|
Post by GuyOfOwnage on Aug 5, 2009 16:25:41 GMT -5
So my time not posting has been relatively well spent. I finally got a chance to see Ju-On, Happy Birthday to Me, and another film I'd never picked up, Pumpkinhead. After all the j-horror talk, I thought I might be let down by Ju-on but I have to say i really enjoyed it. Yes, it lacks slick production and special effects but it was very well done and the final scene actually gave me goosebumps. Happy Birthday to Me was also a ton of fun. I can't belive I'd never heard of it before. Creative death scenes, not to shabby acting, and a plot that actually had me trying to figure out the killer and failing. PLUS it has freaking Pa Kent from Superman!! Lots of odd and somewhat sleazy undertones in that film as well. Finally, Pumpkinhead was ok for what it was. Decent creature effects and not much else but I did enjoy seeing Lance Henrikson as a sympathetic character. Out of curiousity, did you pick up Happy Birthday to Me on DVD or VHS? If you got it on DVD, you didn't get to hear it with the original theatrical soundtrack. The current (out of print) DVD release uses a cheesy disco score that really hurts the movie. The original score is far more creepy and effective. I'd strongly recommend picking up the new Anchor Bay DVD in October to hear how the movie is meant to be heard. I guarantee you'll enjoy the movie that much more.
|
|
|
Post by remowilliams on Aug 5, 2009 18:37:04 GMT -5
The Ju-on was the low budget Ju-On the Curse. it actually got me interested in watching some of the others, I enjoyed it that much.
The HBTM I watched was a rental off of Itunes. I was paying attention to the soundtrack and it was disco free but I don't know if it was the original or not. I plan on buying the Anchor Bay release when it comes out in October and comparing them.
|
|
Lick Ness Monster
Dennis Stamp
From the eerie, eerie depths of Lake Okabena
Posts: 4,874
|
Post by Lick Ness Monster on Aug 5, 2009 22:52:47 GMT -5
The Ju-on was the low budget Ju-On the Curse. it actually got me interested in watching some of the others, I enjoyed it that much. Well, now that I know which Ju-On you're talking about...yeah, that last scene gives me a serious case of the creeps, as well, even when I know it's coming. Just a character looking at the camera, but...yikes. If you're able to get hold of a copy of Ju-On: The Curse 2, hit the chapter skip button a couple times as soon as the movie starts. What the 'movie' consists of is essentially chapters that got deleted from the original movie, but since all that amounted to was about forty-five minutes of footage, they threw the "Kayako" and "Kyoko" chapters from Curse 1 in for padding at the beginning. Wait'll you get to the Ju-On: The Grudge movies. That's when the fun really starts.
|
|
andrew8798
FANatic
on 24/7 this month
Posts: 106,084
|
Post by andrew8798 on Aug 6, 2009 11:18:33 GMT -5
Deborah Ann Woll celebrates 'Mother's Day'
|
|
andrew8798
FANatic
on 24/7 this month
Posts: 106,084
|
Post by andrew8798 on Aug 6, 2009 13:12:28 GMT -5
|
|
Paul
Vegeta
Posts: 9,252
|
Post by Paul on Aug 6, 2009 14:32:13 GMT -5
|
|
Welfare Willis
Crow T. Robot
Pornomancer 555-BONE FDIC Bonsured
Game Center CX Kacho on!
Posts: 44,259
|
Post by Welfare Willis on Aug 6, 2009 14:49:49 GMT -5
You know I've never heard about this one...
|
|
|
Post by Rorschach on Aug 6, 2009 15:20:43 GMT -5
Checked out Vacancy 2 & Autopsy this weekend. Wasn't a big fan of the Vacancy sequel. But I enjoyed the hell out of Autopsy. It was a decent little movie with lots of gore, and some comedy thrown in too. I didn't really care for EITHER of the two VACANCY movies...just too damn many logic gaps in them for my liking. And I know, I know...horror films have almost always had plot holes big enough to drive a demented, self-controlling Green Goblin truck through. But those two films...YEESH. They both have what Roger Ebert calls "idiot plots"....meaning that in order for the film to work, characters have to consistently do idiotic things that no normal human would think to do. As for AUTOPSY, I really genuinely liked it, and thought that Robert "T-1000" Patrick acquitted himself very well in it. It definitely wasn't hurt at all by the "jump out of your seat and cheer" death of one of the main villains, that's for sure.
|
|
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 Aug 6, 2009 15:29:22 GMT -5
...horror films have almost always had plot holes big enough to drive a demented, self-controlling Green Goblin truck through. But those two films... I want to know where that truck is right now.
|
|
|
Post by Rorschach on Aug 6, 2009 20:43:22 GMT -5
...horror films have almost always had plot holes big enough to drive a demented, self-controlling Green Goblin truck through. But those two films... I want to know where that truck is right now. Me too, actually. I'd like to know if it fared any better than the original "Bruce" from JAWS.
|
|
andrew8798
FANatic
on 24/7 this month
Posts: 106,084
|
Post by andrew8798 on Aug 7, 2009 10:51:29 GMT -5
Is Sid Dead?
|
|
andrew8798
FANatic
on 24/7 this month
Posts: 106,084
|
Post by andrew8798 on Aug 7, 2009 15:01:05 GMT -5
Update on the Thing Prequel:
|
|
Lick Ness Monster
Dennis Stamp
From the eerie, eerie depths of Lake Okabena
Posts: 4,874
|
Post by Lick Ness Monster on Aug 7, 2009 15:48:56 GMT -5
In a bizarre coincidence, I just watched John Carpenter's The Thing today...
Also, I JUST finished watching my first Lucio Fulci movie, City of the Living Dead, and the verdict is thumbs up, brutha! I can't say that I identified with the characters or that it even had a great story, but there's enough nightmarish images in this to creep the hell out of me for a while. The two things that really stick out to me are the "buried alive" sequence and the little kid seeing his dead sister (really hit home with me for personal reasons), although for some reason the drill kill didn't quite do it for me. Kind of seemed like one of those things that was thrown on just so that gore-FX meisters could stand up and cheer, but I digress. Just like Takashi Shimizu's Marebito, I WON'T be forgetting this movie anytime soon. *** 1/2.
|
|
|
Post by Rorschach on Aug 7, 2009 15:52:35 GMT -5
In regards to both of those stories:
A) As far as how they're planning on getting rid of Sid...LAME. Imagine if NIGHTMARE ON ELM ST. did that to Nancy? It's equally lame here. If nothing else, get a look-alike and film it from the back so we never see her face. At least give her a proper closure in the series.
B) As for the THING prequel...I am intrigued, yet concerned that this is even being considered. So MUCH can go wrong with this...and really, very little benefit is to be gained from re-hashing the Norwegian's story. And I am thinking they'll probably do this ALL in CGI, which will look ten thousand times worse than the practical effects of the original.
|
|
Lick Ness Monster
Dennis Stamp
From the eerie, eerie depths of Lake Okabena
Posts: 4,874
|
Post by Lick Ness Monster on Aug 7, 2009 16:04:35 GMT -5
In regards to both of those stories: A) As far as how they're planning on getting rid of Sid...LAME. Imagine if NIGHTMARE ON ELM ST. did that to Nancy? It's equally lame here. If nothing else, get a look-alike and film it from the back so we never see her face. At least give her a proper closure in the series. B) As for the THING prequel...I am intrigued, yet concerned that this is even being considered. So MUCH can go wrong with this...and really, very little benefit is to be gained from re-hashing the Norwegian's story. And I am thinking they'll probably do this ALL in CGI, which will look ten thousand times worse than the practical effects of the original. I'm just finding it incredibly difficult to care about this new Scream series, period. Whether or not Neve accepts the role, it doesn't change the fact that the series MORE than ran its course in the original incantation. The original Scream also benefited from having come out at EXACTLY the right time, and this ain't 1997 anymore. As for The Thing, I was thinking the same thing while watching the flick today. The special effects in Carpenter's movie STILL look fantastic, and why is that? Because the stuff on the screen was actually THERE - a combination of the makeup FX wizardry of Rob Bottin and painstaking stop-motion photography that, for the most part, looks seamless. Methinks that will not be the case with any new incantation of The Thing that the powers-that-be decide to come out with.
|
|
|
Post by Rorschach on Aug 7, 2009 16:11:44 GMT -5
In regards to both of those stories: A) As far as how they're planning on getting rid of Sid...LAME. Imagine if NIGHTMARE ON ELM ST. did that to Nancy? It's equally lame here. If nothing else, get a look-alike and film it from the back so we never see her face. At least give her a proper closure in the series. B) As for the THING prequel...I am intrigued, yet concerned that this is even being considered. So MUCH can go wrong with this...and really, very little benefit is to be gained from re-hashing the Norwegian's story. And I am thinking they'll probably do this ALL in CGI, which will look ten thousand times worse than the practical effects of the original. I'm just finding it incredibly difficult to care about this new Scream series, period. Whether or not Neve accepts the role, it doesn't change the fact that the series MORE than ran its course in the original incantation. The original Scream also benefited from having come out at EXACTLY the right time, and this ain't 1997 anymore. As for The Thing, I was thinking the same thing while watching the flick today. The special effects in Carpenter's movie STILL look fantastic, and why is that? Because the stuff on the screen was actually THERE - a combination of the makeup FX wizardry of Rob Bottin and painstaking stop-motion photography that, for the most part, looks seamless. Methinks that will not be the case with any new incantation of The Thing that the powers-that-be decide to come out with. I have a feeling you're very right. As you said, it makes all the difference in the world when an actor can interact with their adversary, rather than having to swing wildly at whereever the director is aiming his/her laser pointer. And even when Bottin's FX look their worst...they're STILL better than the cut-rate, money-grubbing CGI that most of these films sport nowadays. And why is that? It's because they have SUBSTANCE. They're real, animatronic things moving around on the screen. The spider head ALONE is something that cannot be duplicated by CGI! You know another film from that period that I could say the same thing about? THE BLOB. Yes, it was a remake...but the visual FX were out of this WORLD, and made all the better because they were practical, and they interacted with the actors on the screen.
|
|
Lick Ness Monster
Dennis Stamp
From the eerie, eerie depths of Lake Okabena
Posts: 4,874
|
Post by Lick Ness Monster on Aug 7, 2009 16:18:54 GMT -5
In the end, that wouldn't even be the biggest death knell. Something that you once said about Jaws also applies to The Thing, I think - it doesn't matter how much money they throw at it, because they will NEVER replace Russell, David, Brimley, and the rest of the awesome actors contained in the movie.
I realize that this movie is a prequel rather than a direct remake of Carpenter's movie, but still. A movie whose main focus is tension and paranoia between characters needs strong actors to convey those emotions, and I can't imagine them getting a better group than the original.
|
|
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 Aug 7, 2009 16:20:32 GMT -5
While I do love practical FX, I also love CGI FX, it's something I actually went to school for (damn you MAYA).
So any Thing or Blob CGI stuff I'd be at least interested in seeing to get an idea what the top guys are doing these days.
|
|
|
Post by Rorschach on Aug 7, 2009 16:34:56 GMT -5
While I do love practical FX, I also love CGI FX, it's something I actually went to school for (damn you MAYA). So any Thing or Blob CGI stuff I'd be at least interested in seeing to get an idea what the top guys are doing these days. To answer both of the above posts: A) It's possible they could pull something out of their asses...but I doubt it. I'm thinking that if they could get Daniel Craig as THE "big name" and maybe Liev Schrieber in there too...it'd be off to a good start. Maybe throw in Jackie Earle Haley and Brendan Gleeson, and you have a damn fine cast. But like I said...that's a pipe dream, and probably the biggest name they're looking at is Dolph Lundgren. B) A question for you then, Erisi: What would make a CGI creature look WORSE than some of Harryhausen's stop-motion work? Because I have seen some Sci-Fi pictures where that is most certainly the case, and have always wondered about it. Is it the fact that the CGI artists are rushed? Do they not have the resources needed to fully flesh out these creatures? Why would something created using advanced computer imaging look WORSE, and more fake than something created using modeling clay and wires?
|
|
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 Aug 7, 2009 16:51:20 GMT -5
A question for you then, Erisi: What would make a CGI creature look WORSE than some of Harryhausen's stop-motion work? Because I have seen some Sci-Fi pictures where that is most certainly the case, and have always wondered about it. Is it the fact that the CGI artists are rushed? Do they not have the resources needed to fully flesh out these creatures? Why would something created using advanced computer imaging look WORSE, and more fake than something created using modeling clay and wires? Time, money and resources. To make a high quality photorealistic creature takes gobs of computing power, the artists themselves are probably capable of making basically anything look good but the better things look the longer it takes to render, and that's the real crutch of the matter, rendering. Even on a really good multi-set system it takes a day to make one second of something that looks like half way decent SyFy stuff, you try and go photorealistic and you're going to have to have a room full of computers just for that same one second of movie. So basically you have to find a balance on how much time you have and how good you want your creatures of spaceships or whatever to look. All these guys cranking out SyFy stuff want to make the best stuff they possibly can, but there's no way that's going to happen when you get 3 months to do it, so you gotta trim the quality.
|
|