unexpected ways.

It's available on Netflix Instant and I'd say it's definitely worth a look.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: ᾦɐļᵲʊʂ on October 28, 2010, 11:26:41 PM
Growing up, I had always seen the cover to Jason Goes To Hell at rental stores, but I never bothered with it because it's, I believe, the ninth.  Having only ever seen the first two and hearing abysmal reviews of the rest (though some defend three and four, but quite loosely), I decided against it.

Well thanks to modern technology a la Netflix, I saw this gem was on Watch Instantly, so I tried it out.  Emphasis on "tried."

This movie grinds every possible gear that it can, exhausting all possible logic and essentially punches every single fan in the face, as far as I can tell.  Unless this was supposed to be a hokey, campy self-spoof.  Which I somehow get the feeling it wasn't, but how could it not be?  It's the fucking ninth one in the series.

For those who aren't in the know, the movie begins with a woman going out to the notorious camp of which many of the Friday the 13th's occur.  She looks young and of her generation, style and hair wise.  She sets up a bath and before she can get in, Jason shows up and chases her into the woods where suddenly a bunch of flood lights* go up and dozens of SWAT team agents burst out of the woods and riddle Jason with bullets until he explodes**.  His heart continues beating.  The coroner doing the autopsy examines this still beating heart and just can't resist himself and he eats the still beating heart of Jason***.

If that doesn't make you want to see the movie, then that's a good sign.  This movie is arduous to sit through and there is very little redeeming value to this.  Not that you'd expect the 9th in a series of anything to truly revitalize its spirit and push it in a new, unexplored direction, but this movie is particularly rife with "Did they seriously just do that?"'s and "I don't think I understand the connection or logic of this scene or the entirety of this film as a cohesive narrative whole"'s. 

* - Seriously.  The Jason bait is some young looking undercover agent who gets naked to take a bath and be chased by this all too predictable character.  I had trouble making sense of this and I'm still having trouble with it.  Knowing Jason is in the woods and not being about to comb the woods for him but knowing where to place an agent to take a bath to lure him out by herself -- not even in the context of camp counselors -- this is a woman bathing in the middle of the night in an abandoned camp. 

** - Seriously.

*** - The only explanation I could find here as to WHY he eats Jason's heart is that it somehow hypnotizes him to do that.  Of course, even in the worst horror/sci-fi movies where leaps of faith are needed to be taken by the audience, the heart just beats on the slab while the coroner sorts out the leftover pieces from exploded Jason.  As the heart beats, he looks at it, some creative sound design implies he's paying attention to it and without any sort of further explanation such as... A) the heart can hypnotize people into eating it, B) the coroner is imbalanced and unprofessional enough to eat a beating heart, which also calls to how ineffective he is at his job, considering a still beating heart should be a scientific curiosity that could lead to understanding something about the human anatomy we may never fully comprehend, but his first instinct is to take a huge bite out of it and lastly, C) by eating the heart of Jason, special red lights, perhaps demonic, will fill your body and you will instantly become the next Jason incarnate.   Now, it was my understanding that Jason was just a kid who was killed by irresponsible camp counselors and maybe this was explained in a previous Friday the 13th and maybe it was even explained later in this drill-to-the-frontal-lobe disguised as a movie, but if you can manage: avoid ever seeing this.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: polkablues on October 29, 2010, 02:22:08 AM
(http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d179/polkablues/horrorbanner.gif)

(http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d179/polkablues/Descent2.jpg)
The Descent: Part 2

The original Descent topped my list of favorite horror movies of the 2OOOs, so when I saw that the sequel was available on Netflix Instant, I figured what the hell.  I was not hugely disappointed.

The movie picks up quite literally where the last one left off, with grieving-mother-turned-badass-caveboy-killer Sarah having just escaped her ordeal.  Shauna Macdonald's intense performance was a huge part of what made the first film memorable, and her presence in this one is made even more valuable by the fact that there are a lot of weak links to the new cast.  The exception is Australian actress Anna Skellern, who is not only a tasty treat to look at, she also proves herself a strongly nuanced actor, particularly in one sequence that really captures the claustrophobic dread of the original film.  The biggest non-exception is the guy who played the sheriff, whose name I can't be bothered to find out but who might be Brian Dennehy's long-lost twin brother, whose acting ability was entirely absorbed by Brian in the womb.  He was just awful.

In typical sequel form, they eschewed the slow-building tension of the first film for balls-to-the-wall caveboy killing frenzy, with long lingering closeups of the creatures throughout, in some of the most brightly-lit pitch dark I've seen since Silence of the Lambs.  The sequel definitely wants to be the Aliens to the original's Alien, and largely succeeds at that.  It's a different enough animal that it doesn't seem too repetitive or unnecessary (though I wouldn't try watching the two back-to-back), and the fill-in director apes Neil Marshall's style well enough that it feels continuous.

After an initial ten minutes or so that had me worried, the movie definitely had me along for the ride.  It can't touch the original film, but it can stand alongside it without feeling ashamed of itself, right up until the bizarre and pointless last-second twist that had me baffled.  But on the whole, it's a recommend. 

On a side note, this flick had the pinkest fake blood I've ever seen outside a Dario Argento movie.  It was a weird choice for something that's more gritty realism than grand guignol.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Stefen on October 29, 2010, 03:03:32 AM
haha love the banner. didn't read the review. got shit to do.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: squints on October 29, 2010, 11:45:11 AM
On a side note, this flick had the pinkest fake blood I've ever seen outside a Dario Argento movie.  It was a weird choice for something that's more gritty realism than grand guignol.

While workin on a little short film my friend was working on he said he wanted the blood to be more orangish like in a Dario Argento moive..."I want the blood to look like its from that period." and in response i said "Oh so you want more period blood? Gotcha."



       (http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:jQiW7L2S8F5XKM:http://www.musingcontinuum.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/lake-mungo.jpg&t=1)

based on your recommendation i watched this last night. so...

spoiler:

What part are you pointing at that "almost jumps the shark?" Is it when the brother reveals he faked all the early ghost footage? And also...so are we assuming the girl killed herself in the lake? There's really no explanation for why she just drowned. After they find her cell phone the film is essentially over and i coulda done without the tidying up of things at the end. Oh well, it was better in some ways than paranormal activity and the faux-documentary is done extremely well...thanks for the recommendation!
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: MacGuffin on October 29, 2010, 12:00:21 PM
didn't read the review. got shit to do.

Xixax.com: Suitable bathroom reading material.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Ghostboy on October 29, 2010, 01:05:54 PM
What part are you pointing at that "almost jumps the shark?"

The stuff with the neighbor. It serves its purpose, but as far as narrative logic go, it comes out of nowhere and is then dropped with a handy "the moved away six months later and were never heard from again."

The stuff with the brother was actually ingenious, I thought.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: squints on November 01, 2010, 09:53:39 PM
just avoid the trailers and await a US release datemake.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Stefen on November 02, 2010, 01:55:39 AM
Gotta hand it to you, mod. You had a pretty epic month in terms of viewings.  :bravo:
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: modage on November 02, 2010, 10:53:07 AM
Thanks!  Yeah, the last few years have been a little slow because my girlfriend isn't into horror movies so I have been strategically exposing her to ones I think she might like so she doesn't reject them outright, as well as making time for me to watch the stuff she'll hate by myself.  I actually watched a few favorites (Aliens, Night of the Living Dead) I wanted to review for Best Horror but just didn't have the time.   :yabbse-undecided:
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: ᾦɐļᵲʊʂ on November 02, 2010, 01:30:06 PM
I miss the 10 skull ratings, though.  It made them seem official.

Title: Re: Horror
Post by: modage on November 02, 2010, 01:51:07 PM
I know.  Well I only did them for movies I was re-reviewing that were my favorites, never for movies I was seeing for the first time.  I fully intended to do them for Night of the Living Dead and Aliens which I rewatched this year, I just ran out of time.  They took so long to do with the screenshots and everything.  Maybe I'll still get around to it.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: RegularKarate on November 02, 2010, 01:58:15 PM
I completely failed at this endeavor.  I thought having someone that likes horror movies with me would encourage me to watch more, but I was just too busy.  

Halloween night, I did end up seeing both "The Car" and "Chopping Mall" for my weekly bad movie night.

"The Car" looked promising as a bad movie.  It pre-dates Christine and is loaded with bad 70's low-budget filmmaking.  It was super boring though.  The kills are almost all poorly edited to cover up the lack of stunt-work and special effects required to show a car killing people and you never really find anything out about the car other than it's haunted.

"Chopping Mall" on the other hand is a grade A bad movie.  Full of bad acting, horror cliches, and really forced 80s dialog.  The movie is called "Chopping Mall", but there is NO chopping, instead, it's about security robots that get hit by lightning, turn evil, and kill a mall full of partying teenagers.  Like a horror version of Short Circuit.  So fun and shitty.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: modage on November 02, 2010, 02:15:55 PM
Did you watch The Walking Dead yet?
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: RegularKarate on November 02, 2010, 02:21:02 PM
Did you watch The Walking Dead yet?

DVRd... will be watching tonight I think.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Gamblour. on November 05, 2010, 08:27:29 AM
So this is one I feel very late getting on the bandwagon for, but holy shit.

DEAD ALIVE!

I just saw it the other night and I could not believe what disgusting genius I was witnessing. I mean, why would anyone even bother making zombie comedy/horror after that!? They fucking nail it. The story is shit, sure, but every single bit with the gore is so abundantly creative that it was just a (nauseating) pleasure to watch.

I gagged about 5 times while watching it, but I think this is one of my favorite movies of all time. Absolutely fucking brilliant.

Curiously, I noticed some strange similarities between this film and District 9: the wide-eyed, boyish, naive protagonist who doesn't want to hurt anybody, who by the end is a disgusting mess (that's a stretch, but still). And that Peter Jackson got involved with D9 makes the connection even more interesting.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Reelist on February 10, 2011, 07:55:03 AM
so I'm watching this movie Kingdom of the Spiders this morning on IFC, and everytime this Piano cue comes up when something scary happens I can't help but recognize it from being used in another movie.

It's the same sound you near the beginning of this trailer at 00:06 and 00:13 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TEutHPsF548 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TEutHPsF548)

Someone else has got to know where this is from! Or else it's going to bother me all day, thanks...
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Pubrick on February 10, 2011, 08:00:41 AM
not sure which bit you're talking about.. everything in that trailer sounds like standard cheap musical effects.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: socketlevel on February 10, 2011, 10:17:22 AM
are you talking about the high piano notes? it does sound familiar but i don't think it's actually stolen.

I went to see "the way back" this weekend and one of the trailers before it started used part of the goblin's suspiria soundtrack. It was pretty boss hearing it in a non-horror film.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJUaCAIxSk4
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: modage on February 10, 2011, 10:25:18 AM
I went to see "the way back" this weekend and one of the trailers before it started used part of the goblin's suspiria soundtrack. It was pretty boss hearing it in a non-horror film.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJUaCAIxSk4
It was for Jane Eyre. (http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/1810161778/video/22939910)
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: ᾦɐļᵲʊʂ on August 29, 2011, 11:31:10 PM
Last year, in honor of Halloween, I embarked on watching 31 Horror Films.  The theme was horror films that had been remade, but the list was comprised of the originals.  For the most part, they're better.  Though in the case of The Fly or The Thing, both are great in their own ways.  I can post the list I watched if anyone is interested.  I mostly used my own DVD's staggered with Netflix releases and Watch Instantly material.

This October, my plan is to do the sequel to the marathon.  I'm going to watch 31 Number Two's (yes, I recognize the inherent poop joke.)  I realize it's only going to be September soon, but I need some help putting a list together from anyone who can help either add to my list or recommend I avoid any or make sure not to miss. 

So far, I have two rules:

#1: No direct to DVD sequels, I want to see movies that were intended for the mass public to go to a theater and potentially be wowed by (exception to this rule: Cabin Fever 2.  I loved House of the Devil and haven't seen this, and I've been hearing it's great. I don't think it had a theatrical release.  If you can justify any direct to DVD sequels to me, they will be considered)
#2: It has to end in #2.  The gimmick of this whole ordeal is that striking sound of 2, the implication of continuation from the first, not like a new story as in Return of, Revenge of, or something like I STILL Know What You Did Last Summer)

Sequel Pool
(your help in culling this list is much appreciated)

Hills Have Eyes 2
Evil Dead 2
Troll 2
Friday the 13th 2
Halloween 2
Psycho 2
Exorcist 2
Poltergeist 2
Leprechaun 2
Slumber Party Massacre 2
Sleepaway Camp 2
Nightmare On Elm Street 2
Paranormal Activity 2
Pumpkinhead 2
Ghoulies 2
Critters 2
Puppet Master 2
Hellraiser 2
Species 2
The Fly 2
Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2
Candyman 2
Silent Night, Deadly Night 2
Relic 2
Mimic 2
Scream 2
Omen 2
House 2
It's Alive 2
Hatchet 2
Hostel 2
Saw 2
Child's Play 2
Children of the Corn 2
REC 2
Howling 2
Basket Case 2
Cabin Fever 2
Jaws 2
C.H.U.D. 2
Ring 2
Grudge 2
Blair Witch Project 2
Final Destination 2

(some of these may be direct to DVD sequels that have been recommended but I'm otherwise iffy on and need help deciding and/or I'm not sure if they were direct to DVD or not)

Suggestions are welcome, then by the end of September, I'll arrange it into the top 31 and will prepare for the ride of my life.  I encourage all who have the constitutional fortitude to join me.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: john on August 30, 2011, 12:08:49 AM
Some of those are assuredly direct-to-video. I'm sure you can narrow the list down a bit further with a bit of research but, off the top of my head, Pumpkinhead 2 was a DTV release. Puppet Master 2 was also direct-to-video... but so was the first one (though the original was intended for a theatrical release). I don't think Mimic 2 got a theatrical release, either... but I could be wrong.

Depending on how many of these you've actually seen from this list, you're gonna be in for some pleasant surprises.

There's the Scorsese-approved Exorcist 2, and the fantastical shifts in genre that occur in both Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2 and Slumber Party Massacre 2 (not as competent as TCM 2, but commendably bat shit insane).

There's the less-underrated-every-year Psycho 2... which is actually very watchable and really well done.

I'll update this post if I can actually think of any new titles to contribute. Sounds like a fun/exhausting October.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: ᾦɐļᵲʊʂ on August 30, 2011, 02:25:49 AM
Yeah, I'm loosely adhering to the DTV rule.  I mostly just wanted to have an excuse to weed out dreadful shlock fests.  But in my mind now, those that are DTV are just on the chopping block more than ones that weren't, when it comes time to whittling it all down to a solid 31.  It may sound like an exhausting October, but it's actually really fun because I usually end up watching them with friends.  A lot of my cinephile friends love the idea and helped compile the list and I imagine we'll be doing a few of these as double or triple features, so it's not like I'll be watching one for sure every day.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Reelist on September 21, 2011, 12:32:46 AM
so I'm watching this movie Kingdom of the Spiders this morning on IFC, and everytime this Piano cue comes up when something scary happens I can't help but recognize it from being used in another movie.

It's the same sound you near the beginning of this trailer at 00:06 and 00:13 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TEutHPsF548 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TEutHPsF548)

Someone else has got to know where this is from! Or else it's going to bother me all day, thanks...

I figured out the sound I was thinking of, its from Dumb and Dumber:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bK1X3XxfT90&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bK1X3XxfT90&feature=related)


when he looks at his watch. this is totally irrelevant, has nothing to do with nothing.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: tpfkabi on September 21, 2011, 01:17:18 AM
Several years ago a friend told me a story about a kid getting picked on. For whatever reason I always thought "now that is a reason someone would want to take revenge." Most serial killer movies have some explanation of an event from youth to make you understand why they might be that way.

So I'm asking, what movies are there where someone is picked on in school and then takes revenge on those people later in life?

I'm thinking there are more than I even realize, so if that is the case think of the best made versions of this storyline.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Sleepless on September 21, 2011, 06:09:18 AM
I'm actually working on a horror movie script right now, specifically a "psychological ghost story." Very quiet, very visual, slowly peeling back the layers and escalating the horror element of it all. I'm not sure what other movies have a similar tone to what I'm attempting (although I'm sure there must be several at least).

From memory, The Orphanage had a nice tone and pace which mixed the paranormal with the psychological (and forgotten memories, which is another element of my script). Does anyone have any other suggestions that I should check out?
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: MacGuffin on September 21, 2011, 08:31:21 AM
So I'm asking, what movies are there where someone is picked on in school and then takes revenge on those people later in life?

Let the Right One In
Carrie
Sometime's They Come Back
Elephant
Dazed and Confused
Mean Creak
Bad Santa
The Karate Kid
Back to the Future
Teen Wolf

Bully is a good one, but it doesn't deal with school
In Welcome to the Dollhouse, she doesn't quite take revenge.



Sleepers
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: RegularKarate on September 21, 2011, 11:41:41 AM
I'm actually working on a horror movie script right now, specifically a "psychological ghost story." Very quiet, very visual, slowly peeling back the layers and escalating the horror element of it all. I'm not sure what other movies have a similar tone to what I'm attempting (although I'm sure there must be several at least).

Don't Look Now
The Innocents


Let the Right One In
Carrie
Sometime's They Come Back
Elephant
Dazed and Confused
Mean Creak
Bad Santa
The Karate Kid
Back to the Future
Teen Wolf
With the exception of Sometimes They Come Back, none of those fit the  "later in life" criteria.  They're all movies where people get revenge at the same point in life.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Reelist on September 21, 2011, 02:47:51 PM
I know! I messed up. Sry Big ideas! ( your new name is stupid )
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: polkablues on September 21, 2011, 05:22:37 PM
I'm actually working on a horror movie script right now, specifically a "psychological ghost story." Very quiet, very visual, slowly peeling back the layers and escalating the horror element of it all. I'm not sure what other movies have a similar tone to what I'm attempting (although I'm sure there must be several at least).

From memory, The Orphanage had a nice tone and pace which mixed the paranormal with the psychological (and forgotten memories, which is another element of my script). Does anyone have any other suggestions that I should check out?

The Devil's Backbone
The Eye (original, not Alba)
There's another one I watched on Netflix a little while ago that I can't remember the name of off the top of my head; it starred Andy Serkis and Jamie Bell and was about World War I soldiers. Not a great movie, but it had a really nice build of tension that might be the sort of thing you're looking for.

EDIT: Looked it up, it was called Deathwatch.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: tpfkabi on September 21, 2011, 07:51:06 PM
Let the Right One In
Carrie
Sometime's They Come Back
Elephant
Dazed and Confused
Mean Creak
Bad Santa
The Karate Kid
Back to the Future
Teen Wolf
With the exception of Sometimes They Come Back, none of those fit the  "later in life" criteria.  They're all movies where people get revenge at the same point in life.

Yeah, thanks for the response, but that's what I was thinking. I'm also thinking pure horror/slasher type films.
Haven't seen Sometimes They Come Back, but reading about it there did seem to be a later payback.
Kill Bill/The Bride Wore Black have the format of person taking revenge one person at a time because of an earlier traumatizing event, yet both events happen in adulthood and I can't remember how many years pass between the event/revenge.

///unrelated to my quest horror comment///

When's the last time you saw or even heard of The Good Son?
I haven't seen that come on TV in forever. I kinda want to see it again.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Reelist on September 22, 2011, 01:31:48 AM
I can't figure out who's more important to respond to, you or Sleepless? Who's writing the script here? Are you writing a script or just looking to reenact  some childhood trauma? j/k..


No one's brought up the Good Son in awhile and I don't think I've seen it since I was about 13. Macauly Culkin in that movie is definitely qualified for the " Shit in movies that scared you as a kid " category. His make-shift rifle and his treefort?!? The kids smoking when he's like ten years old ( seeing kids smoking always freaked me out as a kid ) and on top of it all, he's just a rat-bastard. I don't think I've liked him as much in anything since.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: tpfkabi on September 22, 2011, 11:49:14 AM
There is no connection.
Just remembered Terror Train which I saw on TV for the first time just a few months ago. It has the revenge storyline 3 years after a traumatic event set in college.

I guess this is 'research.' I have scenes/films in my head but need a thread to make a coherent story. I'm really not wanting to have the Laurie Strode/Sidney Prescott(sp?) to tie the deaths together or guide the story or the revenger guide the story like Kill Bill/Bride. More the killer who has little screen time like the original Halloween. So I'm looking for movies that fit these criteria to see how they fit it all together.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Pubrick on September 22, 2011, 12:03:53 PM
Fuck horror.

Man I am not looking forward to the month coming up where you force yourselves to watch way too many films from this one section of the video shop. Look if they were that good you would have watched the movies at some other point in the year OK, let alone you're whole life.

And if you really give a fuck about this bullshit gimmick month coming up you really shouldn't wait for an arbitrary date to do such a supposedly essential thing. OK? It's like when people watch movies by a certain director or actor after they die, or read a book by a just dead author.

It's phoney.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: RegularKarate on September 22, 2011, 12:47:14 PM
Fuck horror.

Man I am not looking forward to the month coming up where you force yourselves to watch way too many films from this one section of the video shop. Look if they were that good you would have watched the movies at some other point in the year OK, let alone you're whole life.

And if you really give a fuck about this bullshit gimmick month coming up you really shouldn't wait for an arbitrary date to do such a supposedly essential thing. OK? It's like when people watch movies by a certain director or actor after they die, or read a book by a just dead author.

It's phoney.

What a strange way to attack people having fun.
Fair enough... you don't like horror and hope that people who enjoy something are miserable because you don't enjoy that same thing.

How is it "phoney" though?  Why watch any movie at any time?  Sometimes the mood strikes to watch something specific.

Anyway.  I'll stick to doing things I like.  Dr. Grumples can keep grumpin.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Reelist on September 22, 2011, 01:32:42 PM
oh man, P's getting so mad! Horror is my favorite genre, but I don't go out of my way to make a point of it every October by watching everything I can get my hands on. I just really enjoy it because there are always a lot of Horror movies on Tv, i.e. something to watch on Tv that doesn't suck balls.

Stefen put it best:


October is just a fun month in the USA and Halloween kind of epitomizes it. The season is changing and it's getting colder and you're spending more time inside getting ready for winter and horror movies are always fun, but there's just something more fun about them at this time of the year.

To me it's always signaled the time when mindless summer entertainment is over and serious movie watching is set to begin again and horror movies are a nice bridge for that because it's a genre that has mindless drivel and good films.


Maybe you just don't get it because Australia doesn't have seasons?
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: polkablues on September 22, 2011, 02:52:11 PM
And if your frisbee lands in P's yard one more time, he's keeping it!
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: RegularKarate on October 04, 2011, 12:10:04 PM
Well, we chased Mod off so this year won't be as fun, but since I got a head start with Fantastic Fest, I'll brace myself for P-hate and get this rolling:

See other threads for Paranormal Activity 3 and Human Centipede 2.

(http://www.dreadcentral.com/img/news/jun11/glooms.jpg)
PENUMBRA
Adrian Garcia Bogliano, Ramiro Garcia Bogliano - Argentina - 2011

A realtor shows an apartment to a man who is renting it for a cult ritual during an eclipse.
Won't waste too much time with this one.  Ten minute short film made into a full length feature.  Boring.  Skip it.

(http://www.horroryearbook.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/lividposter.jpg)
Livid
Julien Maury, Alexandre Bustillo - France - 2010

A young healthcare worker comes across an elderly woman living in a mansion thought to contain a treasure inside.  Her friends convince her they should break in and steal this treasure... like in most movies with this set-up, the plan goes swimmingly and they all become rich.
I was with this movie for about thirty minutes.  It's very visually engaging.  A pretty girl being surrounded by very creepy images.
Unfortunately, the story is a zero.  It makes little sense and after the initial introduction to the creepy mansion, the rest of the scares are cheap jump scares that usually don't work.  Eventually, it starts to feel like a Marilyn Manson music video.

(http://www.latinoreview.com/images/upload/1303771798_image_SleepTightPoster.jpg)
Sleep Tight
Jaume Balagueró - Spain - 2011

The only thing that keeps the doorman at an apartment complex from committing suicide is making other people unhappy.  He goes to great lengths to do this, including lying under your bed until you fall asleep then chloroforming you so you don't wake up while he slowly ruins your life.
I haven't seen either of the REC movies this director made, but from what I understand, this is a very different kind of movie.  I would probably put it more under the "Thriller" category, but it's creepy enough to call "Horror" too.
I really liked this one.  It's that classic game of getting you to root for a complete psycho before realizing that you're a horrible person for wanting this guy to succeed.  Once you realize how awful he is, it's kind of too late to turn on him.

(http://images1.variety.com/graphics/photos/reviewl/rlast_screening.jpg)
Last Screening
Laurent Achard - France - 2011

After the last show at a bankrupt cinema, the manager goes out at night and kills ladies.
This is very much a tribute to the 70s Giallo films, but it's got plenty french in it too.  It doesn't use the Argento style the same way you would expect every other asshole teenage wannabe filmmaker to use it.  It's patient, involved, and interesting the entire way.  It exists in the bubble of this character's life.  We don't follow a detective who wants to find the killer (one of the things that separates this from most of the Giallo movies I've seen) and we don't hear people talking about the "murders in the area".
This is a character who has a strong passion for cinema, but also a need to cut people up.  I'm sure there are at least four people on this message board who can relate.

(http://thetfs.ca/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/youre-next-adam-wingard-tiff-2011-460x250.jpg)
You're Next
Adam Wingard - USA - 2011

Looks like Lion's Gate is going to sit on this one for a year.  I hope not, because this is one of the funnest horror films to come out in a really long time and it would be a shame to toss it out with the rest of the Saw and Paranormal Activity sequels next year.
This is a pretty straightforward home invasion movie.  It's like a much more exciting and action-packed version of "The Strangers".  It stays traditional enough to not feel like it's trying too hard to be different, but it changes things up enough to actually be different and stay engaging.
Directors Ti West and Joe Swanberg are in the movie and they're actually really good!  It doesn't come off as pretentious having them in it at all.
I really want this to come out sooner than next year because A: I want to see it again and B: I want the song that's played in it over and over again (Dwight Twilley Band's "Looking for the Magic" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=im2_NY9W9Ug)) to become available over iTunes, Spotify, etc... instead of only on Youtube.

Saw more, but that's enough for now.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: matt35mm on October 04, 2011, 12:26:08 PM
A YEAR? I thought YOU'RE NEXT was coming out this Halloween for some reason.

 :(
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: squints on October 04, 2011, 02:26:26 PM
Well, we chased Mod off so this year won't be as fun

i've been wondering. What happened to chase him off? Is he just too busy?

and speaking of lost members. Whatever happened to Cine?
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: polkablues on October 04, 2011, 02:41:47 PM
Mod has, at last count, 27 1/2 jobs. He still lurks, he's just not posting for now.

As for Cine, I assume he went to whatever purgatory Hedwig and Hacksparrow are floating around in somewhere.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Reelist on October 26, 2011, 02:25:51 AM
Everyone should see 'The Woman' while it's still horror season! It's Lucky Mckee's new film, he directed 'May'. I don't know how to describe it, this guy (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=o3lUAZLB4JY) was the trailer for me.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: RegularKarate on October 26, 2011, 10:22:55 AM
Everyone should see 'The Woman' while it's still horror season! It's Lucky Mckee's new film, he directed 'May'. I don't know how to describe it, this guy (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=o3lUAZLB4JY) was the trailer for me.

Is it better than his other movies?

Also, you know that clip was a marketing stunt, right?
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: squints on October 26, 2011, 11:57:14 AM
The Trailer (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UsUxrMyWXeI&feature=related) itself looks pretty cool. I like Lucky Mckee's stuff even though he hasn't really made anything up to par with May, this looks interesting. Is it streaming? Will it be another year before I can see it?
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Reelist on October 26, 2011, 12:02:25 PM
you know that clip was a marketing stunt, right?

Yeah, I figured after reading the youtube comments. It worked really well! That guy is a good actor. How is it so obviously apparent though, I guess this shit just goes on all the time?

I don't think it's better than 'May' , the only other one I saw, but it's creepy and keeps you guessing and definitely does what it set out to do.

what else of his stuff would peeps recommend? Squints, I just dl'ed it. BRrip
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Sleepless on October 26, 2011, 12:53:17 PM
RK has become Xixax's own personal grumpy old man with all the fakes he's busted recently lol.

Also, relatively on topic... Has anyone been watching FX's American Horror Story? I've been hearing good stuff about it and I see the first two eps are available to stream on FX's website. Can anyone else confirm it's worth checking out?
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: polkablues on October 26, 2011, 01:09:53 PM
It's terrible, but in a really fun way. Watch one episode and you'll know whether it's for you or not.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: polkablues on October 26, 2011, 07:02:59 PM
LATE OCTOBER HORROR ROUNDUP:

Okay, so last week I watched a handful of horror flicks that I had been meaning to see, and these are them.

(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51PU2w%2B9V9L._SX500_.jpg)

This was the crown jewel of the movies I watched.  I didn't know much about it going in, and that's exactly the way you want to experience it.  DO NOT READ ANYTHING MORE ABOUT THIS FILM BEFORE SEEING IT.  I'm not a huge spoiler-crier, but this is one movie where having it spoiled will absolutely gut the experience of watching it for the first time.  Suffice to say, it seems like a standard slasher at first, then something happens, and it just keeps getting more amazing all the way to the end.  I've already said too much.  JUST WATCH IT.


(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51%2Bl6ZywvdL._SX500_.jpg)

Pretty standard "small group trapped inside a building with a monster outside" story, with the benefit of a good cast.  Shea Wigham is always great, Paulo Costanzo is always likeable, and the chick from the Mercury commercials is passable.  It makes the mistake of starting out with too few characters, so there's a lack of good kills, which is the whole point of a movie like this, but there's a decent amount of tension, the creature is creative enough, and the chick from the Mercury commercials looks good in a t-shirt.  Biggest gripe: as soon as Costanzo's character (a doctoral candidate in biology, plot-conveniently enough) figures out the nature of how the creature is tracking them, everything that happens after is complete bullshit, because THERE ARE A THOUSAND BETTER WAYS THEY COULD AVOID THE DAMN THING.  But whatever.  It was good.  It achieved what it had set out to achieve.


(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51Opz5b4o4L._SX500_.jpg)

Michael Fassbender with an Irish accent and the evil redhead from Joe Wright's Pride & Prejudice (Kelly Reilly) star in a riff on a Texas Chainsaw Massacre/Hills Have Eyes/Wrong Turn trope, with the homicidal hillbilly family replaced by a group of conflicted young chavs led by a bratty sociopath.  A little unevenly paced, but universally well-acted and effective.  The genre twist of having the bad guys be wayward kids, rather than cartoonish psycho-killers gives it a realism and a resonance that it wouldn't otherwise effect with its fairly rote plot-line.  The real point of the film is Reilly's performance, which not only calls to mind, but manages to stand alongside Shauna MacDonald's in The Descent in terms of the depth of the character's transformation from beginning to end.  The movie falls short of classic status, but it's recommended nonetheless.


(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51RZCUsn5LL._SX500_.jpg)

This isn't normally classified as a horror movie, but after watching it, I classify it as one.  Everything Stefen has said about it was right.  EDIT: Maybe Stefen didn't say as much about it as I thought he did.  But he seemed to like it, and that's good enough for me!  This is a great movie.  There are moments and images from this film that are still stuck in my head.  It starts out amusing and ends up haunting, and is awesome the whole time.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: RegularKarate on October 27, 2011, 02:11:17 PM
Since Polka's doing it, I guess I'll get into more of my list:

(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51ruptBxtFL._AA300_.jpg)

Trick 'r' Treat
Michael Dougherty 2007

This was better than I had expected.  I had heard good things, but you can never trust horror fans.
It's a horror anthology tied together in a style similar to Creepshow.  The difference is that the icon of the film gets more involved than just being present between segments.  It's a lot of fun. 
The stories can get a little cliched at times, but they're all short enough that it doesn't matter.  The way all the stories unfold is pretty interesting as well, it makes it feel more like one piece than a bunch of unrelated segments.


(http://www.impawards.com/1983/posters/keep.jpg)
The Keep
Michael Mann 1983

Oh boy, I had never seen this since it was never released on DVD.  I was super excited about a Michael Mann horror film.  What would he follow up Thief with?  Yuck... what a misfire.  This is pretty consistently boring and makes very little sense.  Visually, it's a little exciting at points and you get Tangerine Dream doing the soundtrack again, but it just doesn't work in the end.


(http://static.omdb.si/posters/active/78255.jpg)
Dahmer
David Jacobson 2002

These serial killer biopics are usually pretty bad.  I just watched this because Jeremy Renner stars.  I wouldn't call this a horror movie at all, really.  It's just a boring sequence of events with no real build-up or conclusion.  I don't know what they were going for because nothing really interesting ever happens.  You don't really get a look into his mind and you don't really get involved in his murders.  It's like they took two paragraphs from his wikipedia page and just reenacted them. 


(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_T3lzrzH2fMo/SYyoroZVflI/AAAAAAAADwA/N5Vc7bmzyrY/s400/theburning_poster.jpg)
The Burning
Tony Maylam 1981

This is a really fun, classic slasher.  A Nightmare on Elm Street borrowed from this movie.  An implied pedophile is tricked by some kids and he freaks out and catches himself on fire only to come back years later to get revenge on all of them.
Lots of bad dialog, teen sex, and people getting murdered.  Clean, stupid fun.


(http://collider.com/wp-content/uploads/a_horrible_way_to_die_poster.jpg)
A Horrible Way to Die
Adam Wingard 2010

Very different than You're Next which is more of an exciting traditional horror movie.  This is definitely an indie film about a serial killer back to track down his ex-girlfriend.  It's not even really a horror film.
I liked it though.  It's very slow moving, but it kept my interest the whole way through.  It's pretty well acted and written if a tad "overly indie".
If you're going to see this and "You're Next", I would say see You're Next first since there are elements in this movie that might spoil elements of the other (hope that's cryptic enough).


(http://cdn2.screenjunkies.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Insidious-poster-220x165.jpg)
Insidious
James Wan 2010

Better than you'd think from the director of Saw, but still not that great.  It's got some good scares in it and some creepy images, but mostly it's a series of creepy things happening while mostly ripping off Poltergeist.
It's about a haunted kid, which is kinda cool by itself.  When the creatures/demons/ghosts/whatever started showing up, I thought I was in for a good movie, but then it gets pretty convoluted with unnecessary added layers and twists.
Not a complete waste of time, but nothing great either.



Title: Re: Horror
Post by: tpfkabi on October 28, 2011, 08:48:30 PM


(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_T3lzrzH2fMo/SYyoroZVflI/AAAAAAAADwA/N5Vc7bmzyrY/s400/theburning_poster.jpg)
The Burning
Tony Maylam 1981

This is a really fun, classic slasher.  A Nightmare on Elm Street borrowed from this movie.  An implied pedophile is tricked by some kids and he freaks out and catches himself on fire only to come back years later to get revenge on all of them.
Lots of bad dialog, teen sex, and people getting murdered.  Clean, stupid fun.

That movie looks kinda interesting.

AMC Fear Fest showed The People Under the Stairs. I had never heard of this movie. It was so bizarre and funny at times. I think I will pick up the DVD if I see it. You got the guy from Twin Peaks in full leather running around shooting the walls while a guy Roach is running around like crazy in between the walls. Hilarious. I don't see how anyone could even come up with a story like that.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Ghostboy on October 28, 2011, 11:34:35 PM
I'm queuing up a lot of horror titles for the weekend, and have selected a lot of sequels. So far I've watched both of the Poltergeist sequels. The second one is ridiculous, but has a few terrifying scenes, and the backstory about the preacher is sort of awesome. The third one is even more ridiculous, but actually works a little better, and the practical effects (which were done entirely in camera) are pretty fun. They're definitely not good movies, but they were fun and I'll remember them fondly.

Next up: The Exorcist II.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Reelist on October 29, 2011, 08:32:25 AM
You got the guy from Twin Peaks in full leather running around shooting the walls while a guy Roach is running around like crazy in between the walls. Hilarious. I don't see how anyone could even come up with a story like that.

Yeah, the redheaded bitch with the eyepatch is in it, too. Wes Craven must've picked up on their chemistry in the show and liked it. I used to really get a kick out of that movie because it was funny and scary. I'm probably way too familiar with the plot to enjoy it as much now, but I remember it making great use of the suspense. Definitely pick it up if you can, there's a lot of good blue language in it. Though I'm sure AMC showed most of the violence, did they show the guy eating the guy? That was gross.

ghostboy, I recently watched Poltergeist 1 & 2. 1 is of course a classic, but I liked 2 a lot more than I expected. It was a little weak in plot, but oh well. I remember 3 being really cheesy but kinda scary, I'll watch it on your recommendation. Excorcist 2 is widely known as a shitty movie, but it has an awesome trailer (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFspymGVZLY)
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Ghostboy on October 29, 2011, 03:59:20 PM
Excorcist 2 is widely known as a shitty movie, but it has an awesome trailer (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFspymGVZLY)

Whoa, you ain't kidding.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Just Withnail on October 29, 2011, 08:54:34 PM
Excorcist 2 is widely known as a shitty movie, but it has an awesome trailer (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFspymGVZLY)

Whoa, you ain't kidding.

TA TA TA. TA TA TA TA.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: tpfkabi on October 29, 2011, 09:22:17 PM
You got the guy from Twin Peaks in full leather running around shooting the walls while a guy Roach is running around like crazy in between the walls. Hilarious. I don't see how anyone could even come up with a story like that.

Yeah, the redheaded bitch with the eyepatch is in it, too. Wes Craven must've picked up on their chemistry in the show and liked it. I used to really get a kick out of that movie because it was funny and scary. I'm probably way too familiar with the plot to enjoy it as much now, but I remember it making great use of the suspense. Definitely pick it up if you can, there's a lot of good blue language in it. Though I'm sure AMC showed most of the violence, did they show the guy eating the guy? That was gross.

ghostboy, I recently watched Poltergeist 1 & 2. 1 is of course a classic, but I liked 2 a lot more than I expected. It was a little weak in plot, but oh well. I remember 3 being really cheesy but kinda scary, I'll watch it on your recommendation. Excorcist 2 is widely known as a shitty movie, but it has an awesome trailer (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFspymGVZLY)
I didn't even think about her being his wife in Twin Peaks, too. ha.
I don't remember the guy eating a guy. I would have to see it again.
Poltergeist seems to be one of the most played cable movies of all time. I have seen that so many times. Every time I see the moving trailer I think of PDL. The kiss with the bright lights in the closet seems like PTA, but I guess it was really done in The Terminal, too.

Been a long time since I saw 2 or 3 on TV. The first time I saw Night of the Hunter I thought of the preacher from 2. I kinda remember 3 being in an apartment building with a lot of mirrors and smoke.

The 2 I'm kinda wanting to see again is Halloween 2. For some reason AMC is playing just about every Halloween except this one. At least you still got Jamie Lee in that one. I wish they would do a special DVD release for 2, as I've always wanted to see it unedited.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Reelist on October 30, 2011, 02:02:24 PM
The 2 I'm kinda wanting to see again is Halloween 2. For some reason AMC is playing just about every Halloween except this one. At least you still got Jamie Lee in that one. I wish they would do a special DVD release for 2, as I've always wanted to see it unedited.

They love playing that 3,4, and 5, don't they? Probably the worst installments in the franchise. 2 is a good horror sequel because it picks up right where they left off and you don't have to get used to a dumb new main character. If I'm not mistaken I think there's like a director's cut with all sorts of extra shit in it, too. I used to like 2 better than 1 but that was because I was like 12 and it was a lot gorier. I'm really looking forward to watching the only good Halloween though, Halloween.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: tpfkabi on October 30, 2011, 03:04:42 PM
The 2 I'm kinda wanting to see again is Halloween 2. For some reason AMC is playing just about every Halloween except this one. At least you still got Jamie Lee in that one. I wish they would do a special DVD release for 2, as I've always wanted to see it unedited.

They love playing that 3,4, and 5, don't they? Probably the worst installments in the franchise. 2 is a good horror sequel because it picks up right where they left off and you don't have to get used to a dumb new main character. If I'm not mistaken I think there's like a director's cut with all sorts of extra shit in it, too. I used to like 2 better than 1 but that was because I was like 12 and it was a lot gorier. I'm really looking forward to watching the only good Halloween though, Halloween.

Biography showed a Making of Halloween today, so I was reading up on the original and 2. I don't  understand why they don't put out a SE with the theatrical and TV cuts. From what I understand, Carpenter filmed more scenes during the time of 2 to add to the TV version of Halloween. He also was brought in to shoot scenes for 2 because the studio was unhappy with the other director's version, so I guess that 2 might have 3 unique versions. The 2 DVD has some of the worst cover art I've ever seen. I also saw that 2 got a Blu-Ray release recently that upset fans because they took the original producer's name off.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: RegularKarate on October 31, 2011, 11:27:59 AM
They love playing that 3,4, and 5, don't they? Probably the worst installments in the franchise

No way.
The third Halloween is the best of the sequels.  People ignore it because there's no Michael Meyers, but it's so great.  Way better than the repetitive part 2.

And while 4 is not very good, it's still got the classic Halloween feel that's missing from shit like H20 and Resurrection (which try to "freshen up" the series).  It's ridiculously fun.

5 is shit, but not as bad as 6.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: socketlevel on October 31, 2011, 12:13:10 PM


(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_T3lzrzH2fMo/SYyoroZVflI/AAAAAAAADwA/N5Vc7bmzyrY/s400/theburning_poster.jpg)
The Burning
Tony Maylam 1981

This is a really fun, classic slasher.  A Nightmare on Elm Street borrowed from this movie.  An implied pedophile is tricked by some kids and he freaks out and catches himself on fire only to come back years later to get revenge on all of them.
Lots of bad dialog, teen sex, and people getting murdered.  Clean, stupid fun.



That movie looks kinda interesting.

AMC Fear Fest showed The People Under the Stairs. I had never heard of this movie. It was so bizarre and funny at times. I think I will pick up the DVD if I see it. You got the guy from Twin Peaks in full leather running around shooting the walls while a guy Roach is running around like crazy in between the walls. Hilarious. I don't see how anyone could even come up with a story like that.

the best part is his partner played his wife on twin peaks as well. People under the stairs was a go to awesome 80s horror movie from my childhood.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: tpfkabi on December 16, 2011, 09:23:22 PM
Last year, in honor of Halloween, I embarked on watching 31 Horror Films.  The theme was horror films that had been remade, but the list was comprised of the originals.  For the most part, they're better.  Though in the case of The Fly or The Thing, both are great in their own ways.  I can post the list I watched if anyone is interested.  I mostly used my own DVD's staggered with Netflix releases and Watch Instantly material.

This October, my plan is to do the sequel to the marathon.  I'm going to watch 31 Number Two's (yes, I recognize the inherent poop joke.)  I realize it's only going to be September soon, but I need some help putting a list together from anyone who can help either add to my list or recommend I avoid any or make sure not to miss. 

So far, I have two rules:

#1: No direct to DVD sequels, I want to see movies that were intended for the mass public to go to a theater and potentially be wowed by (exception to this rule: Cabin Fever 2.  I loved House of the Devil and haven't seen this, and I've been hearing it's great. I don't think it had a theatrical release.  If you can justify any direct to DVD sequels to me, they will be considered)
#2: It has to end in #2.  The gimmick of this whole ordeal is that striking sound of 2, the implication of continuation from the first, not like a new story as in Return of, Revenge of, or something like I STILL Know What You Did Last Summer)

Sequel Pool
(your help in culling this list is much appreciated)

Hills Have Eyes 2
Evil Dead 2
Troll 2
Friday the 13th 2
Halloween 2
Psycho 2
Exorcist 2
Poltergeist 2
Leprechaun 2
Slumber Party Massacre 2
Sleepaway Camp 2
Nightmare On Elm Street 2
Paranormal Activity 2
Pumpkinhead 2
Ghoulies 2
Critters 2
Puppet Master 2
Hellraiser 2
Species 2
The Fly 2
Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2
Candyman 2
Silent Night, Deadly Night 2
Relic 2
Mimic 2
Scream 2
Omen 2
House 2
It's Alive 2
Hatchet 2
Hostel 2
Saw 2
Child's Play 2
Children of the Corn 2
REC 2
Howling 2
Basket Case 2
Cabin Fever 2
Jaws 2
C.H.U.D. 2
Ring 2
Grudge 2
Blair Witch Project 2
Final Destination 2

(some of these may be direct to DVD sequels that have been recommended but I'm otherwise iffy on and need help deciding and/or I'm not sure if they were direct to DVD or not)

Suggestions are welcome, then by the end of September, I'll arrange it into the top 31 and will prepare for the ride of my life.  I encourage all who have the constitutional fortitude to join me.

So...do you go through with it?
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: squints on January 15, 2012, 04:59:21 PM
I'm kind of sick of zombies, like everyone else, but i thought this little thing that this guy over at reddit threw together (Showing the Zombie Apocalypse through social media and the web) was pretty entertaining.
Start on Day 1, 2012 and go up.

http://www.reddit.com/user/Vidzilla/submitted/ (http://www.reddit.com/user/Vidzilla/submitted/)
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: children with angels on January 15, 2012, 07:00:09 PM
I'm kind of sick of zombies, like everyone else, but i thought this little thing that this guy over at reddit threw together (Showing the Zombie Apocalypse through social media and the web) was pretty entertaining.
Start on Day 1, 2012 and go up.

http://www.reddit.com/user/Vidzilla/submitted/ (http://www.reddit.com/user/Vidzilla/submitted/)

Nice stuff. Not seen anything in quite that style before - good, net-specific-artform shit.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: polkablues on January 23, 2012, 03:02:32 PM
Looking over my Netflix Instant viewing history, I watched a crapload of horror movies over the last couple months.

(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51XPiF20AHL._SL500_AA300_.jpg)
Red State (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0873886/)
I respect Kevin Smith's new-found ability to move the camera, and I like how the movie constantly undercuts our expectations, but when you put Kevin Smith dialogue into a more realistic story-world, it really drives home how mannered and awkward it actually is.  
C

(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/61UZv2bStVL._SL500_AA300_.jpg)
2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0858411/)
Just awful. No redeeming value whatsoever, unless you count the guy who played Jar-Jar Binks continuing his lifelong quest to bring back the minstrel show.  
F

(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/5163dkJQi3L._SX500_.jpg)
The Shrine (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1341710/)
A nice entry in the sub-genre of the "Eastern Europe is scary" horror film. Well-shot, some good twists and turns, but not particularly memorable overall.  
B-

(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51PtsOE3tYL._SL500_AA300_.jpg)
Insidious (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1591095/)
A bunch of very effective moments that don't add up to an effective movie. The stuff that works works REALLY well, though.  
C+

(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/510YhtURShL._SL500_AA300_.jpg)
Donkey Punch (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0988849/)
Pleasantly surprised. Believable characters who always acted consistently with how they were portrayed. I love horror movies that derive from normal people making bad decisions that compound until they turn into monsters.  
A-

(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/517PaxzvrzL._SL500_AA300_.jpg)
The Ward (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1369706/)
John Carpenter ticks all the boxes, but continues to leave me unimpressed. Amber Heard has an intensity that makes her perfect for these sort of roles, though.  
B

(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51mUO8ZTAxL._SL500_AA300_.jpg)
Midnight Movie (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0981224/)
CHUD had been giving this flick blowjobs for so long, I was expecting something great. It was not great. It was actually about as rote and forgettable as you can get.  
D

(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51lVmCoSWgL._SL500_AA300_.jpg)
Hatchet (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0422401/)
Another movie that was a victim of its own hype. Solid, but nothing special. And no matter how hard Adam Green tries to convince me that Victor Crowley is the next great iconic slasher, he's just not.  
C+

(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51DnaMIT5%2BL._SL500_AA300_.jpg)
Tucker & Dale vs. Evil (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1465522/)
A fun movie. Worth seeing, but doesn't quite live up to the potential of its premise. Taylor Labine and Alan Tudyk were casting coups; they do everything they can to elevate the material.  
B

(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/418AJK8146L._SL500_AA300_.jpg)
Creep (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0381966/)
Franka Potente trapped in the London Underground overnight with a seemingly supernatural killer. Well-made, and Potente's great in it, but it suffers from a bad case of Omnipotent Killer Syndrome.  To its credit, it's one of the rare films of its type that doesn't become less scary when you actually get to see the villain.  
B+

(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51mYNhbNqNL._SL500_AA300_.jpg)
Kill Theory (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0893532/)
Speaking of Omnipotent Killer Syndrome, this is the worst offender I've ever seen. Overall, it's a decent movie with a good cast (including Agnes Bruckner, who's so much better than this sort of thing), but there are only so many times that a killer can magically know exactly who's going to be where when before I get annoyed with the movie.  
C

(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51dd4-vQTnL._SL500_AA300_.jpg)
Frozen (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1323045/)
Adam Green almost redeems himself from Hatchet with this one, which is genuinely chilling (pun not intended but neither retracted). A good example of a horror film that doesn't rely on its characters making decisions that no real person would make.  
A-

(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51kSYInsJVL._SL500_AA300_.jpg)
Severance (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0464196/)
Probably the most fun I've had of any film on this list. It plays with the conventions of the slasher flick while managing to set an example for them. It manages to straddle the line of being self-reflexive without being an ironic wank.  
A

(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/61-SSg2JWGL._SL500_AA300_.jpg)
High Lane (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1433562/)
Starts out well, like the first half of The Descent but with mountain-climbing instead of cave-diving, but shits the bed when it turns into Wrong Turn in the second half. Also, Netflix only had it dubbed (horribly) in English rather than subtitled.  
C+

(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51PFPQY2n4L._SL500_AA300_.jpg)
Blood Creek (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0450336/)
Inexplicable. I'm not even sure if I liked it or not. It was like I was watching the whole movie with my head cocked to the side, perpetually thinking, "Okay, but..." I doubt Henry Cavill or Michael Fassbender bother to keep this on their resumes.  
???

(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51lez2seI8L._SL500_AA300_.jpg)
Dead Snow (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1278340/)
Fun, but ultimately inconsequential. Not a lot to say about it.  Your mileage may vary, depending on how much the phrase "Nazi Zombies" excites you.  
B-

(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/512CZ2VF1JL._SL500_AA300_.jpg)
The Hole (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0242527/)
I was surprised by how good this actually was. It plays some tricks very effectively with the narrative, and Thora Birch genuinely impressed me playing a fairly complex role.  
A
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Reelist on January 23, 2012, 08:13:30 PM
damn, you really do watch a shit ton of horror. I've still been meaning to watch a couple you suggested over last Halloween. Thanks, though, it's really hard these days to know whats good in this genre.

I've been laying off the horror lately, maybe its something about the winter months where I don't feel like I can stomach it as much, but I've been loving the Ti West. See The Innkeepers, that is all.

(http://www.rowthree.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/the-innkeepers-movie-poster.jpg)
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: polkablues on January 23, 2012, 11:27:13 PM
Of the movies I've posted about since October, I strongly recommend Triangle, The Wild Hunt, Severance, Donkey Punch, and The Hole.  If you get ahold of those five (and maybe Frozen or Eden Lake to make an even number), you've got a horror marathon worth having.

I'll have to check out The Innkeepers.  I did like House of the Devil quite a bit.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: polkablues on February 11, 2012, 12:41:18 AM
Saw The Innkeepers, dug it, really enjoying the whole Ti West experience.  90% buildup, 10% payoff is a tough ratio to pull off, but damned if he hasn't done it twice in a row.  And this one has the added benefit of some very likeable, humorous characters.

Also watched Kill List, which will be on my Xixax Awards ballot for the year.  It's interesting reading the mixed critical reaction to it, because it's an aggressively ambiguous film, and some people seem to be experiencing some powerful knee-jerking against that, but the movie is so rich and densely layered that I've spent the whole week since I watched it puzzling out theories in my mind.  It's not a particularly "horrific" film, for the most part, but similar to Drive, it's peppered with moments of violence that catch you entirely off-guard.  It's a film that doesn't let the audience off the hook by cutting away when it's expected to.  Also, the score is absolutely bonkers, in the best possible way.

Finally, Triangle is now available on Netflix Instant, so there are no more excuses!  Everyone watch the shit out of it, then get back to me.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: diggler on February 11, 2012, 01:23:49 AM
Kill List was one of the more memorable films I've seen lately. Right from the get go you know you're watching something unhinged. It really went for a more underhanded version of horror, as the film isn't terribly scary, just extremely unsettling. I love how unpredictable the tone is, you really have no idea what will happen next, and the film manages to subvert that expectation by going a much more traditional route than you'd expect from the type of film leading up to it.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Reelist on February 11, 2012, 10:25:53 AM
Saw The Innkeepers, dug it

Did you recognize Luke from anywhere? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-A-L9LmQmU)
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: polkablues on February 11, 2012, 11:28:16 AM
Ha, yeah, I had to look him up halfway through the movie, but once I did I had to kick myself for not recognizing him right away.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: SiliasRuby on February 23, 2012, 09:05:32 AM
Audrey Rose
A 70's horror that is melodramatic and over the top ridiculous. Anthony Hopkins is the youngest I've ever seen him in a semi religious film about past lives. It has one of the most un-nerving openings of a horror film I've seen in years.

Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer
Perhaps one of the most disturbing movies I've ever seen in my life. I've gotten horrible nightmares the past couple of nights. I still have the images in my head. They are stuck there. I'm trying not to think about it or I'll get the shivers.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Reelist on April 06, 2012, 09:02:04 PM
Triangle is now available on Netflix Instant, so there are no more excuses!  Everyone watch the shit out of it, then get back to me.

Dude, I rented a movie called 'The Triangle' after I remembered you recommending this. Some bullshit TV movie with Eric Stoltz, shit was like 4 hours long and I stayed with it the whole time " Ok... Polka said this was supposed to be good. " Maaaan, Fuck you! Fuck me!
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: polkablues on April 06, 2012, 09:23:57 PM
April Fools?
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Reelist on April 08, 2012, 11:44:54 AM
yeah. that one will hold me over til next year
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Reelist on September 30, 2012, 11:08:19 PM
HAPPY OCTOBER PUBRICK!!!



starting the month off right:


(http://www.moviefancentral.com/images/pictures/review53118/WallPaper-Halloween-Movie-Logo-1-1.jpg?1334015291)
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: polkablues on October 01, 2012, 12:00:52 AM
I watched V/H/S a couple weeks ago.  Like any anthology film, it suffers from wild inconsistency, but the good parts are pretty good, and the bad parts are usually over before you have a chance to get too bored.  Enjoyment of each segment seemed to be inversely proportionate to how hard it had to struggle to justify the found footage conceit.  Overall, I give it 6 Betamaxes (out of 10)
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: RegularKarate on October 01, 2012, 06:16:33 PM
Fantastic Fest just wrapped up and while the majority of the movies I saw were not horror, some were. Here are the ones I saw (oddly enough, a lot of horror-related documentaries):

(http://cf.fantasticfest.com/_uploads/films/24111/bariteaufamily__medium.jpg)American Scream: This comes from the director of "Best Worst Movie" which I loved. This time, the Chiller Network actually came to him and asked him to make a run-of-the-mill "Top Ten Haunted Houses In America" type show and this is what he went with instead. It's a documentary about Home-Haunters. People who turn their backyards into haunted houses that kids from the neighborhood and their families can walk through on Halloween night while trick-or-treating. It focuses specifically on three haunters from the same neighborhood whose effort ranges from insanely detailed and meticulously crafted to lazily thrown together. Of course, it's the characters that make this. I won't go into too much detail and I don't know when this is supposed to actually air, but fuck, it is definitely in the top three movies I saw at Fantastic Fest (that includes Looper).

(http://cf.fantasticfest.com/_uploads/films/25326/_mg_9860__medium.jpg) Come Out and Play: A remake of "Who Could Kill a Child" that relies mostly on violence and jump-scares and for a movie that relies mostly on violence and jump-scares, it doesn't have much violence or many jump-scares.

(http://cf.fantasticfest.com/_uploads/films/23921/fr._fortea_smiles-_photo_gammaglimt_as__medium.jpg) The Exorcist in the 21st Century: This is the kind of movie that I don't know I would have even heard about if not for Fantastic Fest. It's a Norwegian documentary about Vatican-approved exorcisms. It's pretty rare that this kind of permission would be given to have this stuff filmed, especially by a couple of pagans. I'm pretty fascinated by psychological explanations for why people are convinced that they experienced something paranormal. Exorcisms especially interest me and this digs into that. It's a little slow paced and maybe doesn't get as deep into the actual psychological explanations, but it's a pretty impressive look at the phenomenon. There are a LOT of people who think they are possessed and while it's clear that these people are essentially nuts, it's really interesting trying to figure out why they have such a specific mental illness... fun fact: something like 95% of the people who claim to be possessed are women or children.

(http://cf.fantasticfest.com/_uploads/films/24550/mah_screengrab_06__medium.jpg) My Amityville Horror: Amityville Horror was originally claimed to be a true story then it was revealed by some involved that it was just a hoax. One of the children of the family that was terrorized by spooks and demons has come out and decided he wants his side of the story heard. The odd thing is that he is roughly 100% convinced that the house was haunted. My interest in this doc comes from the same place as my interest in "The Exorcist in the 21st Century". I really want to know what makes this guy believe that he saw what he thinks he saw (which I really do believe he thinks he witnessed). This movie is a little one sided and I feel like it tries a little too hard to make you believe that something supernatural was going on. We hear WAY more from Ghostbusters than Hoaxbusters. Still, I enjoyed trying to figure it all out... what makes this guy (who is kind of a douchebag) think he really saw the shit he says he saw?

(http://cf.fantasticfest.com/_uploads/films/25769/pa4-002__medium.jpg) Paranormal Activity 4 Work-In-Progress Print: There was definitely some unfinished FX and Soundwork here, but I get the feeling that I saw what will essentially be released in theaters. I don't love the PA movies, but at the same time, I kind of do. I'm fine with a movie like the first two where it's essentially just a series of scares that escalate and get a little more creative each time. Where I think this movie (like the third) fails is when too much plot is introduced. I don't need a complicated explanation for why what is happening is happening. Just scare me and move on. Still, it worked where it worked.

(http://cf.fantasticfest.com/_uploads/films/23894/room-237-still-1__medium.jpg) Room 237: Yes, it's really pushing it to list this here, but it's a documentary about the greatest horror movie ever made so I'm putting here. I think this thing stinks. It's a YouTube video that somehow got released as a real documentary. It's all done with clips from movies (both Kubrick and non-Kubrick) to go along with whats being said in a really playful, silly way that gets on your nerves the entire time (especially since most of the clips are pulled from the internet and are very low-res). I've read all these theories before so it's not very interesting to hear again. If they had focused on these people who have these theories, there might have been something, instead, it's just junk.

And now October begins.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: MacGuffin on October 01, 2012, 06:29:32 PM
American Scream:

I don't know when this is supposed to actually air, but fuck, it is definitely in the top three movies I saw at Fantastic Fest (that includes Looper).

October 28. Been showing commercials for it for months.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: RegularKarate on October 02, 2012, 03:59:07 PM
October 28. Been showing commercials for it for months.

I can always count on Mac to have information that I don't and to have watched an actual television broadcast.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: polkablues on October 03, 2012, 12:58:55 AM
I thought I had mentioned this movie in one of my earlier posts in this thread, but I guess not, so here I go. 

(http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV5BMjQ0NjQxOTM5N15BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwNzUwMzMwNg@@._V1._SY317_.jpg)
Grave Encounters (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1703199/): available on Netflix Instant
I expected very little of this film, and it ended up delivering quite a bit.  It starts off as a somewhat goofy parody of "Ghost Hunter"-type shows, which I would have been perfectly happy with (fuck those shows and everyone in them), but it has a really satisfying buildup to where it ultimately becomes one of the more genuinely disturbing movies I've seen in a long time.  Jump scares and gore are at a minimum; the movie's really about the horror of being trapped in a world that no longer plays by any recognizable rules.  It's a horror movie where the main villain is the hopelessness of the situation.  It's definitely a low-budget affair, and the acting is a mixed bag, but I walked away from it deeply affected.
B+


I'd also like to share the trailer for Sinister, starring Ethan Hawke, which is set to come out next week, currently stands at 95% on Rotten Tomatoes, and looks right up my alley.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a0cRjDrCezc
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Reelist on October 03, 2012, 09:04:15 AM
Polka, for all the shit you've put me through, I still gotta love ya for the horror dedication  :yabbse-thumbup:


I've been wanting to watch 'Grave Encounters' for awhile, and have kind of been on a hunt for good found footage movies, some suggestions would be cool ( NOT from polka, though. hehe j/k )


Speaking of found footage, 'Sinister' looks fucking insane! My most anticipated movie after 'The Master' was 'Argo', but now it's 'Sinister' ( they open on the same day )


but I'm gonna kick myself for saying this after seeing these two movies, aren't I?
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: RegularKarate on October 03, 2012, 03:05:49 PM
Also watched Kill List, which will be on my Xixax Awards ballot for the year.

I didn't mention this in my list of Fantastic Fest movies because I don't know that I would consider it "Horror", but I saw this director's newest movie "Sightseers" and fucking loved it. It's like an indie comedy version of Natural Born Killers. It's definitely in my top three that I saw at the festival.

TRIANGLE SPOILER! (according to Polka)
Polka, I also saw Triangle the other day. Have you seen Timecrimes?
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: polkablues on October 03, 2012, 03:44:41 PM
Just mentioning Timecrimes alongside it is a massive spoiler for Triangle, but yeah, I love Timecrimes.  The thing that pushes Triangle over the top for me is how philosophical it ultimately is, and how it gives an almost mythical treatment to a familiar plot device (lots of allusions to Greek myth in the film, actually).  Christopher Smith doesn't get a lot of mention (probably the boring name), but he's one of the finest horror/suspense filmmakers out there right now, and every movie he makes is completely different from the others.  Black Death is non-essential, but Triangle, Severance, and Creep are all great.

I want to see Sightseers so bad.  Kill List was definitely a top-five film for me last year.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: RegularKarate on October 03, 2012, 04:27:32 PM
Just mentioning Timecrimes alongside it is a massive spoiler for Triangle, but yeah, I love Timecrimes.

I'll SPOILER TAG MY RESPONSE AND MY ORIGINAL POST:
SPOILER!

Honestly, it's like a Catch 22. If you've seen Timecrimes then the moment you see the hooded attacker in Triangle, you kind of assume all the spoilers that associating the two come along with. If you HAVEN'T seen Timecrimes, you don't get the reference and it's not a spoiler.

Anyway, I enjoyed Triangle because it was better than most low-budget movies like it, but it's still really just 'okay'. I really didn't like Severance. Where does Creep rank between the two?
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: polkablues on October 03, 2012, 05:05:23 PM
Actually, Creep is my least favorite of the three, so I guess your mileage may vary. What didn't you like about Severance? I thought it was one of the most fun horror flicks in years.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: RegularKarate on October 04, 2012, 02:36:43 PM
What didn't you like about Severance? I thought it was one of the most fun horror flicks in years.

I haven't seen it since it came out in theaters, so maybe I should give it another shot, but I remember thinking it was trying way too hard to be funny and just felt stale. It's been a while though.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: modage on October 08, 2012, 08:58:43 AM
I've been doing pretty good this year rewatching some favorites (Attack The Block, Evil Dead, Evil Dead II: Dead By Dawn, Scream, Psycho) but haven't seen anything new yet. But something I discovered over the weekend was this:

After you rewatch "Psycho" put on "Psycho" (1998). It's on Netflix Instant and it is such an incredible time-capsule of that year. Directed by Gus Van Sant (as we all know, duh), script is the original, score has been re-recorded by Danny Elfman, cinematographer is Christopher Doyle (who apparently had never seen the original), and the cast is one that could have only been assembled in 1998: a post-"Boogie Nights"/pre-"Magnolia" Julianne Moore, William H. Macy, Philip Baker Hall as well as Anne Heche, Viggo Mortensen, Robert Forster, James LeGros, James Remar & Vince Vaughn back when he was an actor (though not a great one).

If you put it on directly after you finish the original (even if it's in the background and you're kinda half paying attention) it's pretty amazing. Not good, but a nuts crazy experiment that if they hadn't done it with this movie they would've probably tried it with some other classic. It's like this had to be made in order to stop future "Casablanca," "Citizen Kane," "Lawrence of Arabia" shot-by-shot remakes. The worst parts are obviously the new additions (Vaughn jerkin' it, shots of sky and dead cows during the murders) but the rest is like just so bizarre it's hard to believe anybody thought this was a good idea other than as some limited-time exhibit that should've been at the MoMA or something.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: polkablues on October 23, 2012, 03:56:31 PM
I've watched a few horror films lately, and these are them:

(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51SLg258XLL._SL500_AA300_.jpg)
Rovdyr (Manhunt)
A Norwegian sexy-kids-being-hunted-in-the-woods film.  Well made, well acted, largely forgettable.  If you've never seen a movie of its type before, this would be a fine one to start with, but if you have, it holds no surprises.
B

(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51IgKYIsekL._SL500_AA300_.jpg)
Frontier(s)
A French riff on Texas Chainsaw Massacre tropes with a Nazi twist.  It's basically the movie that Eli Roth would make if he was French.
C+

(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/514FImqqHfL._SX500_.jpg)
The Cottage
One of the most schizophrenic horror films I've ever seen.  It veers wildly from tone to tone, with each actor seemingly in a different movie from every other actor.  There is some enjoyable comedy, though, and Andy Serkis is fun as a gruff criminal whose plan goes horribly awry.
C

(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/510icEvp-VL._SL500_AA300_.jpg)
Wreckage
PASS.  I watched this because Aaron Paul was in it, and sure enough, Aaron Paul is in it.  That's pretty much the best thing that can be said about it.  Though I'll admit, Scoot McNairy's performance was fun, in that I'm pretty sure he was trying to go as terrible and over the top as he could, to find out if the director would ever call him out on it.  Spoiler alert: he didn't.
D-

(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51Fuh1CuTfL._SL500_AA300_.jpg)
Martyrs
Finally.  This is the sort of movie that makes sitting through all the shitty horror movies worth it.  It's a bold, fearless, totally uncompromising film, with so much more going on than mere "torture porn".  I can't even come up with words to encapsulate this movie, except that I watched it two weeks ago and it still haunts me.
A+

(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51w-XCbz7JL._SL500_AA300_.jpg)
Mientras Duermes (Sleep Tight)
An impeccably-crafted, deliberately-paced thriller that lives and dies by its lead performance.  The film gets the audience colluding with a terrible person as he does terrible things to people, and there's not a moment along the way that you realize that you shouldn't be.  As much as I like the [REC] films, this is the movie that Jaume Balaguero should be known for.
A



Next on the docket: Borderland, Excision, Detention, Lovely Molly, The Poughkeepsie Tapes, and The Hills Run Red.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Pwaybloe on October 23, 2012, 07:50:56 PM
I think you and RK just make these movies up.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: polkablues on October 23, 2012, 08:09:09 PM
I can neither confirm nor deny that it's all an elaborate prank we're playing on Reelist.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: polkablues on October 26, 2012, 09:56:22 PM
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51%2BV8fz97WL._SL500_AA300_.jpg)
Excision
This is a tricky one to recommend, because AnnaLynne McCord (yes, the chick from the 90210 reboot) is, shockingly, SO GOOD, but the movie does nothing to deserve her performance in it.  She plays a truly weird character, a socially artless high school senior with bizarre psycho-sexual fantasies and a vague dream of becoming a surgeon.  The story is constantly interspersed with these little ten to thirty second dream sequences that resemble what you might get if you tried describing a Matthew Barney film to a first-year film student, and the rest of the film is like if Chasing Amy-era Kevin Smith directed Donnie Darko.  It's aimless, it tries too hard to be casually shocking (at one point, she sniffs her bloody tampon just because, you know, why not), and the ending comes straight out of nowhere.  But the cast is interesting (everyone from Traci Lords as the strict, fanatical mom to Malcolm McDowell as the frustrated science teacher), there are a handful of good scenes, and mostly the lead performance is really, really good.  I doubt I'll ever bother watching it again, but I can't say I regretted watching it the first time.
C-ish
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: polkablues on October 27, 2012, 11:32:43 PM
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51LPZJleYML._SX500_.jpg)
The Tall Man
The most recent film from Pascal Laugier, writer/director of the astounding "Martyrs".  At first blush, the films don't seem to share a lot in common; Martyrs was a bloody, unrelenting punch to the gut, while The Tall Man is a moody psychological thriller.  But as the film goes on, you realize that they share a thematic interest in looking beyond the horror to the hidden agencies (literally or otherwise) behind it.  Laugier also applies a similar structure to both films, where plot twists throughout the story serve not only to send it in a different direction, but to force us to rethink what we thought we knew about what already happened.  As opposed to Martyrs, which owns its themes completely, The Tall Man ends a little muddily; it's not clear how Laugier as a storyteller actually feels about the story he's just told.  The film is clearly aware of this ambiguity, but it has a subtle stink of cop-out to it nonetheless.  But Martyrs is a high bar to reach twice in a row, so there's no shame in this film not quite hitting it, especially compared to so many other horror films that don't even attempt to be about anything.  Oh, and Jessica Biel was passable.
B+
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: squints on November 01, 2012, 03:21:48 AM
Finally watched Triangle.

SPOILER for the love of christ if you haven't seen it don't read any further





I really dug this movie. Glad i had no idea what to expect going in, here's what bothered me about the logic of the flick though:
The seagulls. First of all the cgi on these ominous creatures was BAD, and their foreboding presence was so obvious it was distracting. But what bothered me the most was the one she hit with her car towards the end.
So she jumps off the ship, washes ashore and is some how several hours or even a day behind the point where she initially boards the sailboat. If this time warp exists in the "triangle" off the coast of florida then why were there piles of dead seagulls? I could buy into the idea that there's this timewarp that exists but if they're on land away from this magical wormhole then why would there be piles of seagulls? Is this a stretch? Am i reading too much into this (YES)?
Small nitpick but a really really well executed movie, the acting (aside from Melissa George) was bad. But the production design, cinematography, music, editing, all pretty top notch. How come xixax (specifically polka) is the only place I've heard of this?


So many questions.

I'd also like to take this moment to thank polka for all these damned wonderful recommendations. Kill List has been the best one yet and I'm slowly crawling through your B - A+ reviewed scary flicks.
Severance and Creep are next.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: RegularKarate on November 01, 2012, 11:06:31 AM

(http://cf.fantasticfest.com/_uploads/films/24111/bariteaufamily__medium.jpg)American Scream: This comes from the director of "Best Worst Movie" which I loved. This time, the Chiller Network actually came to him and asked him to make a run-of-the-mill "Top Ten Haunted Houses In America" type show and this is what he went with instead. It's a documentary about Home-Haunters. People who turn their backyards into haunted houses that kids from the neighborhood and their families can walk through on Halloween night while trick-or-treating. It focuses specifically on three haunters from the same neighborhood whose effort ranges from insanely detailed and meticulously crafted to lazily thrown together. Of course, it's the characters that make this. I won't go into too much detail and I don't know when this is supposed to actually air, but fuck, it is definitely in the top three movies I saw at Fantastic Fest (that includes Looper).

So, they added this to Netflix instant yesterday. If you want a tad-late-for-Halloween documentary to watch tonight, this is really great!
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: polkablues on November 01, 2012, 12:07:26 PM
MASSIVE TRIANGLE SPOILERS

Finally watched Triangle.

SPOILER for the love of christ if you haven't seen it don't read any further


The seagulls. First of all the cgi on these ominous creatures was BAD, and their foreboding presence was so obvious it was distracting. But what bothered me the most was the one she hit with her car towards the end.
So she jumps off the ship, washes ashore and is some how several hours or even a day behind the point where she initially boards the sailboat. If this time warp exists in the "triangle" off the coast of florida then why were there piles of dead seagulls? I could buy into the idea that there's this timewarp that exists but if they're on land away from this magical wormhole then why would there be piles of seagulls? Is this a stretch? Am i reading too much into this (YES)?

My interpretation of what was going on is less sci-fi and more metaphysical.  It's not that they found some magical wormhole that sent them back through time over and over, but that she personally is stuck in this looping reality, this limbo state, that compounds on itself each time through to further remind her of the futility of her efforts.  There's a lot of reference to Greek myth in the film, and the one that's especially pertinent is the myth of Sisyphus, who was forced to push a boulder up a hill for eternity, only to watch it roll back down before he reached the top.  In Triangle, the main character was responsible for her son's death, and the timeloop is her eternal punishment: each time through she thinks she's going to able to save him, only to end up killing him over and over again.

The pile of seagulls basically signifies that even though she thinks she's doing things differently this time, that she'll finally break the loop and save her son, she's actually gone through the same motions countless times already.  It's crazy bleak, and I love it for that.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: squints on November 01, 2012, 04:02:57 PM
Well, i guess that makes more sense....
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Fernando on November 27, 2012, 03:53:34 PM
SPOILS FOR KILL LIST

Also watched Kill List, which will be on my Xixax Awards ballot for the year.  It's interesting reading the mixed critical reaction to it, because it's an aggressively ambiguous film, and some people seem to be experiencing some powerful knee-jerking against that, but the movie is so rich and densely layered that I've spent the whole week since I watched it puzzling out theories in my mind.  It's not a particularly "horrific" film, for the most part, but similar to Drive, it's peppered with moments of violence that catch you entirely off-guard.  It's a film that doesn't let the audience off the hook by cutting away when it's expected to.  Also, the score is absolutely bonkers, in the best possible way.

saw Kill List yesterday. this movie is kind of insane, specially the last 10-15 minutes, I love the kind of movie that sticks with you and this one did, from that moment where crazy looking Fiona scratches the back of the mirror knew nothing good could come from that, and never imagined the outcome.....

so thank you xixax, last three films ive seen have been praised here and all of them are great.

the other two were Young Adult and Chronicle.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: squints on November 27, 2012, 08:12:42 PM
SPOILS FOR KILL LIST

Also watched Kill List, which will be on my Xixax Awards ballot for the year.  It's interesting reading the mixed critical reaction to it, because it's an aggressively ambiguous film, and some people seem to be experiencing some powerful knee-jerking against that, but the movie is so rich and densely layered that I've spent the whole week since I watched it puzzling out theories in my mind.  It's not a particularly "horrific" film, for the most part, but similar to Drive, it's peppered with moments of violence that catch you entirely off-guard.  It's a film that doesn't let the audience off the hook by cutting away when it's expected to.  Also, the score is absolutely bonkers, in the best possible way.

saw Kill List yesterday. this movie is kind of insane, specially the last 10-15 minutes, I love the kind of movie that sticks with you and this one did, from that moment where crazy looking Fiona scratches the back of the mirror knew nothing good could come from that, and never imagined the outcome.....

so thank you xixax, last three films ive seen have been praised here and all of them are great.

the other two were Young Adult and Chronicle.



Here's my question. Can we put kill list on our 2012 ballots this year?
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Reelist on April 02, 2013, 09:10:18 PM
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_T3lzrzH2fMo/SYyoroZVflI/AAAAAAAADwA/N5Vc7bmzyrY/s400/theburning_poster.jpg)
 The Burning
Tony Maylam 1981

This is a really fun, classic slasher.  A Nightmare on Elm Street borrowed from this movie.  An implied pedophile is tricked by some kids and he freaks out and catches himself on fire only to come back years later to get revenge on all of them.Lots of bad dialog, teen sex, and people getting murdered.  Clean, stupid fun.



You forgot the best part- It features George Costanza with hair.


kinda crazy that Miramax produced it.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Lottery on April 02, 2013, 09:14:32 PM
Oooh, a horror thread. The original Japanese version of The Ring is probably my favourite. Really gets under my skin with a mix of folk tales, urban legends, investigative focus and just plain creeepy atmosphere.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Reelist on April 02, 2013, 09:18:22 PM
I still gotta watch that!! I love Ju-On. Haven't seen The Grudge, I bet it sucks.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Lottery on April 02, 2013, 09:28:30 PM
The Grudge kept you on edge because it liked jump scares so much, and it's occasionally spooky. There's not that much too it beyond that.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: modage on October 01, 2013, 02:39:30 PM
October 1st.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_UlGMmBMwlM

I've been poring over the last few pages of this thread for recommendations (shout-out to Polka and RK for keeping it alive). I have a handful picked out I've never seen that I'd like to get to this month (Carpenter's "Christine," Hooper's "Lifeforce," Fulci's "The Beyond," "Timecrimes," "Wake In Fright," "Maniac," "Hausu," "The Uninvited," plus whatever else I can get to) and a few classic I'm going to rewatch (year by year I've been gently easing my GF into the horror wading pool). What's on deck for everybody else?
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: jenkins on October 01, 2013, 02:56:24 PM
i like your list. all worth seeing. wake in fright is so top shelf, recommend you save it for that kind of night. the original maniac? you might want to watch that early, because you might want to watch everything lustig. if the remake, tell me how that is (remake might have a thread, oh). hausu is bananas, good movie for a party night

mine (i'm a horror movie):
http://www.cinefamily.org/films/the-united-states-of-horror/
5 i want to see/haven't seen, but anyone who knows me knows they can ask me when they go to any movie and i'll go with them

patton oswalt is programming at the new bev. he's showing wake in fright with road games, fyi. later, not oswalt picked, hausu is doubling with eraserhead
http://newbevcinema.com
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Ghostboy on October 01, 2013, 03:19:02 PM
My wife and I are hosting a 24 Hour Scary Movie Marathon at our house this year. I'm going to be going back through these threads looking for ideas. So far the only sure-bets are POLTERGEIST (just for fun and familiarity's sake) and THE BIRDS (because my wife loves it and I've never seen it). I'm going to try to get a great mix of obscurities and classics. If we plan it well we should be able to fit in about 11 titles....
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Reelist on October 01, 2013, 03:26:41 PM
What's on deck for everybody else?

Tonight I will watch the 6th installment in the Child's Play series, 'Curse Of Chucky'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lw8rBxYC1Dw



Then, in no particular order I will knock these off the list. Most I've seen, but not in years.

Rosemary's Baby
Don't Look Now
Frailty
Demons
Manhunter/Silence of The Lambs/Hannibal
Children Shouldn't Play With Dead Things
Poltergeist 2&3 ( 1 is always a given )
Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2 ( 1, a given )
Possession
Suspiria ( anything Argento I can get my hands on )
....same goes for Lucio Fulci


There will be many many more, of course the staples like Halloween, Friday, Nightmare and their sequels. Can't end the month without being terrified by The Shining, but I need to buy it on bluray. most of my time will be spent dodging Polka's suggestions.



HAPPY OCTOBER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!   :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:







to pubrick:  :finger:
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: polkablues on October 02, 2013, 02:57:19 AM
I've been slacking a little in my horror watching, but I did watch Come Out and Play recently. Well made, with good performances, but it's an overly faithful remake that doesn't come close to the gonzo energy of the original Who Can Kill a Child? The most interesting thing about the remake is that it was directed by a pseudonymous Belarusian who wore a mask throughout the entire production and never revealed his face or identity to even the main actors. That has nothing to do with how the actual movie is, it's just outright odd.

I also saw You're Next not too long ago, which was great. In this era of overwhelmingly meta horror, it's almost refreshing to see a film that's simply a standard horror trope executed to perfection. It threatens to bog down in plot twists toward the end, but it carries them out so casually and naturally that it's easy to forgive. All the props in the world to Sharni Vinson for taking what could have been a totally unrealistic character and making her believable.

I saw Shark Night, that was a big "meh". Even the lovely Sara Paxton and the director of the best Final Destination movie couldn't save that one from PG-13 mediocrity.

I finally got around to watching Scream 4 and immediately regretted it. Side note, from the IMDb trivia: "Wes Craven stated he was not going to return as director unless the script was as good as the first Scream." *coughBULLSHITcough*

No wonder you guys are all marathoning classics right now; it's kind of a wasteland out there for good new horror. I need to check out what the French have been up to lately...
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: BB on October 06, 2013, 11:36:27 PM
Man, the Are You Afraid of the Dark theme music totally rips off that of Wake In Fright. So distracting! So awesome! Just the novelty of it... Took me right out of the movie every time.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: RegularKarate on October 08, 2013, 08:44:35 PM
I've also been slacking a little bit.

Here's the Horror movies I saw at Fantastic Fest:

- Nightbreed: The Cabal Cut: Took a movie I enjoyed as a teenager and added a bunch of VHS footage to make it more true to Clive Barker's original vision. It made twice as much sense, but was five times as boring.

- The Sacrament: The latest Ti West movie. I enjoyed the crap out of it, but it was a pretty straight-forward thriller about what is essentially Jonestown. It was a little baffling why he chose the Found Footage style (even after he explained it), but I still really liked it.

- The Green Inferno: Fuck me, this is Eli Roth proving he just makes the same fucking terrible movie over and over again. There's a really gruesome scene of canibalism followed by a poop joke... this pretty much describes the entire movie.

- Witching and Bitching: I have to say this movie is incredibly sexist and I have a hard time recommending it because of that, but I have to give props to a movie as INSANE as this one having that high of a production value. If you can see past how awful the men in this movie are, it's a really batshit, kinda fun ride.

------

That was technically the end of September. It's October and so far, I've just rewatched some stuff:

- Trollhunter: Still silly, still fun
- The Fly 2: I think this is a pretty overlooked sequel. Yeah, it's shit compared to the first, but it's not bad on its own. Some really well-done gore and make-up and pretty dark and ballsy (with the exception of the happy ending).
- Friday the 13th Part 2: Saw this last night. It starts out pretty suspenseful, but gives all that up about a third of the way in.

Yay Horror... I'm gonna catch up with you!
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Mel on October 09, 2013, 04:43:53 AM
The Dead Zone - more a thriller than a horror. It is very solid, I just didn't like premise from the start. I go ballistic, when I hear about "fortune telling" and I'm sorry, because I didn't manage to put that back behind. Character played by Walken is very likeable, yet I wanted to see him dead immediately when future seeing started.

Near Dark and again wrong choice on my part. Believing that I could digest "vampire movie", how silly of me? I liked "bar scene", rest I would like to skip.

Title: Re: Horror
Post by: jenkins on October 09, 2013, 11:38:12 AM
near dark is from '87 and it's a western vampire romance action movie. the cops' bulletholes through the hotel walls, and the light that pierces through the holes, is a nice touch and one can see the design later in hillcoat's the proposition. always enjoy near dark myself. it's not a horror movie no
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: jenkins on October 09, 2013, 11:45:11 PM
looking forward to these cinefamily selections (http://www.cinefamily.org/films/the-united-states-of-horror/). this is how you sell me a horror movie:

(http://i.imgur.com/G0gzRcY.gif)(http://i.imgur.com/kyHh850.gif)
(http://i.imgur.com/ndBWR6i.gif)(http://i.imgur.com/xHF2lD6.gif)
(titles on the top are the deadly spawn and death bed: the bed that eats (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01l1WIC9mBo))
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: polkablues on October 10, 2013, 12:14:06 AM
- Witching and Bitching: I have to say this movie is incredibly sexist and I have a hard time recommending it because of that, but I have to give props to a movie as INSANE as this one having that high of a production value. If you can see past how awful the men in this movie are, it's a really batshit, kinda fun ride.

I had never heard of this before now. Despite having the worst title of all time, it looks (from the trailer) like a lot of fun. Looks like a better-made version of Doghouse (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1023500/?ref_=ttfc_fc_tt), misogyny included.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: tpfkabi on October 10, 2013, 01:27:35 AM
Poltergeist 2&3 ( 1 is always a given )
Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2 ( 1, a given )

Poltergeist 2 & 3 - I always come back to these. They used to come on cable a lot.
2 has Kane, played by a man really dying from cancer - inspired by Night of the Hunter?
3 is so weird. all the smoke and mirrors. confined mostly to an apartment building. the actress who plays carol anne is dying from an undiagnosed sickness. the cast consists of tom skerritt, nancy allen (of depalma), laura flynn boyle circa Twin Peaks...and Zelda 'this haas is clear (clean?)' Rubinstein. the actor who played Kane in 2 died before the film finished. some really cool cinematography in 2. it's just such a weird and interesting film series.

Texas Chainsaw Massacre may be one of the last 'really popular' films I've never seen. It never seems to come on movie channels, but the remake does - which I watch sometimes for Biel.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Reelist on October 10, 2013, 08:48:33 AM
I didn't know that about the actors dying from terminal illnesses. The Poltergeist Curse (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poltergeist_curse#The_Poltergeist_curse) gets weirder the more you look into it...

Texas Chainsaw Massacre may be one of the last 'really popular' films I've never seen. It never seems to come on movie channels, but the remake does - which I watch sometimes for Biel.

Man, is your movie watching strictly limited to TV channels? It's funny how much stuff you seem to catch on the tube. I think we're the only ones left here  with cable. Gonna be a good month for TCM. Speaking of TCM, it's a fucking classic. Watch it now, it's on Youtube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Khox0ujJmqo). Normally, I wouldn't even suggest you watch it on your computer, but in this case, I'll make an exception. What about that remake? It's been 10 years since it came out, I saw bits and chunks of it in theaters. It had some really disturbing images, but nothing that could match the wild energy of the original. I'm sure if I watched it again, it would actually be a 'good remake' compared to the steady stream of crap they've been putting out since. I just think it's really lame how popular that remake is, all over TV this time of year. There's a whole generation that only knows TCM through those versions, and it's fucking sad.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: tpfkabi on October 11, 2013, 01:55:25 PM
Man, is your movie watching strictly limited to TV channels? It's funny how much stuff you seem to catch on the tube. I think we're the only ones left here  with cable. Gonna be a good month for TCM.

When I say cable, I usually mean what I would see on cable in the 90's as a teenager.

I don't go to the theater very often. I'm very patient with new things. I have no problem waiting until the 'new' wears off and getting it cheaper. I was buying a lot of used rental copies through Blockbuster -  I would wait until they had been out a while and eventually they start marking them down and buy a few at a time. All of those shut down, so now I'm not really doing that. So really I'm watching TCM and channels that show stuff uncut like IFC, Sundance. I'm letting the movies come to me. And then when I read about those online, they usually point me to other movies, so then I may buy some of those when I'm making an Amazon order to break $25, or I may just want to see them. BluRay/ DVD conversion is also keeping me back some, because I will need to buy new versions of everything - new TV, player, sound system - to get it to work.

There are a few directors that I will make a point to see or buy what they're doing like with Paul, Wes Anderson. I did buy The Master.

DISH will have free movie weekends several times a year, so then I can DVR a lot of stuff and catch up on newer movies. Redbox also sends me Free Movie coupons, so I can catch up that way also.

Back to Horror, I was in Best Buy the other day and just looked at the $4.99 bin and did a double take. It was The Good Son (1993) with Mac Culkin, but with a totally new cover. It appears the DVD is exactly the same, but they changed the artwork. That was another oddball that I would see on cable and stuck with me.

(http://thumbs2.ebaystatic.com/d/l225/m/m7pCUaimHjLZOo3JMs-Wq7w.jpg)

Weird - how do you describe this artwork? Cabin in the Woods meets From Hell (the red blotch). I don't know. They don't even put Elijah Wood's name on front. It has extras - trailer, short featurette - but no mention on the back.

This is one thing I don't understand with DVD manufacturing - when they take an older DVD and do nothing but change the artwork. The new Good Son packaging has a 2012 copyright, so why didn't they change anything else or put out a Blu-Ray? Same thing with Little Monsters (the Fred Savage vehicle). I bought the DVD. It is barebones and Full Screen, but there was no other option. I am in the same store a few months later and I notice Little Monsters with totally new artwork. I assume it is the same DVD though. It's like with King of the Hill TV series - supposedly they stopped releasing sets because they were not selling enough. Cue to the last year or so and I see new versions of the seasons already released. If it didn't sell, why would you go to the trouble of changing the packaging?
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Neil on October 16, 2013, 12:12:50 PM
The good son was one of the 1st movies that I got to see in the theatre. It might have even been the first,  I was 6 years old. My brothers 6 and 7 years older than me, so it was really for them.  But, this is one of the films I was going to mention in the podcast.  This movie was the most intense experience of my life folks.  My mom actually stopped me from attempting to leave several times, because I was so on edge, I couldn't handle it. I tried to lie to my mom and tell her that I had to go to the bathroom, but she made sure that my 6 yr old self sat right there for the whole thing instead of  wandering around the theatre. 
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Reelist on October 16, 2013, 12:19:40 PM
That's a perfect age for The Good Son, I think I must've been that young too because I remember thinking of Macauly and Elijah as 'big kids'. One scene in particular I found terrifying and has stayed with me from that viewing, which I'll talk about on the podcast (tease)
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Sleepless on October 16, 2013, 12:24:54 PM
I'm only commenting to point out that Reelist just posted reply #666 in the Horror thread but unfortunately didn't wait until it was actually Halloween to do so. Oh well.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Reelist on October 16, 2013, 12:31:04 PM
Oh, awesome. I would've never noticed that. Nice bit of serendipity after we chose the movie we're discussing  :yabbse-lipsrsealed:

that reminds me, the first time I PM'ed neil was congratulating him on making his 666th post with a jesus av.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: jenkins on October 16, 2013, 01:29:11 PM
you remember how tough i am. so fucking tough. i've watched edward scissorhands at home, as my personal collection selection, es, 3x over three days because also it helps me fall asleep. spirited away, fallen angels, rebels of the neon god, and kes have been there for me during nights passed. i don't even think es is a horror movie. i'm letting vincent price trick me, and i don't get scared
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: tpfkabi on October 17, 2013, 12:41:00 PM
The good son was one of the 1st movies that I got to see in the theatre. It might have even been the first,  I was 6 years old. My brothers 6 and 7 years older than me, so it was really for them.  But, this is one of the films I was going to mention in the podcast.  This movie was the most intense experience of my life folks.  My mom actually stopped me from attempting to leave several times, because I was so on edge, I couldn't handle it. I tried to lie to my mom and tell her that I had to go to the bathroom, but she made sure that my 6 yr old self sat right there for the whole thing instead of  wandering around the theatre.

Do you think it was a good thing that she made you watch it?
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Neil on October 17, 2013, 10:38:48 PM
^ at the time I thought I was going to piss my pants (from tension), so i was kind of just flustered and frustrated.  But, now I would say, yes I think it's a good thing. I never had that kind of a cinematic experience before.  It's great that she made me watch it.
SPOILS FOR THE GOOD SON
 I'm still devastated that she had to drop her own son. 
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: jenkins on October 18, 2013, 10:53:50 PM
encouraging everyone who sees carrie to come tell good carrie news. all the words against it are guessable. idgaf about the book or comparisons to de palma or computer effects or any of that. come give me the goodies, please
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Reelist on October 19, 2013, 07:57:59 AM
You're the one who goes to all these exclusive screenings of first run movies and it's up to us to inform you about this giant mainstream hit?

idgaf about the book or comparisons to de palma or computer effects or any of that. come give me the goodies, please

Well, sorry but I have blinders on causing me to ONLY see these things when I'm watching a remake. It may be good, but there won't be credit bush. Kimberly Pierce is a talented woman, but I thought the same of Jose Padhila (Bus 174) and that he could possibly save the robocop remake  :roll:

I would like to go, I just hate the mall. I'll try my best to write a review for you since you're oh-so-busy.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: polkablues on October 19, 2013, 10:11:30 AM
You thought Jose Padhila was a talented woman?
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Reelist on October 19, 2013, 10:19:11 AM
You thought Jose Padhila was a talented woman?


There is a slight feminine quality to his features


(http://b.vimeocdn.com/ts/135/637/135637542_640.jpg)
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: jenkins on October 19, 2013, 12:26:21 PM
carrie,

it's no hit, is it, i don't think so. it's october and it'll make gobs of money, but i just want people to come and tell me nice things about carrie, if there are nice things to say, idk, i haven't seen it. i like its credits

i don't call it a remake of the movie, i don't like that. carrie began as a book. the first remake was carrie, by de palma. an adaptation is a remake -- an art piece is being remade into a different art piece. i've said elsewhere, even during the holy days of a pta preproduction, that i don't like the dilution of literature with cinema. if you see a movie you like a lot, do you expect to go find the novelization and improve your understanding of the movie? no way. you go buy a novelization to have a laugh. i don't think they make novelizations anymore, do they? the craft of cinema is different from the craft of literature, and vice versa

so fuck the book. and you can't touch de palma, so fuck de palma. computer effects, well, i can't take them out of the movie by hating them, so fuck them

i'm less likely to see horror movies, because they scare me. has anyone seen carrie?! you can tell us things. you know what to do  :embrace:
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Reelist on October 19, 2013, 12:56:08 PM
carrie,
i don't call it a remake of the movie, i don't like that. carrie began as a book. the first remake was carrie, by de palma. an adaptation is a remake -- an art piece is being remade into a different art piece.

Oh, man  :doh: You got me there. I guess the original is so prevalent that I can't help but compare the two. I feel really dumb, but it will be almost impossible for me to judge this on it's own merits.

there is a Carrie thread (http://xixax.com/index.php?topic=12360.0), you know...
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: jenkins on October 19, 2013, 01:35:09 PM
yeah this is my remake. things a lil difrent
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Reelist on October 19, 2013, 01:47:41 PM
When I do my auto-biopic, I'll call it 'the remake of my life'
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: jenkins on October 19, 2013, 02:07:30 PM
hell yeah. today i feel inspired to finish my hagiography on myself. close to the payout for my learning about attila the hun and stealing his life. working on the musical chapter, to show those suckers in the future that i tapped my toes through all of time
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Alexandro on October 19, 2013, 05:43:46 PM
there isn't a thread for andrés muschietti's "mama"? That was a good horror film, for a change.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: polkablues on October 19, 2013, 06:31:50 PM
Two-thirds of a good horror film, at least. I thought it really shat the bed toward the end.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Alexandro on October 19, 2013, 08:33:24 PM
but then it recovers and delivers a good sour ending.
not perfect but with more substance than the usual and is not some meta exercise about "genre" like cabin in the woods, which I hated. Mama, I thought had very nice touches, although the usual scares and tricks and jumps are abused as in every other horror film, but it manages to sustain a pretty eerie vibe through the whole thing and Jessica Chastain is a goddess.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: polkablues on October 19, 2013, 11:25:35 PM
MAMA SPOILERS, FOR ANYONE WHO CARES

I agree that the atmosphere was fantastic, Jessica Chastain elevated the whole proceedings, and I thought the kids were fantastic, I just hated how the story, which had been very successfully creepy and unnerving all throughout, had to escalate into this big shouty showdown at the end. Yeah, the little girl drowning with Mama had the potential to be a nice downbeat ending, but I hated the way they got there. And I think I reacted even more strongly against it because of how much I loved the majority of the film.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Alexandro on October 20, 2013, 02:13:50 AM
can't say I disagree with you.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: jenkins on October 20, 2013, 03:03:29 PM
not abandoning my hopes for someone to carrie me. let's pause carrie until people arrive

last night i wanted to halloween myself with a horror movie. of course i chose a movie that's kinda not fully a horror movie:

detention, dir: joseph kahn (music videos, torque), 2011, 93min

detention's cinema is astounding. kahn has so much talent and ability. it's just impossible that detention was made without a broad understanding of cinema

problem is, detention is wacky. it'd take me many sentences to explain it. here's a summary: the reappropriation of 20 years of pop culture, filtered through a hodgepodge of narratives (high school, with a time travel twist, and a slasher twist, and a romance). irl i've told people about this movie as "scott pilgrim, if scott pilgrim made less sense" and that still sounds right

everything that doesn't make sense is simply kahn sometimes making shit up to prompt the narrative paths he desires. you can notice this right away, then later you can stop worrying. it's pure fantasy sprinkled with elements of real people. the people elements are highly detailed and explored, both through character building and, i adore this, through the use of camera and editing

last night was my third time watching the movie, and i like it more and more each time i see it. it'd be fun if i could get someone here to watch it and talk about it with me. there are such treats in this movie!

fuck the trailer. the trailer doesn't reveal the pleasures. I'VE PROVIDED A CLIP THAT'S THE END OF THE MOVIE, but all it'll tell you is the romance goes well, which i'm positive is the one detail you can already guess. more importantly, you see the cinema and pop culture i'm talking about (and there are plenty of other more unguessable narrative particulars in detention, and i think the trailer sucks):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxmJtYRXJgU

it's funny to me the imdb message board has a thread titled "Intelligent film masquerading as trash"
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Drenk on October 20, 2013, 03:09:13 PM
I've seen Detention. I loved it. It's Scott Pilgrim meets Scream. Did you see the four Scream? They're great, especially the last one : Sc4eam. The movie is pure fantasy and nostalgia. You don't really care about the characters, but they're nearly myth : The Weirdo, The Blond, The Handsome Guy. But they have something more...

I'll watch it again soon.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: jenkins on October 20, 2013, 03:54:12 PM
!!! yaaay

at first i thought i haven't seen scream 4, but now i realize i have. that was two and a half years ago and i remember: a girl in her living room talking about movies she likes for some reason. i kinda remember someone's living room and that's it, so i should go back, especially if you're recommending. the synopsis reminds me about self-helf books, lol. i'm surprised i forgot about rory culkin. sorry rory

it's not on netflix streaming :( detention isn't on netflix streaming :( i'll find a way to rewatch scream 4. netflix asked me this today:
(http://i.imgur.com/OX5QpH4.png)
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: polkablues on October 21, 2013, 02:17:18 AM
NO GOOD CAN COME OF REWATCHING SCREAM 4.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: jenkins on October 21, 2013, 02:58:19 AM
Did you see the four Scream? They're great, especially the last one : Sc4eam.
NO GOOD CAN COME OF REWATCHING SCREAM 4.

i'm nervous right now. do you see me looking at my hands? i'm looking at my hands. drenk has a secret: france's 290 nuclear weapons. drenk has more nukes than china. more than the united kingdom. more than pakistan, israel, and india combined. france has the same number of nuclear weapons as france, and that's a lot, that's #3 behind us and russia

is drenk looking at us? i'm looking at my hands. can't wait to see scream 4 again. for children
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Reelist on October 21, 2013, 03:08:12 AM
The kills weren't very creative, this one was the worst

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9AZitYfM0M
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Drenk on October 21, 2013, 04:14:10 AM
I don't like Scream 4 for the kills. And this scene is very funny.

I love how they make us think it's a reboot with new young actors. But it's not. The meta aspect is fun too. And it has a great ending about teenagers who only want to be famous. Very creepy.  :bravo:

"One generation's tragedy is the next one's joke."
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Lottery on October 26, 2013, 09:04:37 PM
Mama (possible spoilers)

Watched Mama, was pretty enjoyable. Showed too much off near the end and the film became more of a supernatural family drama, last 15 mins were particularly meh. But the way they weaved in the short film was really cool.
Crazy ghost was a bitch though, didn't deserve the little feral one but I guess the little feral one didn't mind.
Also the kids were really quite good in this. The little one especially, that little feral cutie.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: jenkins on October 28, 2013, 08:40:52 PM
i visited one. i visited john carpenter's in the mouth of madness and enjoyed it

"it's cane's story and it'll spread with each new reader. that's how it gets its power."
"what about the people who don't read?"
"there's a movie."
"ah yes, of course."

enjoyed the movie's study of pop culture and its obsessions with fantasy stories. how i can relate to the problem! it was interesting to see a story about fiction becoming reality (that's its theme). thought it was well shot and edited. fabulous horror movie montages. and today i read about michael de luca, whom i can't believe i haven't read about before!

so right now it's my favorite october personal discovery. glad i made the trip. soon i might see endangered species and chopping mall. those could be somebody. those could be contenders
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Kellen on October 29, 2013, 03:51:26 PM
Someone just posted this on my facebook feed:

Totally Fucked Up: Films That Disturb and Offend (http://www.listal.com/list/totally-fcked-up-films-disturb)


It isn't all horror flicks but maybe theres something on there someone hasn't watched/heard of yet.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Reelist on October 29, 2013, 04:06:54 PM
someone beat you to the punch (http://xixax.com/index.php?topic=3152.msg327422#msg327422). I like that list, though. It introduced me to Ichi, which I bought but haven't watched yet. It can't be more violent than Itchy and Scratchy, right?

Reminded me to rewatch Midnight Cowboy, which was great. How did I forget about that film for so long? Turkish Delight I need to see, Spetters as well ( own it ). Confirms my secretly held belief that Cronenberg is the king of disturbing imagery.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: jenkins on November 08, 2013, 02:55:15 PM
!!!!

tbh that's my favorite fulci movie. he has many more and this might not be your favorite, but it is mine. black christmas, classic. squirm! please tell me. popcorn, what is that, please tell me. maniac cop, great. excited for you!
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Reelist on November 08, 2013, 03:29:36 PM
Popcorn is the one I'm most excited about based on the back of the box:

"A campy movie marathon turns into an endless night of terror when a crazed killer decides to make a horror movie of his own. Inspired by the gruesome scenes on screen, he stalks the theater for victims to "Star" in his murder masterpiece. Assuming that it's all just part of the show, the eager audience cheers him on, unaware that any one of them could be next!"

Only Fulci movie I've seen is 'The House By The Cemetery' and I fucking loved it, think I will all of his movies. Black Christmas is the only one I've seen and could be my favorite slasher. Squirm is just undeniable for that cover, worth the price of admission, featured prominently in 'Rewind This!'


I think this could be the beginning of an addiction...
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: ElPandaRoyal on November 09, 2013, 03:00:15 PM
There's nothing stupid about that Fulci pic. It's so dirty and plain wrong it's great.

OK, it's also really stupid, but that makes it even better.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Mel on November 19, 2013, 05:02:14 AM
I collected some zombie movies (loosely categorized) for marathon: Pontypool, REC 2, The Return of the Living Dead, Let Sleeping Corpses Lie. This time picks turned out to be much better than expected, it was fun.

Pontypool

Low budget production, which overcomes money with great ideas. We don't see any "zombies" for 50 minutes. Instead we're trapped together with crew inside the small local radio station, which is reporting on outbreak. We (as audience) share same confusion and disbelieve with characters: what is going on / is this for real? Much is left to our imagination - nice to see something else than gore fest.

SPOILERS - skip further paragraph if you didn't see a film. What comes next is big mind fuck - it requires a lot of trust from audience. I can see falling it apart easily if questioned too much at that time - it works better if left alone for the time. It explains ambiguous opening, which serves as reminder to "pay attention to words". Pontypool is heavy on allegories, it has social commentary (wink to Romero), which is a bit obscured and abstract. Infected words - some topics avoided in politics? The Herd, "You're shooting at scared people" - political protests? Mixed with mostly ignorant media - radio, which is more interested in shocking than informing.

Pontypool feels very refreshing, definitely worth seeing, even if film doesn't succeed in 100%.

REC 2

For still unknown reasons for me, I was sure I've seen it before.

Introduction of anti-terrorist unit could be fatal to the film: those guys shouldn't have much problem with killing the zombies, right? Ending of previous movie is explored to the full extend. This way, well trained and well equipped unit feels very vulnerable , probably even more that protagonists from original REC.

I hate shaky cam, when it is used as mere gimmick. I didn't have problem with it in REC 2 - it is used as convention and POVs shots are often very energetic. It fits story well and doesn't fell forced at all. That mixed with dosed gore gave me few chills.

Well made zombie flick, there aren't many more recent movies that get better than this.

The Return of the Living Dead

Classic. I did see it on pirate TV station (those are long gone now), when I was twelve or so. I did remember beginning and ending, not much in between - I was quite surprised by naked chick and few other things I forgot about. It was time to refresh my memory.

It is still fun to watch - especially well made montage sequences. It pays its tribute to Romero, yet diverges from that universe very quickly, when first zombie is disemboweled. Both humans and survivors are well organized, which is in a stark contrast compared to most of the film in genre.

Hard to say anything else, beside that film is more a black comedy than zombie flick - which is good thing.

Let Sleeping Corpses Lie

Again something else. First 50 minutes is just a back story - more than in any zombie film I can think of. This is kinda important, because film takes quality over quantity, so audience should care for characters. After first victim of zombies if found, police investigation starts. Police of course treats it as murder, which it reasonable and quite fun to follow.

Way the dead started rising is quite original to say at least. Ending is also very European, which I liked a lot.

Summary

I can endorse any position on this list. It was one of the best horror marathons I did - one great film after another.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: jenkins on January 02, 2014, 12:49:22 PM
this scanners iii: the takeover scene questions free spirit

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0bQpO5WAr50

this silent night deadly night part ii scene evaluates bullying's potential harm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0vtnOzVYh0
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Mel on January 15, 2014, 04:58:05 AM
I stumbled on blog written by Stuart Cohen (http://"http://theoriginalfan.blogspot.com/"), co-producer of "The Thing" (John Carpenter's version). There is so much interesting stuff there. I have seen "The Thing" twice since then and this is by far the horror I have watched the most (probably two digit number through all years). I'm always amazed how nicely work of Carpenter ages and I'm not speak only about "The Thing" - for comparison "They Live" with its low budget gained a lot of charm for me over time.

SPOILERS!

The most interesting topic I found on the blog: off screen deaths of Fuchs and Nauls. According to blog, original material didn't work and Carpenter didn't have time or money to fix that. Death of Fuchs was shoot over 3 hours time frame or so, which is kinda amazing. I won't go "how he died?" route - fans of the film like to argue about this, instead I'm more focused why this works at all? He died at the right time. On one hand modus operandi of the thing is establish till then, on the other hand rest of the outpost's crew doesn't have time to investigate. Film accelerates after than and it is pretty much action sequence after action sequence. Still it takes a lot of guts to kill two characters off screen.

Other interesting bit (not sure how I missed that): Wilford "Blair" Brimley didn't go to British Columbia. That is one of the reasons why we don't see him in any outside scene: "Where is Blair?".
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Lottery on January 15, 2014, 06:43:55 AM
The Thing is pretty perfect. And though not entirely horror, I think Cameron's Aliens is the only film that came after that can stand alongside it in that 'survival action horror' sort of niche.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Mel on January 15, 2014, 08:06:08 AM
The Thing is pretty perfect. And though not entirely horror, I think Cameron's Aliens is the only film that came after that can stand alongside it in that 'survival action horror' sort of niche.

Both have many similarities: isolation, alien form, crew that cannot be trusted. I also wonder if flamethrowers have anything to do with the current status of "Alien" and "The Thing"? On that level they can be compared.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Mel on January 31, 2014, 02:25:31 PM
Fear on Film - roundtable from 1982 with David Cronenberg, John Carpenter and John Landis.

Looks like it was shot before release of "The Thing", Cronenberg was working on "Videodrome" and Landis... well that Helicopter accident. That was bad year for all of them I guess.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uoGIyAtCJ-k

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2dKmFG-CTI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vjjQH71Q7c
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: jenkins on January 31, 2014, 02:45:20 PM
the interviewer is, as he says, mick garris. garris made the good version of the shining and produced masters of horror, which had everyone here but cronenberg, and somewhere in the masters of horror discs this video is available btw
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Reelist on January 31, 2014, 03:23:03 PM
I remember watching this on the Videodrome criterion. What a buncha creeps
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: polkablues on January 31, 2014, 05:55:29 PM
garris made the good version of the shining

Uh-oh.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: jenkins on January 31, 2014, 06:03:10 PM
are you confused right now
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Mel on January 31, 2014, 06:38:37 PM
garris made the good version of the shining

Guess that was unintentional, but this is how I read it for the first time too (implication of those specific words): "the other version was bad" and that is like asking for lynching.

btw. One of the reasons why I find those interviews so interesting: "An American Werewolf in London", "The Thing", "Videodrome" are one of the finest examples, when it comes to conventional special effects. In 1982 "Tron" was also released, which showed a bit of what would come.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: jenkins on January 31, 2014, 09:19:19 PM
thought it was well-known that garris and king made their shining bc they thought kubrick fucked up, and the results were so obvious that it seems more incredible to me that anyone thought anyone preferred the garris version. guessing a lack of garris movies seen
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: polkablues on February 01, 2014, 12:07:20 AM
I've seen a crap-ton of Mick Garris. It just wasn't clear that you were being ironic, since Mick Garris' work is universally shitty. So I assumed you were either trolling for reactions, or horribly mistaken about the difference between good and shit.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: jenkins on February 01, 2014, 12:10:30 AM
hi i'm jenkins, nice to meet you. this place seems depressing
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: polkablues on February 01, 2014, 12:49:31 AM
Meh, I've seen depressinger.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Mel on March 20, 2014, 04:52:02 PM
I'm in middle of watching another collection, but there is one film I want to bring right now.

Frailty

This film is interesting for few reasons. It is told in similar manner to "True Detective" - McConaughey is interrogated here to. Moreover it brings new perspective to his acceptance speech for Academy Award, mainly his relation with god.

Overall I liked film a lot, even though it relies on plot twists to great extend. It had guts to go full distance and didn't pull off from what it is: horror film. Those two young actors were great, without them film would collapse. There isn't too much gore, yet atmosphere is heavy and creepy all the time. I can recommend it without hesitation.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Reelist on March 20, 2014, 06:20:58 PM
Such a fucking good movie and the only thing i gave mcconaughey credit for 4 YEARS
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: SailorOfTheSeas on June 13, 2014, 11:52:03 AM
Top whatever BEST and SCARIEST horror films that you've seen?

I really want to watch something proper good and scary tonight...what do you lot recommend?

My favourites and the most effective i've seen that i can think of off the top of my head are The Orphanage, The Shining, Blair Witch, The Ring, Alien. What do you recommend that is both great and scary?
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Mel on June 13, 2014, 01:40:09 PM
I really want to watch something proper good and scary tonight...what do you lot recommend?

It is hard to not recommend something not obscure without knowing how familiar are you with genre. Still will try to counter-match some of your picks:

Title: Re: Horror
Post by: jenkins on June 13, 2014, 01:47:56 PM
I really want to watch something proper good and scary tonight...what do you lot recommend?

It is hard to not recommend something not obscure without knowing how familiar are you with genre. Still will try to counter-match some of your picks:

  • The Orphanage - small people, so maybe "The Brood"? Haunted house - "The Changeling"?
  • The Shining - there is nothing similar on that level I guess. "Suspiria" has some interesting art design - architecture, weird interiors etc. Man going insane angle - "Jacob's Ladder"?
  • Blair Witch - found footage, "REC" then? "Videodrome" is quasi-found footage ;)
  • The Ring - things you shouldn't touch - "Hellraiser" or visit - "1408"?
  • Alien - sci-fi survival horror, "The Thing". Other apocalyptic films with aliens: "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" (1978 version).
i think mel's list is great. i'd like to doubledown on jacon's ladder, and

videodrome is a gateway drug to the horror movies of cronenberg

you could go from there to dead ringers, then head back to his beginning to see his impressive spectrum of horror movies, then head forward from dead ringers to see how strangely elastic he's become
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: polkablues on June 13, 2014, 02:54:17 PM
Mel's list is great. You really can't go wrong there.

Some more, with a heavy emphasis on the unsettling:

Martyrs, Grave Encounters, Kill List, Lake Mungo, Triangle, Session 9, Inside
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Lottery on June 13, 2014, 08:22:11 PM
Good suggestions. The Orphanage was freaky at times but to me it less of a horror film and more of a Hitchcockian drama/thriller sort of thing.

For something similar to The Ring, try the original Dark Water. I'll assume you've watched the original Japanese version of The Ring (which is my favourite horror film).
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: polkablues on June 13, 2014, 08:23:43 PM
Also, if you liked The Orphanage but haven't seen Devil's Backbone, see Devil's Backbone.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Lottery on June 13, 2014, 08:40:29 PM
Also, if you liked The Orphanage, you might get a kick out of The Others.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: polkablues on June 13, 2014, 08:45:50 PM
Also, if you like The Others, The Awakening has its charms.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: MacGuffin on June 13, 2014, 10:45:07 PM
Also, if your list doesn't have The Exorcist and The Omen, see The Exorcist and The Omen.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: polkablues on June 13, 2014, 11:59:33 PM
Also, if you're diving back into the classics, Don't Look Now and Peeping Tom.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Mel on June 14, 2014, 08:21:04 AM
Some more, with a heavy emphasis on the unsettling:

Martyrs, Grave Encounters, Kill List, Lake Mungo, Triangle, Session 9, Inside

SailorOfTheSeas didn't mention any horror with graphical violence, so I was careful with that. Before throwing yourself against "Martyrs" and alike, I would recommend to start with something weaker. This isn't necessary in chronological order: start with giallo horrors like "Deep Red", "Tenebre", move onto classic slashers like original "Halloween" or "The Texas Chain Saw Massacre", then move onto extremes.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: polkablues on June 14, 2014, 10:34:58 AM
I guess I'm more of the "toss him in the water and see if he can swim" mindset when it comes to horror. If that is a concern, steer clear of Inside, as well. In some ways, the violence in that is even harder to watch than Martyrs.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: polkablues on June 14, 2014, 02:55:31 PM
I just pulled out my Martyrs DVD and watched the hour-long making of doc, which I had never seen before. Anyway, I'm really leaning toward rejecting the notion that the violence in Martyrs is something that should you need to build an immunity to before you watch it. Unlike the artiness of Argento or the schlockiness of Texas Chainsaw, Martyrs has a mindfulness to its approach to violence that's more... meaningful, I guess, than a typical slasher or giallo. The violence isn't something to laugh at or to admire, but to be affected by. It takes violence seriously, and forces the audience to do the same. If you're watching the film and not being brutalized by it, if you're treating it just as a test of how much gore you can handle, you're missing out on what makes the film special. I hate that Pascal Laugier often thinks Martyrs is something he needs to apologize for, simply because too many people underestimate its purpose and intention. That's my two cents.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Mel on June 14, 2014, 03:45:43 PM
I just pulled out my Martyrs DVD and watched the hour-long making of doc, which I had never seen before. Anyway, I'm really leaning toward rejecting the notion that the violence in Martyrs is something that should you need to build an immunity to before you watch it. Unlike the artiness of Argento or the schlockiness of Texas Chainsaw, Martyrs has a mindfulness to its approach to violence that's more... meaningful, I guess, than a typical slasher or giallo. The violence isn't something to laugh at or to admire, but to be affected by. It takes violence seriously, and forces the audience to do the same. If you're watching the film and not being brutalized by it, if you're treating it just as a test of how much gore you can handle, you're missing out on what makes the film special. I hate that Pascal Laugier often thinks Martyrs is something he needs to apologize for, simply because too many people underestimate its purpose and intention. That's my two cents.

If you are preaching at me, I'm wrong audience - just take a look at Gaspar Noe's or "disturbing films" thread. I don't have problems with it and agree that Laugier doesn't need to apologize for anything.

It isn't about building an immunity though. For some people it is just few bridges too far. I'm aware of people who would like to un-see "Irreversible". It doesn't matter if image is an illusion like in film, it can have same effect and that is why we love the cinema for I think. Not everyone is inclined to be unsettled to same degree, then again this is one of the main reasons behind horror genre. Maybe Argento is enough to achieve this goal, maybe not.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: polkablues on June 14, 2014, 03:56:54 PM
I hear you. I think I just get overly defensive about Martyrs because I think it's a great and important film that everyone should watch, and too often I see the "extreme" label slapped on it as a way of dismissing it, or minimizing it. That's definitely not what you were doing, but my reflexive knee-jerk activated anyway.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Mel on June 14, 2014, 04:49:43 PM
(...) too often I see the "extreme" label slapped on it as a way of dismissing it, or minimizing it. That's definitely not what you were doing, but my reflexive knee-jerk activated anyway.

I see how "Martyrs and alike" could be misunderstood for dismissive tone. By using extreme in phrase I was thinking of "New French Extremity" - recognizing this as part of larger movement is quite the opposite of minimizing it in my opinion.

Small digression. 10 years ago, when I was in high school, whole class took trip to cinema. It was "The Passion of the Christ". One of the teachers started to cry and had to walk out in the middle of a film - it was just too much. At the time I was heavy entrenched into gore cinema etc. I started laughing, since I was too dim-witted to emphasize with her. Over the years this accident started to hunt me. For me it was just a film, for her it wasn't and she wasn't able to detach actors stained with fake blood from violence and suffering.

This is why I'm careful with recommending some films. As much I think Russell's "The Devils" is a beautiful film, I'm more than concerned with passing it onto anyone. I'm more likely to do so in circles (like Xixax), where crowd is more familiar with the medium, even then I would do so with a warning (or at least try).
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Reelist on June 14, 2014, 05:19:46 PM
I'm not ready to see Martyrs because I heard it's disturbing on the same level as Irreversible. Unlike my experience with Irreversible, where I was expecting the 9 minute thingy from a mile away, I have no idea what Martyrs is about and would like to keep it that way and just watch it blind when I'm in the mood for something sickening. I find that mostly these days I'm not interested in being 'challenged' by cinema. I just wanna be entertained, have a good time, go to bed with sweet dreams.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: polkablues on June 14, 2014, 05:44:44 PM
I'm not ready to see Martyrs because I heard it's disturbing on the same level as Irreversible. Unlike my experience with Irreversible, where I was expecting the 9 minute thingy from a mile away, I have no idea what Martyrs is about and would like to keep it that way and just watch it blind when I'm in the mood for something sickening. I find that mostly these days I'm not interested in being 'challenged' by cinema. I just wanna be entertained, have a good time, go to bed with sweet dreams.

I recommend not learning too much about Martyrs before you watch it. Part of what's great about it is how it plays with your expectations.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: wilder on June 14, 2014, 05:45:57 PM
I'm not ready to see Martyrs because I heard it's disturbing on the same level as Irreversible.

I'd agree with that, maybe more. Probably the most disturbing horror movie I can think of. The last 20 minutes or whatever are retarded, but jesus christ the majority of it is distressing and likely to leave scars. The plot of Martyrs is pretty much my (and anyone's) worst nightmare, I think.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Reelist on June 14, 2014, 06:57:56 PM
SCARIEST horror films that you've seen?

It's tough to say, our idea of "what's scary" changes so much throughout our lives. That's why This (http://xixax.com/index.php?topic=5234.0) is such a great thread. I appreciate horror for aesthetic reasons, I just think they're the most interesting kind of films to look at, as well as being willing, above any genre, to dive into the darkest depths of our psyche. As I've learned more about how the effects are done, I can really detach from the violence happening on screen and see it as a construction. Like, when I was little and watched an old movie and the blood was too bright red or whatever, I'd think "That's cheesy," because I wanted to believe everything onscreen was really happening. Now that I'm fully aware of the hard work that goes into such things, I practically applaud when I see some stabbing or beheading done well, regardless of if it seems real or not.

I guess what really scares us is the feeling of being helpless, not being in control of whatever is going to jump out at you next. As I've grown up, I've gravitated away from seeking that thrill in horror movies and have found it more often in documentaries. 'Dear Zachary' is a film that truly makes you feel helpless in the most agonizing way. Movies like that don't just give you a jump scare then tell you everything's okay, they fucking stick with you.

with that said, I'm going to attempt making of list of my scariest movies, ones that would freak me out at this minute if I popped 'em in the DVD player:

1. Peeping Tom
2. The Fly
3. Maniac ( original AND remake )
4. Pet Sematary
5. Henry: Portrait Of A Serial Killer

( obviously left The Shining out because we all know wtf the deal is )
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: polkablues on June 14, 2014, 07:06:52 PM
The last 20 minutes or whatever are retarded

Nonsense.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: jenkins on June 14, 2014, 07:15:39 PM
i mightta mentioned before how kill list changed my theater seating habits. i used to be frontrow/midtheater+midrow/whatevs, depending on movie/theater, but while watching kill list i had so much uncomfortable anxiety that i walked out for a zen breathing exercise, and i returned to sit in a back aisle seat, which changed my preferences to frontow/backaisle/whatevs. i need aisle space to feel personally safe during scary movies! i'm such a baby

positive i've mentioned how asking friends to see cannibal holocaust with me is the worst theater invite i ever made. i thought it'd be stupid funny or something. nope. we were all quiet during and after, and two of the friends never went to a movie with me again. well they were friends of the main friend. but still, definitely not a fun theater experience

my personal feelings about horror movies are best illustrated during don't deliver us from evil and alucarda, meaning i basically like them because the world feels overall terrible to me anyway, so sometimes my friends and i embrace the madness

i'd also like to tripledown on recommendations for peeping tom, and doubledown pet sematary

henry portrait of a serial killer i watched while i was watching horror movies with a girl, and for some terrible/accidental reason is one in a series of like 5 horror movies in which the rape of a female was a principle component. it was a continuous "oh. :(" experience. rape scenes are a common element to many movies, and sometimes they convert into female empowerment, like during the excellent ms. 45 but i overall can't stand rape scenes and their legacy, because of course i can't stand the legacy of rapes. i'm feeling emotional
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Reelist on June 14, 2014, 09:17:47 PM
side note

I'm about to watch Phantasm. I remember catching it on tv as kid around 8-10. It was towards the end when the metal ball really starts flying around everywhere. I got such a weird vibe from it at that age, having no comprehension of what was going on and just kind of succumbing to the movie's rules. Hopefully I'll be able to understand it a little better now.

I bought it recently along with this:

(http://www.hungryshakespeare.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/the-entity.jpg)

It's a new favorite horror of mine, thought I wrote about it in this thread, but couldn't find it to quote. 'Poltergeist' meets 'The Accused'.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: jenkins on June 14, 2014, 10:58:08 PM
been wanting to rewatch phantasm myself. yeah it's been some years for me too, and i remember the flying doohickey and scenes set in the places you go into at a cemetery, and someone walks around for a while in really mysterious ways. sorry about all those spoilers.  please tell me how it is. lil busy with rocky right now, but thinking about watching all of them. and i've instigated a sudden desire to also rewatch the loved one
[edit]
for phantasm i also remember teenagers doing sexual things in a cemetery, and during that scene i thought about sexual battles against the fear of death
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: polkablues on July 24, 2014, 06:03:17 PM
Watched a handful from my Netflix queue over the past few days.

(http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV5BMjM0NjExNDkwOF5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwMDQ3ODQxOQ@@._V1_SX214_AL_.jpg)
BLACK ROCK

The weird thing about this movie is just how perfunctory it is. Katie Aselton and Mark Duplass are filmmakers who, when working in their wheelhouse, make hit or miss comedies with a distinct authorial voice. In the case of Black Rock, they made a paint-by-numbers wilderness-survival horror flick. Even the part they should have excelled at, the character-building first act, rings hollow and surprisingly amateurish. Duplass especially knows better than to write a movie where the characters say exactly what they're thinking at all times with no subtext. Poor Kate Bosworth and Lake Bell do the best they can with what they're given, and the performances almost save it, along with a really nice villain turn by Jay Paulson.

That said, the meat of the film, the survival action, is perfectly competent, but doesn't bring anything new to the table. The use of female nudity in a completely non-gratuitous was an interesting genre tweak, but one new idea isn't enough to push the movie beyond decent but forgettable.

C+


(http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV5BNDUzOTc0MjY1M15BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwNjUwOTg4OA@@._V1_SY317_CR3,0,214,317_AL_.jpg)
THE MOORING

Another film in the wilderness survival genre, very similar to Black Rock in both intent and execution. The story of a group of teenage girls sent off on a wilderness retreat to wean themselves off of overuse of technology (cleverly built-in plot device to avoid having to use the old "no cell phone signal" trope), the highlight is the charmingly naturalistic performances of the mostly first-time actors playing the girls. There are maybe too many characters and not enough distinct character traits to distinguish them, but the rapport between the actors makes the slow build more enjoyable and less cursory.

As with Black Rock, once the action starts, it feels largely like going through the motions. One interesting choice, whether production-based or artistically driven, was never showing the deaths of the girls onscreen, instead staying with the other characters reacting to seeing or hearing their friends killed. Again, one fresh idea, not enough to save it.

C-


(http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV5BMjEyNzkwMDMxM15BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwOTM0MzE4MDE@._V1_SX214_AL_.jpg)
GRAND PIANO

Really more a thriller than a horror, but thrillers don't have their own thread, and close enough.

Let's get one thing out of the way right off the bat; the story is dumb. If you bother to think about it for more than three seconds, you'll get pissed off at your brain for wasting three seconds. It's basically Phone Booth with a piano, except the guy on the other end of the phone has even less plausible motives than the guy in Phone Booth did. THAT SAID, there's some really nice filmmaking going on here. The obvious comparison would be classic De Palma, with everything orchestrated just so, and the constantly busy camera keeping us distracted from the fact that we're mostly just watching a guy playing piano while being told dumb things through an earpiece. He even throws in some Argento lighting tricks to keep things fresh.

Elijah Wood is quite good in it. He clearly took the role seriously and gave it more effort than it perhaps deserved. His fake piano playing is particularly impressive; I usually get distracted by actors pretending to play instruments (Billy Crudup in Almost Famous is almost painful to watch during the concert scenes), but Wood did the work. Right up there with Sean Penn in Sweet & Lowdown. John Cusack phones in (LITERALLY, haha) his role as the voice on the line. I hope he bought something nice with his paycheck, because there's no way he got artistic fulfillment from it.

Anyway, yadda yadda, it's a well-made dumb movie. Kerry Bishé is real pretty.

B
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: jenkins on September 15, 2014, 02:32:26 AM
consider myself 1 for 1 with horror movies for the season because i started with this
(http://i.imgur.com/a7VcTLT.jpg)

and i think it's a wonderful movie, the kind of movie that makes me continue. evilspeak's bully victim retribution is achieved with a mixture of satanic superpowers and tech culture, i mean really it's like clint howard finds the devil's version of google. also, i genuinely think clint howard is good at acting. he's got childlike naiveté and readable emotions

spoiler part about the ending being all kindsa good fun
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: polkablues on September 15, 2014, 02:00:31 PM
I had never heard of this movie, but it looks amazing. And I totally agree about Clint. I feel like he and Brad Dourif both get underestimated as weird dudes who play weird characters really well because they're so weird, but they also happen to be really good at acting.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: jenkins on September 15, 2014, 03:56:19 PM
today's top trivia about the entity:

martin scorsese's #4 choice for spooky shit
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2009/10/28/martin-scorseses-top-11-horror-films-of-all-time.html

tarantino used charles bernstein's "bath attack" in inglourious basterds, a song from the entity

Sound Mix 70 mm 6-Track (70 mm prints)
Aspect Ratio 2.20 : 1 (70 mm prints)
Printed Film Format 70 mm (blow-up)
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Reelist on September 15, 2014, 04:34:39 PM
The score of 'The Entity' is one of my favorite parts, besides Barbara Hershey's parts
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: max from fearless on September 15, 2014, 05:25:38 PM
Off Scorsese's list, I also really liked the George C Scott picture, The Changeling and also Dead of Night. But The Entity really messed with me, the scene with her kids watching her get attacked.....Jesus. Almost as bad as George C Scott watching his daughter's 8mm screen debut in Hardcore....(which i just watched and had to fit in, somehow...)
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: polkablues on January 22, 2015, 06:06:12 PM
I've been watching... so much horror, you guys. This post will be part one of a series, because I've been watching so much horror and these posts take forever. Let's dive in:

(http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d179/polkablues/MV5BMTY3NDM2MjM5Nl5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwNzEwNjQxMTE_V1_SY317_CR50214317_AL__zps28033cff.jpg)
Patrick: Evil Awakens

A remake of the semi-classic Ozploitation horror flick, by the director of the Ozploitation documentary "Not Quite Hollywood." To channel Gene Shalit, Mark Hartley proves himself Not Quite Readytomakeanarrativefeature with this passable but somewhat amateurish take on the story of a naive nurse who gets crushed on by a vegetative patient with telekinetic powers and poor social skills. Sharni Vinson is great, because Sharni Vinson is great in everything she's in, but the writing and the filmmaking don't back her up.

Grade: C-

(http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d179/polkablues/MV5BMjIyNjY4MjM1OV5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwMTQyNzE4MDE_V1_SY317_CR20214317_AL__zpsd68dccbd.jpg)
After the Dark (aka: The Philosophers)

This flick gets tons of bonus points for ambition. Probably doesn't belong on this list, as it's only a horror film by the absolute widest definition, but whatever. The basic conceit is that a philosophy class, on their final day before graduation at an international private school in Indonesia or somewhere, is prompted by their teacher to participate in a thought experiment: they're each assigned backstories, then informed that a cataclysmic event has just taken place, and that the nearby shelter that will allow them to survive it only holds a certain number of people -- what do they do? The scenario plays out in multiple fashions, visualized very cinematically, as the students struggle through the philosophical questions at play. What makes it all work, though, is the undercurrent of the actual dynamics between certain characters blending into the hypothetical world. It's an impressively thoughtful film in the long run. It doesn't all hold together, and there are some nagging performance issues throughout (Sophie Lowe has a striking screen presence, but is not up to the heavy lifting her role requires), but it's a movie that leaves an impression.

Grade: B

(http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d179/polkablues/MV5BMjEyNDQwMTQ3OV5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwMTY5MzI0MQ_V1_SX214_AL__zps7be0a787.jpg)
Dead Silence

James Wan is a wildly talented horror filmmaker, as the orginal Saw, Insidious, and The Conjuring demonstrate, but this is not a well-made movie by any means. Evil ventriloquist dummy should be  a slam dunk, but this gets so bogged down in lazy jump scares and bad acting that I can't even recommend it on the level of camp. It's not even fun. It's just... there.

Grade: D+

(http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d179/polkablues/MV5BMjE1ODg1MzM3Ml5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwMDg3NDQyMTE_V1_SX214_AL__zpsc5233d43.jpg)
The Sacrament

Ti West, I expect better than this. There's nothing wrong with it, per se... It's a perfectly well-made movie. It just doesn't tell me anything. It doesn't move me in any way. It doesn't elicit anything from me. It doesn't teach me anything I can't learn from the Jonestown Massacre Wikipedia entry. A rare miss from a fine filmmaker.

Grade: C

(http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d179/polkablues/MV5BMjI0OTEyMTQ0OF5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwMjQwMzM2MDE_V1_SY317_CR30214317_AL__zps8637dc5f.jpg)
The Seasoning House

The story of a young deaf girl, her family murdered by Balkan soldiers, who is put to work at a brothel of sorts, where she prepares and drugs kidnapped women to be raped by whoever's willing to pay for it. It's a comedy! Okay, it's not a comedy. It's actually an incredibly bleak and affecting setup, somewhat spoiled by it turning into a big dumb chase scene at the end. It's well-made enough to be watchable, and disturbing enough to be memorable. Sean Pertwee was there.

Grade: B-

(http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d179/polkablues/MV5BMjMzOTMxMTA3N15BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwNDg4MDAwMDE_V1_SX214_AL__zpse5cea53b.jpg)
Devil's Pass

Renny Harlin directed this? It's a low-budget (I hope it's low-budget, based on some of the visual effects) found-footage flick about a student documentary crew who go hiking up Dyatlov Pass in Russia to investigate the possible cause of the (real-life) mysterious deaths of a group of Russian skiers in the '50s. There's something almost charmingly student-filmy about the acting and the dialogue throughout the long buildup before anything really happens (Renny Harlin directed this?), and it's a likeable and suitably creepy film right up until it goes off the bed and shits the rails in the third act. Recommended for connoisseurs of terrible CGI.

Grade: C+

(http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d179/polkablues/MV5BNTM5OTA2MTc2N15BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwMjI3NDQyNg_V1_SY317_CR40214317_AL__zpsf6528615.jpg)
A Lonely Place to Die

Finally! I have a theory, actually more of a hypothesis, that the presence of Melissa George is a sign of quality in any horror genre film. This is fine evidence to my hypothesis. The story of a group of climbers who stumble across a buried holding cell with a young girl trapped inside, and the bad things that befall them as the result of this discovery. There's fine work being done all around here: fully-written characters, surprising but logical plot twists, crazy-ass Scottish fireball parades, this movie has it all. It's not a particularly deep movie, but it does everything it does so impeccably well.

Grade: A-

(http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d179/polkablues/MV5BMTc4ODA5NTc1MV5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwNDU2OTM5MTE_V1_SX214_AL__zps26bc051f.jpg)
Beneath

It's like The Descent, but shittier.

Grade: C-

(http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d179/polkablues/MV5BMjEwMDEzMjU3M15BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwMDU4ODM1OA_V1_SY317_CR40214317_AL__zps53241f89.jpg)
Truth or Die

Ignore the awful title, ignore the awful cover, this is actually an impressively intelligent, well-crafted movie, only slightly let down by an hamfistedly set up twist at the very end. The best horror takes a piece of the human experience, or an innate human quality, and puts it in front of the funhouse mirror, twists and turns it until we see it magnified and distorted beyond how we can experience it in real life. In this case, it's the notion of being answerable for your past actions, of the way a bad choice or a thoughtless joke can come back to haunt you. But it's also about the ultimate futility of revenge, and the way that a situation never actually fits neatly into the frame we create for it in our mind. And all this in a flick about a group of douchey British college kids being forced to play a fucked up game of truth or dare by a psychopathic ex-army guy. I really liked it.

Grade: A

...to be continued
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: wilder on May 29, 2015, 01:10:19 PM
Rick Baker retires (http://www.scpr.org/programs/the-frame/2015/05/27/42999/monster-maker-rick-baker-prepares-to-retire-film-b/)
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: wilder on June 12, 2015, 02:49:09 PM
Rick Baker interview - Vice (http://www.vice.com/read/legendary-rick-bakers-retirement-auction-marks-the-end-of-the-non-cgi-era-888?utm_source=vicetwitterus)
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: modage on October 01, 2015, 10:16:58 AM
October 1st means once again it's time to marathon as many Horror Movies as I can this month. Here's my full Letterboxd list of stuff I need to see which I'll be drawing from to fill in blind spots as well as revisiting favorites. At the top of my list is The Vanishing, Cat People (1982), The Beyond, Planet Of The Vampires, The Brood, Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1931), Deep Red and as many more as I can squeeze in. And continuing to take my wife through the classics which will probably but not be limited to include Near Dark, The Fly (1986), Repulsion and Diabolique.

http://letterboxd.com/modage/list/horror-watchlist/

Anyone have any suggestions on what else I should push to the top of my list? Or something I might not have added? Anyone else going to be marathoning this year as well? Polka? Ghostboy?
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: polkablues on October 01, 2015, 10:48:45 AM
I'm not going to have time to do a true marathon, but I'll try and keep up when I can. This is also a good excuse to start posting reviews of some of the horror films I saw over the past year and didn't get around to posting about.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: jenkins on October 01, 2015, 01:23:47 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/ApyakOg.png)

in terms of old sci-fi and horror, i'm bad at liking them. i'm a city symphonies person. but this is a classic horror movie i'd throw in my chips for. it's my favorite non-canonical movie with Karloff and Lugosi by a mile and a half. it's an adaptation of Edgar Allan Poe and its atmosphere is "this feels creepy" and it performs it with the splendor and sophistication of its time.

(http://i.imgur.com/GK2zIto.png)

i own it, i've watched it twice, and i can't super get into this movie, but Devo took Q: Are We Not Men? from here and Criterion put it out so that's what i'm saying, i'm bad at liking classic horror.

(http://i.imgur.com/ZBMkJrH.png)

this story, compared to another version of the story or its original novella, it might be an example of why everyone initially thought movies just ruin stories, turn stories into movies, get absurd. this movie does that wonderfully so, directed by Rouben Mamoulian (who made the exceptional city symphony Applause, which 03 has posted about, and who funny enough was one of the early directors to consider moving the camera after sound was introduced and people had to stand by microphones, there's in fact a moving shot at the beginning of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde which i've rewound and rewound).

(http://i.imgur.com/hpBbXGU.png)

this, like Planet of the Vampires (which modage mentioned), it's hard for me to watch it and enjoy it from any perspective but the objective "this was so influential," and that's a first-world movie bummer because you get to think that while watching the movie

(http://i.imgur.com/gtrcmsL.png)
yo these two examples of what you (modage) want to share with others or ones you haven't seen? being rhetorical but i know others also throw down for the Psycho sequels as essentials. Psycho II was directed by Richard Franklin, an Australian director who perhaps came the closest to be a Hitchcockian director.

this is the one i want to bring up:
(http://i.imgur.com/U0fHXVX.png)
legit serious about this and if wilder has seen it i hope he'll back me up

also curveballing and mentioning this one from last year's home media releases, it's a movie that has my everything:
(http://i.imgur.com/E9aUHad.png)
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: BB on October 01, 2015, 05:18:00 PM
Dude, The Vanishing (1988 version, please) is sooo, soooo, so0o0o0o0o, SOOOOOOOOOOO, SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO (so) good.

And jenkins, I'll back you up on The Fan if you want my back up.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: modage on October 02, 2015, 11:19:26 AM
Awesome, I definitely will. The Vanishing is on its way from Netflix as we speak.

Last night I got started with one that surprisingly I had never seen, despite the fact that I would have been of perfect watching-at-a-sleepover age when it was on VHS and the fact that it had 7 sequels, Children Of The Corn (1984).

(http://static.rogerebert.com/uploads/movie/movie_poster/children-of-the-corn-1984/large_miJTMLdgrrgAs7blRjLutfLha9M.jpg)

It's not very good. The opening scene sets up a decently creepy mood as a bunch of adults are all slaughtered in a diner but besides that and a young Linda Hamilton (meow), there's not too much else worthwhile here. Movie fails with basic plausible character motivation ("We're going into this town that is completely abandoned and don't seem to think anything of it") and the kids are mostly not really creepy, they're not possessed or stone-faced, they just look like little Amish assholes. When Peter Horton is standing in the middle of them, supposedly trapped, it looks like he could kick all their little asses without much effort. The film also suffers from some horrendously dated FX. But on the plus side, it co-stars the kid from Monster Squad. Yay, Halloween!
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: jenkins on October 03, 2015, 01:36:52 PM
nsfw from reasons of cyberpunkery, this trailer is Ken Russell's The Devils impressive, it's a "wicked curveball" for someone's Halloween fun:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vXT61J08bLU
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: jenkins on October 03, 2015, 07:21:32 PM
these are movies i'm thinking about watching this year since I've already watched Evilspeak and The Fan, has anyone seen:

(http://i.imgur.com/Cgl7X6o.png)
this doesn't appear to be a horror movie and i need to hear about it asap for emotional reasons

(http://i.imgur.com/uKjcb3b.png)
is this hijinks, are people hijinking? hijenks. could be fate

(http://i.imgur.com/2DuNloS.png)
all my most terrifying nightmares wake me is this scary

(http://i.imgur.com/VfHMuBj.png)
well, should i just buy it as a poster?

but this is the most seriously alluring cover:
(http://i.imgur.com/kY2svPk.png)

not sure if wilder posted about this but eventually i'll buy it:
(http://i.imgur.com/16JZO3M.png)
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: jenkins on October 03, 2015, 09:52:12 PM
**danger** the Phase IV release seems tricky from a serious perspective of it being the theatrical cut when everyone now knows the full cut is available, and although i stopped reading about it that sounds serious.

(http://i.imgur.com/VRSvFbx.png)
is that thing gonna get them? seems like it. this looks like a box to a videogame and i wonder about the movie but, buuuut, these aren't just great covers. i take note about each movie's important amazon star rating.

(http://i.imgur.com/4L6Af3c.png)
this is clearly 16bit. the full title is Howling II: Your Sister Is a Werewolf. i can't tell how much of it is Czech and how much of it is LA and i can't tell how serious it is

(http://i.imgur.com/qN4kNlP.png)
sinister-looking and i might want to get to know them

(http://i.imgur.com/nn2oaMI.png)
that Godsend cover so good. this looks fun

(http://i.imgur.com/CDgdXd7.png) (http://i.imgur.com/HAOYiHH.png)
two covers i downloaded earlier and forgot until now

this cover is up to no good, i like that, but i can't trust the movie
(http://i.imgur.com/QLKL7Wj.png)

i agree with them about it being hilarious to make this edition signed
(http://i.imgur.com/B14Mk9R.png)

this one is actually good isn't that what i've heard
(http://i.imgur.com/WH3Xo6o.png)

great cover great title
(http://i.imgur.com/CAJdwkE.png)
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: jenkins on October 04, 2015, 12:16:15 PM
The Legacy, the one with the cat head and the hand for a body on its cover, is the title from the above which i'm currently most likely to buy.

but maybe a part of me has died, maybe i've already watched too many movies like this, or maybe something else, something, for some reason this all seems less captivating to me than it has in previous years.

here's the international section:

(http://i.imgur.com/iAeccai.png)
werewolves done a bit differently or something, Adrián García Bogliano, a director from The ABCs of Death

(http://i.imgur.com/afl21zU.png)
i'll keep saying "oh i can't believe it, omg are you serious?, oh wow" maybe

(http://i.imgur.com/udu9lLS.png)
why have i seen Miike movies? what do his movies do to me? i always think they're weird different from how other movies are weird and i always think they're a bit nonsense. this one is about high school nonsense and it's cheap, maybe i should visit Miike again

(http://i.imgur.com/LveEBOl.png)
mainly because of this screencap:
(http://i.imgur.com/fqMrpVF.png)
any movie with a fire-breather in the background is a movie i need to think about seeing. the director is also associated with The ABCs of Death

i think that's the last of the group of movies i'll have in my thoughts this October because of October. that's four posts in a row that's just me, which is socially awkward, but i'm blaming you for that, and as for time well i spent the time to make the posts so stfu and that's a wrap
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Reelist on October 07, 2015, 11:30:36 AM
Fall always throws me for a loop, because I hate when I can sense it approaching. Back to school memories fill me with dread for what's to come in the last few months of the year and this wave of residual angst from my childhood washes over me as we make our way into September. Then, October hits and along with my birthday,  suddenly horror movies are playing on TV all the time and the artsy fartsy oscar bait movies start trickling into theaters as well as the town's annual film festival. I start to notice flyers all over for movie marathons and conventions. What takes precedence over everything are the nights planned at our 'Palace theater', this year's being the "Tommy Jarvis trilogy" of Friday The 13th being shown on all 35mm prints!!!  :yabbse-shocked:  Then the night after that they're showing "Last Man on Earth", "Killer Klowns from Outer Space" and a midnight screening of Rocky Horror Picture show (all on 35). I'm practically going to be living at the theater that weekend. Gonna be so much fun. I can't even think about it because the date is so far off, what I'm consumed with now is to expose myself to as much dirty, grimey, bloody, nasty horror films as humanly possible.

What stays at the top of my list are the things I already own and haven't found the time to watch yet, or just really want to see again to get into the spirit of halloween. The number one movie that has been brought up time and time again here as a true anomaly is Andrzej Zulawski's "Possession" (1981)



(http://i.imgur.com/MfThI8B.jpg?1)


I have been obsessed with it ever since I encountered it late one night on Turner Classic Movies and  and had this experience:

I caught it a half hour in and to this day I would call it one of the weirdest cinematic experiences I've ever had- watching all that shit happen without a context for it. When I see it in full, it probably won't seem any saner to me. I remember even before the kooky scifi stuff starts happening it felt like a very dangerous movie, the tone of the acting, the blocking, it was so violent. Like the story was about to take a direction I could've never anticipated and sure enough, it did.




I find The Texas Chainsaw Massacre to be most timeless and tasteful of all the early 'gore films'. Watch it, there's barely any blood in the death scenes. The most you see is when the hillbilly cuts his own hand in the beginning, and it LOOKS real when he does that! The entire film just has an air of authenticity, where the documentary feel of it blends perfectly with Tobe Hooper's artful direction. I sure have seen the first one a lot, though. I'd like to get closer acquainted with the balls out wackiness of part 2. It's practically the same story transplanted to the 80's with a cool new cast of characters, (including Dennis Hopper!) and an underground lair that has the vibe of like if "The Goonies" never left that cave and just stayed down there doing meth for the rest of their lives. Unlike the first one, it's graphically violent to a gratuitous and disturbing degree, I had to turn away from the screen a lot on my last viewing.



(http://i.imgur.com/K56Pidk.jpg?2)
(http://i.imgur.com/8X2SBQj.jpg?1)



This next one is frustrating because I'm absolutely SURE I own a copy of it but in the process of moving it ended up in the bottom of a box somewhere. I only watched it once and it played fine, but actually killed my vcr with this green gunk that was stuck in the spools, like the tape itself was cursed. It's a truly funny, campy, but dark, dark story about a boy who discovers a gang of mutant creatures living in the woods and decides to start feeding them so they'll do his bidding. This is one you want to throw on close to halloween with a lot of friends to join in on the sheer bafflement of it all. "The Pit" (1981) ( best cover I could find ):



(http://i.imgur.com/qfO3TBT.jpg?3)



Lastly, I will add what I've come to know as THE go to guilty pleasure horror movie of mine,  based on how many times I feel the urge to rewatch it alone. I love the "Child's Play" trilogy, the first is the coolest, the second has some neat kills but feels kind of hokey, and the third has a whole mess of problems that actually give it a kind of cheesy charm, but the final sequence makes up for all of it. I'm not talking about any of those, though. This month I plan to revisit "Bride of Chucky" (1998):



(http://i.imgur.com/C54DyXj.jpg?1)


What I like so much about it is it's willingness to be funny, corny, self referential, really not scary AT ALL but enjoyable for the absurdity of the entire plot. Really well directed by Ronny Yu, who gives it that signature sharply lit tone he pulls off so well. Disgustingly violent, too. Pretty bad special effects, though. And just a stupid movie overall that I can't help but love.




More posts to come as the month presses on...



 
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: polkablues on October 08, 2015, 03:42:56 PM
Last Shift
(http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d179/polkablues/MV5BMTQ2NDM5NTMwMF5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwMTkzMDA4NjE._V1_SY317_CR50214317_AL__zpsibwp31vz.jpg)

A terrible cover hides a surprisingly effective, well-made haunted house (well, haunted police station) movie. It plays out essentially as a supernatural take on Assault on Precinct 13, with a rookie officer watching over an old precinct building on the last night before everything switches over to the new location, which also just so happens to be the one year anniversary of the night a Manson-esque cult leader and two of his followers killed two police officers and then themselves, one of the police officers who just so happened to be the father of the rookie officer. So yeah, you might have to ignore some of that to get full enjoyment out of the movie, but if you can ignore it, what you're left with is a rock-solid lead performance by Juliana Harkavy, who spends a large chunk of the film entirely alone and carries it effortlessly. The movie gets a lot of mileage out of the "character looks at something, then looks away, and when they look back it's different" trope (including one very opaque Poltergeist reference), but the strength of the performance and the filmmaking keep it from feeling too repetitive. Ultimately, the film doesn't amount to much and I doubt it will take up much space in my long term memory, but it's a refreshingly competent horror movie with a great lead performance and some strong imagery.
B
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: polkablues on October 08, 2015, 07:28:26 PM
The Expelled (aka "F")
(http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d179/polkablues/MV5BMjM1OTE5MTAyN15BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwNjc3MjIwMDE._V1_SY317_CR50214317_AL__zps0kabgg14.jpg)

I saw this one a while ago and don't think I posted about it, but this is absolutely one of my favorite unsung horror movies. My longtime thesis is that good horror is both a magnifying glass and a funhouse mirror we hold up to the darker aspects of human experience to gain a greater understanding of them. "The Expelled" turns its lens toward a man near the very bottom of a downward spiral, both professionally and personally, and his desperate attempt to salvage one tiny glimmer of redemption, at whatever cost. David Schofield plays the main character as starkly unsympathetic, a man who recognizes his failings but seems almost willfully incapable of overcoming them. When the events of the plot start unfolding, and he's the only one who recognizes the impending threat, he sets out to save his daughter not so much out of actual love or concern, but because it would be the one action that could prove there is any virtuous quality left in him. And at the end, he is forced to make a choice that leaves that virtue entirely up to interpretation.

While the actual plot is very straight-forward, this is a deceptively complex film. The filmmakers don't even make a cursory effort to explain the true nature of the threat, which is a brilliant storytelling decision because it simply doesn't matter to the story they're telling. Contrasted to a tonally similar film, "Citadel," which had a third act irreparably bogged down with expositing the minutiae of what had been scary until they completely demystified it, The Expelled stays laser-focused on its main character, to great benefit.
A
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: modage on October 08, 2015, 11:04:55 PM
Polka, you remain the king of indie horror movies I've never heard of.  :bravo:
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: polkablues on October 09, 2015, 12:30:31 AM
This is the hidden benefit of piracy. There are so many great indie horror movies that I found through torrenting and have since bought that I likely would have never even heard of otherwise.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Reelist on October 09, 2015, 10:16:57 AM
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/75/New-years-evil.jpg/220px-New-years-evil.jpg)


This was a fun harkening back to that innocent year of 1980, when every slasher movie trope hadn't been used up yet and the filmmakers still felt like they were doing something original by having a guy call his victims over the phone with a voice modulator and threaten to air the audio of his killings live over the radio. Or those signature 80's style kills where the girl immediately dies from one cut to the throat and the reveal of her corpse later is supposed to be DOUBLY SHOCKING, but never is. It's a rather sophisticated plot that I found hard to follow, a murderer sets out to visit each time zone in the U.S on New Year's Eve to kill a victim as the ball drops, which he tape records and then badgers a radio host into playing them. What I found unique about it was that they make no attempt to hide the killer's identity from the first time we see him, as he goes through an array of disguises like a beanie hat, a fake mustache, and a really creepy halloween mask. Whatever his motives are in the end were unclear to me. They sure explained the hell out of it, but nothing clicked. I would prefer that these movies not try to give evil an 'excuse', doesn't it pack so much less of punch when it turns out that the killer was victimized as a child and is now getting their revenge? I don't need a reason for them to kill! Let's just see 'em kill!


Anyway, the overall most entertaining part of this movie is how closely the slasher resembles Bruce Jenner:


(http://i.imgur.com/xneUIRD.jpg?1)

Title: Re: Horror
Post by: polkablues on October 10, 2015, 07:12:21 PM
Hidden
(http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d179/polkablues/MV5BMTkyNjAxMjcwNV5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwMzQyMTE4NjE._V1_SY317_CR120214317_AL__zpsnrjglvcu.jpg)

Alexander Skarsgard and Andrea Riseborough are great, and the movie has some good tension and nice world-building early on, but the series of twists toward the end left me cold. I will likely have forgotten I watched this film within a month.
C+
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: polkablues on October 12, 2015, 02:09:16 AM
Cooties
(http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d179/polkablues/MV5BMTA4MTM5NzExMjBeQTJeQWpwZ15BbWU4MDYyNTk1OTUx._V1_SX214_AL__zps45u4vlzk.jpg)

Boilerplate horror comedy. A good cast, and some funny jokes, but it doesn't take itself seriously enough to demand any investment in the characters or story. Shot with a complete absence of style, and lit like a sitcom.
C
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: modage on October 13, 2015, 11:48:33 AM
(http://cdn-7.nflximg.com/us/boxshots/ghd/1086657.jpg)

Dude, The Vanishing (1988 version, please) is sooo, soooo, so0o0o0o0o, SOOOOOOOOOOO, SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO (so) good.

I have heard this for years and finally got around to watching this last night but was pretty disappointed. It's not really a horror film, as its goal isn't really to scare you, it's more of a dual character study of two men driven by obsession.

HUGE SPOILERS FOR THE ENTIRE MOVIE AND THE ENDING FOLLOW
I actually thought the movie was pretty great up until the kidnapping. Every time they leave each others sight I'm thinking "this is it, she's not coming back" and every time she comes back it's a huge sigh of relief. When he takes the Polaroid you can kinda imagine him going on this massive hunt for her, putting together the clues, etc. and maybe that would be a more conventional film but it might've been more satisfying. Instead the film takes the left turn of switching to the killer's POV and showing us his daily routine, the banality of evil. He's a family man, he's extremely careful and meticulous. He chooses her for no reason other than she got into his car alone. We're given no reason as to why he would want to torture the husband by sending him postcards other than for the thrill of doing so. And I understand that the 'not knowing' is supposed to be worse than just knowing that she's dead but the man's impotence in the situation, not to seek revenge, to submit to taking fucking sleeping pills and being murdered himself is just fucking stupid. In horror movies it's usually the stupid characters who get what's coming to them, but rarely are they the central characters. It's cool that Kill Bill: Vol. 2 ripped off the buried alive scene but otherwise  :sleeping:
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: jenkins on October 13, 2015, 12:18:55 PM
felt this coming, i recommend The Fan
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: polkablues on October 13, 2015, 04:51:45 PM
I am deeply saddened that I can no longer trust mod's opinion about anything ever.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: polkablues on October 13, 2015, 06:50:37 PM
Unfriended
(http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d179/polkablues/MV5BMTUwNzg3Mzg1OV5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwMDY2NTAwNDE._V1_SX214_AL__zpskztvvonv.jpg)

I'll give it this much -- it was better than I expected it to be. Keeping it focused on a single group chat in real time almost gives it the feel of a parlor mystery, which is an interesting artistic choice. That said, the characters are too obnoxious to care about, the backstory that drives the entire plot is overly simplistic, and the handful of "twists" throughout the movie are telegraphed in bold long before paying off. There are seeds of a good story peeking out above the surface, but it has the sloppiness of a first draft.
C

For a stronger take on the same general conceit, I recommend...

The Den
(http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d179/polkablues/MV5BNDcwMDg2Mzg3OF5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwMTA5MjYyMTE._V1_SX214_AL__zpsj4bnrr26.jpg)

Another film that is presented entirely on computer screens, this came out a year or two before Unfriended, and while not necessarily a great movie itself, it gets right a lot of what Unfriended got wrong. The characters are universally more empathetic than Unfriended's dickish teenagers, the mystery of the situation is actually gripping and interesting and remains mysterious up to the ultimate revelation, and I just flat out like it better.
B-
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: RegularKarate on October 14, 2015, 05:01:50 PM
How does it compare to Open Windows?
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: polkablues on October 14, 2015, 05:07:08 PM
It's way less goofy than Open Windows, much more a true horror movie, and better at creating willing suspension of disbelief. There was a lot of Open Windows that I enjoyed on a moment to moment basis, but overall it was just too dumb to care about.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: modage on October 15, 2015, 10:06:20 AM
(http://cdn-4.nflximg.com/us/boxshots/ghd/356664.jpg)

Paul Schrader's Cat People (1982) remake is as stylish as it is silly but still worthwhile for Nastassja Kinski, the David Bowie title song and the countless surely-incredibly-dangerous scenes featuring live panthers.

(http://cdn-3.nflximg.com/us/boxshots/ghd/60000893.jpg)

Hollow Man (2000), a.k.a. the movie that sunk Paul Verhoeven's career is almost as bad as its reputation (and could never be released in today's thinkpiece culture). Kevin Bacon plays an insane dickhead pretty much from frame one, who despite being a brilliant scientist, just wants to oogle (and rape?) girls and start murdering his colleagues as soon as he's granted invisibility. Funny to see how poorly the film has aged after only 15 years (my wife thought it was from the 80s), Elizabeth Shue has the Meg Ryan haircut, Josh Brolin is in his career low and the CGI looks flat and unshaded. Still, Verhoeven knows how to move the camera like a motherfucker and it's a shame Hollywood lost an auteur as talented as him because of a few misfires. 

(http://cdn-8.nflximg.com/us/boxshots/ghd/80073908.jpg)

The Final Girls (2015) is a horror/comedy that aims to be a Cabin In The Woods-style deconstruction of 80s slasher movies but fails at being a horror film or a comedy or properly establishing the rules of its own meta-universe. The film aspires to be about 'more' than just the meta aspects, and spends a great deal of the screen time on the lead character dealing with her grief over her dead mother but drops the ball on pretty much everything else. It also looks flat and digital which is extra disappointing because if they wanted to go all in on their concept of being in an 80s slasher movie they could've paid closer attention to the way those movies looked.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: jenkins on October 16, 2015, 11:42:23 PM
why have i seen Miike movies? what do his movies do to me? i always think they're weird different from how other movies are weird and i always think they're a bit nonsense. this one is about high school nonsense and it's cheap, maybe i should visit Miike again
the least surprising conclusion is i went with the cheap and weird option.

the bummer is -- listen, i was misled by Crows being in the title. it turns out this is not a horror movie and it's more like
(http://i.imgur.com/dOUrLDy.gif)

still looking forward to it but that's off topic now
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Reelist on October 17, 2015, 02:44:42 AM
I've watched "Audition" and "Ichi The Killer" and I don't like Miike either. It's an impressive aesthetic, but does nothing for me emotionally.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: jenkins on October 18, 2015, 01:45:21 PM
somehow Crows Zero was released 27 October 2007 (Japan) and Sukiyaki Western Django was released 15 September 2007 (Japan).

that's wildly impressive, similar to Johnnie To releasing Drug War and Romancing in Thin Air the same year. that's how fast the fastest run. these productions would easily consume a USA creative team for a full year.

i saw Sukiyaki Western Django in a theater and i'd never heard of Crows Zero. how had i never heard of Crows Zero?? it's slick, it's great, i'm glad it was cheap. again, Crows Zero isn't a horror movie in terms of it eliciting the dark parts of your soul while you watch it, i'm driving reckless. in terms of genre it's a conglomeration, which type of movie i adore and has some speed in the West. it's like The Warriors, except it's better. Sam Raimi's Crimewave, written by the Coens, is such a movie. Scott Pilgrim vs the World is such a movie. but to paraphrase the Notorious B.I.G., it's like the more genres we come across, the more problems we see.

an adaptation of a manga, it plays so many notes, honestly it does. a comic book movie without superheroes. teenager heroes, and their powers are emotions, and also being great at fighting.

(http://i.imgur.com/mgPUZAR.jpg)
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: modage on October 19, 2015, 01:03:02 PM
This weekend my dad and I did our annual Halloween Horror Marathon Weekend and watched a coma-inducing 14 films in 2.5 days. (Though somehow Ghostboy, who did his own marathon this weekend, hit the same number in 24 hours with so damn.) 4 were films I've already seen, 10 were new to me, 3 in theatres and the rest at home. Here's a quick rundown.

(http://cdn-2.nflximg.com/us/boxshots/ghd/70038572.jpg) (http://cdn-1.nflximg.com/us/boxshots/ghd/80050101.jpg) (http://cdn-6.nflximg.com/us/boxshots/ghd/60024256.jpg) (http://cdn-4.nflximg.com/us/boxshots/ghd/60021074.jpg) (http://cdn-2.nflximg.com/us/boxshots/166/674802.jpg) (http://cdn-3.nflximg.com/us/boxshots/ghd/60002743.jpg) (http://cdn-2.nflximg.com/us/boxshots/ghd/16915002.jpg)

(http://cdn.bloody-disgusting.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/unnamed.png) (http://cdn-8.nflximg.com/us/boxshots/ghd/893348.jpg) (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/83/JekyllHyde1931.jpg) (http://cdn-3.nflximg.com/us/boxshots/ghd/60030073.jpg) (http://cdn-9.nflximg.com/us/boxshots/ghd/80076239.jpg) (http://cdn-6.nflximg.com/us/boxshots/ghd/525736.jpg) (http://cdn-9.nflximg.com/us/boxshots/ghd/70000799.jpg)

Dolls (1987)
Fun creepy dolls movie from the Re-Animator crew.

Crimson Peak (2015)
Loved it. With this and Pacific Rim, I'm really on whatever wavelength Del Toro is on recently.
 
The Beyond (1981)
Of Fulci's films I'd only previously seen Zombi 2 (a.k.a. the movie where a zombie fights a shark) and heard that this was supposed to be his masterpiece. I really want to be on board but compared to Argento or Bava, Fulci's films are ugly and artless (maybe that's what people love about them). The gore is good and the ending was effective but there just wasn't enough here to hang a movie on.

Planet Of The Vampires (1965)
One of the influences for Ridley Scott's Alien, it is insane that this film came out just 13 years before that and feels like it could've been 30 years earlier. It's basically a stylish but cheap-as-hell riff on Invasion of the Body Snatchers when a crew answer a distress signal on another planet (sound familiar?) and get stranded there. There are some really cool looking alien skeletons but unfortunately no aliens (or vampires, despite the title). 

Kiss Of The Vampire (1963)
Solid Hammer film features neither Lee or Cushing but instead an actor who appears to be a perfect synthesis of the two (http://www.empireonline.com/images/features/666/263.jpg). A little slow going with not enough vampire mayhem but looks gorgeously Hammer and the finale is different.

Halloween 6: The Curse Of Michael Myers (1995)
The past few years we've been charging through the Halloween series of which I had previously only seen Halloween 1, 2, H20 and Rob Zombie's horrendous remake so this year we arrived at the nadir, Halloween 6 introducing Paul Stephen Rudd! Like the Nightmare On Elm Street and Friday The 13th series, each sequel gets worse until you find yourself longing for the badness of just a few installments ago. It would be nearly impossible for me to describe the plot to you as the film jumps around different threads and can't even seem to decide on who the main character is. The film is actually filmed competently though and the director went onto do a half dozen episodes of The Wire.

Halloween H20: 20 Years Later (1998)
One of the post-Scream horror films, this one holds up pretty well by streamlining all the bullshit of the series and basically pretending 3-6 don't exist. Nothing groundbreaking but it does its job and Jamie Lee Curtis gives a nice performance returning to the series as Laurie Strode, realistically dealing with the trauma of the events 20 years prior.

Mockingbird (2014)
From the writer/director of the simple but truly scary The Strangers comes the long-awaited, then delayed, then dumped on Netflix Instant follow-up with nary a single interview with the director or single showing at a genre-friendly fest like SXSW or Fantastic Fest. So what happened? There's a great premise here but you can see where it's going from about 10 minutes in and then the film treads water for an hour waiting to get there. The opening scene is a shocker (and buys the film a lot of time to establish where it's going) but unfortunately squanders that goodwill at about the halfway mark. Seems like the director knew he fucked up and didn't quite have a film (would've worked fine cut down to 15 minutes in a V/H/S anthology though) so hopefully better things to come next time.

Re-Animator (1985)
A classic, still great. Probably the closest film I can think of to the Evil Dead sensibility of comedy/horror/over-the-top entertaining. Fun fact: I think I've seen it more than Citizen Kane, Casablanca or The Godfather.

Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde (1931)
I'm not sure I had ever seen a Jekyll & Hyde film and assumed he turns into a monster/killer like The Wolfman or something when really it's more like the Nutty Professor (precursor obviously) where he just kinda turns into a dickhead who does and says whatever he wants. He isn't a tragic figure like Dr. Frankenstein who creates a monster without realizing what damage he will cause, he quite intentionally takes the potion he develops specifically to sleep with a local whore without getting caught by his fiance! Things the movie had going for it (other than the Best Actor Oscar winning performance by Frederich March) is the opening POV shot which predates the one in Being John Malkovich (http://www.krisgriffiths.co.uk/uploads/2/3/5/9/23597114/5409517.jpg) by almost 70 years.

The Brood (1979)
This is now the earliest Cronenberg film I've seen (though Rabid and Shivers are still on my list). It's basically a slow burn with awesome finale that elevates the entire film and makes you think you enjoyed watching it more than you actually did. Also the brand-new Criterion Blu looks like a million bucks.

Tales Of Halloween (2015)
While not as polished as the V/H/S anthology films, this is a fun grab-bag of horror shorts with none of the troubling misogyny of the either. The Halloween setting helps a ton and the fact that all 10 shorts run around 10 minutes, it feels like a breeze. It's no Trick R Treat but with the callbacks and cameos, is a genuine love letter to Halloween. Only thing that really bothers me is the obviously digital look of most of the shorts. It's low-budget times like these that really make me miss film.

The Frighteners (1996)
Maybe still my favorite Peter Jackson film? Or at least the one I've seen the most times, The Frighteners is still an underrated 90s gem. Feels like a mix of producer Zemeckis' sensibilities with Jackson's own for a great comedy horror mystery. Michael J. Fox is great in his last leading role in a film as is Jeffrey Combs. There are a handful of fun reversals and I still love the way they cut together the finale flashing between the 60s massacre and the present.

The Invisible Man (1933)
Still great, even moreso considering the fx they acheived at the time and how inferior attemps to remake it (its many sequels, Verhoeven's Hollow Man, Carpenter's Memoirs Of An Invisible Man) have been. Arguably one of the best Universal Horror films though it doesn't get the love of the Big 5.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Reelist on October 23, 2015, 09:24:36 AM
I noticed you left off "Deep Red" and "Near Dark" from that Marathon, highly suggest you catch those before the big day!! I watched Near Dark again a few weeks back and it's definitely my favorite vampire movie. Such a cool noir look and rustic feel to it, and the gore is done so well it's kind of unsettling. Really an impressive feat, what they did with the special effects in that movie. The script by Kathryn Bigelow is very quotable and darkly funny, too. It's unfortunate it doesn't get the credit it's due after being outshined by the much inferior "Lost Boys" that was released the same year.

Another that I've added to the registry is "Don't Look Now" (1973)


(https://www.movieposter.com/posters/archive/main/142/MPW-71159)


I've seen this once and what's stuck with me the most outside of the surprise ending is how expertly they used the city of Venice to capture the mood of these grieving parents and the mystery they're involved in. Probably the most rewarding of all the "slow burn" horror movies, it really takes you down a dark road where you feel like you have less answers in the end than you started out with! At least that's how I remember it… One of the best examples in the trend of what I'll call 'serious horror' from the early 70's, where everything about the production is staged like a drama but they're actively trying to SCARE THE FUCK OUT OF YOU!!


Personally, I haven't had much luck in my horror quest this month in terms of knocking things off the list. I started Texas Chainsaw waaay too late one night and fell asleep, and regrettably watched some movies much less deserving of my time like "Dumb and Dumber Too"(ughck) and "Back To The Future 2" for that nice little ironic celebration. Tonight, I'll be going to that Friday The 13th marathon I mentioned before and that should give me my fill for the whole month. There's one other movie that'll be showing I forgot about:


"Hack O' Lantern" (1988)

(https://halloweenshindig.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/tumblr_muhmviafi21rlct23o1_1280-e1410021613472.jpg)


all I know is that it's a super trashy 'Halloween' ripoff (with a terrible VHS cover)
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: modage on October 23, 2015, 09:48:08 AM
I noticed you left off "Deep Red" and "Near Dark" from that Marathon, highly suggest you catch those before the big day!!

That is so funny you say that because I actually just watched Near Dark last night! My wife had never seen it and I hadn't seen it in a few years (http://xixax.com/index.php?topic=4600.msg160458#msg160458). And Deep Red I've never seen but have tickets to see on Sunday at the Nitehawk (http://www.nitehawkcinema.com/movie/profondo-rosso/) in BK. Can't wait.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: modage on November 06, 2015, 01:08:09 PM
This is late but I had started writing a comprehensive version of this post only to have the browser crap out so this will be the quick recap because I can't bring myself to write and format the whole thing again. So I ended the month with a record 40 horror films. The last batch included new viewings of:

Deep Red
Reminded me of a sleazy late period Hitchcock like Frenzy. A few spectacularly creepy images and all the suspense sequences scored with spectacularly funky Goblin score.

Hotel Transylvania
I needed something that would introduce my 5 year old niece to monsters without scaring the shit out of her and I thank this film for doing that.

The Entity
One of Scorsese's faves (http://www.theguardian.com/film/2013/nov/12/martin-scorsese-scariest-films-the-haunting-shining). If you wanted to see a movie where Barbara Hershey is repeatedly and brutally raped by a ghost, this is the film for you. Other than the finale, it's not what I would call "fun."

Ravenous
The beginning of my at-first accidental 4 movie cannibal mini-marathon. A real undiscovered gem that seems to be having a resurgence. Funny, weird, great Guy Pearce vs. Robert Carlyle.

Bone Tomahawk
The From Dusk Till Dawn of cannibal westerns. Starring Kurt Russell. Better than you would ever expect it to be, it's like 85% straight ahead western and 15% cannibal movie, if they had upped it to 70%/30%, it'd be perfect.

We Are What We Are (2013)
A step forward from Stakeland (which I was not a fan of) but this didn't do too much for me either, honestly.

Trouble Every Day
Arty weirdness with Vincent Gallo featuring two really gruesome cannibal sequences. Mostly gets by on moodiness. (This was my first Claire Denis.)

The Hidden
A young Kyle MacLachlan plays a quirky FBI agent forced to pair with a local police officer to catch a murderer who is not what he seems. It's not Twin Peaks but instead a New Line late 80s action/sci-fi film that feels like a mix of The Thing and They Live (though not as good as those obvs).

Dracula (1974)
Jack Palance as Dracula in this Dan Curtis/Richard Matheson made-for-TV joint. I've seen probably a dozen different Dracula's and I'm always fascinated to see more.

The Devil’s Candy
Really good follow-up to The Loved Ones, totally different. More later.

And repeat viewings of: Near Dark, Diabolique, It Follows and Day Of The Dead, the latter I'd maybe only seen once in high school but all were still great.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: polkablues on November 06, 2015, 05:35:45 PM
I'm interested in hearing more of your thoughts on Devil's Candy, because even though I didn't think The Loved Ones was quite as great as some people make it out to be, it's still pretty great.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: polkablues on December 04, 2015, 03:25:34 AM
Kristy
(http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d179/polkablues/51lgK4cGGnL_zpsh6vtmbow.jpg)

Not as good as the director's previous feature, Donkey Punch (why do people not believe me when I tell them that Donkey Punch is a great movie?), but nonetheless a well-made, suspenseful chase-slasher in the vein of P3 or Ils. Doesn't bring anything new to the table, doesn't particularly have anything to say, but hits all the notes in a melodious order. Suffers from a touch of Omnipotent Killer Syndrome, with the bad guys for all intents and purposes suddenly teleporting to places they should have no way of getting to. Makes up for it with a strong lead performance.

C+
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: jenkins on December 04, 2015, 01:52:52 PM
a thing Donkey Punch has going against it is its title. it's simply a tacky and misleading title for the movie. there's good bad taste and there's bad bad taste, you know. it was in a great class though. hearing the title caused me to remind myself of its class, Magnet's Six Shooter Film series:

Let the Right One In
Special
Timecrimes
Donkey Punch
Eden Log
Big Man Japan

Eden Log is the one i never saw, of the others Special was the least impressive, and Timecrimes was my personal favorite as has been discussed before.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: polkablues on December 04, 2015, 02:05:00 PM
Yeah, I was being a little facetious, it's absolutely the title. Which is a shame, because the movie itself if much smarter and more nuanced than you would expect.

That is great company it keeps, too. I haven't seen Big Man Japan, but Eden Log is worthwhile, Special is fun and unique, Timecrimes is great, and Let the Right One In is an all-time classic.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Alexandro on December 28, 2015, 02:36:00 PM
The number one movie that has been brought up time and time again here as a true anomaly is Andrzej Zulawski's "Possession" (1981)



(http://i.imgur.com/MfThI8B.jpg?1)


I have been obsessed with it ever since I encountered it late one night on Turner Classic Movies and  and had this experience:

I caught it a half hour in and to this day I would call it one of the weirdest cinematic experiences I've ever had- watching all that shit happen without a context for it. When I see it in full, it probably won't seem any saner to me. I remember even before the kooky scifi stuff starts happening it felt like a very dangerous movie, the tone of the acting, the blocking, it was so violent. Like the story was about to take a direction I could've never anticipated and sure enough, it did.




Man, I appreciated this movie's relentless energy and some of Isabelle Adjani's most intense scenes, but it sounds way better than what it is.

Yes, it's a fully committed head trip and it's more of a state of mind than a narrative experience, but it quickly grows tiresome with the over acting and the constant screaming and fighting with very little explanation or sense to cling to. Sam Neil's character is so evidently insane from the get go you don't really feel for him at all, and Adjani becomes almost unbearable at some points.

The theatrical dialogue and performances from every single person that shows up, the score which sounded way too close to The Godfather, the incessant bickering, it all felt like the film was trying way too hard to cause unease, and what happened was that I got bored by it. And then it goes on and on for almost two hours. It all undermines some of the great scenes in between, particularly Adjani at the subway station. I would say only for that scene everyone should check out the film. It might be one of the most intense performances ever recorded. It made me feel physically disturbed and jumpy, almost nauseous.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Just Withnail on December 28, 2015, 04:35:53 PM
the over acting and the constant screaming and fighting with very little explanation or sense to cling to. Sam Neil's character is so evidently insane from the get go you don't really feel for him at all, and Adjani becomes almost unbearable at some points.


I feel like this presupposes a background of normalcy that the characters act against, but I felt it was more of a complete universe of insanity. A vision of love as an extreme bodily addiction to another person and jealousy as symptom of withdrawal. I didn't need to feel normalcy from Neill's character to sympathize with him, I think in this context the high-strung jealous insanity made me feel more for them both, rather than less.

I can certainly see how the constant grind of the shouting can be exhausting, and it was for me too, though I loved the experience, amongst many other things because it was exhausting. I felt the exhaustion was part of it - the experience felt like a never-ending argument you can't get away from, of the kind I've had many times in my own relationship. I've felt how that combination of love and fear can reach an aggressive and destructive high that it's fucking hard to come down from, and I felt the film gave a perfect, morbid image of this state.

I would say only for that scene everyone should check out the film. It might be one of the most intense performances ever recorded. It made me feel physically disturbed and jumpy, almost nauseous.

Big fucking ditto.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Alexandro on December 29, 2015, 09:11:16 AM
I'm certainly aware of everything you mention, and I appreciate the effort and bravery of attempting something like that. But to me there are two major faults here. One is the acting, which works in bits and pieces but never as a whole. A lot of the bickering between the couple seems extremely staged and still, even within their madness, as if each actor is waiting for the other to trigger their next lines and marks. If you compare this to something like Inland Empire, where everyone is weird most of the time, you'll see that even in the heightened and stylized acting there are nuances and moments when a real person can be tracked down even in an imaginary sense. Not so much here, because it's not the choice but the execution. I don't know if the fact that the actors and the director spoke different languages had something to do with it. Also, this has to do with my second objection which is that without context or (to me) enough of a truthful performance which would allow me to buy into the whole thing, I'm left with a bunch of hysterics which seem to start at fever pitch and occasionally luck into a moment of real anger, anxiety and perversity like the aforementioned subway station scene, the kind of moment that the film seems to be aiming to sustain during it's whole running time. In any case, it's an interesting film.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: polkablues on January 07, 2016, 05:54:42 PM
Apparently I watched ten horror movies during the month of December. These are them:

+1
(http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d179/polkablues/MV5BMTQwOTA5Mzc3Ml5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwOTkxODAxMDE._V1_SX214_AL__zps9x2pxbyq.jpg)

Horror movie by loose definition. It starts off as a pretty generic-seeming teen party comedy, spends a good long while being a pretty generic teen party comedy, then the sci-fi/horror element which I won't get spoilery with gradually works its way in. The premise is more interesting than the execution, and I'm not sure I can ever accept Rhys Wakefield as anything other than the psychotic rich kid from The Purge (the role he was born to play), but it has its moments. Ashley Hinshaw is a terrific actor, and should be a huge star by now.
C+

Tiger House
(http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d179/polkablues/MV5BMTkzNTkyMzYzMl5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwNjYwMTA5MjE._V1_SX214_AL__zps8dbe1pzb.jpg)

An odd little movie in which the main character spends the majority of the runtime hiding under a bed. The cast is surprisingly good (especially Dougray Scott and Ed Skrein), and it successfully milks a big jug of tension out of its simple premise, but it never rises above the level of just good enough.
B-

Stung
(http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d179/polkablues/MV5BNzAyMDA3OTYyNl5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwMTgwODM2NTE._V1_SY317_CR00214317_AL__zpsk8umqsj2.jpg)

A throwback to the sort of goofy monster movies that would play on the USA or TNT networks on Saturday afternoons (Ticks (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0108339/?ref_=nm_flmg_act_129) and Skeeter (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0108154/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1) being two noteworthy comparisons), or a slightly less self-referential version of what the Syfy channel's been cranking out the past few years. The acting is silly, the effects are silly, the dialogue is ridiculous, the ending is over-the-top bonkers dumb. But I don't know, it's kind of fun for what it is.
C-

Bound to Vengeance
(http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d179/polkablues/MV5BMTc4MzM3MjgxM15BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwMjIyNTA4NTE._V1_SX214_AL__zpsdyzefod7.jpg)

Posted about this a bit in the shoutbox. It's decently made, the acting is very hit and miss, it's repetitive and ultimately kind of forgettable. It's just something that happened.
C

Some Kind of Hate
(http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d179/polkablues/MV5BMTU2MzExNjQ1Ml5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwMDAwODg0NjE._V1_SX214_AL__zps9ja4etud.jpg)

Here at least we have a movie that was trying some things. It wants to be a bit of an "issues" movie, with its focus on the effects of bullying. It made some interesting casting decisions (not including the lead actor, who is the least believable person on the entire planet to cast as a bullied outcast teenager). I love the idea of Michael Polish as the head of this new-age recovery retreat, I just want to see it in a movie that knows what to do with him. Likewise Noah Segan as the veteran counselor. Yadda yadda, things happen, people die off, vengeful ghost, everyone yells a lot, the end.
B-

The Blood Lands (aka White Settlers)
(http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d179/polkablues/MV5BMTY4MDkxNTYyNl5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwMDM0ODAxMzE._V1_SX214_AL__zpsvyd6zihq.jpg)

In some ways, a boilerplate home invasion movie (at some point we have to reach a saturation point with the fucking animal masks), but there are enough little tweaks and twists to the formula that it keeps it interesting, and Pollyanna McIntosh is an international treasure. This movie also speaks to the city dweller in me, which is convinced that the country is where people live if they want to get brutally murdered in the middle of the night. No good comes from not living within screaming distance of other people.
A-

Cruel & Unusual
(http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d179/polkablues/MV5BMzA5MDc4NzU1Ml5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwMDk2MTEyMjE._V1_SX214_AL__zpsgm7wirhw.jpg)

A Twilight Zone-esque, twisty little morality tale. Good acting, interesting script, full of ideas, ultimately falls a little flat.
B

Pod
(http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d179/polkablues/MV5BMTAxMTM5MzgyNzleQTJeQWpwZ15BbWU4MDc0NzAxNjYx._V1_SX214_AL__zpsfhzzsoxy.jpg)

Ugh. Waste of time. It's like a Joe Swanberg movie if Joe Swanberg didn't know how to direct actors.
D

Exeter
(http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d179/polkablues/MV5BODA3NjAxMTIzN15BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwODY0MDM1NTE._V1_SY317_CR50214317_AL__zpsirhzd3vz.jpg)
I think it's time to accept that Marcus Nispel was a very talented music video director and stop letting him try to tell stories.
D+
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: polkablues on January 07, 2016, 09:15:45 PM
And now I realize that was only nine movies.

EDIT: Found number 10!

Cassadaga
(http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d179/polkablues/MV5BMTUwNjk4OTI0MF5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwNDMzMzUzMDE._V1_SX214_AL__zpswvnvgfv5.jpg)

From the director of Last Shift, which I like very much, and starring Kelen Coleman, whom I like very much indeed. She plays a deaf woman, though for some odd reason elected to play the character with no alteration to her normal speech patterns. It was super distracting, as I kept forgetting the character was deaf until it would get mentioned. And the weird thing is, unless I missed something important, the character's deafness is entirely immaterial to the story. I guess there are a couple moments where they get tension out of the premise that there might be someone behind her that she can't hear, but ultimately it would have been the same movie with or without it.

Other than that, the movie is largely well-made, better directed than written (the killer feels a little like a rejected episode of Hannibal, plus there's some problematic trans-phobic cliches swirling around it all). In lieu of a letter grade, here's a picture of the lovely and talented Kelen Coleman.

(http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d179/polkablues/4_zpspfoomdm0.png)
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: polkablues on April 24, 2016, 01:23:52 PM
(http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d179/polkablues/MV5BOWQ4OTdlODQtMDc3Yy00MGVmLWExYjUtOGI0Yjg4MDQzNDNhXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyNjIzMzkyMzk._V1_UX182_CR00182268_AL__zpsmveksupx.jpg)

This one caught me surprise by showing up on Netflix within two weeks after I had first heard of its existence. It also caught me by surprise by being really good. I love a good home invasion movie. It's like the Pachebel's Canon in D of horror movies: such a simple template that everyone can repeat and make something distinctly their own out of it. Because the beats are largely the same from one to the next, it becomes a showcase for the strength of the filmmaking and the performances.

The "twist" of this one is that the main character is deaf, much like in the last movie I posted about in this thread. Unlike in that movie, the character's deafness in Hush is actually utilized as a major plot element, and lends to a considerable heightening of suspense throughout the film. Ultimately, it just feels better thought out than most movies of its type. They clearly put effort into working out the logistics of the situation, figuring out what a person would logically do in the moment, and how it would logically go wrong. As a result, there's little that rings false or feels contrived.

Also, John Gallagher Jr. plays the home invader, and he's basically always great. His natural affability, when re-contextualized, is chilling. It's not a new trick (think Anthony Bates in Psycho, John Jarratt in Wolf Creek, or recently, John Goodman in 10 Cloverfield Lane), but there's a reason directors keep tossing coins into that well. It makes wishes come true (I've lost control over this analogy).

In short, Hush doesn't reinvent the wheel, but it's a smooth, well-designed ride with maximum fuel efficiency and a nice paint job.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: jenkins on April 24, 2016, 03:17:39 PM
i'd say the horror genre doesn't deserve you but i'm so glad they have you.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Reelist on May 05, 2016, 04:07:26 AM
Spoilers for 'Hush'


I liked it a lot too, only I wished they'd taken a little longer before revealing the killer's face to keep that horror element alive. Although I do appreciate his "normal guy-ness." Not handsome, not ugly, kind of riding that line between dim and smart. It was nice to see a villain who wasn't super human for a change. Like, even when the male neighbor comes over and he has to pretend he's a cop you get a sense that he's thinking "wellll, I didn't quite plan this out, but let's see how it goes" instead of him preparing this meticulously scripted dialogue for that very situation. He takes off the mask specifically so she can read his lips, which makes you wonder how premeditated this all is. Does she recognize him at all in that moment? It's never revealed if they have any prior connection or he's just an absolute nut. You have to assume that he's some crazed fan of hers because pretty much the only thing we know about her personal life is that she's an Author. Is there any inkling of some sort of reason behind him doing this? I like that it's left open ended instead of some cheesy monologue with him explaining "I'm your ex-boyfriend and I didn't like what you wrote about MEEEEEEE!!!!"

In a lot of these home invasion movies (The Strangers, Funny Games..) we're not given the answer as to why they're doing it, which is crucial in making them terrifying because we all assume that if someone were to break into our house it'd be for money. Give them what they want and they'll go the fuck away, "take anything, just don't hurt us!" The worst imaginable scenario is that they'd hold you hostage and make you play their sick game before killing you. This guy in 'Hush' takes it up a notch by apparently having no interest in even going in the house to attack her, he legitimately just wants to play a cat and mouse game. How did he see this playing out, I wonder? Must've always really wanted to kill someone with a crossbow.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: polkablues on July 07, 2016, 01:40:06 AM
Quick Review Rundown:

(http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d179/polkablues/MV5BMTU1NDg3NjE5MF5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwNzQxNjA3NzE._V1_UX182_CR00182268_AL__zps93zykvmg.jpg)
Southbound
Someday somebody will make a horror anthology film that's all hits and no misses. This is not that day. Points for trying, though. I really liked two out of the five segments, which is a similar ratio to the VHS series, and leaps and bounds better than the fucking ABCs of Death.

(http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d179/polkablues/MV5BMjQ2MjUzNTg5MF5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwNTY1MTY3NjE._V1_UX182_CR00182268_AL__zps0qqe0gm7.jpg)
The Hallow
Flirted with being good, ended up being mostly bad. Not terribly bad, but also not enjoyably bad.

(http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d179/polkablues/MV5BMTY2MTcyODgyM15BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwMDg4MTU1MDE._V1_UY268_CR100182268_AL__zpso06sm2ju.jpg)
Scintilla (aka The Hybrid)
Feels like three different movies, one of which is competent but rote, one of which is boring and pointless, and one of which is actually somewhat intriguing and creative. It was like 90% those first two, though.

(http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d179/polkablues/MV5BMTY1NjkwNDQ0NF5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwMTkyOTE2NjE._V1_UX182_CR00182268_AL__zpsztvsnhz0.jpg)
Turbo Kid
Better than it should have been, but not quite as good as it could have been. Deserved twice the attention and praise that smug, hamfisted piece of shit Kung Fury got last year.

(http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d179/polkablues/MV5BMjMxMzc4NTEyN15BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwNDgyMjA3MTE._V1_UY268_CR10182268_AL__zpsk147ylku.jpg)
App
The lead actor is really good. The screenplay is really bad. Ultimately squanders any potential promise in its setup, though it has some worthwhile moments along the way.

(http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d179/polkablues/MV5BMjMyNjIyNjM4MF5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwNzkzMjI2NzE._V1_UX182_CR00182268_AL__zpsnyjndt9q.jpg)
The Abandoned
I would have already forgotten all about this movie if the "twist" ending hadn't pissed me off so badly. I remember when Jason Patric was a respected actor who was in good movies sometimes. Those were the good days.

(http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d179/polkablues/MV5BMTk0ODA1MzY3NF5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwMjQ0NzcyNDE._V1_UX182_CR00182268_AL__zpsjbfmfs53.jpg)
They Look Like People
A very pleasant surprise. Some amateurish acting and stilted dialogue, but a great understated directorial style, strong suspense, and a satisfying character-focused story. Worth your time.

(http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d179/polkablues/MV5BMTU0OTk0ODA4MV5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwMjM1MzA5NzE._V1_UX182_CR00182268_AL__zpsxmqb1flf.jpg)
Pandemic
Not worth your time.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: polkablues on July 11, 2016, 05:04:13 PM
(http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d179/polkablues/MV5BMTY5MzE0MjUwNV5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwNjQxNzM2NzE._V1_UY268_CR10182268_AL__zpsosgt7tl0.jpg)
Intruders

Previously known as "Shut In" (a more representative and better title, especially since now it shares its name with that Clive Owen movie from a few years ago), it initially comes off as a standard home invasion flick with a neat twist, that the main character suffers from agoraphobia to the point that leaving the house is even more terrifying to her than the men who have broken in. It probably would have been fine if that's all it was; the filmmaking is solid, and Hush recently got good results out of a similarly narrow conceit. But about halfway through it becomes clear the movie has deeper, more interesting plans. Saying any more would be unnecessarily spoilerful, so just suffice it to say that it doesn't play out like a typical movie of its subgenre. It's hardly perfect, and in fact feels like it pulls its punches a little bit in ways that, had it been willing to go all in, could have really pushed it over the top, but it has some nice tricks up its sleeve and it sticks the landing. Lots of mixed metaphors in that last sentence.

It's available for streaming on Showtime Anytime if you have a Showtime subscription or, more realistically, know someone who will let you use his mom's login.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: 03 on October 14, 2016, 01:13:17 AM
ITS OCTOBER LETS GO PEOPLE

who else is doing modages horror movie a day?
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: polkablues on October 14, 2016, 01:55:50 AM
All right, you twisted my arm.

Black Mountain Side
(http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d179/polkablues/MV5BMjEyMzE0NTA3OF5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwNzgxMTk1NzE._V1_UX182_CR00182268_AL__zpstv6uvgkr.jpg)
Low budget done right. A slow-burn low-key riff on The Thing, with a hefty pinch of Lovecraft for flavor. Might have benefited from a touch more ambition, but it succeeds at what it's trying to do.

The Other Side of the Door
(http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d179/polkablues/MV5BMTU5MjEwNDYzNF5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwMzM0NzcwODE._V1_UX182_CR00182268_AL__zpsruck9xoj.jpg)
The first of two features in the post written and directed by Johannes Roberts, who made the sadly underappreciated film The Expelled, and the rightly underappreciated Storage 24. This one is closer to the former than the latter, with reasonably well-drawn characters, solid actors, and a gut punch of an ending. Leans a little too hard on the "non-white cultures are inherently scary" trope.

In the Deep
(http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d179/polkablues/MV5BMTg3MjYyMjEzNl5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwMDI1NDAzOTE._V1_UX182_CR00182268_AL__zps8xmwrxup.jpg)
The other Johannes Roberts movie. It has its moments, and it's better overall than the other scary shark movie I'm about to list, but the dialogue is atrocious, most of the acting is bad (Mandy Moore is out of her depth, pun fully intended, and Matthew Modine continues his journey of making me question whether he was ever even a good actor to begin with), and it completely wusses out on what WOULD have been a gut punch of an ending that would have redeemed a lot of its other faults.

The Shallows
(http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d179/polkablues/MV5BMjA1MTA4MzU4Ml5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwNjUxNjczODE._V1_UX182_CR00182268_AL__zpsgft5fcry.jpg)
The other scary shark movie. You may recognize this as the movie in which Blake Lively attempts to prove her legitimacy as an actor while also reminding us that she's extremely attractive. She is largely successful in both endeavors, but the movie itself is a dumb dull dud. My Close Personal Friend Brett Cullen gets to LITERALLY phone in his role as Blake's dad, which I imagine was a career goal he's been striving toward for years.

The Blackcoat's Daughter (aka February)
(http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d179/polkablues/MV5BMTY2NTQ3NTEzNF5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwMzA0MzY1OTE._V1_UX182_CR00182268_AL__zpsqffuzkij.jpg)
This one kind of came out of nowhere and surprised me. Visually stylish and relentlessly atmospheric. Has some Lynchian aspirations which don't quite pan out, but it successfully maintains an off-kilter rhythm of its own. Kiernan Shipka continues her evolution from annoying child actor on Mad Men to best actor on Mad Men to goddamn force of nature. Worth watching for her performance above all else.

Most Likely to Die
(http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d179/polkablues/MV5BMjQyMTc4NDc2Nl5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwMzQ0MDU1NjE._V1_UY268_CR30182268_AL__zpshbkwdyy6.jpg)
I loved the director's previous film, Last Shift. I hated his new film, this piece of shit.

Dead Set
(http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d179/polkablues/MV5BMTQ1NDgxMzM4Ml5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwNzA0NDMwMg._V1._CR190327448_UY268_CR70182268_AL__zpsbs6jrlre.jpg)
Charlie Brooker's miniseries about a fictional season of Big Brother that is interrupted by a global zombie outbreak. Charlie Brooker wrote it, of course it's great. Not much else to say.

Jeruzalem
(http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d179/polkablues/MV5BMTc2MjU2ODY3M15BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwMTg5OTc3NTE._V1_UY268_CR120182268_AL__zpsjpxq7fhm.jpg)
As far as I know, the first found footage horror movie to use a Google Glass equivalent as the vehicle for how the events of the movie are being filmed. The idea is cool, two American friends vacationing in Jerusalem when a gate to hell breaks open and the city is under siege by supernatural forces, and the fact they actually shot in Jerusalem lends a gravitas to the proceedings that the filmmaking itself doesn't otherwise earn. But on the whole it's just too disjointed, the acting too spotty, and the overall movie too forgettable to fully recommend.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: matt35mm on October 14, 2016, 04:27:00 AM
Every year around this time, Adam Green (who made HATCHET, FROZEN, and does The Movie Crypt podcast) makes a goofy no-budget just-for-fun Halloween short. Here's this year's, which, ahem, I edited!!!!! Features Chase Williamson from JOHN DIES AT THE END, and Sid Haig from a whole buncha stuff!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atS7sS1ArDE
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: modage on October 14, 2016, 06:16:59 PM
Oh hey guys, sorry I'm late. As usual, Polka puts us all to shame with his deep dive into the indie horror world. I've been watching some films as well, some stuff I've never seen as well as revisiting some classics with my wife who has never seen them. Let's run 'em down...

Rewatch

Rosemary's Baby: Still the greatest. One of the first horror films I showed my then-gf-now-wife who when we met said she hated horror movies (but now has seen most of the classics) and still probably her favorite. Criterion Blu-ray looks really nice. The more Cassavetes films I see, the crazier it is to me that he's in this.

Crimson Peak: So gorgeous. With Pac Rim and this, we've reached peak del Toro.

Don't Look Now: Only my second time watching this one and I gotta say that I don't think I'm a fan. I appreciate the editing and atmosphere but not sure it works for me as a horror movie. I'm sure I'm in the minority on this one.

Suspiria: This was my first Italian horror film and it is still so great. Actually kinda looking forward to the remake because I think with all the waves of horror subgenres that have come back into vogue over the last decade or so, no one has really attempted to bring back this kind of super stylized, insane lighting, Argento-influenced horror. (Crimson Peak maybe comes closest just for sheer beauty, and Neon Demon looks like it may be attempting this but I haven't seen it yet.) Am I forgetting something, polka/RK?

Monster House: I loooved this when it came out and found myself kinda okay with it now. The weirdest part was just the CGI itself which at the time (motion capture!) felt state-of-the-art and now feels like a 1990s computer game.

The Witch: One of my favorites of the year. Not traditionally thrilling in a horror movie sense but far more unnerving, the finale may be an all-timer.

First-Timers

Prom Night: Unremarkable, post-Halloween slasher film with Jamie Lee Curtis, a I Know What You Did Last Summer-style premise and disco-inferno tinged finale. Less fun than it sounds.

Sleepaway Camp: Despite having received the Netflix disc the past few Octobers, I finally watched this and somehow had never seen it. If I had discovered this in high school (a la Blood Diner) I could see loving it for its WTF finale (which was really the only reason I watched it, despite knowing what was going to happen), but without the shock of the twist, there's not much there.

Leviathan: Basically a B+ Alien/The Abyss rip-off from the director of Tombstone and Cobra, the writer of Unforgiven and 12 Monkeys, starring Robocop (Peter Weller), the old dude from Rambo (Richard Crenna), the black dude from Ghostbusters (Ernie Hudson), the dude from Home Alone (Daniel Stern) and the British chick from The (original) Flash TV show (?). Oh and with special creature FX from Stan Winston! Director is clearly channeling James Cameron and doing a decent job of it until the Monster is revealed and looks pretty not great (despite having been designed by Winston, it's all about how you shoot and light that sucka), but I still really enjoyed this.

Hush: It's fine! Yet another home-invasion thriller with a man in a mask trying to get into the house, in this one the woman in the house is deaf, which in some more clever hands could've been a really original thriller (completely silent?) but instead is really not utilized at all besides the setup/finale payoff. The tension is drained when the killer takes off his mask (which is pretty early). A minor shame because I liked Oculus, previous film from this director which is also set in one location with just a couple actors but whose premise is a lot more creative.

Alice Sweet Alice (aka Holy Terror): I had never heard of this one until it started popping up on Best Of Horror lists a few years back so I jumped when I had the opportunity to see this in 35mm at the Nitehawk in BK. Notable for the mask (http://www.dreadcentral.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/alice-sweet-alice-remake.jpg) and the first appearance of Brooke Shields in a film (she was around 10 at the time), the director was "inspired" by Don't Look Now and makes the killer a small person/child? (no spoilers) in a raincoat and mask who runs around knifing people. Notable also for its scenes of the fat creepy pedophile neighbor which are disturbing because they feel like they belong in a different much broader, cheaper, snuff-film type movie.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: polkablues on October 22, 2016, 01:54:27 PM
The Ones Below
(http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d179/polkablues/MV5BMTQ2OTM2NTUxNl5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwNDEyMjQ1ODE._V1_UX182_CR00182268_AL__zpsunwy55ms.jpg)
A really top-notch psychological thriller. Pulls off the rare trick of letting the audience figure out exactly where it's going very early on, but still surprising them with how it gets there. Would make a great triple-feature with L'intérieur and The Babadook -- three examinations of maternal anxiety told through the lenses of three completely different horror subgenres.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: modage on October 23, 2016, 05:16:48 PM
Update: Day 23, 23 films so far.

First-Timers

The Sentinel: Tarantino had talked about if he ever did a horror movie possibly adapting the book this was based on, which came out around the same time as the Exorcist, because this adaptation was not-so-great. It's about a young woman who moves into an apartment building that might be the doorway to hell. She meets a bunch of her neighbors (including Burgess Meredith and young Beverly D'Angelo) and learns that they're all actually dead murderers. Things it had going for it: young Christopher Walken AND young Jeff Goldblum! (And bonus young Chris Sarandon.) It's definitely dated in that 70s way that not great movies are but has a couple good creepy scenes and a finale featuring a horde of actual disformed/disfigured people that was apparently controversial when it came out.

Best part was seeing it in the theatre and there's a scene when the woman goes upstairs to the abandoned apartment to investigate some noises, comes upon some kind of dead person and starts screaming "Why are you doing this to me?!" With perfect timing, a girl in the theatre said, "You're in HIS apartment" and everybody laughed. Normally I kinda hate people for ruining the movie but this was pretty good.

The Gate: In the 80s movie canon of kids movies that are way-too-terrifying for kids, this PG-13 horror-lite features a super-young Steven Dorff as a kid who discovers a gate to hell in his backyard. Some cool stop-motion animation and creepy imagery. Didn't see this one as a kid, but if I had, I can imagine it leaving a permanent scar the way that some other 80s movies did.

Ghosts of Mars: The last time John Carpenter will probably ever work with a real budget or make a studio film, which is a shame but I can't say not totally earned by this film which feels like he was just going through the motions behind-the-camera. I actually found it sort of enjoyable for how analog this is, considering it's only 15 years old but may as well have been made in the 80s or 90s. It's all big sets, monster makeup but a random group of actors (Pam Grier! Jason Statham! Natasha Henstridge! Ice Cube!) that only could've been assembled in early 2000s.

Martin: I've heard a lot about this over the years as being Romero's underrated film (or even his best) and while it comes nowhere close to his Zombie trilogy, it's interesting for bringing vampires out of gothic castles and into modern day about a decade before films like Lost Boys and Near Dark attempted a similar feat (to more success). The opening assault/rape is also incredibly creepy and uncomfortable and the use of needles to sedate reminded me of Let The Right One In. Not great but worth a viewing if you're curious.

Blair Witch (2016): I've been up and down on Wingard/Barrett (down on You're Next, up on The Guest) and I guess I'm down again on this. Blair Witch Project was interesting for its time and place, it pretty much invented a new language of filmmaking and so could get away with less because what you were seeing felt so new and dangerous. But after a decade and a half of found footage both good and bad it's hard to go back to the well and essentially remake the original film without coming out of it with a shrug. The most interesting part about the film was the A+ marketing job hiding this from the public, calling it the Woods, screening it at Comic-Con and revealing it on the spot) but man, no one seemed to care because the film itself just isn't very good.

The Purge: Election Year: I really like The Purge series. The first one is a contained, home invasion thriller and the sequels have been more sprawling John Carpenter Assault On Precinct 13/Escape from New York style affairs. They're basically exploitation movies but competently made, infused with just enough social commentary to be interesting and always contain a few moments of truly striking nightmarish images.

The Earth Dies Screaming: B film with A production values (produced by 20th Century Fox, directed by Hammer vet Terrence Fisher), this 62 minute film barely qualifies as a feature and the title is much more memorable than the film.

Rewatch

Evil Dead: Still the greatest. Watched with a few people who had never seen it and despite its shortcomings (shoddy acting, low budget FX) the thing still works like gangbusters.

Evil Dead II: Dead By Dawn: Ditto that. I go back and forth between this and the original for which one is my favorite, I was sure it was this one until this most recent viewing, now I might be leaning back towards the original.

Cabin In The Woods: The first time I saw this, I liked it but I was definitely a little disappointed because as a horror-comedy, it kinda fails in the horror department. I think it wants to be scary and funny but only really succeeds at the latter. But over the past few years I've seen it like half a dozen times and think I can forgive that and just enjoy it for what it is, which may be kind of a minor classic.

The Descent: I hadn't seen this in a decade, where I had watched a bootleg copy (a year before it came out in America). I remembered it as one of the best horror films of the past decade but since I'd only seen it once, was hoping I hadn't been wrong. Nope, this thing holds up. I love movies that start as one movie and then take a turn into a completely different kind of film so I watched this with 3 unsuspecting people, and told them it was a claustrophobic thriller. So when the real carnage starts in, they were as unprepared for it as I was during my first viewing. It was also my first time watching the real/European ending which is a major downer. I kinda wish the characters were a little more distinguished from each other, you kinda get about 3 of the 6 personalities in 2 dimensions but whatareyougonnado.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Ghostboy on October 23, 2016, 07:51:38 PM
We did our annual Halloween marathon last weekend. Our lineup this year was a little shorter than in the past because we watched THE SHINING, which a few guests had never seen, and also because we made a trip to the revival theater to see VIDEODROME in 35mm.

The list was...

What We Do In The Shadows
Pet Semetary
Housebound
Trick R Treat
Videdrome
The Shining
House (1977)
Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2
We Are What We Are
Sleepaway Camp
Shaun Of The Dead
Martyrs

I had seen almost all of these except for Trick R Treat, House, Housebound and Martyrs. What I really wanted to come here to say was that I was not expecting to enjoy Martyrs or even appreciate it, but I kinda came away loving it. We watched Inside in a past marathon and had a blast with it, but there's nothing fun about this one whatsoever, as anyone who's seen it can attest to. However, it has a ton of integrity and it earns its extreme nihilism. It's hard to recommend but at the same time I'm glad I had that experience.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: polkablues on October 24, 2016, 01:43:25 AM
I will spend my life evangelizing for Martyrs as not only one of the great horror films, but one of the great films, period.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: ElPandaRoyal on October 24, 2016, 04:30:52 AM
I kind of had a hard time watching Martyrs, maybe it was too much for me, but as time has passed, it kind of stayed on my mind more than I thought it would. I do remember enjoying The Tall Man a little bit more, though.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: modage on November 02, 2016, 10:16:34 AM
Finished up my marathon with a total of 40 films, which might be my record. (And if it's not my record, it's at least my record since I was in college in the early Xixax days.) Here's the rest of what I saw.

First-Timers

The Exorcism of Emily Rose: I remember this having pretty good reviews when it came out and in light of Doctor Strange coming out this week, thought it would be good to catch up with. A really strange legal thriller with horror flashbacks, I wasn't really sure what to make of this one other than I'm surprised it went over as well as it did since it doesn't seem like it really delivers for horror audiences.

Elvira, Mistress Of The Dark: This was fun. I had grown up in the 80s very aware of Elvira without ever having seen her in anything, she was just a horror icon on shelves like Freddy or Jason and all kids kinda knew who they were regardless of if we had seen the films. Kept thinking that if Tim Burton had directed this instead of Pee Wee's Big Adventure, even with the same script, it would've been a much better film.

Maniac (1980): I had seen the Elijah Wood starring POV remake a year or two ago but hadn't seen the original until now. I would place this in the category of horror that is a little too grimy and real to be fun, thus not my particular cup of tea, despite it being really well made. I thought this would've been more of a down and dirty exploitation film but the filmmaking was actually pretty good. And the last 5 minutes or so which delve into the surreal, elevate the whole film for me.

Ouija: Origin of Evil: Didn't see the original but decided to check this out because the reviews were good, it seemed to stand alone, and it was basically the only horror film in theatres in October, which, WTF Hollywood. The retro touches (Universal logo, cigarette burns) are cute and it's definitely a step up from Hush, but it's good without ever being anything truly special. Interesting to note that we are definitely in the middle of the James Wan era. Where even films that aren't directed or produced by him carry his signature. I like his style but am now sorta waiting to see what's next.

Halloween: Resurrection: Spent the past few years going through the entire Halloween series, most of which I had never seen besides the first two, H20 and Rob Zombie's god-awful remake. This was the last of the original series, and the one with Busta Rhymes, it follows the events of H20, which I liked at the time, but wasn't actually very good upon re-inspection. This is also not very good but almost charming how quaint it is already, it came out in 2002 but seems to be closer in style and filmmaking to the 80s and 90s sequels than films today. There is a very early-internet concept, influenced by the rise of The Osbournes and reality TV and probably the POV cam of the Blair Witch Project but otherwise it's business as usual. And business is not very good.

Seeding of a Ghost: This was INSANE and the big surprise of the season for me. Playing as part of the brand-new Brooklyn Alamo Drafthouse's opening series In The Mood For Gore, this was an early 80s film by the Shaw Brothers that begins as a slow burn but becomes gross out insanity by the last act. The basic setup involves a cab driver who almost hits a gypsy with his car and whose wife is having an affair before she is murdered by street toughs, so he goes to the gypsy to seek revenge on whoever is responsible for his wife's death. It contains some insane fight scenes, soft core slow-motion nudity, ghost fucking and tentacle monsters. I have never really seen anything like it. Watching it I could see shades of Evil Dead, The Thing and Dead Alive, and wondered if Raimi, Carpenter or Jackson had seen this film before making theirs. ATTN: Polka, RK, Ghostboy.

Masque of the Red Death: Roger Corman basically doing his American-ized riff on Hammer films but boy, is it gorgeous. Another one of my favorite discoveries. It may be low-budget but you would never know it. Beautiful design, costumes and sets and a great central Vincent Price performance. Watching this (and rewatching Suspiria) this year, I would love to see a return to lush, stylized, gorgeous design in horror films. Only Crimson Peak comes close.

Death Spa: Part of the secret lineup of Dismember the Alamo, I had been aware of this because of How Did This Get Made, and it is indeed awful and hilarious.

Halloween II (2009): This will be the last Rob Zombie film I will ever see.

Eden Lake: More of a thriller than horror but an effective one. Early Fassbender and Jack O'Connell and Kelly Reilly (whose name I always hear in my head pronounced like the hushed tones of "Mary Reilly" from the Mary Reilly trailer. The director just did one of the new Black Mirror eps.

Rewatch

Army Of Darkness: Still the greatest. Maybe the third-best Evil Dead movie but the best, most fully realized version of Ash, almost every line is a catchphrase now. My ideal double-feature would be this and Big Trouble In Little China, both featuring lead characters who think they are amazing but are actually blowhard idiots.

The Gate: Got tickets to Dismember the Alamo, their secret lineup 4 horrro movie marathon, and decided to make the trek all the way up to Yonkers just to do it. But because of the secret lineup, all month whenever I would put on a movie I would think, "God, I hope this isn't playing at Dismember The Alamo." But with literally thousands of horror films and only 4 films playing the event (with about 25 films I would be watching throughout the month), odds would be in my favor that it would not happen. So imagine my horror as the lights went down and the first movie to play was one that I had watched for the first time literally a week ago.

Deathdream: ...And the second movie was one I had seen on my only previous visit to the Alamo Yonkers two years ago as part of a double-feature with Abbott & Costello Meet Frankenstein. Wasn't a fan of this the first time, liked it a little better on the second perhaps due to the engaged audience response. But good god, the print of this looks like the film was shot through a pitcher of pink Kool-aid, it is so faded it's practically pink and white. And now I've seen that print, twice. There are films that I love that I've only ever seen once. And yet. This. On 35mm. Twice.

Event Horizon: The final movie of the Dismember marathon was this one which I remember scaring the shit out of me when it came out and hadn't seen since the 90s. It definitely has some dated 90s-isms but some of the nightmare imagery definitely stuck with me over the years. And Sam Neill and Lawrence Fishburne still make it worth revisiting.

Phantasm: Remastered: Great job on the 4K remaster, Bad Robot. Maybe my 4th or 5th time seeing this and I still don't know what to make of it, but now that the Halloween series has been completed I think I'm gonna go through the Phantasm sequels next.

Hocus Pocus: I was a little old when this came out but thought it'd be worth showing my 6 year old niece. It's a little broad and Disney-fied at times but I appreciated that it was probably the last live-action scary Halloween movie aimed at kids. What the fuck happened, America?

Monster Squad: I saw this at the Alamo on Halloween and believe this to be the perfect Halloween film. The big 5 monsters, a great fast paced script by Dekker and Shane Black, great designs by Stan Winston, great score, fun, scary, everything. 12 year old kids cursing, firing guns, 14 year old kids smoking, drinking beer, and firing guns. This could never happen today. Stranger Things seems closest in terms of tone but the thing about 80s movies like Monster Squad is they not only starred kids, but were aimed at kids as well. Where Stranger Things stars kids but as far as I know is only watched by adults. Someone needs to resurrect the scary kids movie. Your move, Ghostboy.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: RegularKarate on November 02, 2016, 12:39:41 PM
Heard on that Seeding of a Ghost rec. I'll check it out!

I didn't get a chance to watch many horror movies this month.

-Bought the Universal Monsters box set and made it through three monsters (Drac, Wolf, and Mum). I'm late on this, but the restorations look amazing and I love the score Philip Glass did for Dracula w/ Kronos Quartet

-Also re-watched the 78 Halloween with my GF who had never seen it... of course it's great, but it prompted me to watch the Rob Zombie remake since I had never seen that.... OOOOOOOOOOOUCH! So much wrong with it, but most of all it's clear the man hates women. Some people have told me that the second one is "so much better", but I don't know that I can ever watch another Rob Zombie movie again.

- Rewatched Exorcist 3. I still think this is an underrated Gem, but now I'm just super curious about the recent bluray release that includes the "directors cut". He was forced to make a lot of changes and it shows. The movie starts so smart with some sharp dialogue that attaches you to those characters fast, but this drops about a third way into the movie and you're left with one good character kind of bouncing around between scares.

- Halloween night I watched A Nightmare on Elm Street 3. I had remembered this being the best of the sequels. I was either wrong or all of the sequels are fucking terrible (Part 2 is a delicious kind of terrible for sure). Still fun to watch. Heather Langenkamp delivers all her lines like she just learned them a minute before Action was called and until the dreams begin everything looks Student Film budgeted, but once the dreams/kills start, it gets pretty fun pretty fast. I forgot how soon in the movie the Freddy worm shows up!

Title: Re: Horror
Post by: polkablues on December 23, 2016, 04:50:49 PM
The Monster
(http://i.imgur.com/trm2xnG.jpg)
Bryan Bertino has had an oddly quiet career since debuting with The Strangers, a modern classic. This is only his third film, and while it doesn't all work, the parts that do work are so goddamn good my other complaints become largely irrelevant. It's a solid suspenseful monster survival movie, but the real core of the film is the fractured family drama between Zoe Kazan's alcoholic fuck-up character and her daughter, played by Ella Balentine, who is SUCH A RIDICULOUSLY GOOD ACTOR YOU GUYS HAVE NO IDEA. These two are so good, and the scenes of their broken relationship so strong, the monster stuff almost feels like a whole different movie butting in on the one I really wanted to see. But it's 100% worth watching for these two actors who should be getting magnitudes more attention and accolades for how great they are in these roles.

Title: Re: Horror
Post by: wilder on February 18, 2017, 02:58:07 AM
There's a new streaming service called Shudder (https://www.shudder.com/browse) with a pretty wide selection for $5/mo
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: polkablues on February 18, 2017, 03:11:11 PM
Yeah,  I've had Shudder as an add-on subscription to my Amazon Prime for a while now. Nice mix of old and new, big-budget and indie. My only issues with it are if you're already well-versed in horror, you're going to run out of movies to watch pretty quickly, and a lot of what's on there is not in HD. But it definitely feels worth the 5 bucks a month to me.
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: Garam on April 03, 2017, 06:30:06 PM
Prevenge is very very good and funny but definitely front-loaded. DJ Dan stuff was the highlight for me but the whole thing had some great lines. Keen on the idea that no one called 'Josh' would ever refrain from grassing
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: jenkins on September 07, 2017, 01:52:13 PM
2017 Beyond Fest (http://beyondfest.com/?page_id=3025)
Tix on sale tomorrow
Please note: lots of smaller premiere screenings are free, and for some reason Slumber Party Massacre 1+2 are free

29 September
BRAWL IN CELL BLOCK 99
7:30pm 2h 15' Egyptian Theatre
West Coast Premiere
S. Craig Zahler, Don Johnson, Vince Vaughn & Udo Kier in Person

29 September
ICHI THE KILLER: The Digitally Restored Director's Cut
11:55pm 2h 10' Egyptian Theatre
West Coast Premiere

30 September
THE GRAPES OF DEATH (Les Raisins de La Mort)
500pm 1h 30' Shudder Theatre @Egyptian
Co-presented by Kier-La Janisse and Cinematic Void!

30 September
BEST F(R)IENDS
7:30pm 1h 35' Egyptian Theatre
World Premiere
Tommy Wiseau, Greg Sestero and Justin Macgregor in Person
Double Feature with THE ROOM

1 October
PHANTOM OF THE PARADISE
400pm 1h 40' Egyptian Theatre
Paul Williams, Ed Pressman, Paul Hirsch in Person

1 October
SUSPIRIA - 4K RESTORATION
700pm 1h 40' Egyptian Theatre
LA Premiere – 40th Anniversary
Dario Argento in Person

2 October
SUSPIRIA - 35mm Italian Cut
7:30pm 1h 40' Egyptian Theatre
LA Premiere – 40th Anniversary
Dario Argento in Person
Double Feature with OPERA

4 October
HOWARD THE DUCK - 70mm
7:30pm 1h 50' Egyptian Theatre
Lea Thompson in Person
Double Feature with NAPOLEON DYNAMITE – THE BOOTLEGGED EDITION

5 October
PREDATOR - 35mm
7:30pm 2h 30' Egyptian Theatre
30th Anniversary
Arnold Schwarzenegger in Person
Double Feature with THE RUNNING MAN

8 October
Car Chases, Collisions & Conversation: An Evening with Edgar Wright and Walter Hill
7:00pm 1h 30' Egyptian Theatre
Edgar Wright & Walter Hill in Person

9 October
JEAN-CLAUDE VAN JOHNSON
730pm 1h Egyptian Theatre
Theatrical World Premiere
Jean-Claude Van Damme, Peter Atencio, Dave Callaham, Kat Foster, Moises Arias in Person

10 October
THE KILLING OF A SACRED DEER
915pm 1h 40' Egyptian Theatre
West Coast Premiere


Related trailers --

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=55_pHI3cafY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUXZZLu3900

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8z3umgwTdY
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: jenkins on October 21, 2017, 12:16:21 PM
i'm going to see this today

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GmFP7pfz1U
Title: Re: Horror
Post by: jenkins on October 21, 2017, 05:40:29 PM
now, this is common: the beginning is a finely chiseled swan, but it becomes just a stone block by the end. the ending story mechanics involve Tanning Bed Terror (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CShHiYrQPGM), like they knew what they had to do but they weren't thinking too much about how to do it.

that said, i think there are clear eyes on its central theme, which involves fiery satire, and dramatic irony from the main characters not likely to confess that they symbolize the shallow narcissism of contemporary youth culture. as the movie states, their minds are on their numbers. which is crazy. they are people's reaction to Anissa Weier, Morgan Geyser and Slender Man (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slender_Man). which means this movie is bleak and critical of its time, thereby in my opinion being a good horror movie, on top of the fact that i think it does a solid job of portraying the personality of its time. this is the thing: the personality of our time changes every year. how very 2015 Dope (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3850214/) is now. but if you're going to do it you should do it, and what'll happen by the end is there will be a perfect representation of the fast-shifting landscapes of our current culture, which terrifies people so much that most just ignore. so ace job Tragedy Girls, for speaking of the horrible through a horror movie.