Ultimo Gallos
Grimlock
Dreams SUCK!Nightmares live FOREVER!
Posts: 14,260
|
Post by Ultimo Gallos on Nov 13, 2018 18:59:15 GMT -5
Re watched Never Hike Alone with my lady earlier. One of the best fan films I have seen. Loved the cameo. Tempted to get then DVD release of this.
|
|
|
Post by Jumpin' Jesse Walsh on Nov 14, 2018 14:03:54 GMT -5
My review of The Invisible Man (1933)
For a film whose titular character who is quite literally nonexistent for much of it, James Whale’s The Invisible Man is appropriately lightweight. It probably wasn’t considered lightweight circa 1933, of course. For audiences back then, I imagine this was epic, blockbuster stuff. But by modern standards, this is such a breeze. It’s a brisk 72 minutes of evil Claude Rains laughter and slapstick. The youngins can say the Universal Classic Monsters series has aged appallingly, but they can’t accuse them of wasting their time.
The film makes the curious choice to begin the story after Jack Griffin has become invisible, leaving Griffin’s descent into madness to the audience’s imagination. I like that a lot. In an age where comic book films spend more time on origin stories and how superheroes obtained their powers, it’s refreshing to see a film that dives right into the meat of the story. Whale would later employ this tactic again in The Bride of Frankenstein, which jumps into action just minutes after the 1931 original.
Whale’s influence can also be seen in the film’s sense of camp, with much thanks to the director’s usual troupe of eccentrics. Una O’Connor is a welcome sight, and the other townsfolk are charming as the bumbling fools that they are. Then there’s Claude Rains, who doesn’t physically make an appearance until the film’s final moments but overacts so much that he may just have well been for its entire runtime. It’s clear Rains is having a blast with the role. His taunting of the townsfolk throughout is the highlight, using dark humor that would later be embraced by Freddy Krueger decades later.
The film’s anti-authoritarian streak really stuck out to me on this most recent viewing. The law enforcement is made to look no more competent than the Three Stooges. An officer who boasts how the Invisible Man is hoax is humiliated and dispatched in short order. Whale’s most prominent films are interesting in the sense that, however unintended, there’s a lot of subtext that potentially reveals a lot about the man personally. An unapologetically gay director in the 1930s doesn’t necessarily seem like the type who would think highly of the police, especially in a time when homosexuality in the United Kingdom was still criminalized. Griffin’s delight in causing chaos could just as well be Whale’s in disguise. The most dangerous invisible man is always the one behind the camera.
|
|
|
Post by DSR on Nov 15, 2018 13:01:28 GMT -5
Last night I watched James Whale's BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN (1935), in which the Baron Henry Frankenstein (Colin Clive) is blackmailed into working with the elder, sinister Dr. Pretorius (Ernest Thesiger) on creating a female counterpart to his earlier Monster (Boris Karloff). Meanwhile, the Monster himself, having survived the burning windmill finale of the earlier FRANKENSTEIN, now roams the countryside in search of companionship but finding only hatred and fear. After finally securing a short-lived friendship with a blind hermit (O.P. Heggie), the Monster determines that the only way he'll ever be happy is with another monster like himself, and the lives of creature and creator must intersect once more. Despite his hair-trigger temper, the Monster is portrayed the most sympathetically in this feature. Like in FRANKENSTEIN, he becomes monstrous when treated like a monster, but his friendship with the hermit is tender and sweet. He learns to talk and even to cry. The hermit, ironically, thanking God for bringing him a friend. BRIDE is heralded by many as the high point of Universal's early horror output. And I'm not of a mind to disagree, as this film is the most epic, the most comical, and the most emotionally moving of them all. The Monster's final line still gives me chills. Coupled with my viewing of the film is a reading of the book "Bride of Frankenstein" by Alberto Manguel. Part of the BFI Film Classics line, Manguel's book discusses the film's production, its themes, its critical reception, and its influences, both what influenced it and its own influence on later works. Frequently, the comparison is made to the legend of Faust, with Dr. Frankenstein substituting that character, and Pretorius in place of Mephistopheles, the demon with which Faust bargains his soul. Also discussed is the frequent use of Christian imagery, though whether it's used to conflate the Monster with Christ or to use the Monster as a grim parody of Christ is never discussed. We can infer the latter, though, as the Monster joins and is joined by a long line of creatures made outside of the Divine will, by men who wish to take over the role of God. The Bride, herself, plays ultimately a small role in the film, which is why I've barely mentioned her thus far. But she plays a part in the theme of binding the creator to their creation. The Monster is often nicknamed "Frankenstein" taking the name of the doctor who made him, which might have begun with this film (Bride of Frankenstein, which could denote that she's made BY the doctor OR that she's made FOR the Monster). And the Bride is played by the lovely Elsa Lanchester, who also portrays Mary Shelley herself in the film's opening scene. And finally (sorry if this has been long-winded), the Bride is declared by Manguel as a femme fatale, beautiful and dangerous. Created solely to be a companion to Karloff's Monster, given only the name "The Bride", she is destined to be something of a "love doll" for the Monster. And yet, her one act as a living being is to defy this destiny, to refuse her would-be groom. And, in so doing, leads to his destruction. The book is a quick read, only 62 pages and loaded with pictures, but if you rolled your eyes at my truncated version above, you might not find it as enjoyable as I did. At the very least I'd highly recommend the film BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN, as it is a classic, and permit you to create your own interpretations.
|
|
|
Post by DSR on Nov 16, 2018 4:04:04 GMT -5
Just finished watching TRIP WITH THE TEACHER (1974), a rape-revenge film in which a group of teenaged girls and their teacher (Brenda Fogarty) on a field trip are preyed upon by a pair of bikers when their bus breaks down.
Zalman King (BLUE SUNSHINE) and Robert Porter (THE JESUS TRIP) portray the bikers with a heaping helping of sleaze. It's easy to root against their slimeball characters. The first half of the film allows them to be quietly menacing before they spring into action, taking advantage of the girls and their teacher. That portion of the film makes a sizeable chunk, and the final 10 minutes gives us the revenge portion, which seems a little too quick to let the viewer savor the villains getting their comeuppance. Which, in my opinion, is what makes the journey worth it in these kinds of movies. Say what you will about the acting in the original I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE, I thoroughly enjoyed watching Camille Keaton's character deliver payback on her abusers. TRIP's final act isn't nearly as satisfying.
|
|
|
Post by KAMALARAMBO: BOOMSHAKALAKA!!! on Nov 16, 2018 10:18:44 GMT -5
Just finished watching TRIP WITH THE TEACHER (1974), a rape-revenge film in which a group of teenaged girls and their teacher (Brenda Fogarty) on a field trip are preyed upon by a pair of bikers when their bus breaks down. Zalman King (BLUE SUNSHINE) and Robert Porter (THE JESUS TRIP) portray the bikers with a heaping helping of sleaze. It's easy to root against their slimeball characters. The first half of the film allows them to be quietly menacing before they spring into action, taking advantage of the girls and their teacher. That portion of the film makes a sizeable chunk, and the final 10 minutes gives us the revenge portion, which seems a little too quick to let the viewer savor the villains getting their comeuppance. Which, in my opinion, is what makes the journey worth it in these kinds of movies. Say what you will about the acting in the original I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE, I thoroughly enjoyed watching Camille Keaton's character deliver payback on her abusers. TRIP's final act isn't nearly as satisfying. I’ve been meaning to watch Trip With Teacher. It’s on two not the movie packs I bought some months back. How is the video quality on it? As for me I’m planning to watch Skeletons of Cadavra tonight. It’s more a comedy than anything, but one of the genres IMDB defines it as being is horror so I figured I’d mention it. It’s a film made in 2001 that was shot in black and white and meant to parody the sci-fi films of the 1950s. They really did a great job with the aesthetics though some of the dialogue is sometimes too ridiculous for the kind of humor they are going for. Like someone elbowing you in the stomach after telling you a joke and going, “See, see? Isn’t that funny?”
|
|
|
Post by DSR on Nov 16, 2018 12:23:46 GMT -5
Just finished watching TRIP WITH THE TEACHER (1974), a rape-revenge film in which a group of teenaged girls and their teacher (Brenda Fogarty) on a field trip are preyed upon by a pair of bikers when their bus breaks down. Zalman King (BLUE SUNSHINE) and Robert Porter (THE JESUS TRIP) portray the bikers with a heaping helping of sleaze. It's easy to root against their slimeball characters. The first half of the film allows them to be quietly menacing before they spring into action, taking advantage of the girls and their teacher. That portion of the film makes a sizeable chunk, and the final 10 minutes gives us the revenge portion, which seems a little too quick to let the viewer savor the villains getting their comeuppance. Which, in my opinion, is what makes the journey worth it in these kinds of movies. Say what you will about the acting in the original I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE, I thoroughly enjoyed watching Camille Keaton's character deliver payback on her abusers. TRIP's final act isn't nearly as satisfying. I’ve been meaning to watch Trip With Teacher. It’s on two not the movie packs I bought some months back. How is the video quality on it? As for me I’m planning to watch Skeletons of Cadavra tonight. It’s more a comedy than anything, but one of the genres IMDB defines it as being is horror so I figured I’d mention it. It’s a film made in 2001 that was shot in black and white and meant to parody the sci-fi films of the 1950s. They really did a great job with the aesthetics though some of the dialogue is sometimes too ridiculous for the kind of humor they are going for. Like someone elbowing you in the stomach after telling you a joke and going, “See, see? Isn’t that funny?” The image gets a little wobbly here and there, but otherwise it's okay. I enjoy LOST SKELETON a great deal, by the way. The sequels pretty good, too, though I watch it less often of the two.
|
|
Chainsaw
T
A very BAD man.
It is what it is
Posts: 90,480
|
Post by Chainsaw on Nov 16, 2018 16:14:52 GMT -5
Lost Skeleton is legit one of my favorite parody movies of the last 20 years. To me, it's such a great tearapart of the science fiction movies of the 50's, and find almost every joke lands. I still tend to use "Even when I was a child, I was hated by skeletons!" as a random line in conversations.
|
|
Nr1Humanoid
Hank Scorpio
Is the #3 humanoid at best.
Posts: 5,450
|
Post by Nr1Humanoid on Nov 16, 2018 17:10:42 GMT -5
Just finished The Slayer from 1982. I think West Craven may have been inspired by this one.
A pretty damn good movie all in all.
The actors are all pretty decent (no teens in sight) giving believable performances, though they didn't get any truly meaty material to dive into.
The kills are creative and the gore effects are believable and effective.
The killer was not was I was expecting and I certainly didn't expect it to go Bobby Ewing on me, so kudos.
On the negative side there are one too many drawn out, failed attempts at building suspense. The killer striking while the victims are doing random, everyday things is scary. Have it happen after the camera has followed the character for five minutes, while she jumps at every sound like she knows she's in a horror movie, is not. Of course, that's a matter of personal opinion.
It's on YouTube so take a look, you'll have fun.
|
|
|
Post by Jumpin' Jesse Walsh on Nov 19, 2018 20:36:20 GMT -5
My review of Child's Play 3 (1991)
With the success of this decade’s direct-to-video sequels, fans of the Child’s Play series have heralded its return to straight-up horror, especially when it once seemed the films had ventured so deep into comedic territory that it may never return to form. But amidst all the celebration over the series returning to its roots, let Child’s Play 3 be a reminder as to why its more serious edge was abandoned in the first place. If something like Seed of Chucky skewed too heavily toward bad comedy, this one goes in the complete opposite direction, by playing it so straight that there’s a genuine lack of fun.
Series creator Don Mancini’s displeasure over this film is publicly well-documented. It only came nine months after the genuinely fun and underrated Child’s Play 2, and it’s clear it would’ve benefited by having a few years of breathing room away from its predecessor. Yes, we get a new setting. Yes, we get new characters. But there’s much more of a feeling this time out of going through the motions. It’s almost like you can figure out how the plot will unravel, who is getting killed off, and the order in which they’re killed within the first 25 minutes. The film then plays out accordingly without much drama or intrigue.
While it’s expected that Andy would be surrounded by plenty of assholes at a strict military academy, these are probably the most unlikeable characters in the series to date. Literally everyone in this film can’t seem to wipe the sour look off their face. A teenage Andy is a welcome change, but in his younger self’s place is Tyler, who is vapid and annoying. The film tries to do a reworking of Chucky possessing another young victim, a plot line which was completely drained of ideas by the end of the previous sequel.
By far the strongest part is its finale, held in a haunted house attraction. In contrast to several facets of this film, it feels totally inspired. Plus, it gives us the neat visual of Chucky getting half of his face torn off by a scythe. I will say it's incredibly random that they transitioned from war games at a military academy to a carnival completely out of nowhere but if the trade off is more fun and color, I’m here for it. It's just a shame the actual haunted house seems way more interesting than the entire movie.
For the record, I don’t think this is terrible; it’s just bland and by-the numbers like the billions of other slasher flicks out there. A film about a foul-mouthed killer doll shouldn’t be that way though. Child’s Play may be in the title, but this entry feels like work.
|
|
|
Post by KAMALARAMBO: BOOMSHAKALAKA!!! on Nov 21, 2018 19:49:00 GMT -5
I was thinking of getting an older family relative the Stuart Gordon DVD Collection for Christmas. Mostly because of the 1990’s version of Pit and the Pendulum. It also includes Castle Freak and Deathbed in the collection. I don’t have any of the movies really fresh in my memory. Does anyone know if any of them have a ton of gratuitous boobs and sex? I probably won’t get it for them if it does since that could be super awkward. Violence isn’t that big of an issue, but I’d also be interested in knowing if any include super gross scenes as I might avoid giving it as a gift if that is the case too.
|
|
Paul
Vegeta
Posts: 9,236
|
Post by Paul on Nov 21, 2018 21:50:31 GMT -5
My review of Child's Play 3 (1991) With the success of this decade’s direct-to-video sequels, fans of the Child’s Play series have heralded its return to straight-up horror, especially when it once seemed the films had ventured so deep into comedic territory that it may never return to form. But amidst all the celebration over the series returning to its roots, let Child’s Play 3 be a reminder as to why its more serious edge was abandoned in the first place. If something like Seed of Chucky skewed too heavily toward bad comedy, this one goes in the complete opposite direction, by playing it so straight that there’s a genuine lack of fun. Series creator Don Mancini’s displeasure over this film is publicly well-documented. It only came nine months after the genuinely fun and underrated Child’s Play 2, and it’s clear it would’ve benefited by having a few years of breathing room away from its predecessor. Yes, we get a new setting. Yes, we get new characters. But there’s much more of a feeling this time out of going through the motions. It’s almost like you can figure out how the plot will unravel, who is getting killed off, and the order in which they’re killed within the first 25 minutes. The film then plays out accordingly without much drama or intrigue. While it’s expected that Andy would be surrounded by plenty of assholes at a strict military academy, these are probably the most unlikeable characters in the series to date. Literally everyone in this film can’t seem to wipe the sour look off their face. A teenage Andy is a welcome change, but in his younger self’s place is Tyler, who is vapid and annoying. The film tries to do a reworking of Chucky possessing another young victim, a plot line which was completely drained of ideas by the end of the previous sequel. By far the strongest part is its finale, held in a haunted house attraction. In contrast to several facets of this film, it feels totally inspired. Plus, it gives us the neat visual of Chucky getting half of his face torn off by a scythe. I will say it's incredibly random that they transitioned from war games at a military academy to a carnival completely out of nowhere but if the trade off is more fun and color, I’m here for it. It's just a shame the actual haunted house seems way more interesting than the entire movie. For the record, I don’t think this is terrible; it’s just bland and by-the numbers like the billions of other slasher flicks out there. A film about a foul-mouthed killer doll shouldn’t be that way though. Child’s Play may be in the title, but this entry feels like work. Brad Dourif was basically doing a Jack Nicholson impersonation throughout the movie for some reason. Maybe he was having One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest flashbacks?
|
|
|
Post by DSR on Nov 21, 2018 22:35:58 GMT -5
I was thinking of getting an older family relative the Stuart Gordon DVD Collection for Christmas. Mostly because of the 1990’s version of Pit and the Pendulum. It also includes Castle Freak and Deathbed in the collection. I don’t have any of the movies really fresh in my memory. Does anyone know if any of them have a ton of gratuitous boobs and sex? I probably won’t get it for them if it does since that could be super awkward. Violence isn’t that big of an issue, but I’d also be interested in knowing if any include super gross scenes as I might avoid giving it as a gift if that is the case too. It's been a while since I've seen it, but I think the titular freak in CASTLE FREAK rapes a woman. I think there's nudity in THE PIT AND THE PENDULUM, but I don't recall how gratuitous it is.
|
|
|
Post by KAMALARAMBO: BOOMSHAKALAKA!!! on Nov 21, 2018 22:53:16 GMT -5
I was thinking of getting an older family relative the Stuart Gordon DVD Collection for Christmas. Mostly because of the 1990’s version of Pit and the Pendulum. It also includes Castle Freak and Deathbed in the collection. I don’t have any of the movies really fresh in my memory. Does anyone know if any of them have a ton of gratuitous boobs and sex? I probably won’t get it for them if it does since that could be super awkward. Violence isn’t that big of an issue, but I’d also be interested in knowing if any include super gross scenes as I might avoid giving it as a gift if that is the case too. It's been a while since I've seen it, but I think the titular freak in CASTLE FREAK rapes a woman. I think there's nudity in THE PIT AND THE PENDULUM, but I don't recall how gratuitous it is. Nudity and rape might not be too bad as long as we’re not talking about an Irreversible style rape scene.
|
|
Ultimo Gallos
Grimlock
Dreams SUCK!Nightmares live FOREVER!
Posts: 14,260
|
Post by Ultimo Gallos on Nov 21, 2018 23:06:36 GMT -5
I was thinking of getting an older family relative the Stuart Gordon DVD Collection for Christmas. Mostly because of the 1990’s version of Pit and the Pendulum. It also includes Castle Freak and Deathbed in the collection. I don’t have any of the movies really fresh in my memory. Does anyone know if any of them have a ton of gratuitous boobs and sex? I probably won’t get it for them if it does since that could be super awkward. Violence isn’t that big of an issue, but I’d also be interested in knowing if any include super gross scenes as I might avoid giving it as a gift if that is the case too. It's been a while since I've seen it, but I think the titular freak in CASTLE FREAK rapes a woman. I think there's nudity in THE PIT AND THE PENDULUM, but I don't recall how gratuitous it is. The uncut Castle Freak has a semi graphic rape scene. The unrated P&P has some nudity but some sexually charged violence.
|
|
Ultimo Gallos
Grimlock
Dreams SUCK!Nightmares live FOREVER!
Posts: 14,260
|
Post by Ultimo Gallos on Nov 21, 2018 23:10:37 GMT -5
It's been a while since I've seen it, but I think the titular freak in CASTLE FREAK rapes a woman. I think there's nudity in THE PIT AND THE PENDULUM, but I don't recall how gratuitous it is. Nudity and rape might not be too bad as long as we’re not talking about an Irreversible style rape scene. It's not at Irreversible levels, but it isn't tame. IIRC the R rated version cuts the scene almost completely out.
|
|
|
Post by DSR on Nov 22, 2018 17:36:11 GMT -5
Today I performed my annual Thanksgiving day tradition of watching BLOOD FREAK (1972), an anti-drug, pro-Christianity gorefest (yes!) co-written, co-produced, co-directed, and co-starring Steve Hawkes and Brad Grinter. Grinter pops in frequently to provide narration and philosophical ramblings (and chain-smoke cigarettes) about the life and times of Hawkes' character, Herschell. Ol' Hersch is a Vietnam vet and drug addict, who takes a job at a combination turkey farm/laboratory and, as the result of an experiment, is transformed into a turkey-headed blood-drinking monster! Now it's up to Herschell's new girlfriend Ann and her bible-thumping sister Angel to save Herschell with the help of the Lord! Our main character prays for salvation. Writing, acting, editing, lighting, sound design, everything about this flick is crappy. Enjoyably so, I'll add.
|
|
Ultimo Gallos
Grimlock
Dreams SUCK!Nightmares live FOREVER!
Posts: 14,260
|
Post by Ultimo Gallos on Nov 23, 2018 12:09:28 GMT -5
Crap tomorrow's Sven is a rerun I have seen. So I am going to watch the Twilight Time Blu Ray of Fright Night.
Thinking about seeing if anyone wAnts to do a marathon of the Phantasm franchise today.
|
|
Nr1Humanoid
Hank Scorpio
Is the #3 humanoid at best.
Posts: 5,450
|
Post by Nr1Humanoid on Nov 23, 2018 18:16:59 GMT -5
Took a gander at 1984's Fatal Games, AKA The Javelin Murders, AKA Nudity at all Cost, AKA Lesbian Teasing.
Not a bad film all in all. Nothing you haven't seen before, though it was nice to see some characters fleshed out more than usual as we get to know their hopes and dreams. Actors were adequate and got to play their age for once.
Not a gore flick by any means, just spatters of blood, and the kills were fun if not monotonous due to being so similar.
If you like nude girls, this is the flick for you, including Linnea Quigley as a body double. The men gets to keep their tighty whites and jockstrap on in classic double standard mode.
The killer's identity didn't surprise though his motivation did, even if it had been done better before. Right, Angela?
Recommended, I must say.
I learned after the movie it's quite the ripoff of Graduation Day (I must take a look at it).
|
|
andrew8798
FANatic
on 24/7 this month
Posts: 106,072
|
Post by andrew8798 on Nov 23, 2018 20:53:03 GMT -5
Crap tomorrow's Sven is a rerun I have seen. So I am going to watch the Twilight Time Blu Ray of Fright Night. Thinking about seeing if anyone wAnts to do a marathon of the Phantasm franchise today. Next Weeks is a rerun too with 20 million miles to Earth
|
|
|
Post by DSR on Nov 28, 2018 0:29:03 GMT -5
Just finished BLOODLUST! (1959). Written, directed, and produced by Ralph Brooke, the film is based on the story The Most Dangerous Game. It tells the story of four young people (most famous among them Robert Reed, who would play the father on The Brady Bunch) who take a yachting trip and discover a mysterious island. While there, they learn that the island is home to a rick old man (played by Wilton Graff) who uses the island as a hunting ground for sport. Only he doesn't limit his hunting to animals. Soon our quartet of heroes learn they are the next prey for this man, as the young men will be hunted to satisfy his titular bloodlust, and the girls will...well, they'll satisfy his other kind of lust. Our villain feels like a bootleg Vincent Price and our heroes lack dimension, but the film is still fairly enjoyable. It clocks in at just under 70 minutes, a decent runtime for a low-budget horror quickie. And it's got some good, grisly gore effects for the time: severed limbs, impalements, blood oozing out of wounds (mitigated by the film's being in black and white, but still). Because of the time period in which it was made, I expected far tamer than I got! There's even a man being destroyed by a vat of acid! The film is obviously decent riffing material, having appeared in an episode of MST3K, but I had a good time taking the flick in at face value.
|
|