|
Post by Rorschach on Dec 30, 2008 2:07:37 GMT -5
Two names come to mind for your analogy:
For Freddy: Cillian Murphey, as has been suggested by TR, or even Crispin Glover.
For Indy: Nathan Fillion. In my mind, he's the natural successor to Harrison Ford. They share so many of the same qualities!
Anyway....just watched RESIDENT EVIL:Degeneration over at a friend's house, and I have to say, it's the best RE yet, if only because it's, you know....actually a goddamn RESIDENT EVIL movie, with Resident Evil characters, and set in the Resident Evil universe.
Seriously, if a game company can make a CGI animated film so well....what the f*** is Paul WS Anderson's excuse?
|
|
|
Post by GuyOfOwnage on Dec 30, 2008 2:43:21 GMT -5
Two names come to mind for your analogy: For Freddy: Cillian Murphey, as has been suggested by TR, or even Crispin Glover. Crispin Glover I could see pulling off his own version of Freddy, because that guy has proven his ability to play a downright CREEPY character (Willard, for example). He wouldn't be anything like Englund, but it could still be interesting. And Cillian Murphy...ehhh, sorry. He made a good Scarecrow, but as Freddy, I just can't see it.
|
|
Lick Ness Monster
Dennis Stamp
From the eerie, eerie depths of Lake Okabena
Posts: 4,874
|
Post by Lick Ness Monster on Dec 30, 2008 9:40:11 GMT -5
Points 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 snork 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. You're definitely right on Nightmare 3 needing the foundation of the original film to build on. There's really nothing I can disagree on with that point; just IMO, but Dream Warriors does everything that the original Nightmare tried to do and actually DOES it. Craven's goal with the original film was to craft a very heartfelt, long-term view of the world; his aim with it was to make a horror film that was a metaphor for life itself, with the character of Freddy representing our greatest fears and what we must overcome to achieve what we want in life (at least that's what he said in an interview a few years back). Except in the original film, that whole concept is just presented lazier than all hell; Dream Warriors was the movie that took that theme and ran with it. But, like you said, it did need the original film to draw that concept and inspiration from. You're also definitely right on the slasher film characters point; the big difference between Nightmare and the original Friday the 13th and Halloween films, however, are that (and again, this is just IMO) I at least felt SOMETHING when the stereotype characters were offed in those films. I just don't care about any of the characters in Nightmare 1 with the exception of Nancy. Believe me, I could go on for days about just how LITTLE I care about Rod, Tina and Glen when they meet their end in that movie. That's my real beef with the film, but you are right - while I don't consider it a classic or a masterpiece by any means, it does deserve a very good place in horror history for its concept and the ungodly villain it created. At a time when virtually every horror movie was the same it dared to be different, and indeed, without it there would be no TR the horror fanatic. Nightmare 1 and 3 were my absolute favorite movies in high school, and believe it or not, my opinion on the original movie didn't change until literally six months ago. This will also be my final post on this subject; this is a HAPPY thread ;D Oh, one more thing - we DEFINITELY agree on Freddy's Revenge. It seems that a lot folks in this neck of the woods like the film just because it's the unloved film in the series, but I say...movies with bad reps have them for a reason, and that is definitely one of them. I've used this line before, but I'll use it again - it's definitely the most forgettable film in the franchise. I know that I always forget it, mainly because it sucks and has no redeeming qualities. ;D And Cillian Murphy...ehhh, sorry. He made a good Scarecrow, but as Freddy, I just can't see it. REALLY. That honestly shocks me. I've suggested the name in many message boards, and you are literally the first person I've seen to feel that way. To me, Cillian is almost a no-brainer for the role, and whenever I've brought him up before, I've been told as such after they put the face to the character; we already know he can play an awesome villain, as he did in Craven's own Red Eye, he's good-looking, but can look very scary if made up right, is an awesome actor, is NOT a household name, and thus, people would see Freddy and not some famous face under a ton of make-up, and even looks like he shares DNA with Robert Englund to boot. Since this is a basic horror thread, might as well put this here. Anyone else seen that flick Dead Space: Downfall yet? I'd never even heard of it before, but now I'll have to check it out. Sounds awesome. As does the new Resident Evil movie, Rorschach. How's that for a novel concept - an RE film that's actually faithful to the source material?
|
|
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 30, 2008 11:37:38 GMT -5
Since this is a basic horror thread, might as well put this here. Anyone else seen that flick Dead Space: Downfall yet? I'd never even heard of it before, but now I'll have to check it out. Sounds awesome. It'll certainly never set the World on fire in terms of Animation or sci-fi/horror, but it is nice seeing them put together. If you do watch it you might also wanna watch the animated comic that goes hand in hand with it and tells the parallel story. Then play the game, cuz it's awesome.
|
|
|
Post by Rorschach on Dec 30, 2008 13:08:10 GMT -5
The thing about RE: Degeneration is, that while there may NOT be a whole helluva lot of blood and guts and balls to the wall zombie action....I thought that it told a MUCH more compelling, and much more interesting story than ANY of Anderson's RE films. And having Leon S. Kennedy, Claire, and Raccoon City play roles in this, gave me a sense of this film actually having TIES to the Resident Evil game universe.
Yes, the CGI looks kind of weird, and yes, the character's mouths rarely synch up with what they're saying (Dunno why this was....maybe the mouth movements were animated to synch up with Japanese dialogue?), and it has many other faults with it....it's NOT perfect, but goddamnit, it's Resident Evil. FINALLY.
|
|
|
Post by GuyOfOwnage on Dec 30, 2008 16:19:12 GMT -5
REALLY. That honestly shocks me. I've suggested the name in many message boards, and you are literally the first person I've seen to feel that way. To me, Cillian is almost a no-brainer for the role, and whenever I've brought him up before, I've been told as such after they put the face to the character; we already know he can play an awesome villain, as he did in Craven's own Red Eye, he's good-looking, but can look very scary if made up right, is an awesome actor, is NOT a household name, and thus, people would see Freddy and not some famous face under a ton of make-up, and even looks like he shares DNA with Robert Englund to boot. Well, just because I personally can't see it, doesn't mean that I couldn't be proven wrong. I've seen many a character cast, and remember thinking to myself "you've got to be kidding me", yet they end up pulling off a fantastic performance. So, if he were to get the part of Freddy, I'd be more than happy to be proven wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Mehe is F'n hardcore. on Dec 30, 2008 17:29:43 GMT -5
I could go for that, the world needs more Crispin.
|
|
|
Post by Rorschach on Dec 30, 2008 18:05:01 GMT -5
I could go for that, the world needs more Crispin. I'm in full support of Glover either as the new Freddy, or in a few years, the new Joker. To get things back on a horror movie track, I watched WICKED LAKE last night.... and let me tell you all: if you're in the mood for a LOT of T&A to go along with your gore, and you don't care about acting ability, this is the flick for you. Ostensibly the story of four comely young women who, while renting a cabin at a secluded lake, are taken hostage by a group of sex-starved men, only to turn the tables on their captors, WICKED LAKE has a few surprises up it's sleeve, most of which are spoiled by the back of the damn DVD case. Seriously, this is a case of something that really, REALLY would have been cool had it taken me completely by surprise, but turned out kind of lame since I KNEW it was coming. I'm not going to spoil anything for you here, but suffice to say that ruining the biggest surprise and the movie's key twist was not a good move. Not too much to really discuss with this one, other than to say that it, as I've stated, has a TON of boobage on display, which might make you think twice about watching this with friends. Seriously, this movie could almost have been a softcore Skinemax movie, until throats start getting bitten out, and the blood starts to flow. Cheaply made, but competently directed by Zach Passero, WICKED LAKE also has a soundtrack by the band Ministry that was actually my introduction to them and their music....they're not that bad, actually. This movie on the other hand....I honestly wish I could say it was a bad purchase, but at $10 for three discs (one of which is the film, one of which is a four track exclusive CD by Ministry, and the third of which is a promo disc for Fever Dreams LLC) I really didn't feel ripped off. If anything, WICKED LAKE, if given the same "used and abused" look as Tarantino and Rodriguez' films, could fit right in to another GRINDHOUSE set, since it, technically, is more of a true "grindhouse" style film than Tarantino's DEATH PROOF was. Paper thin plot....gratuitous, softcore sex levels of nudity....cheap special effects, and bad, BAD acting....yep, this one definitely has a grindhouse pedigree. Overall, I'd give it ** just for being trash, but in a "grindhouse", likeable trash way. Not in a TRAILER PARK OF TERROR, 'I want to kick the crap out of whoever made this" way.
|
|
Lick Ness Monster
Dennis Stamp
From the eerie, eerie depths of Lake Okabena
Posts: 4,874
|
Post by Lick Ness Monster on Dec 30, 2008 19:49:43 GMT -5
To get things back on a horror movie track, I watched WICKED LAKE last night.... I'd actually considered renting that a few days ago, but decided against it for some reason. Might give it a shot now if for no other reason than it sounds like a carbon copy of I Spit on Your Grave. Anyway, the horror movie that I watched/fell asleep to today... Rasen, a.k.a. Spiral, the FIRST Japanese sequel to the four-star classic Ringu. I work overnights and am usually dead tired by about noon or so when I pop in a DVD...and man, is this a good movie to fall asleep too. Terminally dull, wooden characters, tepid dialogue, this movie is better than friggin' nyquil. Perhaps the biggest complaint leveled against this flick is that it's just so RADICALLY different from Ringu, which maybe wouldn't have been such a bad thing, but Ringu itself was quite a bit different from the novel that it was based on. It made a lot of changes - for the better, btw - in the transition from page to screen, but Rasen seemed critically intent on following the second book in the Ring cycle to the letter. The tone of it just feels totally wrong, as the Ring novels themselves are more pseudo-medical thrillers than horror pieces; thus, this movie feels like a damned science class, which seems weird after you've seen Sadako climbing out of TV's and claiming her victims. What, Sadako is just a virus now? WTF?? *, and that's all it gets. Still, if you're ever tired, it'll put you RIGHT to sleep, which I can attest to. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Rorschach on Dec 30, 2008 21:38:23 GMT -5
HAHAHA! Actually, TR, WICKED LAKE is less like I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE than I made it sound in my original post. There's none of the intensity of that movie, and barely a tenth of it's unflinching brutality, though an old man DOES get the head of his tallywhacker bitten off and spat back in his face.....so you might be on to something.
I plan on checking out HELLRAISER II tomorrow....it came out in a 20th Anniversary edition today.
And what's this I hear about a RING 3 coming out here in the US? I really don't think the series NEEDS a third installment, myself.
|
|
Lick Ness Monster
Dennis Stamp
From the eerie, eerie depths of Lake Okabena
Posts: 4,874
|
Post by Lick Ness Monster on Dec 30, 2008 21:42:09 GMT -5
And what's this I hear about a RING 3 coming out here in the US? I really don't think the series NEEDS a third installment, myself. Yup. It's a prequel. And as we all know everybody loves those. The Japanese series has Ringu 0, which I didn't care for at all. Much like the difference between Carpenter's and Zombie's Halloween, the unknown is always a million times worse, and once we know the lead villain's back story and find out that Sadako is really a tragic character who's supposed to be sympathized with, there goes all the fun. Don't know if that's what this new American film will be, but it wouldn't surprise me. You know, since I'm going through the Japanese Ringu series, the one thing that strikes me in the transition between the two versions is the pacing. Ringu takes a lot of patience; it's about story, slow pacing, character development, and really creating this creepy atmosphere before it finally hits you with that horrific climax. In the American one, SOMETHING always has to be going on. Note to Hollywood: we here in America actually DO have attention spans, despite the fact that you think we don't. I too had heard of the Hellbound DVD release, but unless it has some real earth-shattering extras I won't be unloading my present DVD copy of it. I'm just not as much of an extras junkie as I used to be.
|
|
|
Post by Rorschach on Dec 30, 2008 21:46:52 GMT -5
And what's this I hear about a RING 3 coming out here in the US? I really don't think the series NEEDS a third installment, myself. Yup. It's a prequel. And as we all know everybody loves those. . Anyway, have you checked out WIZARD OF GORE yet? It's not too bad, and it has Crispin Glover in it, who steals the show every time he's onscreen. Seriously, this is perhaps his best outing in years.
|
|
Lick Ness Monster
Dennis Stamp
From the eerie, eerie depths of Lake Okabena
Posts: 4,874
|
Post by Lick Ness Monster on Dec 30, 2008 21:50:06 GMT -5
Oh yeah - Wizard of Gore is amazing. Literally one of the ten best horror movies I've seen this decade.
|
|
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 30, 2008 21:55:38 GMT -5
Heh, the Ringu series: when good ideas are run into the ground. It's done in American and Japan. I still like the Ju-On/Grudge flicks way better anyway.
|
|
Lick Ness Monster
Dennis Stamp
From the eerie, eerie depths of Lake Okabena
Posts: 4,874
|
Post by Lick Ness Monster on Dec 30, 2008 22:03:56 GMT -5
Heh, the Ringu series: when good ideas are run into the ground. It's done in American and Japan. I still like the Ju-On/Grudge flicks way better anyway. Don't know if you read this a couple pages back, Erisi, but Ju-On is actually my #1 horror movie this decade. Seriously, this movie is absolutely relentless; it creates the sense of dread and just keeps adding more and more and more, interweaves between the different "character" stories flawlessly, and it doesn't leave us with much hope, either. There's no usual victory of good over evil in Ju-On - it's just a tragedy, and a really, really scary one at that. The Japanese sequel is excellent, as well, but I like the first jut a BIT better.
|
|
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 30, 2008 22:11:48 GMT -5
I love Ju-On 2 so much, probably due to it's epic weirdness. Kayako being born, he evil little girl self pushing her mother off the steps and that killer wig topping my list of cool stuff in it.
|
|
Lick Ness Monster
Dennis Stamp
From the eerie, eerie depths of Lake Okabena
Posts: 4,874
|
Post by Lick Ness Monster on Dec 30, 2008 22:28:17 GMT -5
By any chance have you seen Ju-Rei ("The Uncanny")? Shimizu probably has a legit plagiarism case against the flick. ;D The ghost in that movie even makes the same "croaking" noise as Kayako.
|
|
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 30, 2008 22:50:11 GMT -5
By any chance have you seen Ju-Rei ("The Uncanny")? Shimizu probably has a legit plagiarism case against the flick. ;D The ghost in that movie even makes the same "croaking" noise as Kayako. Yeah, and it's a flick that kind of suggests that J-Horror in general is at about the same point now as slasher flicks were in about 1991, really low on gas with not many new tales to tell or ways to tell them. Also, there's "slow burn creepyness" and then there's "boring padding", The Uncanny is the latter.
|
|
|
Post by GuyOfOwnage on Dec 31, 2008 1:17:48 GMT -5
Kind of seguing from the current discussion on Japanese and other foreign horror films, which are notoriously different from American films, I pose this question to you. Have you ever seen a horror film that you felt went too far and subsequently turned you off?
I have that problem with directors like Takashi Miike. When I first decided to start exploring foreign horror films, Ichi the Killer was among one of my first choices. Now, I'm the first to admit that I'm a slasher fanatic, and have watched some pretty violent excretory matter in those films. But this, while not inducing me to nausea or anything, I felt it was simply too much. It felt like extreme violence just for the sake of pushing the envelope, and doing squat to advance the story. I know American films can be guilty of this too, but in my opinion, the envelope got pushed far beyond what I would consider necessary for even a horror film. I remember I decided to give him the benefit of the doubt, and sat down to watch Imprint from the Masters of Horror series, which was undoubtedly one of (albeit not THE) the most disturbing films I've ever seen, and this is coming from someone who has seen at least 200 or 300 slasher films in my time. I hear people praise the guy's work constantly, and while I think he's a pretty good director per se, some of the excretory matter he puts in his films is unnecessary. I'll be honest...it's really turned me off from pursuing any other Japanese horror films.
It really comes across as weird for a fan of notoriously violent movies to be complaining about the level of violence contained within, but like I said, those two films that I saw were just beyond what I feel is necessary.
Anyone have a film(s) they feel the same way about?
|
|
|
Post by Rorschach on Dec 31, 2008 2:21:18 GMT -5
Kind of seguing from the current discussion on Japanese and other foreign horror films, which are notoriously different from American films, I pose this question to you. Have you ever seen a horror film that you felt went too far and subsequently turned you off? I have that problem with directors like Takashi Miike. When I first decided to start exploring foreign horror films, Ichi the Killer was among one of my first choices. Now, I'm the first to admit that I'm a slasher fanatic, and have watched some pretty violent excretory matter in those films. But this, while not inducing me to nausea or anything, I felt it was simply too much. It felt like extreme violence just for the sake of pushing the envelope, and doing squat to advance the story. I know American films can be guilty of this too, but in my opinion, the envelope got pushed far beyond what I would consider necessary for even a horror film. I remember I decided to give him the benefit of the doubt, and sat down to watch Imprint from the Masters of Horror series, which was undoubtedly one of (albeit not THE) the most disturbing films I've ever seen, and this is coming from someone who has seen at least 200 or 300 slasher films in my time. I hear people praise the guy's work constantly, and while I think he's a pretty good director per se, some of the excretory matter he puts in his films is unnecessary. I'll be honest...it's really turned me off from pursuing any other Japanese horror films. It really comes across as weird for a fan of notoriously violent movies to be complaining about the level of violence contained within, but like I said, those two films that I saw were just beyond what I feel is necessary. Anyone have a film(s) they feel the same way about? You nailed one of my top three, Guy: IMPRINT IRREVERSIBLE I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE All three are pretty hard to stomach, for largely the same reason: excessive, brutal, and gut churningly realistic rape of/violence towards women. IMPRINT went that much farther than the other two, so I'll give it the nod as #1. I really don't count the HOSTEL or SAW series as being worthy of that list, since they're so masturbatory about their torture scenes that it comes off as phoney and Troma-like. Though not a horror movie, the film THE GREY ZONE, about the Holocaust and a failed plan by a group of prisoners at a concentration camp to rise up against their captors, is so damned bleak and depressing that I've watched it once, and don't care to re-experience it ever again. It makes the list as well.
|
|