Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 31, 2014 14:09:11 GMT -5
I didn't notice this thread was so old. Friskey's account is gone?? Talk about scary. BOO!
|
|
|
Post by Dave the Dave on Oct 31, 2014 14:23:18 GMT -5
I didn't notice this thread was so old. Friskey's account is gone?? Talk about scary. BOO!
|
|
Lick Ness Monster
Dennis Stamp
From the eerie, eerie depths of Lake Okabena
Posts: 4,874
|
Post by Lick Ness Monster on Oct 31, 2014 16:33:47 GMT -5
I'm in the process of watching for the first trick or treaters on my many-times mentioned legendary childhood street. Bought candy for 1100 kids this year. No folks, that's not a typo.
Hope everyone is having a great day filled with festive atmosphere, way too much sugar and, of course, some good scary flicks on the tube.
|
|
|
Post by DSR on Oct 31, 2014 20:05:09 GMT -5
Yesterday was trick-or-treat in my town. I was at work, but my mom reports 12 kids came to her door. And 2 of them were my nieces.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 31, 2014 20:47:34 GMT -5
See, we're better people. We're not talking about TSTSNBN in this thread. We're true horror fans.
|
|
|
Post by Digital Witness on Oct 31, 2014 21:16:56 GMT -5
Living in a mostly student housing area of town on Halloween on a Friday night, the only kids I expect to come to the door are likely to be drunk and/or stoned early 20s folk.
|
|
|
Post by DSR on Oct 31, 2014 21:49:28 GMT -5
See, we're better people. We're not talking about TSTSNBN in this thread. We're true horror fans. Rob Zombie's first trip to Haddonfield is currently playing on IFC. I'm still avoiding it, even though I'm looking forward to Comedy Bang Bang right after.
|
|
|
Post by mysterydriver on Nov 1, 2014 10:25:30 GMT -5
Bought 'We Hate Movies' Chudmentary commentary over the cult...classic... C.H.U.D.
Happy Halloween all around.
|
|
|
Post by DSR on Nov 1, 2014 16:35:50 GMT -5
Went to the local thrift store earlier today, picked up a Creature from the Black Lagoon action figure for a dollar! Huzzah!
|
|
Lick Ness Monster
Dennis Stamp
From the eerie, eerie depths of Lake Okabena
Posts: 4,874
|
Post by Lick Ness Monster on Nov 4, 2014 9:29:57 GMT -5
Time for a new blog review. Who remembers this flick? 1993 Directed by Rachel Talalay Starring Karen Allen, Chris Mulkey and Ted Marcoux I can still remember the commercials for this movie. 10-year-old Lick Ness Monster had just discovered the Friday the 13th series and was in the midst of watching the HBO-recorded lent copy of Watchers something like 77 times when the nonstop barrage of ads started. You can't run, you can't hide, you can't win. That was the dialogue elivered in the freaky-deaky electronic voice by this flick's villain, and suffice to say, it all seemed very intriguing to a slightly losery, more-than-slightly nerdy fourth grader. Lo and behold, a year later, I made sure to catch the flick when it aired on HBO. Thus concludes this week's epic introductory story. Back then, I really liked the film. It could have been the worst movie ever and I would have forced myself to like it given the insane amount of hype that I had given it in my own brain. Alas, the years since haven't been too kind to Ghost in the Machine, and that's a damn shame, because there's some talented people involved in the production. First and foremost is Rachel Talalay, a woman who rose up through the ranks of the Freddy Krueger films and eventually got to kill the bastard off once and for all. We've also got Karen Allen of Indiana Jones fame (one awesome movie, one insanely crappy one) and deliverer of some '80s movie nude scenes that got me through some lonely nights back in college. Too much information? Perhaps. That should be enough background information. Let's get to it. Remember Wes Craven's Shocker, where a serial killer is able to transmogrify himself into the world of electronic beings just before he gets the chair? Well, this movie basically takes that motif and repeats it verbatim, only this time, it occurs before the human characters are able to ascertain the dude's identity. The opening chapters of the film introduce us to Karl Hochman, relatively mild-mannered skeevy dude by day and vicious serial killer by night who has a definitive MO. The press in their infinite wisdom have dubbed him the "Address Book Killer" due to his propensity to - you guessed it - steal people's address books and conduct his mass murder sprees from said books. For what it's worth, Ted Marcoux does a decent enough job as Hochman, although he's nowhere cose to Mitch Pileggi's menace in Shocker. I swear that is the last I'll compare these two films. As hokey as Craven's half-hearted attempt at re-starting ANOES for the TV generation was, it's still loads better than anything we get here. Setup time - early in the film, Hochman managed to steal relatively likable (how's that for a lazy character description?) Terry Munroe's address book, mere minutes of screen time before he is almost killed by an oncoming truck in one of the funnier examples of "derp"-ness displayed on celluloid for all to enjoy. Minutes after that, we get the aforementioned transmogrification scene where Hochman's essence is transported into the land of electronics, where the now demonic and very, very ghostly Hochman goes about killing everyone that Terry knows. A good portion of the movie focuses on Terry Munroe, and while Karen Allen is indeed more than game for the part, the character unfortunately falls short when compared to even average horror movie heroines. It really didn't matter how well Karen allen portrayed Terry Munroe; given some of the material we're given in this flick, Meryl Streep herself could have flown in from London (I think - I can't be bothered to look it up) and induced large degrees of insomnia. There is admittedly a pretty long sequence in the middle of this film as everyone Terry knows is offed in pretty damn creative ways. My personal favorite is the bit where a hapless dude gets his face burned off by a supercharged hair dryer, a scene that made me turn away when I first saw the movie and still qualifies as cringe-worthy to this day. Unfortunately, a lot of these characters are complete, utter nonentities, making this a kind of Friday the 13th Part V over the electrowebz. There really isn't a whole lot more to be said about this movie. Really, you should know where it's going by now, anyway. Terry, along with help from her somewhat doofusy son and a cool computer hacker (and watching this movie will remind you of the days when this character was present in every movie that involved this fancy little thing called COMPUTERS), get into a big scrum with Hochman, leading to a thrilling conclusion and somewhat ambiguous ending. Been there, done that, and in 1993, it felt like even more been there, done that than the usual. Thus it is with Ghost in the Machine. As a ten year old, it felt really fresh to me, and combined with the movie's slick advertising campaign, it was coolness personified. 20-some years later, it's barely passable at best. * 1/2 out of ****. Some fleeting moments of good acting aren't enough to cover up a multitude of story sins.
|
|
StuntGranny®
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Not Actually a Granny
Posts: 16,099
|
Post by StuntGranny® on Nov 4, 2014 19:45:14 GMT -5
Okay.
I just watched The Babadook and I honestly don't understand what's so great about it. It starts off really well and then sorta goes off the rails in the third act. It wasn't a bad movie, but due to the hype surrounding it, I was expecting a lot more.
I suppose I'm going to have to burn my 'Horror Fan' card now.
|
|
Lick Ness Monster
Dennis Stamp
From the eerie, eerie depths of Lake Okabena
Posts: 4,874
|
Post by Lick Ness Monster on Nov 11, 2014 9:48:25 GMT -5
Okay. I just watched The Babadook and I honestly don't understand what's so great about it. It starts off really well and then sorta goes off the rails in the third act. It wasn't a bad movie, but due to the hype surrounding it, I was expecting a lot more. I suppose I'm going to have to burn my 'Horror Fan' card now. Hell, I've never even heard of that movie. I feel ya on the "flying off the rails" thing, though - movies that do that, especially in the late stages, are especially frustrating. The first horror flick I can think of that fits that bill is The Reaping from 2007, which starts off FANTASTIC and just gradually goes about getting dumber in the third act. With that, new blog review is UP. 1990 Directed by Thierry Notz Starring Marc Singer, Tracy Scoggins, Timothy Marlowe, Jonathan Farwell and Irene Miracle A few months back, I reviewed the original Watchers, the Corey Haim-ified 1988 adaptation of Dean Koontz' rip-roaring book of the same name. Reaction to it was, by and large, was pretty damn awful. Most of the complaints seemed to stem from two things. One, it just wasn't all that much like the novel. Two, it starred Corey Haim. Really, I've never seen what is so bad about it. If you're judging it based on the merits of whether or not it stuck to the source material, yeah, it was indeed the ultimate failure. As a fourth grader watching it, though, none of that stuff mattered, as it was a movie with some nifty gore effects and Corey Haim. Yeah, I was a mark for Corey Haim, but that admission doesn't mean much. My coolness card expired long ago, anyway. So... Watchers II. Released a mere two years after the original, it really isn't a "sequel" in the true definition of the word rather than a complete, total redux. Set free on video store shelves in 1990 (theatrical? not hardly), this Roger Corman-produced flick frequently gets compliments for being more faithful to the source novel than the original, which is something that continues to befuddle me to this day. Does it have older lead characters like the book? Yeah. But that's about it. It's also got a much flatter, dingier look and a MUCH more ridiculous, rubbery-looking monster. With that, let's get to it. For the uninitiated, the standard Watchers formula is as follows: the government has created two genetically-engineered animal weapons. One is a vicious, murderous baboon, the other an angelic golden retriever. Both have super intelligence. They share a psychic link, and the baboon really, really hates the dog and wants to see it dead. This movie doesn't deviate too far from that formula, with the exception of making its main hero Paul Ferguson (Singer, who does a decent enough acting job given the material) a military man at all sorts of odds with his employers. When both of the animals escape (in a pretty damn ludicrous plot by The Government involving letting some animal rights activists into their facility to cause havoc, because you know that's going to end well), Paul finds himself with a new pet and hunted by the far more homicidal, far less cute beast. I will give it to Dean Koontz here - this plot device, with a homicidal-inclined genetic super baboon being able to psychically track a dog and his human companion leaving breadcrumbs of death scenes in its wake, was a stroke of genius that rivals anything Stephen King has come up with, and it's a concept that is interesting no matter how rough the execution can be. More on that later. Now for some more of the movie's good stuff. Much like the original, this movie has some fun with the dog's super smarts in the sequences where Singer gradually discovers just what the hell he is dealing with - they're actually some of the best bits of the film. Insert your own Beastmaster jokes here when it comes to this guy bonding with his furry costars. Along the way, he reunites the dog with its trainer at the facility (Scoggins, who is still red hot no matter how much the costume designers tried to nerdify her with the standard "thick glasses" treatment for this movie), and the two of them wind up on the run not only from the creature but from the authorities, who are pinning all of the monster's killings on Paul. Screenwriters of the world, take note. Stakes are important, and this flick has loads of it. That's the good news when it comes to Watchers II, as it has a human side peppered in between some admittedly cool death scenes. Unfortunately, it's also got a much less interesting group of supporting characters than the original. That movie had Michael Ironside as this kind of ruthless government hitman given added menace by the fact that, well, he's Michael Ironside. This time around, we've only got the shadowy government scientist (Farwell) responsible for this whole mess doing his best to track down both animals. The character is a BIG step down from the slimy douches that we grew to know and loathe in the original film. In addition to that, this movie was filmed on the cheap, and it shows. Now, a movie's budget is never a reason to see it. Hell, these days I would MUCH rather spend money on a film with a sub-$1 million budget than anything the major studios churn out. This movie, though, is cheap, and looks it - particularly the monster. He may not have been a Stan Winston-esque creation in the first film, but it was Bruce the Shark compared to what we're given here. Namely, a very, very phony-looking bigfoot creation filmed almost entirely in shadow to disguise the fact that the construction of the costume was indeed so crappy. It isn't scary at all, and it's exacerbated by the very flat direction from Thierry Notz. He seemed to be going for a dark, dank motif, kind of similar to what Joseph Zito did with Friday the 13th: The Final Chapter. Here, it just makes the film look INCREDIBLY second-rate, especially in the film's finale sequence done in the big city streets and tunnels. I think that about covers it. Watchers II, just like the original film and the book that both movies are based on, has a killer concept and a couple of fairly likable lead characters. Both Singer and Scoggins really dig into their roles and do an excellent job getting you on their sides. The problem is that the human villains come off as cartoon characters, and the nonhuman villain is even more of one. Oh, and it's got a middle section that REALLY drags. You've been warned. ** out of ****. Worth a watch if you catch it on SyFy one lonely Saturday afternoon, which is exactly how I watched it. Otherwise, avoid.
|
|
Lick Ness Monster
Dennis Stamp
From the eerie, eerie depths of Lake Okabena
Posts: 4,874
|
Post by Lick Ness Monster on Nov 18, 2014 9:26:43 GMT -5
New blog review for all to peruse. I'm looking into doing some more familiar movies for a while, starting with a flick that I haven't reviewed since WAY back in my godawful "horror franchise review" days here on the forum. 1988 Directed by Tom Holland Starring Catherine Hicks, Alex Vincent, Chris Sarandon and Brad Dourif Add this one to the "I can't believe I haven't reviewed this movie yet" file. Child's Play is one of those movies that it seems like damn near just about everyone has seen an interation of - either this original flick or one of the many sequels, all of which are always crop up in the regular rotation of October AMC fare. If you grew up in the early '90s like me, watching Chucky films were virtually a rite of passage; much like HBO's Tales From the Crypt, watching one of these films granted you a cool card for the upcoming school day. Released in 1988, the movie was nothing short of a gargantuan hit for United Artists, grossing more than $44 million off of an initial $9 million investment and prompting a long series of sequels that continues to this day. Now, before we get started, I'll wholeheartedly admit that I'm well aware of the criticisms that I've read of these movies online. That the villain is lame, that nobody would ever take Chucky seriously as a villain, and that all you'd have to do is kick the damn thing. All valid criticisms, mind you. It really doesn't matter all that much, because the presence of Brad Dourif as the voice of Chucky in this movie trumps all of that. To this reporter, anyway. When this guy drops the word "f***," it was as much of a crowd-pleasing moment to the eight-year-old version of me as Motley Crue's "Smokin' in the Boys Room" was. Stand up and cheer, kids. Such is this guy's ability to project bad intent with his mere voice that he actually manages to sell the threat of the stupid Good Guys doll as a menacing presence. With that, the movie. It is my belief that Don Mancini, the scriptwriter here and the guy who would direct (I believe) every sequel, knew that his laugh-worthy premise would have lasting appeal when he crafted the origin story for Chucky, because this origin story ranks right up there with Jason and Freddy in the eyes of this reporter. Meet vicious serial killer Charles Lee Ray, played in human form by Dourif, chased into a toy store by the police. It isn't long before he is shot and nearly killed, and, again, it isn't long before he unleashes the now-trademark voodoo incantation (that I can still recite from memory, by the way) that transmits his soul into the nearby Good Guys doll. It is also worth noting that the cop who shoots him is played by Chris Sarandon. So +10 points to the movie there. In a move that won't surprise any horror fan or anyone reading this review, the doll is soon snatched up by Karen Barclay (Catherine Hicks, who was smokin' hot here and later went on to marry make-up artist Kevin Yagher), single mother desperate to find a cheap copy of the Good Guys doll for her son Andy (Alex Vincent, who actually does a very good acting job considering his age here). Both characters are fleshed out pretty well, with Hicks projecting as a hard-working mother and Vincent doing his best in the precocious kid moments. A good portion of the middle of this movie falls into the "build suspense" M.O. that sadly is missing from a lot of modern horror films. Much of the time, we're looking at Chucky putting on his best poker face, doing little other than standing still in Andy's arms. We see him spring to life on a couple occasions during death scenes; the best of these bits occur during Chucky's battles with Andy's babysitter, who does her best to come between Chucky's attempt to find a new human vehicle for his soul. Granting the movie some bouts of melodrama, the authorities blame Andy for the deaths, and seem to be looking at Karen as an even bigger nutjob for supporting her son throughout all this. As such, the movie is firmly in the "three act structure" camp of films that I've grown to love so much since it seems to be so rare these days, making this also - by far - the most conventional horror film in this entire series. First act, establish threat. Second, build suspense. Third, all shit hits the fan. I love it. Everything in this movie builds up to Karen finding out the true identity of Chucky. The scene where she does this, almost ready to throw the doll into a fireplace, is one of the best-executed jump scares in movie history. It really is something that Dourif's movies boast two of the best couch jumpers in motion picture history (the other being Exorcist III - youtube it). These attributes, combined with the acting, make this movie worth watching, even as it occasionally sheds into dopey territory. Make no mistake, there are some things and moments in Child's Play that WILL make you shake your head. The people online who gripe about a doll being so damn badass are correct, something made even more clear here since the Chucky animatronics/stop-motion photography hadn't quite come along yet. The logistics of how this dude is able to get around so well is also something admittedly headscratching - at times, it seems as if he's moving around at light speed, especially in the third act chase-and-slash scenes. There are also some issues with pacing, as the middle sections get to be a little "choppy" in the mixing and matching between Andy's melodrama, suspense, and the sporadic kill scenes. All of the above would be fatal sins for any other movie, but it doesn't make a difference here. Folks, Brad Dourif in all of his sadistic, evil-laughing glory covers up a multitude of sins, and it's his presence that carries this movie from the Z-grade aisle and made this the launching point of a franchise. That, combined with some good invention by Mancini from the screenwriting end, make this worth watching, no matter how much head-nodding is required to make it through. *** out of ****. A minor classic, check it out.
|
|
thelesserevil
El Dandy
KHALI BRAINS!!
Follow the Sheep
Posts: 7,523
|
Post by thelesserevil on Nov 19, 2014 4:17:26 GMT -5
Don Mancini wrote all the Child's Play films, not directed. But Child's Play is a decent film, I even like the later ones when they stop taking it seriously. Now if you'll excuse me.. Incoming Plug---- I've started a horror movie channel on youtube, sort of like an old midnight movie sorta deal where I host a flick, only have 3 videos now, but more will follow. Recently added Creatures from the Abyss, so if you'd give a clickity click here TerrorTube, and at least check it out I'd be very much grateful, sirs and ma'ams.
|
|
Lick Ness Monster
Dennis Stamp
From the eerie, eerie depths of Lake Okabena
Posts: 4,874
|
Post by Lick Ness Monster on Nov 25, 2014 10:03:44 GMT -5
New blog review. The killer doll theme continues. 1991 Directed by Dave Allen Starring Elizabeth Maclellan, Collin Bernsen, Gregory Webb and Charlie "Tits McGee" Spradling One killer doll movie deserves another, I guess. A long, long time ago, I inducted the original, old-school Charles Band micro-budget classic Puppet Master into the IHR, but it's been literally years since I've even thought about any of the sequels. And folks, this fact really confounds me. There was a period of time where this was my FAVORITE horror series. Then again, this was also during high school, when I also thought that Freddie Prinze Jr. was going to be a superstar actor of the highest caliber. Sometimes, the Lick Ness Monster accuracy rate is decidedly less than stellar. Don't get me wrong - Puppet Master is a fun series, but it's MILES away from being anywhere near my favorite horror series these days. The first one is a legit good movie that manages to take the "killer doll" movie trope and throw the twist in that the weaponified killers were probably the GOOD guys. Don't ask. I'll do my best to explain later. A couple of the sequels (Parts III and VI, a.k.a. Curse of the Puppet Master) are also pretty worthwhile in their own right. This flick, released on video store shelves via the amazing Full Moon Features direct-to-video empire in 1991, falls somewhere in the middle. The first thing you should know about the movie is that it picks up almost RIGHT after the first one ends, so seeing that movie is imperative. In it, we were treated to the admittedly low-budget but very fun action at the Bodega Bay Inn, a place where Andre Toulon - a man hiding from Nazi officials in the 1940s - mastered the art of transplanting souls into inanimate objects. Three guesses as to what happened from there. You'd never guess that a group of psychics would descend upon said hotel and that the vast majority of them would be sleazy bilkers trying to use the hotel for monetary gain and that the majority of the dolls' killings would be cheered by the audience. Well, the psychics are gone and the dolls are back for this go-round, and they re-unite their dead master Toulon before the opening credits can even roll. The victim characters in this film aren't quite as interesting as they were in the first movie. This time, we're blessed with one of those pre-TAPS groups of paranormal researchers who have heard about all of the shenanigans and goings-on at Bodega Bay and want a piece of the action, even going so far as to stay overnights at said hotel where tons of violent unsolved murders took place. Critics of horror movies who say that its characters are stupid have plenty of ammunition here. Our star character is Carolyn Bramwell (Maclellan), established as our lead by the amount of time the camera is focused on her. Also along for the ride is the movie's resident beefcake couple, Lance (Jeff Weston) and Wanda (Spradling, whose nude scene in this movie used to get me through some lonely nights), as well as Camille (Nita Talbot), who gets kidnapped midway through the movie by the resident army of still-cool puppets. Dave Allen, the guy who did the special effects for the first movie, is the director this time around. It shows in the puppet effects. For the time period, this stuff was actually pretty cutting edge. For a $780,000 budget, it was downright high-tech. They're still brought to life mainly with the art of stop-motion photography. In the first film, sometimes it looked like they were warping across the room at something akin to light speed. For my money, Blade is still the coolest of them, although the new addition in this film - Torch - has his share of cool moments. Unfortunately, most of his stuff occurs during a damn-near suicidal sequence in the middle of the film with an old couple living in the nearby wilderness. Anyway, what we have here storyline wise is a kind of twist on Beauty and the Beast, with a mysterious stranger wrapped entirely in bandages showing up at the mansion midway through the movie. This stranger, of course, is the reanimated Toulon in disguise, and he sees Carolyn as a reincarnated version of his own deceased wife. Since Carolyn is in the process of getting romanced and eventually banged - well - by a fellow paranormal researcher, you can imagine how well this is going for the poor mummy's psyche. All of it builds toward a finale in the mansion with Toulon attempting to transmogrify souls into two life-sized mannequins. Note to all horror and action movie villains: any plan where the final step is horribly comlicated, i.e. the magical formula will only be activated at a certain time of day or at a moment of total eclipse, is destined for failure. The cool stuff in this movie has already been spelled out. A decent plot, a good, solidly unnerving villain in Toulon (who would undergo a pretty baffling babyface turn in the further sequels), Charlie Spradling's breasts...there's plenty to like about this movie. I know that I've thrown out this complaint with other movies, but it goes doubly for the Puppet Master series. When they drag...they really, really, really drag. When I can't come up with any compelling metaphor for the level of draggage that these movies manage to achieve, you know it's bad. Long bits of scientific mumbo jumbo that serve no purpose other than to pad the movie's length, the endless bit with the aforementioned old couple, a couple monologues by Toulon...I think you get the idea. What else is there to share? Not much. The movie delivers the goods on its intended level, as do the vast majority of movies that Charles Band produced during this time period. It's a pretty damn good movie to watch if you're half-awake, as its just dark and atmospheric enough to keep you awake but intermittently boring enough to keep you in a terminally zombie state. What? ** 1/2 out of ****. Not as good as the first, and a black sheep in the series in many regards, but still worth checking out.
|
|
|
Post by DSR on Nov 25, 2014 22:03:07 GMT -5
I haven't listened yet, but Gilbert Gottfried's podcast has, within the last month or two, featured guests from the horror community. In particular, Bela Lugosi Jr. and Sara Karloff on one episode, and Roger Corman on another. You can find them here: soundcloud.com/gilbertgottfried
|
|
Lick Ness Monster
Dennis Stamp
From the eerie, eerie depths of Lake Okabena
Posts: 4,874
|
Post by Lick Ness Monster on Dec 2, 2014 9:44:55 GMT -5
New blog review is up. One of my (and, I suspect, many others around these parts) high school faves. 2000 Directed by James Wong Starring Devon Sara, Ali Larter, Kerr Smith and Tony Todd Looks like we're headed back to school for this week's review. High school, that is - the high school years of one Mr. Lick Ness Monster. There have been a few horror movies in my lifetime that set off a huge wave in the teen crowd. Scream was that way a few years before this, and The Ring would do the same a short time after. But in the spring and summer of 2000, if you hadn't seen the movie with the plane crash, creepy shadow-stalking death, the whipped-cream bikini girl and the chick who got hit by the bus...you were out of it, man. And you can rest assured that I was there on opening Friday. My reasoning was probably a bit different than most at that time. Originally written as an X-Files spec script, it was ironically enough picked up as the directorial debut for one James Wong - the same James Wong who, along with writing partner Glen Morgan, was one of the early season featured writers for The X-Files. The same show that long-time readers of the blog will recognize as my favorite TV show of all time, regardless of how much of a Vince Russo-esque clusterf*** it turned into during its later seasons. That connection was enough to sell me on the idea, and it's a decision that I never regretted, as the flick was a big success and spawned a franchise that - even at its worst - has managed to stay fun and relevant throughout a few goofy incarnations. In that regard, this really is the Friday the 13th for the 21st century that Saw could never, ever dream of being. With that, let's get to the movie. Of course, most people know the basics of Final Destination by now, and this movie that started the trends doesn't do much different. It begins with slightly squirrelly high school student Alex Browning (Sawa, a guy that I'm truly surprised never made it bigger, because he had loads of charisma and acting chops) anticipating a class trip to Paris, France when a premonition involving the entire plane being engulfed in flames. Lo and behold, a series of events starts once on board the plane that seems eerily familiar to his premonition, leading to himself and a group of mismatched classmates being led off the plane to await a following flight. When the plane actually does explode, that sets our plot in motion. Quick, spoilerific information for those who haven't seen any of these movies. The flick doesn't have an out-and-out villain in the way that most horror movies do. Instead, what we have here as the kids start getting picked off one by one is a sort of "world at large" villain where everyday objects, particularly things that are as sharp and nasty as posssible, suddenly become evil. It seems that death has been cheated by Alex's vision, and now it's snapback time to correct the mistake. Having said that, this flick DOES differ from later movies in the franchise in a couple key ways. For starters, the Goldberg Variation-esque methods that death employs aren't quite as intricate as they would be almost immediately after this one. Secondly, death itself seems to be a smart, sentient thing in this film that does its best to cover its tracks, a plot device that was completely forgotten starting with the first sequel when it became clear that it would be a bit more fun to have massive, gory set pieces filled with lots of weird, wild stuff. (/Dana Carvey as Johnny Carson). Anyway, that's what we've got from Final Destination at this point onward, and it more than delivers the goods on a visceral level. Which brings me to element #2 when it comes to my horror movie scale - emotional involvement. To be sure, this movie has some collection of actors. In addition to Sawa, there's Ali Larter (she of the aforementioned whipped cream bikini, which sadly did not occur in this movie), Kristen Cloke, Daniel "Samson Tollet" Roebuck, Seann William Scott as the requisite douchy jock character in the role that he has down to absolute perfection and Amanda Detmer of Saving Silverman relative fame. Oh, and Tony Todd as the creepiest coroner in the history of film. Really, with the exception of Scott and Todd, though, every character is pretty disposable - up to and including our main protagonist in Alex. From an emotional standpoint, this movie is a bit of a letdown, and this is one aspect where I actually really do wonder what this movie would have been like as an X-Files episode, with Mulder and Scully investigating these deaths and the high school students serving as the B-story. In the end, that doesn't really matter. This is a flick that proves that a great concept and solid execution can cover up some pretty substantial flaws. The excellent atmosphere that Wong manages to serve up doesn't hurt, either. Since this movie gets pretty regular airplay on lazy Saturday afternoons, there's definitely much worse ways that you can spend wasting away in Margaritaville. That, and there are some deaths in this thing that are still just outright cringeworthy a full decade-and-a-half removed. *** out of ****. A very solid start to a solid series. Recommended.
|
|
|
Post by 'Foretold' Joker on Dec 2, 2014 13:49:55 GMT -5
As much as I like horror films I could never get into the Final Destination series, maybe it's the incredibly contrived death scenes ( I know that's the point) but it all feels a bit hokey and forced to me. I don't find them terribly horrific just a series of unfortunate events for adults.
I do feel it shares a lot of similarities in tone with the Scream series which is more a murder mystery than anything particularly scary.
|
|
|
Post by DSR on Dec 3, 2014 13:21:05 GMT -5
I dug the first two Final Destination films, but for whatever reason, never bothered with any after that. *shrug*
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 3, 2014 15:00:59 GMT -5
FD3 is okay, FD4 don't waste your time (this was in the middle of the 3D revival craze) but do check out FD5. If alone for the AWESOME twist they pull.
EDIT: And of course, I would be crazy not to say that Final Destination 2 is one of my favorite popcorn movies ever.
|
|