Horror

Started by TenseAndSober, April 22, 2003, 05:01:56 PM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Pubrick

Quote from: modage on October 29, 2006, 09:34:17 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..

Quote from: Ravi on August 07, 2006, 08:38:01 PM

under the paving stones.

RegularKarate





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.

modage





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.
Christopher Nolan's directive was clear to everyone in the cast and crew: Use CGI only as a last resort.

Ghostboy

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.



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.



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.



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...

Gamblour.

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.
WWPTAD?

polkablues

Quote from: Gamblour le flambeur on October 30, 2006, 09:44:57 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.
My house, my rules, my coffee

Pubrick

Quote from: Gamblour le flambeur on October 30, 2006, 09:44:57 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.
under the paving stones.

Gamblour.

Quote from: polkablues on October 30, 2006, 10:35:38 PM
Quote from: Gamblour le flambeur on October 30, 2006, 09:44:57 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.

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.

Quote from: Pubrick on October 30, 2006, 10:44:44 PM
Quote from: Gamblour le flambeur on October 30, 2006, 09:44:57 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.

In my brain, I know her from Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore and Requiem for a Dream. But mostly from Ya-Ya.
WWPTAD?

modage

WARNING!  Feast is HORRIBLE and It's Alive (outside of the first 10 minutes) is not much better. 
Christopher Nolan's directive was clear to everyone in the cast and crew: Use CGI only as a last resort.

polkablues

Quote from: modage on October 31, 2006, 11:40:03 AM
It's Alive (outside of the first 10 minutes) is not much better. 


My house, my rules, my coffee

Gamblour.

Quote from: 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. 

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.
WWPTAD?

MacGuffin

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 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. 
"Don't think about making art, just get it done. Let everyone else decide if it's good or bad, whether they love it or hate it. While they are deciding, make even more art." - Andy Warhol


Skeleton FilmWorks

MacGuffin

Quote from: MacGuffin on May 17, 2006, 03:13:03 PM
Quote from: modage on May 11, 2006, 08:21:53 AMso 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
"Don't think about making art, just get it done. Let everyone else decide if it's good or bad, whether they love it or hate it. While they are deciding, make even more art." - Andy Warhol


Skeleton FilmWorks

Gamblour.

#328
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.



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.


(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.



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.

WWPTAD?

RegularKarate



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.