Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 1, 2010 20:59:16 GMT -5
|
|
Lick Ness Monster
Dennis Stamp
From the eerie, eerie depths of Lake Okabena
Posts: 4,874
|
Post by Lick Ness Monster on May 1, 2010 21:17:47 GMT -5
I remembered the title idea, Friskey. This does, however, make you the third person to start a WC horror thread, which makes me proud. More and more people are getting deeply sucked into these all the time. Mucho thanks, as well, for posting the links to the previous threads. With that, it's HALL OF FAME TIME, with a couple inductions that will make DSR a very happy man. Previous inductees: Alfred Hitchcock Clive Barker Sam Neill Stephen King Tony Todd Thomas Harris Takako Fuji Dario Argento Goblin (the band Robert Englund Takashi Miike Lucio Fulci Joe Bob Briggs Brad Dourif John Carpenter Paul Naschy Fred Gwynne Tobin Bell Charles “Chas” Balun Dick Miller Dan O’Bannon INDUCTION #22 “I could make a film about the fall of the Roman empire with two extras and a sagebrush.” ROGER CORMAN It seems like there’s a smattering of people – not only in this thread, but on the entire WC message board – who watch the SyFy original pictures every week. The sport of looking at the cheaply made, thrifty specials along with some online MST3K-like commentary is a always immensely fun to read. As someone who doesn’t watch the movies or take part in these discussions, I imagine them to be very fun to take part in, as well. Nonetheless, the movies exist, and they continue to be churned out on a weekly basis. They cost practically peanuts, sure, but they make money. The art of low-budget film-making – and getting a return from a low investment – is a practice that owes this WC horror hall of fame inductee quite a bit. Roger Corman is many things – a film-maker, producer, and occasional actor. He has made countless feature films (during his peak period, he made as many as seven movies a year), appeared in the Oscar-winners Silence of the Lambs and The Godfather Part II in bit roles, and played a big part in another future potential hall of fame inductee Vincent Price having such a revered name in the horror community. Most importantly, he has shown that bigger does not necessarily always equal better. The template for Corman’s career was set early, as one of his first notable films was the 1956 sci-fi horror schlockfest It Conquered the World. From here, he went on an unbelievably productive binge of film-making, churning out films every year with hardly a break. He played a role in the early career of fellow hall of fame inductee Dick Miller attaining legendary character actor status in the early Walter Paisley epic A Bucket of Blood, reportedly shot a film in just two days with the original Little Shop of Horrors, and served as an early mentor to other prominent film-makers (not the least of which are Martin Scorsese and Francis Ford Coppola, as well as perhaps his closest protégé, Joe Dante). Perhaps Corman’s best-known work and biggest contribution to the horror genre are his acclaimed adaptations of various Edgar Allan Poe stories. These include House of Usher (1960), The Pit and the Pendulum (1961), The Premature Burial (1962), Tales of Terror (1962), The Raven (1963), The Haunted Palace (1963), The Masque of the Red Death (1964) and The Tomb of Ligeia (1964). All but Premature Burial starred the aforementioned Price, and, amazingly enough, he completed another film – The Terror from 1963 – with the set, crew and cast of The Raven after realizing that he had several more days on the lot’s rental after completing the film. In 1970, Corman found New World Pictures, which has released many cult favorites such as Death Race 2000, Piranha, and Children of the Corn. He has ceased directing movies for many years now, preferring to serve as a producer and teacher to a newer generation of cheapie horror-filmmakers, but his effect can still be felt today at the ripe age of 84. He currently has an upcoming project in the works – called Sharktopus, which will no doubt see heavy airplay on SyFy.
|
|
Lick Ness Monster
Dennis Stamp
From the eerie, eerie depths of Lake Okabena
Posts: 4,874
|
Post by Lick Ness Monster on May 1, 2010 21:18:45 GMT -5
INDUCTION #23 The king of gimmicks himself… WILLIAM CASTLE a.k.a. William Schloss, was an American director, producer, and actor, much like Roger Corman. Unlike Corman, however, Castle had something different than his ability to make low-budget motion pictures seem important and epic. Namely, his propensity for making a theater-going experience an experiment in theater itself, including but not limited to the notion that you might very well DIE OF FRIGHT while watching one of his films. One of the best qualities that any film-maker can have is unabashed balls, and Castle possessed this quality in spades. After a lot of work in Broadway as a teen and an early job as an assistant to legendary director Orson Welles, Castle made his directorial debut in 1943 with A Chance of a Lifetime. While not quite as prolific as Corman, he found himself with constant work from that point forward, making as many as five films a year. Some of his notable early works include The Whistler, Mark of the Whistler, Mysterious Intruder and Serpent of the Nile. In the mid-‘50s, however, Castle would find his mark that would earn him a place of lasting notoriety among low-budget B-movie directors. The release of his 1958 film Macabre was accompanied by the announcement that every member of the audience would receive a $1,000 Lloyd’s of London life insurance policy in the event of their death from fright. This was the first of many overblown, ambitiously promoted gimmicks that would populate Castle’s films from this point forward. Some other choice gimmicks: 13 Ghosts – Viewers were given a hand-held ghost viewer/remover to use during certain moments of the film. Homicidal – Contained a “fright break” of 45 seconds during the film’s climax, as the heroine nears a house harboring a sadistic killer. Mr. Sardonicus – The audience was actually polled as to the fate of one of the film’s dislikable characters. Since Castle was so confident that audiences would universally choose a death sentence for the character, a “Mercy” ending was never screened. In addition to his achievements in directing, Castle also served as producer on several noteworthy films, but none more noteworthy than Roman Polanski’s 1968 masterpiece Rosemary’s Baby. The film is widely considered to be one of the most frightening motion pictures of all time, and coupled with Castle’s fun- and gimmick-filled directing career, his status among horror movie and B-movie elites is cemented. He passed away on May 31st, 1977.
|
|
Lick Ness Monster
Dennis Stamp
From the eerie, eerie depths of Lake Okabena
Posts: 4,874
|
Post by Lick Ness Monster on May 1, 2010 21:23:13 GMT -5
INDUCTION #24 “This may sound too simple but Asian ghosts can stand just behind you and can stare at you and not say anything, just stand and stare at the main character. And that can be scary from our point of view.” HIDEO NAKATA Ah, the much-loved and much-maligned Japanese horror film. Whenever the topic comes up about our favorite trend or type of horror film in the decade of the ‘00s, my answer always comes immediately – J-horror, and the wave of Japan-styled thrillers we got here in the United States. The person most directly responsible for this is WC horror hall of fame inductee #24; a man with several classic films already under his belt, and the biggest creative name in all of Japanese horror, Mr. Hideo Nakata. A student of journalism at the University of Tokyo, Nakata broke into film as one of the many protégés of Kiyoshi Kurosawa. His first film as a director was the 1996 thriller Don’t Look Up, but it would be his 1998 output that would put his stamp on not only Japan, but the world. Koji Suzuki’s novel Ring had proven to be wildly popular in the land of the rising sun, not only in selling millions of copies, but spawning two sequel books, a television movie adaptation, and a television series in its own right. But while the TV movie was mediocre at best, Nakata took the source material and went about tightening the book’s nuances, changing the protagonist from male to female, adding some fascinating romantic tension in the form of the lead character’s ex-husband, and making the novel’s ghost character a vengeful entity instead of a paranormal virus. The film Ringu would go on to become the most successful Japanese horror film of all time, grossing more than $150 million on a budget of only $10 million. Wildly acclaimed by both critics and audiences alike, it is also one of the noteworthy book-to-screen translations widely considered to improve upon its source novel. Ringu was so popular, in fact, that Hollywood was not able to ignore it, remaking it in 2002 as The Ring, which would turn into a blockbuster hit. Nakata would return to Koji Suzuki’s world of cursed videotapes twice, first in the Japanese sequel Ringu 2, and later in the U.S. with the unfortunately woeful Ring Two. In between, however, he would prove his knack for finding creepy, atmospheric ghost stories and bringing them to wide audiences. 2002’s Dark Water was also wildly popular with the Japanese horror fans, spawning a United States remake of its own with Jennifer Connelly. By this point, his name was an industry in and of itself in Japan, and his return to Japanese horror saw his own name appearing as part of the title in Hideo Nakata’s Kaidan – a truly frightening fable about a husband who accidentally murders his schoolteacher wife, then proceeds to run off with his deceased wife’s student. This year will see the release of his newest film, Chatroom. Very little is known about the British-Japanese co-production at this point, but for a guy who single-handedly created a mini-movement in horror across the globe during the early 21st century, it’s safe to say that horror fans can trust Hideo Nakata when it comes to the ability to get underneath your skin. And, in literally a span of 60 minutes, I go from not having ANY ideas for HOF inductions to three very deserving people (or, at least two and one of my own extremely biased 'audible' picks). Hope everyone enjoyed the class of thread Boogerballs. From the last thread...excellent review there, Guy, and I've been looking forward to it for a LONG time. If you read the review I posted on my blog, you and I have pretty much the same issue with it. It's not a terrible movie. It might be something even worse - it's just THERE. It's not so bad it's good, it's not worthy of MST-ing, it's just incredibly by-the-numbers. And it's only Saturday night, guys. Let's keep the vitriol coming for the PD guys. First theme of thread #9 (said in Triple H promo fashion): "Platinum Dunes, you ruin our horror classics. Well, now we're going to RUIN YOU!!!"
|
|
|
Post by DSR on May 1, 2010 21:49:02 GMT -5
Great job, as usual, TR. Two guys I adore, and one guy who, although I'm not nearly as enamored of his work as you, I still greatly respect his contributions and his success. Kudos, man.
|
|
Lick Ness Monster
Dennis Stamp
From the eerie, eerie depths of Lake Okabena
Posts: 4,874
|
Post by Lick Ness Monster on May 1, 2010 23:31:59 GMT -5
One last thing on the review, Guy.
This is EXACTLY the problem that I also have with the original movie, and why I'll go to my grave convinced that a remake was necessary.
|
|
andrew8798
FANatic
on 24/7 this month
Posts: 106,081
|
Post by andrew8798 on May 1, 2010 23:41:25 GMT -5
Also you could say that the Original series was dead
|
|
|
Post by sunwukong on May 2, 2010 0:09:31 GMT -5
I'm watching Children of the Corn for the first time in ages. It holds up better than I thought it would.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 2, 2010 0:11:45 GMT -5
I'm watching Children of the Corn for the first time in ages. It holds up better than I thought it would. OUTLANDER! We have your girl, OUTLANDER! Sorry. It was necessary.
|
|
erisi236
Fry's dog Seymour
... enjoys the rich, smooth taste of Camels.
Not good! Not good! Not good!
Posts: 21,904
|
Post by erisi236 on May 2, 2010 0:28:10 GMT -5
Picking up from the last thread. That nurse scene from Exorcist III, why do you think this "scare cord" works so well and is so memorable while 99.98% of all the other million that have happened aren't? I have a few thoughts on that. The utter normality of the scene itself. We know something is going on just by watching the movie, some serial killer is operating, slicing off heads, but during this part nothing out of the ordinary is going on, it looks like a pretty standard bumper scene. Most "scream cords" tend to happen when the character in question is in obvious threat, something is going to happen 100% we already know it so when it comes, the DUN! that comes when it happens is pretty obvious making it a bit lame. It's not a false scare; how many times does the DUN! happen and it's just a cat or a friend or the wind? This one in Exorcist III is the event, it's not the wind, it's certainly not a cat, it's the damn killer! That huge amount of non-sound, no music, no talking, nothing but someone going about their nightly business. Part of the normality thing, why have "killer music" when nothing is going to happen after all? Things are scary when you don't expect scary things to happen, seems obvious but people never seem to grasp this. That static shot; the camera is just sitting there, for a full minute it just sits there looking down the hall, and that's it! For all the running steady cams, jittery cams, wacky edits and quick cuts out there sometimes the most frightening thing is just a still camera. So those are my general thought on that scene, but one thing I'd certainly like to add is that I think Exorcist III may be one of those "most underrated" of Horror films. It may be because it's a 3rd movie, or that it came after the piss poor part II, or maybe because it's "boring", but dammit this is one of my most beloved Horror movies of all time. It's psychological horror, it's thoughtful horror, and you know what I actually consider it better then the first one which I never really "got". Since it's now 20 years old maybe we'll get a 20th anniversary addition of it (if there already isn't of course)
|
|
|
Post by DSR on May 2, 2010 0:47:30 GMT -5
I don't disagree with the rest of your post, erisi, but I wanted to expound upon this one particular point: That static shot; the camera is just sitting there, for a full minute it just sits there looking down the hall, and that's it! For all the running steady cams, jittery cams, wacky edits and quick cuts out there sometimes the most frightening thing is just a still camera. When I was watching that scene, I got this feeling like I was watching an actual event take place. I mean, with the jumpy editing that gets thrown around so flippantly in modern motion pictures, it makes you aware of the editing of a movie, thus taking you out of the moment you're supposed to be engaging in. But that static shot made it feel like I was actually at one end of the hall, looking down the other, like a voyeur. And because I felt like I was so far away from the action, trivial though it may be, the distant murmurs, the muffled footsteps, they drew me in while the utter lack of any other sound disturbed me in a way that explicit graphic violence just wouldn't have, for some reason. To put it simply, tension. Again though, I had no idea what to expect or where to expect it from, which added to that tension. The camera wasn't leading me anywhere, so my mind sorta played with the idea of where the "jump" was gonna come from. And then it didn't even come from where I was thinking. Sorry for the somewhat long post for about a minute of film, but it was just so chilling I couldn't help but throw this out at you guys.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 2, 2010 1:37:56 GMT -5
No need to apologize. It's a great feeling to have a lengthy conversation about a random jump scene that works.
I did find another one that works and scared the ever living daylights out of me back then, because you honestly expect the "CAT!!!" to come out with said noise, and out of nowhere it gets you unexpectedly. I would compare it to what Stark has been saying about the Exorcist III scene.
|
|
Welfare Willis
Crow T. Robot
Pornomancer 555-BONE FDIC Bonsured
Game Center CX Kacho on!
Posts: 44,259
|
Post by Welfare Willis on May 2, 2010 2:06:09 GMT -5
The Grapes of Death (1978) Directed by Jean Rollin It's always interesting to see other countries take on horror films. Italy and Japan are the most talked about countries when disussing horror, but we sometimes forget other countries contributions. England, of course, is home to several gothic writers and can boast of being birthplace of horror luminaries from Alfred Hitchcock to Neil Marshall. Why even a tiny country such as New Zealand brought us the demented early works of Peter Jackson. When I started this dvd tonight, I must admit to the board that my knowledge of French horror was somewhat lacking. Sure, I knew of Alexandre Aja , but never sat down to watch Haute Tension. I knew of Jean Rollin, but never took the time to sit down and watch his work. To some degree, I'm sorry I didn't watch it sooner (and not just for Brigitte Lahaie ). Rollin puts us in the vineyards of France, where the locals have been preparing the local grape harvest with a defective pesticide that has been making the farmhands ill. Elizabeth, our heroine, is coming home to visit relatives, but something is amiss. What happens from this point forward will have Elizabeth running through the hillsides of France trying to escape with her life. I've often compared The Beyond to a film version of a nightmare, and I feel to some degree Rollin pulls it off here as well. While not as heavy on gore as a Fulci film the film makes it up with an almost dreamlike atmosphere. The film's score is almost nonexistent. The quiet is unnerving and helps build tension during scenes. Quiet masterfully, tension is built quick and only has short periods before being ratched up again. Like my previous review, Curtains, this is a film that perhaps deserves much more exposure. While not having the message of say Night of the Living Dead or the raw energy of Zombie 2, The Grapes of Death holds itself in between the two and drives down it's own path that is marvelous to even a jaded fan like me.
|
|
|
Post by Rorschach on May 2, 2010 3:14:58 GMT -5
Hey Guy…since the last thread was locked before I could reply to your review, I’ll just do a little point/counterpoint here in this one with your comments in italics, and my take in regular script:
I'm also not a fan of the extremely lame, pathetic attempts at providing these iconic characters with backstories they quite simply didn't need.
Me either…but that’s something that’s been common knowledge from the very first horror thread here; like I said before, PD always has to f*** around with the recipe, and give these characters quirks, nuances and tweaks that are completely unnecessary and sometimes even harmful to the character. What on EARTH was wrong with Leatherface being a sadistic, inbred, cross dressing transvestite chainsaw slasher? WHY did he need SUPER ECZEMA added to him, and WHY was he marginalized in his own origin movie? WHY was Jason shuffled between retarded giant and archer supreme/clever hunter/trapper in HIS movie? And why is Freddy tinkered with here? I’ll get to what I mean by that later. The sky's the limit, right? I was hoping so.
You and me both, friend. All these years later…all this shiny new technology and all these advancements in special effects….I was practically salivating thinking of what PD could do with a “Dream World” with today’s movie magic. And you know, I’m still wondering, cause I didn’t see a f*****g bit of it on that screen, let me tell you. A hallway that turns to (blood? Hot chocolate?) and a classroom that turns into a ripoff of SILENT HILL with all the charred desks and ash floating around. Oh yeah, and way to give most ALL of Nancy’s best scenes from the original to the Tina Kris character. Oh, I’ll get to Nancy and Kris and Quentin (another thing that chapped my ass) later. F*****g Form and Fuller, man…..they think they’re CUTE.
By the way, Nancy is supposed to be misunderstood and unpopular in this film. You'd never know it by observing her character, but that's apparently what we're supposed to get out of her listening to her iPod and making drawings. Err, uhhh....alright then.
Here we go…yeah, this is part of what I was talking about. Rooney Mara is not that bad of an actress, but whoever told her she should grit out her every line between clenched teeth like she’s either super constipated, or has a broken f*****g jaw, ought to have their head examined. I could not STAND her mopey, doped up looking ass as Nancy Thompson. What you’re saying is 100% correct as far as the amount of insight we get into Nancy’s character (OOOH! She’s moody and an ARTIST! She must be the deepest character in the film!) because you know what? F*****g Nancy is marginalized as a character so badly, that we don’t even begin to get to KNOW her until literally ALL the other cannon fodder is dead. The Tina Kris character gets most of the first half of the film devoted to her, and Nancy is a bit player…Kris even gets one of Nancy’s key scenes from the original! Also, Mara’s Nancy is sullen and dispirited…she’s somnambulant and BARELY conscious throughout the film….Heather Langenkamp’s portrayal just BLOWS Mara’s out of the water. Langenkamp’s Nancy was bubbly, feisty, and spirited, a worthy adversary for Krueger. Mara’s Nancy seems constantly on the verge of seppuku, and even the scenes where she SHOWS some real fire come off as more whiney and petulant than truly fired up and aggressive. The original film had a Nancy who was proud to declare "I'm into survival!" and she meant it...she went to the library and, like the goddamn Batman, she researched her foe and studied his weaknesses and found chinks in his armor. This Nancy? She whines and whimpers and draws in charcoal up until the last ten minutes of the movie, at which point she morphs into ULTRA BADASS Nancy. *rolls eyes* Whatever.
- I mentioned this before the film came out, but I think the concept of "micronaps" occurring in extreme cases of insomnia to be a great touch to an already established formula. It adds a sense of uncertainty and keeps the audience on its toes. I only wish they had explored this a little more, because I think they have something there.
I actually didn’t really like this all too much, myself. I saw it more as a way for PD to tap dance around the rules of the series and have Freddy pop up in the real world along with the dream world. I know that “micronaps” ARE a real thing….but that just seemed like cheating to me, as far as the rules of the ANOES universe go. You’re awake, and you’re safe…you sleep, you die. Why on Earth would you complicate things any more than necessary? Besides, such a high minded concept is not well executed by the chimps at Platinum Dunes…they really have no business f*****g around with concepts they barely grasp.
The Cons: - SNAP! BANG! BOOM! I swear this film had enough jump stingers to make a Saw fan cringe. It's a cheap way to get "scares" out of the audience, and shows complete and total laziness on the part of the filmmakers. - There was certainly a lot of dialogue, but I barely felt like I got to know ANY of the characters before they were offed. We were told that characters would be fleshed out more than they were in previous PD efforts, but if you ask me, they took a step back here. It's as though they wrote this great script with tons of character development for everyone, when suddenly the axe came down, leaving us with an awkward, stilted story that WANTS us to feel something for the victims, but isn't able to make that happen. - I mentioned this earlier, and I want to revisit it. Guys, this is A NIGHTMARE ON F***ING ELM STREET. This is THE series where you can throw caution to the wind and do whatever the hell you want with your kills. You are allowed to do literally ANYTHING you want in these dream sequences, yet you guys went for either typical, run of the mill slasher deaths, or blatant rip-offs from the original. Man, what a MASSIVE, MASSIVE missed opportunity. And that was about the only hope I had for this thing, going in. - Personal opinion, but the new twist of Freddy just being a child molester didn't really do it for me. I think we need to make a clear distinction between molestation and murder, because while my heart goes out to anyone who has suffered any form of sexual abuse at any point in their lifetime...you have to admit that murder is the ultimate act of atrocity that one can commit towards another human being. The fact that the parents would torch Freddy for the reasons in this film make them look just as sociopathic as he is.
In conclusion, I think PD really did try here, but due to a number of different factors, it fell short. The story was, at times, engaging and made me interested in where the story was headed. Unfortunately, these moments are few and far between. Beneath all the rubble was a really great film trying to break free, but it didn't quite work out. For a film that I spent over a year mercilessly tearing to shreds, my expectations were extremely low. It did manage to surpass them, though I don't know if that's saying much. I've been swaying back and forth between a 2 and 3 rating, but because my expectations were indeed surpassed, and it wasn't quite the trainwreck I expected, I think I'll be generous and award it a rating of 3/5.
Well, as far as the jump scares go…I think PD used up every last spare one that was in storage, and then some. As far as I could tell, the ONLY scare that wasn’t accompanied by a cannon going off was the one at the end…and ironically, that was the scariest one to me. Freddy just being THERE was a whole lot scarier than every OTHER time he popped up and was accompanied by a hideously loud blast of sound. But that’s what passes for scary these days. Speaking of the kills…yeah this goes back to my bitch about how, with all the special effects technology out there, and all the tools at their disposal…THIS was the best PD could come up with? And not for nothin’ Guy….but this was the weakest Freddy in terms of powers and dream-altering ability that I think we’ve ever seen. Take that pool scene for instance…now WHY wouldn’t Freddy use that to his advantage in some way? Why not have a “Freddy shark” or a “Fred-topus” grab Quentin and haul him down to the bottom of the pool, and try to drown him? Hell, why not turn the POOL into blood and guts and viscera? DO SOMETHING with these dreams, goddamnit! I seriously wanted to shout that at the screen several times. Talk about wasted opportunities! And here are a few other things that I noticed that pissed me off:
*The “cute” little in jokes and nods to other films just pissed me off here: Note to Form and Fuller…once you’ve done something GOOD or GREAT, then you can give yourself blow jobs. Quentin Tarantino has done that, so he’s afforded the ability to pat himself on the back in his movies, and reference himself if he wants to. You guys? You’re the douchebags who RUIN the good names of every horror classic you touch. You don’t deserve to do cute jokes like the Asian guy from F13’s remake showing up here as a webcam blogger….or the cute little nod to PULP FICTION with Quentin (as in Tarantino, get it?) jamming the syringe full of epinephrine into Mia Wallace Nancy’s chest…or the cute little nod to the original Halloween where Laurie hides in the closet and Michael comes in after her. You guys haven’t EARNED the right to do that s***! You can barely make coherent movies of your own.
* As far as Quentin goes…his little stunt with the epinephrine was total horses***. Maybe it’s because I’ve worked in the medical field, but taking that HUGE of a vial of epi is going to kill you deader than hell…that much would give an elephant a heart attack. And you most certainly would NOT be drowsy a mere ten minutes after you injected yourself. If anything, you’d freak out and be ULTRA hyper as your heart sped up to critical mass. Is it too much to ask that if you’re going to go the medical route, you do a little god damn research first? You could Google that s*** in less than ten minutes. As far as THAT goes…if CRANK taught me anything, it’s that if you need to stay awake there are myriad ways to do it…not the least of which is snorting coke, or mainlining Red Bull or similar energy drinks. If Quentin was so desperate for a hit of energy, instead of standing there arguing with the old bastard pharmacist…surely there was a Starbucks or a mini-mart nearby he could go to and buy like $50 worth of Yellowjackets, Red Bulls, 5 Hour Energy shots, ect. Not ONCE did that ever occur to him or Nancy?
*The tinkering with Freddy I mentioned earlier....I'm fine with making him a bit darker...I really didn't mind that. But pick a path and stick with it, dammit! Like you said, we had a dark, twisted, humorless Freddy for the first half of the film...then at the end he starts spouting one liners and pointless, nonsensical double entendres. What the f***? Why tinker with the formula that you had going for you? I was actually DIGGING the pissed off, vengeful humorless Freddy...and then they go and bust out the comedy one liners. Yeesh.
In the end, you gave it a three out of five…I think I’d only give it two, and those two are for Haley’s ballsy turn as Freddy and for this not being outright wretched. It was watchable, but that’s it.
|
|
Chainsaw
T
A very BAD man.
It is what it is
Posts: 90,480
|
Post by Chainsaw on May 2, 2010 3:42:22 GMT -5
Cool induction of Castle, Tom. Thanks for that.
And the Exorcist thing just works because you think something awful might be about to happen, but you're not sure what, or when, as the camera's pushing down the the hallway. And then you think everything will be fine, and then...bam. Smash cut, music screech sting, and cut to the picture of the headless statue.
It's actually a little worse after you've seen it, because you know it's coming. It's unbearable. I still have trouble watching that scene. And I particularly hate scenes like the Signs one above, where something absolutely out of the ordinary, something that just should not be, flickers by the screen.
|
|
Lick Ness Monster
Dennis Stamp
From the eerie, eerie depths of Lake Okabena
Posts: 4,874
|
Post by Lick Ness Monster on May 2, 2010 9:01:41 GMT -5
Epic rant by R-Man, there. ;D As for Nancy's characterization in this one, I'm in complete agreement, and I said as much in my review. How annoying was it that they had to take the quintessential "normal" horror movie heroine and "art" her up? But this is something that I've noticed about a lot of movies. It's almost as if the writers...the only way I know how to put it is that the writers are creating their dream girl, in a sense. Namely, a hot girl who is "too good" to hang with the popular crowd and is emo and artistic. But that's just me. I'm glad that the scene from Signs is posted here. We've broached this subject before, but it's something that warrants a lot of discussion - things in movies that SCARE the bejesus out of you. Not just things that make you jump, but the things that you CONSCIOUSLY AVOID trying to think about in those moments when you're trying to get some sleep, because conjuring up the memories will cause you to toss and turn for another hour. This gets me flack everywhere I mention it, but while I've seen some scary flicks on DVD in the past ten years ( Sleepaway Camp, looking at you), the last three movies I've seen in a THEATER that really scared me were Paranormal Activity, Signs and The Blair Witch Project. Ironically, I know plenty of folks who just DESPISE all three of those movies, and sling mud at anyone who liked them, but there's no debating their effect on this reporter. I walked out of all three knowing that I'd be thinking about certain moments and playing the stupid game where your mind comes up with scenarios involving some of those things happening to YOU. Lastly...man, Signs. Gut-wrenching tension without a single drop of blood being spilled. M. Night Shyamalan, you used to be SO GOOD...what the hell happened?
|
|
|
Post by YellowJacketY2J on May 2, 2010 9:15:28 GMT -5
One last thing on the review, Guy. This is EXACTLY the problem that I also have with the original movie, and why I'll go to my grave convinced that a remake was necessary. I at least cared about Nancy in the original.
|
|
|
Post by GuyOfOwnage on May 2, 2010 9:35:27 GMT -5
One last thing on the review, Guy. This is EXACTLY the problem that I also have with the original movie, and why I'll go to my grave convinced that a remake was necessary. By comparison, I actually feel like I got to know the characters in the original far better than I did here. Hell, I can say the exact same thing while comparing it to a plethora of other slasher films new and old, not just the original NOES. With it being my favorite of all the horror subgenres, I have seen in excess of 200 slasher films, and this had to be one of the worst examples I've ever seen. There was just a complete and total inability to make me care about them, made even more frustrating by the fact that I found myself WANTING to, but ultimately couldn't.
|
|
|
Post by YellowJacketY2J on May 2, 2010 10:01:28 GMT -5
I'm surprised to see I'm one of the only ones who liked Freddy getting more of a backstory (even if they dropped it halfway through). Krueger always a character to me who could have a tragic background, and has a lot of depth to explore. {Spoiler} If they would have went with him being an innocent man, I would have loved it. It would have made his motif more sinister and creepy. Do remember the whole reason he stalks the teens are to get back at the parents for torching and murdering him. The thought that they did that to an innocent man makes the actions creepier. I also believe that revealing he was innocent wouldn't make him a tragic anti-hero, since his murdering of those who are innocent (only guilty by association) trumps any sorrow you would feel for him.
|
|
Lick Ness Monster
Dennis Stamp
From the eerie, eerie depths of Lake Okabena
Posts: 4,874
|
Post by Lick Ness Monster on May 2, 2010 11:54:20 GMT -5
By comparison, I actually feel like I got to know the characters in the original far better than I did here. Hell, I can say the exact same thing while comparing it to a plethora of other slasher films new and old, not just the original NOES. With it being my favorite of all the horror subgenres, I have seen in excess of 200 slasher films, and this had to be one of the worst examples I've ever seen. There was just a complete and total inability to make me care about them, made even more frustrating by the fact that I found myself WANTING to, but ultimately couldn't. And you're not wrong in any of that, Guy. The original DID do a better job building up its characters, but this is what I'm saying here: somebody (and I'm talking theoretically anybody here, not just PD) has the rights to do a remake of A Nightmare on Elm Street. So why settle for doing something equally as well as the original movie? I'd like to see these writers and directors show a little more ambition; the goal of a remake should be, to this reporter, to improve on the original film. To go all-out and truly hit a home run. Very subjective here, but I'm someone who grades movies on primarily an emotional scale, and I'd like to see a LOT of characterization and interaction, making the personalities pop out at you to the point that every member of the audience identifies with at least one of them. Yes, this new movie was actually WORSE at getting you into the characters than the original film - I agree on that point. But what would be the problem with improving on that aspect of Craven's story? I don't know, it seems like this is one of those things that I'll be forever destined to beat my head against the wall trying to convince people of and failing miserably at. ;D
|
|