|
Post by GuyOfOwnage on Dec 31, 2008 3:23:20 GMT -5
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. I actually found it difficult to take I Spit On Your Grave seriously, just due to the hideously bad acting during the death scenes. The scene where the woman gets beat and raped, I'll admit, THAT was snorked up and went too far. But the scenes where she gets revenge? I almost laughed during a couple of them. For example, the guy who gets a handjob in the bath, and she slices off his penis. The guy sits there going "Ohhh, that feels so good it hurts", then looks down, and in one of the worst acting jobs I've ever seen, says something like "OH MY GOD! WHAT HAVE YOU DONE?!" I mean, come on. You can't feel someone doing that? I found that stuff to be unrealistic and borderline humorous. But the rape, I'll admit...brutal. Still doesn't stand up to the snorked up excretory matter in Imprint, though.
|
|
|
Post by DSR on Dec 31, 2008 4:21:48 GMT -5
Hey, everybody, sorry it took me so long to get to this thread. I've actually been out of the horror mood for a while here, watching sci-fi, action, and quirky dramedy (that's dramatic comedy) movies. But hey, I'm bored, and I just read through 4 pages of this s*** in fast-motion, so I'm gonna try and hit up as many points as I possibly can remember in this one little post: -TR, I believe my collection currently stands at 321, actually. And that's only counting the DVDs. Of course, I recently got an Alfred Hitchcock 20 movie box-set (it's mostly silent pictures, obviously stuff that's fallen into public domain), and when I find out how much of that I can actually classify as horror, we'll see how that bumps up the number. -Zombie movies...I actually like a good bit of them. I've never really found the primary function of film to be entertainment, it can obviously be an informative tool. I've almost always found the concept of horror films in particular to be something of an Aesop's Fable. Granted, when a movie's sole objective is to entertain, I have no problem with that concept, but I'm not about to fault somebody for "overthinking" a horror movie. As for the "running/shambling" debate, sure, when you die, rigor mortis usually sets in. Of course, when you die, you usually don't get up and start eating stuff, anyway, so clearly rigor mortis shouldn't be too much of a factor. I have no real leaning one way or the other on the debate, if you can tell a good story (or even a hilariously bad one), do it however you see fit. -Remakes...I have no problem with them. The very beginnings of horror cinema are works based on adapting somebody's book, Mary Shelley, Bram Stoker, and the like. And even in those early days, films were remade from shorts to feature-length, from silent to talkie, from black and white to color. You can sit there and tell me "well, it's an update based on the new technology" "it's a re-imagining" or "it's a different adaptation of a source material." Bottom line is that they're telling a story that's already been told by someone else. What matters is that they tell the story in their own way, to create something new out of something old. That's what Hammer did in regard to Universal's classic monsters, that what Carpenter did in regard to "Who Goes There?" and The Thing from Another World, hell, that's what Night of the Creeps did in regard to Plan Nine from Outer Space. -I really don't think Robert Englund should play Krueger in the remake. I have no qualms with his iconic performance and, in fact, I think he's a highly underrated actor. But I also think there's too much familiarity with his take on the character. We've come to expect certain things from a Robert Englund Freddy Krueger, and it just generally feels safe to me to have him in the sweater again. The fact that the series underwent a strange transformation to where Freddy's the quasi-hero seems to suggest just how safe the concept had become, even when the series was fresh. By letting another actor take over the role, we (the audience) allow ourselves a chance to accept the unexpected, to not necessarily know what we're getting into with this movie. And, as it's been said before, what people fear most is the unknown. -I own quite a few of the movies that are hilariously bad mentioned here, i.e. Chopping Mall, Don't Go in the Woods. I've got a soft spot in my heart for this sort of cinema (hell, what child of 80s horror doesn't?). I actually think its sort of important, as a student of the genre, to experience the bad as well as the good. You need to know what doesn't work just as much as you need to know what does. -Mario Bava: I'm in agreement with TR, I prefer his gothic horrors over his modern films. As much as I enjoy the kills in Bay of Blood (I prefer the title Twitch of the Death Nerve), the couple of times I've watched the movie, I've actually lost track of the plot and characters. I haven't seen much of the man's work, but from what I've seen, Baron Blood is the top of the heap. I'm more of a Lucio Fulci guy, anyway. -Glad to see others praising the Wizard of Gore remake. Its my favorite horror movie of the decade. *thumbs up* And I think I'm tapped out for the night.
|
|
|
Post by GuyOfOwnage on Dec 31, 2008 6:06:59 GMT -5
-Remakes...I have no problem with them. The very beginnings of horror cinema are works based on adapting somebody's book, Mary Shelley, Bram Stoker, and the like. And even in those early days, films were remade from shorts to feature-length, from silent to talkie, from black and white to color. You can sit there and tell me "well, it's an update based on the new technology" "it's a re-imagining" or "it's a different adaptation of a source material." Bottom line is that they're telling a story that's already been told by someone else. What matters is that they tell the story in their own way, to create something new out of something old. That's what Hammer did in regard to Universal's classic monsters, that what Carpenter did in regard to "Who Goes There?" and The Thing from Another World, hell, that's what Night of the Creeps did in regard to Plan Nine from Outer Space. I think the big problem I have with remakes in today's climate is that they're mostly about the slick production values and do one of two things: 1) They become lazy about it and just do a shot-for-shot remake, bringing nothing new to the table aside from production values (see Psycho and The Omen) or 2) They decide to give a mysterious character a complex back story, despite the fact that they were actually scarier without one (see Black Christmas, or TCM: The Beginning). I actually enjoyed Carpenter's take on The Thing. Hell, I enjoy most of the horror remakes that came out in the 70s and 80s. They seemed to have a tremendous respect for the original films, made the story their own, and still made the films appealing despite any changes that may have been made from the original. Today, however, whether it's a story not translating well into present day or the changing or outright removal of crucial story elements, I can't say that I find very much enjoyment in the remakes of today. Maybe I'm just an old-fashioned guy, but a lot of remakes in the last 10 or so years have done nothing for me. -I really don't think Robert Englund should play Krueger in the remake. I have no qualms with his iconic performance and, in fact, I think he's a highly underrated actor. But I also think there's too much familiarity with his take on the character. We've come to expect certain things from a Robert Englund Freddy Krueger, and it just generally feels safe to me to have him in the sweater again. The fact that the series underwent a strange transformation to where Freddy's the quasi-hero seems to suggest just how safe the concept had become, even when the series was fresh. By letting another actor take over the role, we (the audience) allow ourselves a chance to accept the unexpected, to not necessarily know what we're getting into with this movie. And, as it's been said before, what people fear most is the unknown. I'm really conflicted with the concept of a remake. I feel very strongly that it's Robert's character, to the point where I stated in an earlier thread that a remake just shouldn't happen at all if he's not up to the task anymore. It's his; let him keep it. I felt the same way (and this is going to slightly contradict something I said before) when they decided to replace Kane Hodder as Jason. Even though guys had played the role before him, he had just made it his own, and crafted so many of the little details we had come to expect from Jason. I didn't HATE Ken Kirzinger's performance in Freddy vs. Jason. In fact, there were certain aspects of his take on Jason that I enjoyed. But I definitely missed Kane's portrayal, which I felt was the definitive version of the character. I think that's how I'll feel when someone else takes the Freddy role, inevitably. I'll be interested in what they can do, but at the same time, in the back of my head, I'll be thinking "Englund wouldn't do that" or "He could've done this better". It's just the nature of the beast, I guess. -I own quite a few of the movies that are hilariously bad mentioned here, i.e. Chopping Mall, Don't Go in the Woods. I've got a soft spot in my heart for this sort of cinema (hell, what child of 80s horror doesn't?). I actually think its sort of important, as a student of the genre, to experience the bad as well as the good. You need to know what doesn't work just as much as you need to know what does. I wholeheartedly agree. That is why Don't Go In The Woods, in all of its mind-numbing stupidity, will always have a proud place on my shelf. I would actually post a montage from the film that I found on YouTube, but I don't know if I'd be breaking any board rules (yes, there's gore, but the makeup effects are so [pardon the pun] bloody awful that I don't think they're capable of disturbing or bothering anyone). -Mario Bava: I'm in agreement with TR, I prefer his gothic horrors over his modern films. As much as I enjoy the kills in Bay of Blood (I prefer the title Twitch of the Death Nerve), the couple of times I've watched the movie, I've actually lost track of the plot and characters. I haven't seen much of the man's work, but from what I've seen, Baron Blood is the top of the heap. I'm more of a Lucio Fulci guy, anyway. I must say I'm in the dark about Italian horror; I've only seen very small pieces of the genre. I've seen the infamous splinter to the eye from Zombi 2, and I've heard wonderful things about Suspiria (which, due to the ridiculous price of the DVD, I've never seen). I guess it's a genre I'm going to have to explore.
|
|
Lick Ness Monster
Dennis Stamp
From the eerie, eerie depths of Lake Okabena
Posts: 4,874
|
Post by Lick Ness Monster on Dec 31, 2008 12:33:13 GMT -5
In regards to Takashi Miike, I'm a HUGE fan of the guy's work, ESPECIALLY Audition. That film is one of the ten best horror films I've EVER seen - the last twenty minutes will have you pinned to your seat and unable to turn away. At least that's what I went through the first time I saw it. Guyofownage, I can definitely understand where you're coming from with some films going too far with unnecessary violence, but you really should check out some J-horror. While some Japanese horror films go too far with the amount of red stuff flying around for the sake of it, there's plenty of American horror films that do the same thing. By and large, Japanese horror films are much more about mood and story than American ones (and no, I don't have a preference - I love them both equally), and there's plenty of Asian horror flicks that hardly have ANY gore, but are creepy and leave you looking over your shoulder anyway. I'll just go ahead and suggest a lot of the films that have already been named in this thread - the Ringu series and the Ju-On series, along with A Tale of Two Sisters, are excellent starting points. The original versions of The Eye, Pulse, Shutter and Premonition are all also INFINITELY better than their American counterparts. There's also a lot of Italian giallo flicks worth checking out, beginning with Dario Argento's; The Bird with the Crystal Plumage, Deep Red, Suspiria (for the record, I found my DVD on amazon for ten bucks), Inferno, Tenebre, Phenomena and Opera are all amazing films that are worth owning, and they're a good starting point to the genre as a whole. Just to be a completionist, you should probably get Mother of Tears as well; it's not really a good film, but it completes the Argento "Three Mothers" trilogy that was begun in Suspiria and further explained in Inferno. -I really don't think Robert Englund should play Krueger in the remake. I have no qualms with his iconic performance and, in fact, I think he's a highly underrated actor. But I also think there's too much familiarity with his take on the character. We've come to expect certain things from a Robert Englund Freddy Krueger, and it just generally feels safe to me to have him in the sweater again. The fact that the series underwent a strange transformation to where Freddy's the quasi-hero seems to suggest just how safe the concept had become, even when the series was fresh. By letting another actor take over the role, we (the audience) allow ourselves a chance to accept the unexpected, to not necessarily know what we're getting into with this movie. And, as it's been said before, what people fear most is the unknown. Agree with EVERYTHING said here to the nth power. Good to have you on board, DSR.
|
|
|
Post by Mehe is F'n hardcore. on Dec 31, 2008 13:20:46 GMT -5
TR, you ever seen Basket Case?
|
|
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 31, 2008 13:27:05 GMT -5
WΔZ: The Killing Gene is a film that, on the surface, seems easy to dismiss as Saw meets Se7en but it is so much more than that; alas, it is a double tragedy that the shoddy Dimensions EXTREME label will turn off so many people from what is a nicely constructed, well acted, and complex thriller. Starring Selma Blair, Stellan Skarsgard, and Melissa George, The Killing Gene (dropping the algebraic equation from the front of the title for US release) does bear comparisons to the first Saw film, but the Se7en comparison is not accurate at ALL. In all likelihood, a fairer comparison would be to the Clint Eastwood film Sudden Impact, wherein the victim of a brutal rape exacts her revenge, one by one, on the gang that wronged her. The film opens with Detective Eddie Argos (Skarsgard) and his new partner Westcott (George) investigating the brutal electrocution murder of a pregnant prostitute. The victim has the titular equation “wΔZ” carved into her belly, which initially stumps the two detectives, who misread the equation and finger the prostitute’s vicious gang-banger boyfriend Wesley as the killer. The problem with that, of course, is that Wesley is also dead, killed in an even more brutal manner than his girlfriend. Following the clues eventually leads the duo to connect the dots and discover that one woman has ties to every member of the gang that Wesley and his hooker girlfriend were in…her tie of course, is that Wesley’s gang brutally raped her and then forced her to murder her own mother, by promising that the rape would go on until she died, but if she shot her mother in the head, they would let her go. Hmmm….sounds like this woman has every reason in the world to become a distaff Punisher and start a one-woman war on the scumbags who ruined her life. Saying anymore about the plot (I feel I may have said too much already, as a matter of fact, but I’ve tried to be as vague as possible) would do this little gem a HUGE disservice, as it has one HUGE curveball of a twist that really will, at the very least, make you sit back in shock from the TV. And really, a murder/mystery like this deserves to be unravelled by those watching it, and not spoiled by a critic writing a review. What I will say, is that all three leads do a marvellous job, Skarsgard in particular, and Selma Blair is outstanding as well. Never has her strange, husky voice been used to such perfection. How such other tripe gets theatrical runs, yet little gems like this get shunted to direct-to-video hell is beyond me. This is an EXCELLENT film, directed and shot beautifully, and with little to none of the shakey-cam BS, or hotshot music video camera tricks you find in much of today’s mainstream horror. Speaking of horror, a question that pops up often in relation to this film is, “Is this really a horror movie?” and to that I say, yes, yes it is. It is a police thriller with very strong horror themes, and the killer’s use of sadistic torture and violence (especially in one deleted scene that I dearly WISH had been left in) WILL turn your stomach. That said, don’t expect vampires, or cannibals, or anything like that. This is a story that is very realistic, and very down to earth. Even the torture traps themselves are believeable, because they LOOK like something the average Joe or Jane could cobble together, not like Jigsaw’s Rube Goldberg-like deathtraps, which would cost millions in real life, and require an astrophysics degree to assemble. All in all, this is a GOOD film, and I would encourage you to seek it out. It’s not quite “blow you away” levels of good, but if you go in with reasonable expectations for this intense police thriller, you will find yourself suitably impressed. I know I was. ***
|
|
Lick Ness Monster
Dennis Stamp
From the eerie, eerie depths of Lake Okabena
Posts: 4,874
|
Post by Lick Ness Monster on Dec 31, 2008 13:29:12 GMT -5
TR, you ever seen Basket Case? Yes. I gotta be honest, there's a lot of horror fans out there that consider it a cult classic and such...but I hated it. It may be unintentionally hilarious at times, but it's not a movie that I would ever, EVER want to watch again, and not just for the extreme stomach-churning factor. It's a movie that demands that you identify with/like the main character (Kevin Van Hentenryck), but due to the guy's extremely craptacular acting I really didn't care about him that much - or his evil Siamese twin brother, for that matter. * and that's all it gets. And awesome, AWESOME review tehboobz - so much so that I just went to amazon and bought the movie. It took a few pages, but I think now this thread is finally rocking, and get used to it, WC boards - I have plans on making this a dynasty for all us horror philes. ;D
|
|
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 31, 2008 13:34:19 GMT -5
One film I have NO desire to see, is the French film Inside. I just, I guess, have little desire to see a pregnant woman brutalized in such a fashion. The Killing Gene, which I just reviewed above, at least had the decency to NOT show you the pregnant woman getting shocked to death. I've heard RAVE reviews of it, and all my horror buddies insist I need to see it...but the extreme violence towards an unborn child just kills any desire I have to sit through that movie.
|
|
Lick Ness Monster
Dennis Stamp
From the eerie, eerie depths of Lake Okabena
Posts: 4,874
|
Post by Lick Ness Monster on Dec 31, 2008 13:43:50 GMT -5
One more thing - I just realized that I made a HUGE mistake a few pages back and misplaced The Howling with An American Werewolf in London (the movie with the unintentionally hilarious ending). At any rate, I'd still give both movies **.
For proof, the epic ending of An American Werewolf in London (Random production assistant: "But Mr. Landis, shouldn't she tell him she's pregnant or SOMETHING in this last scene?" John Landis: "Dammit no! I say we cut at the speed of light to the credits and get to that rockin' song!" - or at least that's the scene that plays out in my mind ;D). I don't know why, but I seriously fall off my chair laughing EVERY time I see this. Just Jenny Agutter crying and then the nude David Naughton lying there, and then BOOM...end credits.
|
|
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 31, 2008 13:50:06 GMT -5
Well, to be fair, the ending of The Howling WAS kind of hilarious itself, due to what the chick ended up looking like when she transformed....more like a humanoid Yorkie dog than a werewolf.
|
|
Lick Ness Monster
Dennis Stamp
From the eerie, eerie depths of Lake Okabena
Posts: 4,874
|
Post by Lick Ness Monster on Dec 31, 2008 13:58:34 GMT -5
OK...I don't know what it is, maybe the fact that I've slept six hours in the past two days...but you're right. This is PRICELESS as well...
What really induced me into a laughing fit in my sleep-deprived delirium is the bit where it cuts from the transformed werewolf to two random kids - "WOW!" - followed by a cut to the guy who simply says (in the most UNIMPRESSED manner imaginable) - "Oh, boy."
And the cut to the dog food commercial didn't help matters, especially in light of your Yorkie dog comment. ;D
|
|
Welfare Willis
Crow T. Robot
Pornomancer 555-BONE FDIC Bonsured
Game Center CX Kacho on!
Posts: 44,259
|
Post by Welfare Willis on Dec 31, 2008 14:10:34 GMT -5
TR, you ever seen Basket Case? Yes. I gotta be honest, there's a lot of horror fans out there that consider it a cult classic and such...but I hated it. It may be unintentionally hilarious at times, but it's not a movie that I would ever, EVER want to watch again, and not just for the extreme stomach-churning factor. It's a movie that demands that you identify with/like the main character (Kevin Van Hentenryck), but due to the guy's extremely craptacular acting I really didn't care about him that much - or his evil Siamese twin brother, for that matter. * and that's all it gets. Hey Hey TR! We actually both agree on our dislike for this film. I wanted to like it, but the film ended up giving me a headache.
|
|
|
Post by GuyOfOwnage on Dec 31, 2008 14:14:29 GMT -5
OK...I don't know what it is, maybe the fact that I've slept six hours in the past two days...but you're right. This is PRICELESS as well... What really induced me into a laughing fit in my sleep-deprived delirium is the bit where it cuts from the transformed werewolf to two random kids - "WOW!" - followed by a cut to the guy who simply says (in the most UNIMPRESSED manner imaginable) - "Oh, boy." And the cut to the dog food commercial didn't help matters, especially in light of your Yorkie dog comment. ;D If you want a real laugh...here's a 10 minute montage of Don't Go In The Woods (like I said before, the hilariously bad makeup effects probably don't violate any board rules):
|
|
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 31, 2008 14:14:56 GMT -5
You know what were great movies, Waxwork and Waxwork: Lost in Time. Something about jumping around into different Horror movie universes was a cool concept, it worked really well in Lost in Time cuz they did it with a bit of a wink and a nod. It also had Bruce Campbell getting hit with a sack of salt labeled as such, which always make me laugh. ;D
|
|
Lick Ness Monster
Dennis Stamp
From the eerie, eerie depths of Lake Okabena
Posts: 4,874
|
Post by Lick Ness Monster on Dec 31, 2008 20:55:02 GMT -5
You know what were great movies, Waxwork and Waxwork: Lost in Time. Something about jumping around into different Horror movie universes was a cool concept, it worked really well in Lost in Time cuz they did it with a bit of a wink and a nod. It also had Bruce Campbell getting hit with a sack of salt labeled as such, which always make me laugh. ;D I remember watching a double feature of those two movies on MonsterVision. That was a quality Saturday night back in, oh, 1997 or so; who needs junior high parties when you've got Joe Bob Briggs? ;D On that same vein, I imagine it's going to be mighty lonely in this here thread tonight for ol' TR. I'm ringing in the new year with my new Omen box set.
|
|
|
Post by Rorschach on Jan 1, 2009 1:41:00 GMT -5
How's that Omen treating you? I just got done watching NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD. DAWN OF THE DEAD is up next, followed by DAY.
Yeah, I'm ringing in the new year with George Romero. Hell, twas either that, or my porno collection, and I really am trying to cut back on that. It's one of my resolutions, LOL!
|
|
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 Jan 1, 2009 1:53:22 GMT -5
Oi, so I just watched Diary of the Dead, George Romeros latest opus....
You know, I really love Romeros "Dead" series, Night, Dawn and Day to me are epic Zombie movies, Land shook my faith a bit, but the foundation was still pretty strong and it still worked.
Diary of the Dead however.... well, it was just terrible. The characters are terrible, the script is terrible, the acting is terrible, Hell even the FX in all their CG glory are terrible which I couldn't believe coming from a Romero flick.
The plot seems ok, at first, group of film students caught up at the start of a Zombie infestation, but it loses it's legs really quickly. First of the POV film style is just such a bad choice for this, for one thing it's totally unbelievable the the guy holding the camera continues to do so with some of the activity that's taking place, this dude really want to get the shot, as he lets his friends get mauled by Zombies while he films on. For another thing for a POV flick it's shot way too well, this guy must have a steady cam cuz the shots always perfect, they might as well have filmed it in the normal fashion cuz at points it looked like it anyway it's so well lit and framed. It should also be noted that the Narrator of our feature who put together the footage states at the start that she added music in order to "scare us" uhh huh, I suppose she added the funny banjo music part to make us laugh then.
The "actors" (haha) are just bad plain and simple, and they pretty much talk....like....robots, or maybe more like Zombies, either way there's so little emoting going on. This somehow makes me either not care about them, or just flat out hate their guts depending on the scene. Whatever the case, they were all bought off the "stock character" shelf down at WallMart, the jock, the rich kid, the nerd, the prissy girl, the bitch, the English professor, they're all there in full display. In fact the best character is a mute Amish guy who's only around for 5 minutes.
The script and general plot of this is pretty laughable, the reasons why this guy is still filming is just a mystery really. He claims to be doing it to "get the truth out", but the truth about what? The World has already gone to Hell by the end and pretty much the very first scene is the radio news proclaiming the dead have risen, and pretty quickly armies of the dead are roaming the streets, people would only need to look out the window to "know the truth" they wouldn't need to check out YouTube. Romero is trying so hard to make a point about the corrupt media and the omnipresent web media that he just ignores whats going on in his own film. The dialogue is quite a laugh as well, the things these people say is just idiotic to say the least, "I told you Zombies move slow!" as a Zombie shambles after a girl. "Don't mess with Texas!" when a chick clubs a Zombie over the head. "He just flunked out." the Professor states after one of students has his head blown off. "Are we worth saving?" a girl mournfully lements as a redneck kills a Zombie, it really has to be seen and heard to be believed, it's just pretty sad really.
If someone had told me that this was actually a "mock-u-mentary" like Spinaltap but with Zombies I might have believed them, but this is actually trying to be serious and it just fails miserably.
|
|
|
Post by Rorschach on Jan 1, 2009 1:58:45 GMT -5
So I take it you're not interested in THE ZOMBIE DIARIES, erisi? It kind of has me intrigued, but after DIARY OF THE DEAD, I'm a little leery.
|
|
|
Post by DSR on Jan 1, 2009 8:22:33 GMT -5
TR, you ever seen Basket Case? Yes. I gotta be honest, there's a lot of horror fans out there that consider it a cult classic and such...but I hated it. It may be unintentionally hilarious at times, but it's not a movie that I would ever, EVER want to watch again, and not just for the extreme stomach-churning factor. It's a movie that demands that you identify with/like the main character (Kevin Van Hentenryck), but due to the guy's extremely craptacular acting I really didn't care about him that much - or his evil Siamese twin brother, for that matter. * and that's all it gets. I have to slightly disagree with your little review here. While I don't think Kevin Van Hentenryck is a good actor, I think that he fits the mold of the character he's playing rather well. Basically, his awkwardness in front of the camera plays well into what his character's awkwardness in society must be like, considering his past. I really can't identify with or like his brother Belial at all though. However, I do give the movie some props for blending elements of a number of horror subgenres (slasher, medical/body horror, monster movie) and, lets be honest, there isn't anything else out there like Basket Case...well, except for Hennenlotter's other work. It's certainly a flawed film, and I don't mean to sound like I love the damn thing, but I give it slightly more credit than you do. I'd probably give it 2 stars, instead of just 1. I, like you, find Audition to be a masterpiece, but I've yet to see a Miike film that comes close to living up to it. I've seen Ichi the Killer (and barely remember any of it), I own Gozu (I like it a little more each time I see it, but I'm still not to a point where I'd call it really significantly good), and I quit on Dead Or Alive as soon as there was a scene in which a dog mounted a naked women (not something I wanna see, thank you). I thought Imprint was okay, and I appreciate a movie that can make me cringe nowadays, considering I GREW UP on horror movies, but its far from the heights of Audition, in my opinion. Goddamn, do I miss Joe Bob. I really wish TNT would bring back Monstervision. That (along with USA Up All Night) MADE my weekends as a kid. Besides, heaven forbid TNT should cut into their 9 hours of Law and Order daily schedule!
|
|
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 Jan 1, 2009 13:02:30 GMT -5
So I take it you're not interested in THE ZOMBIE DIARIES, erisi? It kind of has me intrigued, but after DIARY OF THE DEAD, I'm a little leery. I'll watch most anything once, but yeah after Diary I'm a little leery of more POV Zombie flicks. I don't know if it was just because Romero has no real clue as to how to shoot a decent one, or if the concept just doesn't work with this subject at all, I'm actually inclined to believe both. One things for sure, while watching Diary I couldn't help but notice that it exposes a real weakness of the slow Zombie type, the only reason anyone dies in this is due to abject stupidity, and "movie logic" in general. You can pretty clearly see most of the victims lets themselves be victims, or Zombies that have no Earthly right sneaking up on people are doing just that, or people slowing down to let Zombies catch up, or my favorite part a group of militant survivors let one of the members die of a heart attack and without a second thought let him "wander off" so he can cause problems latter, puu-leeze. Some of this stuff can be covered up in a normal film by using music cues, or editing or anything else, but in this POV type of film it's just what it is, really slow people eating really stupid people.
|
|