|
Post by Mehe is F'n hardcore. on Dec 28, 2008 14:51:15 GMT -5
Zombie movies are honestly my favorite genre. I don't really like slapsticky zombies, though. I do find the argument of fast vs. slow zombies to be a little silly. I mean, come on, if the undead is chasing you, whether it be shambling or running, aren't you gonna run? Good to know somebody's paying attention. ;D Always. Another thing: I've stated before that Re-Animator is my favorite film EVER. If more zombie films would hold the zombies until the last ten or fifteen minutes, I'd be way more interested. With RA, it's build build build, CAT, build build, HEAD SNAPPED OFF WITH A SHOVEL, kidnapping, BUILD, ZOMBIESSSSSS, denouement, end. That is the way to make a movie, dang it all.
|
|
Lick Ness Monster
Dennis Stamp
From the eerie, eerie depths of Lake Okabena
Posts: 4,874
|
Post by Lick Ness Monster on Dec 28, 2008 15:00:18 GMT -5
Just because I feel like it, my quick star ratings for all the movies I can remember that may or may not feature the line "BRAINNNNSSSSS!" (from 0-4)
Night of the Living Dead - *** 1/2 Dawn of the Dead - ** 1/2 Day of the Dead - * 1/2 Land of the Dead - ** 1/2 Re-Animator - *** 1/2 Return of the Living Dead - *** Return of the Living Dead Part II - **** Return of the Living Dead Part III - * Dead Alive - ** 1/2 Evil Dead - ** Evil Dead 2: Dead By Dawn - ** 1/2 Army of Darkness - ** House of the Dead - Negative forty stars Dawn of the Dead remake - *** 1/2 Savini's Living Dead remake - ** Creature - * 1/2 (kind of a zombie flick in space)
That's all I can think of for now.
I also agree with you that the build in Re-Animator really makes it a good little film. With most of these movies, it's undead madness from the opening frame and gore layers upon gore layers. While I love horror movies, I'm not a gore monger; I think that when it's used EFFECTIVELY it really makes an impact, but directors of zombie movies really tend to overkill. When it's thrown on the screen just for the sake of having more blood and guts flying around, it gets tiresome.
|
|
|
Post by Mehe is F'n hardcore. on Dec 28, 2008 15:02:39 GMT -5
Just because I feel like it, my quick star ratings for all the movies I can remember that may or may not feature the line "BRAINNNNSSSSS!" (from 0-4) Night of the Living Dead - *** 1/2 Dawn of the Dead - ** 1/2 Day of the Dead - * 1/2 Land of the Dead - ** 1/2 Re-Animator - *** 1/2 Return of the Living Dead - *** Return of the Living Dead Part II - **** Return of the Living Dead Part III - * Dead Alive - ** 1/2 Evil Dead - ** Evil Dead 2: Dead By Dawn - ** 1/2 Army of Darkness - ** House of the Dead - Negative forty stars Dawn of the Dead remake - *** 1/2 Savini's Living Dead remake - ** Creature - * 1/2 (kind of a zombie flick in space) That's all I can think of for now. Dead Alive has a pretty low rating there...
|
|
Lick Ness Monster
Dennis Stamp
From the eerie, eerie depths of Lake Okabena
Posts: 4,874
|
Post by Lick Ness Monster on Dec 28, 2008 15:11:25 GMT -5
It's just not my thing. I wish I had a better, more eloquent description than that, but as you can tell by the ratings, the only movie that I flat out LOVE of this genre is ROTLD 2, for whatever reason.
Well, actually, I DO think I can verbalize my feelings for Dead Alive. Movies should be like a good theme park ride, which is what you said about Re-Animator. My favorite horror movie of all time is Halloween, which uses that concept to perfection - slow burn, slow burn, slow burn, MURDER, slow burn, slow burn, MURDER, slow burn, CLIMAX, slow down, end credits.
I'll give it to Dead Alive that it follows that ideal much more than Jackson's earlier low-budget horror efforts, in that it doesn't turn into zombie fest until the second half, but it still grows tiresome after awhile. IDK, maybe I'm just a moron.
|
|
|
Post by Mehe is F'n hardcore. on Dec 28, 2008 15:17:19 GMT -5
It's just not my thing. I wish I had a better, more eloquent description than that, but as you can tell by the ratings, the only movie that I flat out LOVE of this genre is ROTLD 2, for whatever reason. Well, actually, I DO think I can verbalize my feelings for Dead Alive. Movies should be like a good theme park ride, which is what you said about Re-Animator. My favorite horror movie of all time is Halloween, which uses that concept to perfection - slow burn, slow burn, slow burn, MURDER, slow burn, slow burn, MURDER, slow burn, CLIMAX, slow down, end credits. I'll give it to Dead Alive that it follows that ideal much more than Jackson's earlier low-budget horror efforts, in that it doesn't turn into zombie fest until the second half, but it still grows tiresome after awhile. IDK, maybe I'm just a moron. Butbutbut...Orgy of blooooood! ;D
|
|
Lick Ness Monster
Dennis Stamp
From the eerie, eerie depths of Lake Okabena
Posts: 4,874
|
Post by Lick Ness Monster on Dec 28, 2008 18:22:41 GMT -5
Just watching Ringu now. For all the kiddies out there, this is the original Japanese film that the American Ring films are based on, and it is a certifiable masterpiece.
So inventive, creative and absolutely ingenious. Also very unlike the American film, Ringu employs the slow burn technique to perfection - it builds and builds and builds to its climax, creating this great sense of dread throughout its running time. Well acted, well directed, and just plain awesome.
It also takes the #7 spot on my all-time horror film countdown. For anyone who hasn't seen it, nonetheless, I HIGHLY recommend it.
|
|
|
Post by Rorschach on Dec 28, 2008 20:47:59 GMT -5
Just because I feel like it, my quick star ratings for all the movies I can remember that may or may not feature the line "BRAINNNNSSSSS!" (from 0-4) Night of the Living Dead - *** 1/2 Dawn of the Dead - ** 1/2 Day of the Dead - * 1/2 Land of the Dead - ** 1/2 Re-Animator - *** 1/2 Return of the Living Dead - *** Return of the Living Dead Part II - **** Return of the Living Dead Part III - * Dead Alive - ** 1/2 Evil Dead - ** Evil Dead 2: Dead By Dawn - ** 1/2 Army of Darkness - ** House of the Dead - Negative forty stars Dawn of the Dead remake - *** 1/2 Savini's Living Dead remake - ** Creature - * 1/2 (kind of a zombie flick in space) That's all I can think of for now. I also agree with you that the build in Re-Animator really makes it a good little film. With most of these movies, it's undead madness from the opening frame and gore layers upon gore layers. While I love horror movies, I'm not a gore monger; I think that when it's used EFFECTIVELY it really makes an impact, but directors of zombie movies really tend to overkill. When it's thrown on the screen just for the sake of having more blood and guts flying around, it gets tiresome. My take on those reviews: LUCIO FULCI'S "ZOMBI" : *** 1/2 NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD: **** DAWN OF THE DEAD: *** DAY OF THE DEAD:*** 1/2 LAND OF THE DEAD: ** RE-ANIMATOR: **** RE-ANIMATOR 2: ** RETURN OF THE LIVING DEAD: **** DANCE OF THE DEAD (Ghost House): *** SHAUN OF THE DEAD: **** FIDO: *** DAWN OF THE DEAD (remake): **** RESIDENT EVIL: ** RESIDENT EVIL 2 : * ZOMBIE HONEYMOON: *** DEAD ALIVE: **** EVIL DEAD: ** 1/2 EVIL DEAD 2: ***1/2 ARMY OF DARKNESS: **** Masters of Horror: HOMECOMING: *** TRAILER PARK OF TERROR: I award this movie no points, and may God have mercy on the souls of all involved. Anyway, yeah, I'm kind of a fan of the zombie genre. I tend to appreciate the carnage in these movies, and I actually rather like it when they keep the deadites' piling up, as opposed to being preachy and stuffy. Part of the fun of a great zombie film is seeing the human characters duke it out with the undead, using anything and everything at their disposal. I thought that the DAWN remake did a good job of giving us likable characters, as well as awesome action pieces, too. To me, the zombie genre is one of the areas of horror where you are free to either have a message, or to cut loose and go balls out with the grue, and nothing is really lost. All I really ask is that the film give me one or two LIKEABLE survivors, and I'm set, you know? I'm not going to grade these films as harshly as I would other horror entries, because to me, they're primary goal is not to be highbrow and tell a complex, layered story (though it's fine if they do, as well) but to purely entertain me. And TR...if you don't like preachy zombie flicks....steer clear of HOMECOMING. It's about as subtle as a brick to the face.
|
|
Lick Ness Monster
Dennis Stamp
From the eerie, eerie depths of Lake Okabena
Posts: 4,874
|
Post by Lick Ness Monster on Dec 28, 2008 21:50:44 GMT -5
Can't believe I forgot about Shaun of the Dead. *** 1/2 from me, and one of the most purely entertaining flicks I've ever seen.
And dude, pretty much ALL of "Masters of Horror" is just preachy to the degree that it's not even entertaining. Now, there's a few episodes that I rather liked (Miike's "Imprint" and Argento's "Jenifer" come to mind), but the series (and in particular the second season) is just WAY too politically-charged for my tastes. It's not just horror films that I feel this way for, either - I absolutely hate message movies. As you said, most of them are about as subtle as a brick to the face.
I too have suffered through Trailer Park of Terror, the movie where the most likable character is a guitar-playing zombie.
|
|
|
Post by Rorschach on Dec 28, 2008 21:58:48 GMT -5
Yeah, for some reason, the guitar playing zombie in that film kind of reminded me of Bruce Campbell's Elvis from BUBBA HO TEP meets Honky Tonk Man by way of Joe Dirt. Whatever the hell that means, LOL!
All I know is, that was a TERRIBLE film. So bad, in fact, that my usual trading depot wouldn't take it. "We already have ONE copy" the clerk told me. "And we really don't need another. That one we have...it ain't going anywhere anytime soon."
Telling, that.
|
|
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 Dec 28, 2008 22:52:24 GMT -5
Just to add to the "what I'd rate them" list. Night of the Living Dead - *** Dawn of the Dead - **** Day of the Dead - *** 1/2 Land of the Dead - ** Re-Animator - *** Return of the Living Dead - *** Return of the Living Dead Part II - ** 1/2 Return of the Living Dead Part III - ** 1/2 Dead Alive - *** 1/2 Evil Dead - ** Evil Dead 2: Dead By Dawn - *** Army of Darkness - ** 1/2 House of the Dead - 1/2 of a Star House of the Dead 2 - 1/16th of a Star Dawn of the Dead remake - *** 1/2 Savini's Living Dead remake - ** 1/2 Resident Evil - ** 1/2 Resident Evil 2 - *** 1/2 Resident Evil 3 - *** Zombi 2 - *** Day of the Dead 2 - 1/100th of a Star Dead Heat - ** 1/2 The Dead Pit - ** 1/2 Dead Space: Downfall (technically a Zombie flick) - *** Killing Birds - * Night of the Creeps - ***
|
|
Lick Ness Monster
Dennis Stamp
From the eerie, eerie depths of Lake Okabena
Posts: 4,874
|
Post by Lick Ness Monster on Dec 28, 2008 23:37:04 GMT -5
Hey, it's an Erisi sighting. ;D
|
|
|
Post by CM Crünk is teh 'CRAP! on Dec 28, 2008 23:39:19 GMT -5
Is Cannibal Holocaust worth watching?
|
|
Lick Ness Monster
Dennis Stamp
From the eerie, eerie depths of Lake Okabena
Posts: 4,874
|
Post by Lick Ness Monster on Dec 28, 2008 23:40:43 GMT -5
Is Cannibal Holocaust worth watching? Couldn't tell ya. That's one movie that has escaped the TRadar. ;D *dodges tomatoes*
|
|
Tehboobz wants Ewa Sonnett
Don Corleone
Keeps his subtlety and knockers separated.
She's busty...she's Polish...and she will be mine!
Posts: 1,533
|
Post by Tehboobz wants Ewa Sonnett on Dec 29, 2008 0:20:45 GMT -5
Is Cannibal Holocaust worth watching? Just KNOW what you're getting into. I've seen enough things like that, that it didn't really bother me, outside of the animal killing, which truly was rather disturbing. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannibal_HolocaustJust a heads up. ;D
|
|
|
Post by GuyOfOwnage on Dec 29, 2008 2:24:30 GMT -5
Another horror fan right here ;D - Someone mentioned The Burning earlier. I actually bought that on Region 2 DVD a looooooooooong time ago, and I've simply been too cheap to go out and buy the new Region 1 release. Great flick though, gotta love the epic image of Cropsy's silhouette, shears raised, ready to attack: ( ;D ) - As for Return of the Living Dead II, I do like the film (albeit not quite as much as the first), but what pisses me off is the DVD release's inclusion of a "new" score to the film, which completely screws up the atmosphere. What's weird, is if you go over to (I believe) the French language soundtrack on the same disc, you hear the original score. WTF? - In regards to the whole running zombie vs slow zombie argument, I've always felt strongly about that one, so let me explain before you write it off as ridiculous. When you die, what happens shortly afterward? Rigor mortis, or stiffening of the muscles. Therefore, logic states that if this hypothetically happened to you while you were alive, you'd be barely mobile, not running a snorking marathon like the Dawn of the Dead remake, for example (although I like the movie anyway). Plus, how exactly are you going to be readily mobile when your body is rapidly decomposing? I know that, much like the wrestling we all love and enjoy, horror movies don't exactly promote realism in the slightest, but come on. Look at the later Friday the 13ths. Jason is, for all intents and purposes, a zombie. Does he run like he did earlier in the series, when he was still alive? I didn't think so. The Return of the Living Dead movies are excused because they're more of a horror-comedy anyway. But getting back to my point, that is why I prefer Romero's zombies. Because I can look at them and think "yeah, if the dead DID come back to life, this is probably how it would be." - As for bad movies that I just couldn't get into. I know there's a lot of love for Peter Jackson's Bad Taste, but I honestly just couldn't get into it. I could not believe this was the guy who would go on to direct Lord of the friggin' Rings. The camera angles and techniques look like they were done by a five year old, and the special effects, even for a low budget film, are just terrible. The storyline, to me, was just plain nonsensical, and not the fun kind of nonsensical you'd normally find in a horror film. This is one of two horror movies in history that I could not sit through to the end. After one hour of this dreck, I turned it off and never gave it a second chance. - I guess you're wondering what the other horror movie I turned off was. That would be Uwe Boll's House of the Dead, made in 2003. Yeah, again, horror movies don't promote realism, but I'd rather not have my intelligence insulted. These idiot kids get on a boat and just HAPPEN to meet a gun-smuggling captain. Then, when they get there (if I recall...it's been 5 years, and I haven't seen it since), they come across these "zombies", which, while utilizing better makeup effects than Bad Taste, didn't exactly set the world on fire either. They run into the zombie and it's the usual "OH MY GOD, HELP ME!" with the kids running around trying to hide. May I mention at this point that the acting was beyond atrocious. Then they have some kid say that it's George Romero's trilogy coming to life. Whether you're a Romero fan or not (I am, but anyway), you can't deny that it was downright insulting to even mention his name or films in a piece of garbage like this. Anyway, they somehow get a hold of the guns (again, I'm a little fuzzy), and instantaneously go from "woe is me, we're going to die", to picking up machine guns and blasting the excretory matter out of the zombies, like they were fully trained combat soldiers, complete with Matrix-style camera angles. I'm sorry, but at that point, I turned the movie off. I've seen some character transformations that were at least questionable (Lori in Freddy vs. Jason, anyone?), but this was just...beyond words...in terms of how bad it was. And I wasn't going to sit around waiting for it to get worse. I'd love to hear someone defend this movie, because unlike Bad Taste, where I could realistically understand someone liking it, this one...I just...can't comprehend it. If you enjoyed House of the Dead, no offense, but your taste in horror movies is deplorable. - I have a massive collection, but honorable mentions go to the entire Nightmare on Elm Street, Friday the 13th, and Texas Chainsaw Massacre series (yes, even The Next Generation and "The Beginning"...), as well as the majority of Halloween (missing The Curse of Michael Myers and Resurrection) and Romero's Dead (missing Day of the Dead) series. I've got the first two Hellraiser flicks (they went downhill after that IMO), the first 3 Child's Play movies, The Fog, Sleepaway Camp, and the movie I'm about to talk about....Don't Go In The Woods...Alone! - For those of you who've seen this movie, you might question my sanity picking it up on DVD. Many would cast it as THE worst movie to come out of the early 80s slasher boom. On the surface, it is. The score sounds like someone picked up their brand spankin' new $9.99 Casio keyboard from RadioShack along with the cheapest booze money could buy, and thought "Gee, how about I make a horror movie soundtrack!" The acting? Non-existant. I accuse Bad Taste and House of the Dead of bad acting, but believe me, they have NOTHING on this movie, where the actors are so monotonous you'd wonder if they were actually trained actors, or just random people they put in front of the camera for excretory matters and giggles. The camera angles and techniques actually make Bad Taste LOOK LIKE Lord of the Rings. Most of the dialogue seems to be looped in afterwards, as there are some points that it doesn't even match up with what the actors are saying. The special effects make Bad Taste look like The Matrix. And the deaths? Oh sweet lord in heaven. One guy gets a sharp rock or SOMETHING (you can't really tell what it is) tossed at him from off-camera, and it's the most pathetic, to use a wrestling term for a minute here, selling, I've ever seen. Seriously, Jackie Gayda in THAT Raw match does a more effective job of selling. Then, he gets his arm hacked off and proceeds to run around for 10 seconds almost unaware that it's missing. Finally, he mercifully gets killed off by what I can't remember. So, terrible score? Check. Terrible direction? Check. Untrained actors? Check. Nonsensical story? Check (and I mean nonsensical by 80s slasher movie standards). The ending theme song is a redone version of a kid's song called Teddy Bear's Picnic. Lyrics such as "...you won't get out, without being killed, and chopped up in little pieces!" accompany yet another composition done on the grand $9.99 Casio keyboard from before. Why, do you ask, did I buy this movie if I think it's the most mind-numbingly awful dreck I've ever had the misfortune of seeing? It's because it's bad. So bad, in fact, that I simply cannot believe ANYONE on set could've taken this movie the least bit seriously. It's so over-the-top ridiculous at times that you almost can't believe it was meant to be taken as a serious, straight-ahead slasher film. If slasher films were ranked on how bad they were in every aspect, this would be The Godfather or Citizen Kane of slashers, folks. Seriously. You HAVE to see this thing to believe how bad it is. You'll oftentimes find yourself laughing at all the wrong times (and not at the poorly written "jokes" traded back and forth between characters). Hunt this thing down, trust me. If you like BAD horror movies...no, scratch that, just BAD movies in general, this thing deserves a spot on your shelf. I think I'm going to shut up for now. My horror film geekdom has been overexposed enough for one night ;D
|
|
Lick Ness Monster
Dennis Stamp
From the eerie, eerie depths of Lake Okabena
Posts: 4,874
|
Post by Lick Ness Monster on Dec 29, 2008 10:41:06 GMT -5
There is no such thing as too much horror film geekdom. Good to have you aboard my sinking ship. ;D
And that would be myself that mentioned The Burning. Love it.
And as for movies that I myself had to shut off because they were just too painful to watch, Nail Gun Massacre comes immediately to mind. Horrible acting, a score every bit as $9.99 Casio keyboard as Don't Go in the Woods, nude scenes featuring not very good-looking women, a truly idiotic story. But it IS hilarious to watch, mainly because of the lead villain's over-the-top diabolical laugh.
|
|
|
Post by GuyOfOwnage on Dec 29, 2008 13:43:43 GMT -5
And as for movies that I myself had to shut off because they were just too painful to watch, Nail Gun Massacre comes immediately to mind. Horrible acting, a score every bit as $9.99 Casio keyboard as Don't Go in the Woods, nude scenes featuring not very good-looking women, a truly idiotic story. But it IS hilarious to watch, mainly because of the lead villain's over-the-top diabolical laugh. I don't know...I've seen both, and I still think DGITW is the worse of the two. The lead villain is this completely random fat man dressed in what appears to be overstock from Wal-Mart's Halloween section, and just randomly screams and hollars for no apparent reason. There are a couple of instances where he almost falls over himself while chasing the "victims". It's downright embarrassing. As for GOOD horror movies. You could make the argument that it was not technically a horror movie originally, but I love Psycho. To me, THIS was the blueprint for the horror boom of the 70s and 80s, inspiring films like Black Christmas, the Texas Chainsaw Massacre, and Halloween. I even enjoy the sequel, Psycho II, albeit not as much as the original. Never seen the third one though, and the 4th I saw on TV a long time ago. HATED the remake. I'm despising the recent trend of remakes, especially of the "Big Four" - TCM, Halloween, Friday the 13th, and now, purportedly, A Nightmare On Elm Street. I haven't seen the Friday the 13th remake obviously, but my expectations aren't very high. TCM was okay, but considering the low budget origins of the original, felt like way too slick of a production to me. Halloween, I actually liked the first half because Zombie really made the story his own. The second half, which was pretty much the original movie set on fast forward, was one of the few times I can ever recall dozing off in a movie theater. I fear Friday the 13th may suffer from the same fate of TCM - far too slick on the production, especially considering it's the same director and production behind it. As far as A Nightmare On Elm Street, Robert Englund IS Freddy Krueger, and it just seems like blasphemy to suggest anyone else play the role (even though Wes Craven was rumored to want Jack Nicholson of all people to play the role in Part 2, thank god that didn't happen). I'm currently looking into a little flick from the 80s called Chopping Mall. It's apparently pretty over-the-top and impossible to take seriously. Can't wait to see it. Another bad slasher film that comes to mind is Slaughter High from 1986. It has English actors in their 30s trying to portray American teenagers. Hilariously bad, and never been released on DVD to my knowledge. Has anyone on here mentioned The Prowler yet? Easily some of Tom Savini's best work as an effects artist (and I'm pretty sure he's said the same thing himself). Yeah, I'm a bit of a slasher movie aficonado, as you can tell. Here's my slasher collection, exclusively: www.dvdaf.com/search.html?genre=horror-slashersurvival&where=guyofownage&folder=owned&init_form=str0_0_genre_horror-slashersurvival
|
|
Lick Ness Monster
Dennis Stamp
From the eerie, eerie depths of Lake Okabena
Posts: 4,874
|
Post by Lick Ness Monster on Dec 29, 2008 21:47:36 GMT -5
I'm despising the recent trend of remakes, especially of the "Big Four" - TCM, Halloween, Friday the 13th, and now, purportedly, A Nightmare On Elm Street. I haven't seen the Friday the 13th remake obviously, but my expectations aren't very high. TCM was okay, but considering the low budget origins of the original, felt like way too slick of a production to me. Halloween, I actually liked the first half because Zombie really made the story his own. The second half, which was pretty much the original movie set on fast forward, was one of the few times I can ever recall dozing off in a movie theater. I fear Friday the 13th may suffer from the same fate of TCM - far too slick on the production, especially considering it's the same director and production behind it. As far as A Nightmare On Elm Street, Robert Englund IS Freddy Krueger, and it just seems like blasphemy to suggest anyone else play the role (even though Wes Craven was rumored to want Jack Nicholson of all people to play the role in Part 2, thank god that didn't happen). I own The Prowler. The effects work in it are indeed amazing, but as a movie itself it's not one of my favorites. I enjoy it, don't get me wrong, just not one that I regularly pop in the ol' DVD player. As for your remake queries, I agree with you for the most part, with the HUGE exception of Nightmare on Elm Street. There's few things that I'm more passionate about than this very subject, so be prepared. Craven's original Nightmare has been the #1 horror movie on not just one but TWO of this very board's horror movie polls/tournaments. And IMO, it's very undeserving of that, and also undeserving of its "classic" tag. Don't get me wrong - I'm a huge fan of the series, but I feel that Nightmare 3 is FAR superior to the original movie. Seriously, in what ways isn't it? It has better characters, better acting, a better story, a more emotional, resonant script, and MUCH better, tighter direction. It also features a much cooler, more badass Freddy. And the first movie has...one of the most incredibly lame teenage stories in all of slasherdom. All of the teen stories in that movie seem to begin right in the middle of something (like Rod and Tina's argument that starts with one line and ends with another), and the characterization of the four main kids is...a little suspect, to put it lightly. Seriously, how did preppy Glen, nice girl Nancy, slutty Tina and greaser Rod EVER get to be a tight group of friends? The movie doesn't give us a reason, just like it doesn't give us really ANY reasons to care about any of the characters with the exception of Nancy, and even that isn't done especially well in the original NOES. To wrap things up, I think people look at the original Nightmare on Elm Street with rose-colored glasses, and have likely let everyone's assertion that it's a "MASTERPIECE" blind them to the fact that it's anything but that. Hence, I am in favor of a Nightmare remake to the nth degree, although I am against it for the other films you mentioned, because there was never really much wrong with them. Mainly due to the fact that the other films were slasher films that really didn't purport to be much more, but Nightmare had some grand ambitions. And IMO, the original movie failed at that. One more thing - I get what you're saying with Englund. I don't think anybody could ever be a better Freddy than him, but look - someday, SOMEBODY else will have to play the role, and if they remake the movie, really, what's the point of having him do it again? Besides, Englund himself has said he wants someone else to do it. Anyway, an old thread I did on this very subject, and since then, I've actually written my own friggin' screenplay for this fantasy project (because I'm completely insane, I know): officialfan.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=ot2008&action=display&thread=140774
|
|
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 Dec 29, 2008 23:40:57 GMT -5
Since this is a basic horror thread, might as well put this here. Anyone else seen that flick Dead Space: Downfall yet? It's pretty cool, even if you haven't played the game, though it does help if you have as some of the subjects brought up in the flick aren't really explained all that much. It is nice seeing animated Horror that's for sure. It's actually kind of strange that this comes from Film Roman who usually does stuff like King of the Hill and the Simpsons given how much violence and swearing is in it, animation is animation though I guess and they do what they're payed to do. Speaking of swearing, there actually might be too much of it, it comes off a "written in" as opposed to what actual people would say ya know. Oh and the hypodermic needle part might be the most painful thing I've ever seen put to film. If you haven't seen it you might want to check it out.
|
|
|
Post by GuyOfOwnage on Dec 30, 2008 0:59:04 GMT -5
I'm despising the recent trend of remakes, especially of the "Big Four" - TCM, Halloween, Friday the 13th, and now, purportedly, A Nightmare On Elm Street. I haven't seen the Friday the 13th remake obviously, but my expectations aren't very high. TCM was okay, but considering the low budget origins of the original, felt like way too slick of a production to me. Halloween, I actually liked the first half because Zombie really made the story his own. The second half, which was pretty much the original movie set on fast forward, was one of the few times I can ever recall dozing off in a movie theater. I fear Friday the 13th may suffer from the same fate of TCM - far too slick on the production, especially considering it's the same director and production behind it. As far as A Nightmare On Elm Street, Robert Englund IS Freddy Krueger, and it just seems like blasphemy to suggest anyone else play the role (even though Wes Craven was rumored to want Jack Nicholson of all people to play the role in Part 2, thank god that didn't happen). I own The Prowler. The effects work in it are indeed amazing, but as a movie itself it's not one of my favorites. I enjoy it, don't get me wrong, just not one that I regularly pop in the ol' DVD player. As for your remake queries, I agree with you for the most part, with the HUGE exception of Nightmare on Elm Street. There's few things that I'm more passionate about than this very subject, so be prepared. Craven's original Nightmare has been the #1 horror movie on not just one but TWO of this very board's horror movie polls/tournaments. And IMO, it's very undeserving of that, and also undeserving of its "classic" tag. Don't get me wrong - I'm a huge fan of the series, but I feel that Nightmare 3 is FAR superior to the original movie. Seriously, in what ways isn't it? It has better characters, better acting, a better story, a more emotional, resonant script, and MUCH better, tighter direction. It also features a much cooler, more badass Freddy. And the first movie has...one of the most incredibly lame teenage stories in all of slasherdom. All of the teen stories in that movie seem to begin right in the middle of something (like Rod and Tina's argument that starts with one line and ends with another), and the characterization of the four main kids is...a little suspect, to put it lightly. Seriously, how did preppy Glen, nice girl Nancy, slutty Tina and greaser Rod EVER get to be a tight group of friends? The movie doesn't give us a reason, just like it doesn't give us really ANY reasons to care about any of the characters with the exception of Nancy, and even that isn't done especially well in the original NOES. To wrap things up, I think people look at the original Nightmare on Elm Street with rose-colored glasses, and have likely let everyone's assertion that it's a "MASTERPIECE" blind them to the fact that it's anything but that. Hence, I am in favor of a Nightmare remake to the nth degree, although I am against it for the other films you mentioned, because there was never really much wrong with them. Mainly due to the fact that the other films were slasher films that really didn't purport to be much more, but Nightmare had some grand ambitions. And IMO, the original movie failed at that. One more thing - I get what you're saying with Englund. I don't think anybody could ever be a better Freddy than him, but look - someday, SOMEBODY else will have to play the role, and if they remake the movie, really, what's the point of having him do it again? Besides, Englund himself has said he wants someone else to do it. Anyway, an old thread I did on this very subject, and since then, I've actually written my own friggin' screenplay for this fantasy project (because I'm completely insane, I know): officialfan.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=ot2008&action=display&thread=140774Points well taken on Nightmare 3, and in some ways I do indeed believe it is a superior film. I also believe, however, part of the reason it was as good as it was was because it had the original story to build from. Had it not had Nightmare 1 to build from, and was a standalone film by itself, I don't believe it would be as good as it is. So much of the emotion stems from what the first film established - Nancy having escaped Freddy the first time, and in order to help those kids, confronts her fears once more. One of my favorite bits in Nightmare 3 is the dream sequence with the "Freddy Snake", for lack of a better term, where Nancy ends up caught in the dream, and he just looks at her and hisses "YYOOOOOOOOOOOOOUUUUU!". That's just one of many instances where the film has such a strong attachment to the original and depends on it so much. Without a strong foundation (i.e. the first movie), the third film simply wouldn't have had the material on which they could create and mold interesting characters and put together an interesting, coherent plot. Whichever film is better between 1 and 3 (because let's face it, the gay innuendos of part 2 can't compare with either movie) is up to your own personal taste, but to completely discount the first movie's influence and impact on the story would be foolish, in my opinion. And honestly, in regards to the characters in 1, let's step back here for a moment. What are we dealing with? A slasher film. Granted, there was way more character depth in 3, but let's be realistic here. A slasher sets up a string of static, one dimensional characters to be killed off. Look at Nightmare 4, which I personally consider almost as good a film as 3. Let's take a look at our cast of characters. A karate fanatic, a geeky asthmatic, and a biker chick, to name a few. How the hell did THEY get together? Or let's even use an example from another franchise, the original Halloween. A brain and two cheerleaders. With brains and cheerleaders being on opposite ends of the social ladder, care to explain how that happened? I guess what I'm trying to say is, that's the typical slasher formula. Bringing together a group of wildly different kids just so they can fit as many stereotypes into the film as possible. So I guess I never really cared whether or not the characters in the original Nightmare were completely static or one dimensional, because the real premise of the movie was to establish a guy that could kill you in your dreams, something that had never been done up until that point. The focus was more on the idea that this guy could f*** you up when you sleep and there was nothing you could do about, as opposed to developing deep, mature characters and a well-rounded story. When the premise was established by the first film, we had time for more character depth and a better overall story, which was seen in 3 (I consider Part 2 a bit of a misstep). People might overrate it sometimes, I agree, but I think Nightmare 1 more than deserves the place that it has in the history of horror cinema. In regards to Englund playing the part of Freddy, I absolutely agree with you that no one person can play a role forever. However, I think that there are some instances where some characters are tailor-made for a given performer, whether intentionally or unintentionally. This is a bit of a stretch in terms of genres, but could you really imagine anyone else playing Indiana Jones in the movies other than Harrison Ford? That's sort of how I see it with Englund and Freddy. He breathed life into that character like no one else could have. Everything from the voice, to the mannerisms, to the facial expressions, that is unquestionably his character. It's not like remaking Halloween or Friday the 13th where you can slap a mask and costume on a big stunt guy and roll the camera. When you throw the burn makeup, the sweater and the glove on Robert Englund, NO ONE can even come close to matching the screen presence he brings to that character. There is too much depth and detail to that character, along with Englund's own personal touch, that if he's too old or not up for it, then perhaps Freddy should be laid to rest. I'm sure whoever they put in his place will be wonderful in the role, and do their very best with the character, and of course I'd give them a chance, but as a fan of the franchise, at the end of the day, I just can't buy anyone other than Robert Englund as Freddy Krueger, even if the man himself disagrees. Sorry.
|
|