|
Post by DSR on Oct 6, 2009 1:24:48 GMT -5
Yeah, I have Freddy's Dead and Night of the Living Dead 3D (the second remake, starring Sid Haig), and they worked a little better when I watched them on my computer, but it still wasn't 100% effective.
And last night, I watched an early 70s bizarro motion picture called CRIMSON. It takes place in Paris, France. In it Paul Naschy stars as the leader of a band of criminals who gets shot by the police while trying to escape a botched jewel heist. Naschy's cronies take him to a disgraced doctor who says he can save the man with a partial brain transplant. The aforementioned cronies thus have to kill someone so the doctor can take his brain, and they pick Naschy's most hated rival, a man known only as The Sadist. As usual with movies about brain transplants, Naschy comes out of the operation a different man, now with Sadistic tendencies of his own, as he runs around having his way with his girlfriend, The Sadist's girlfriend, and any other woman he happens upon. Meanwhile, The Sadist has his own gang, who want revenge on Naschy's gang, and the doctor that they forced to perform the operation is getting sick of dealing with these criminals, too!
Okay, I'm not entirely sure what to call this movie, as its not exactly an out-and-out horror movie. There are certainly a handful of horror elements, but there's also a weird crime saga going on, and some European sexploitation, and these two elements take up the majority of the picture. My best guess would be to place this in the category of "surrogate horror" wherein a film that isn't necessarily a horror movie gets a few elements and is treated as one in order to exploit audiences that go in for horror movies (like myself and you guys). I guess with Naschy as the star, Image Entertainment felt comfortable throwing it in their "Euro Shock Collection" which is primarily a horror label.
At any rate, its certainly a fun little picture in spurts here and there. It loses a lot of steam towards the end, though. 3 stars out of 5 (yeah, I've decided to go back to actually rating movies I watch...fancy that). Fun for all the wrong reasons.
Oh, and the DVD has a bonus feature of a bunch of "erotic" scenes that were added into the movie for international audiences. So, if you like to see European dudes' butts exposed while their pelvises thrust in a direction that's honestly nowhere near a woman's special place...they've got that for ya. There's some breasts, too, but not nearly as much as the man-ass. *shrug*
|
|
Lick Ness Monster
Dennis Stamp
From the eerie, eerie depths of Lake Okabena
Posts: 4,874
|
Post by Lick Ness Monster on Oct 6, 2009 8:38:29 GMT -5
Yeah, I have Freddy's Dead and Night of the Living Dead 3D (the second remake, starring Sid Haig), and they worked a little better when I watched them on my computer, but it still wasn't 100% effective. And last night, I watched an early 70s bizarro motion picture called CRIMSON. It takes place in Paris, France. In it Paul Naschy stars as the leader of a band of criminals who gets shot by the police while trying to escape a botched jewel heist. Naschy's cronies take him to a disgraced doctor who says he can save the man with a partial brain transplant. The aforementioned cronies thus have to kill someone so the doctor can take his brain, and they pick Naschy's most hated rival, a man known only as The Sadist. As usual with movies about brain transplants, Naschy comes out of the operation a different man, now with Sadistic tendencies of his own, as he runs around having his way with his girlfriend, The Sadist's girlfriend, and any other woman he happens upon. Meanwhile, The Sadist has his own gang, who want revenge on Naschy's gang, and the doctor that they forced to perform the operation is getting sick of dealing with these criminals, too! Okay, I'm not entirely sure what to call this movie, as its not exactly an out-and-out horror movie. There are certainly a handful of horror elements, but there's also a weird crime saga going on, and some European sexploitation, and these two elements take up the majority of the picture. My best guess would be to place this in the category of "surrogate horror" wherein a film that isn't necessarily a horror movie gets a few elements and is treated as one in order to exploit audiences that go in for horror movies (like myself and you guys). I guess with Naschy as the star, Image Entertainment felt comfortable throwing it in their "Euro Shock Collection" which is primarily a horror label. At any rate, its certainly a fun little picture in spurts here and there. It loses a lot of steam towards the end, though. 3 stars out of 5 (yeah, I've decided to go back to actually rating movies I watch...fancy that). Fun for all the wrong reasons. Oh, and the DVD has a bonus feature of a bunch of "erotic" scenes that were added into the movie for international audiences. So, if you like to see European dudes' butts exposed while their pelvises thrust in a direction that's honestly nowhere near a woman's special place...they've got that for ya. There's some breasts, too, but not nearly as much as the man-ass. *shrug* Just when I think I can't possibly be more impressed with some of the overlooked movies you unearth, you pull out this one. Never sen it, never even HEARD of it, but man...that sounds like one interesting little exploitation picture.
|
|
|
Post by YellowJacketY2J on Oct 6, 2009 15:50:53 GMT -5
Full Moon Entertainment dishes out another killer doll flick. In this one, eccentric billionaire Virgil Travis has lost all of his money in an anti-trust case. He believes three rival billionaires, Harrison Yulin, George Warbeck and Mercy Shaw, are responsible for this (and they are). So, he creates three new dolls (which were formerly the judge, lawyer and some other profession I can't recall involved in the case) to hunt down and kill those responsible for his loss. Just like many of Full Moon's features, this is one is weird and wacky. Virgil Travis wears a mask any time he comes in contact with somebody (other than those he lives with) because of a shrunken head; his assistant Mr. Mascaro dons face paint that makes him look one of the Joker's henchman; Hylas is a midget with an eye patch who serves as a servant; and there's an all-female rock band locked in a cage, ready to perform whenever Travis wants to hear them. Though everybody does their best to make their characters interesting (especially Jack Maturin and William Paul Burns), they just come off as weird for the sake of being weird. I'm a man who loves his weird and cheesy horror movies. But, I'm not too keen on every little thing being weird. There comes a time when you can hold back on all of the weirdness. Instead, Blood Dolls revels in it. Blood Dolls isn't a bad film. It has its fun moments. The deaths aren't that great (though I did like the one of the dumbbell being dropped on the guy's head). But, the storyline is rather intriguing, much more so than in any Full Moon movie I've seen. I'm not going to delve into the story too much, since I could easily ruin it. I'll just state my final sentiment on Blood Dolls: a sometimes intriguing, sometimes bland killer doll film. Final Grade: C As a lover of cheesy horror movies, I'm ashamed to admit that I've never seen Attack of the Killer Tomatoes. But, as I've always said, better late than never. So, I decided to finally get around to watching it, and what better way than in my '31 Days of Halloween'. I'll guess that you all know the plot, so I'll just give a quick review. Killer Tomatoes is a zany satire on all of those cheesy B-Horror Movies (and, as depicted in the opening credits, a main satire of The Birds). You can tell John De Bello set out to make a fun film, as he pulls out all the stops. From one-liners to physical humor to over-the-top characters, the laughs are plenty. Killer Tomatoes doesn't take itself seriously, instead opting to be a goofy film. And it is indeed goofy. Goofy and entertaining. Final Grade: A-
|
|
Chainsaw
T
A very BAD man.
It is what it is
Posts: 90,480
|
Post by Chainsaw on Oct 6, 2009 16:21:11 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Bullhead on Oct 6, 2009 16:27:47 GMT -5
Looking back at what I said about Zombieland, I think I completely missed the point. Oh well. Good movie nonetheless.
|
|
theryno665
Grimlock
wants a title underneath the stars
Kinda Homeless
Posts: 13,571
|
Post by theryno665 on Oct 6, 2009 16:54:04 GMT -5
Any time I see someone talk about "Trick R Treat", I only thing about "Trick or Treat", a movie I got out of the Wal-Mart bargain bin a while ago. It's this movie in the 80's where Skippy from Family Ties brings his dead idol, a Satanic metal singer, back to life via a possessed record and the singer, after giving possibly the most "flamboyant" performance even by spandexed 80's standards, goes on a killing spree at the school dance. I love it. Gene Simmons and Ozzy Osbourne are on the DVD cover but they only appear in the movie for a minute or two each. I think I might actually watch that soon to psych myself up for Halloween. Thinking about that also reminds me of another cheesy 80s movie about heavy metal killing people, Black Roses. I rented it on VHS a while back before I got into DVDs and want a copy now that it's on DVD, but I'd have to get it online as I haven't seen it in stores.
|
|
|
Post by DSR on Oct 6, 2009 17:26:22 GMT -5
Any time I see someone talk about "Trick R Treat", I only thing about "Trick or Treat", a movie I got out of the Wal-Mart bargain bin a while ago. It's this movie in the 80's where Skippy from Family Ties brings his dead idol, a Satanic metal singer, back to life via a possessed record and the singer, after giving possibly the most "flamboyant" performance even by spandexed 80's standards, goes on a killing spree at the school dance. I love it. Gene Simmons and Ozzy Osbourne are on the DVD cover but they only appear in the movie for a minute or two each. I think I might actually watch that soon to psych myself up for Halloween. Thinking about that also reminds me of another cheesy 80s movie about heavy metal killing people, Black Roses. I rented it on VHS a while back before I got into DVDs and want a copy now that it's on DVD, but I'd have to get it online as I haven't seen it in stores. I have seen the "Trick OR Treat" you're referring to, and recall it being a fun picture. I usually have fun with 80s "Heavy Metal Horror" movies like that, or Zombie Nightmare, starring Jon Mikl-Thor (founder of the band Thor), or the zany horror/comedy Hard Rock Zombies. I haven't seen "Trick R Treat" yet, but I've heard good things. Onto my brief review of last night's viewing experience... Nowadays, Dean Koontz's PHANTOMS is best remembered as a punchline in a Kevin Smith movie, but I don't think the picture deserves quite the poor reputation it has. The film stars Joanna Going and Rose McGowan as sisters (gorgeous ones, I might add), Jennifer and Lisa, respectively. Jennifer has picked up Lisa to take her to her home in the quaint little town of Snowfield, but when they get there, the streets are empty, as though its suddenly become a ghost town. Once at Jennifer's house, they discover her maid's dead body, looking as though it had suddenly been infected with a horrible disease. They venture out into the town looking for help, discovering more dead bodies before finally meeting Sheriff Bryce Hammond (Ben Affleck) and his deputies (Liev Schreiber and Nicky Katt). Thanks to a clue that one of the diseased townsfolk leaves, this group finds out about a noted paleobiologist (played by Peter O'Toole), who hypothesizes that Snowfield is the latest victim of an ages-old creature that has lived on Earth secretly and can take on the characteristics of any creature that it feeds upon, as well as anything those creatures may have conjured up in their imaginations or dreams. This ragtag group now has to figure out a way to kill this Ancient Enemy in order to prevent it from wiping out the human race. Yeah, this was a pretty fun little movie. I like that the main females are smarter than your average final girl, as they actually pick up on some subtler clues left behind by this mysterious creature. Dean Koontz himself wrote the screenplay to the picture (adapting his own book), so I assume he's responsible for the more intelligent aspects of the movie. But the actors themselves do a fine job with their parts. Going and McGowan are very believable in their parts, Liev Schreiber puts in a brilliant awkward performance, and Affleck was the bomb had a fine showing. In what could've been a more "vanilla" leading man role, he brings a bit more life and energy to the character. Joe Chappelle does a fine job in the director's chair, too. While there are certainly a handful of "LOUD NOISE/JUMP CUT" scares thrown in, there's also a sense of dread and suspense that pervades the movie between those scares. It's not a perfect movie, though, as some scenes that were intended as scary are unintentionally funny and sort of fudge with the overall tone of the picture. But this is the guy responsible for Halloween: The Curse of Michael Myers and Hellraiser: Bloodline. PHANTOMS may actually be his best picture, in my opinion. At any rate, despite a pretty corny ending, this is a solid, underrated little gem. 4 stars out of 5.
|
|
|
Post by YellowJacketY2J on Oct 6, 2009 17:38:44 GMT -5
Any time I see someone talk about "Trick R Treat", I only thing about "Trick or Treat", a movie I got out of the Wal-Mart bargain bin a while ago. It's this movie in the 80's where Skippy from Family Ties brings his dead idol, a Satanic metal singer, back to life via a possessed record and the singer, after giving possibly the most "flamboyant" performance even by spandexed 80's standards, goes on a killing spree at the school dance. I love it. Gene Simmons and Ozzy Osbourne are on the DVD cover but they only appear in the movie for a minute or two each. I think I might actually watch that soon to psych myself up for Halloween. Thinking about that also reminds me of another cheesy 80s movie about heavy metal killing people, Black Roses. I rented it on VHS a while back before I got into DVDs and want a copy now that it's on DVD, but I'd have to get it online as I haven't seen it in stores. I own the 'Trick or Treat' you're referring to, and found it be quite fun. As for Trick 'r Treat, I plan on seeing it in the next few days.
|
|
|
Post by thwak is T.hawk on Oct 6, 2009 20:55:27 GMT -5
crap I can't find andrew8798's predators thread so I'll just post this here. adrien brody is now in predators: www.aintitcool.com/node/42632EDIT: also since I'm here I'll respond to this post, Anyhow, onto happier news, anyone pick up Trick R Treat today? I think it's going to be THE seasonal movie for Halloween. Just a damn shame Warners didn't have the sack to put it into theaters. the reason it's not being released in theaters is that horror anthologies generally do better on video then they do in theaters.
|
|
Lick Ness Monster
Dennis Stamp
From the eerie, eerie depths of Lake Okabena
Posts: 4,874
|
Post by Lick Ness Monster on Oct 6, 2009 23:27:14 GMT -5
Onto my brief review of last night's viewing experience... Nowadays, Dean Koontz's PHANTOMS is best remembered as a punchline in a Kevin Smith movie, but I don't think the picture deserves quite the poor reputation it has. The film stars Joanna Going and Rose McGowan as sisters (gorgeous ones, I might add), Jennifer and Lisa, respectively. Jennifer has picked up Lisa to take her to her home in the quaint little town of Snowfield, but when they get there, the streets are empty, as though its suddenly become a ghost town. Once at Jennifer's house, they discover her maid's dead body, looking as though it had suddenly been infected with a horrible disease. They venture out into the town looking for help, discovering more dead bodies before finally meeting Sheriff Bryce Hammond (Ben Affleck) and his deputies (Liev Schreiber and Nicky Katt). Thanks to a clue that one of the diseased townsfolk leaves, this group finds out about a noted paleobiologist (played by Peter O'Toole), who hypothesizes that Snowfield is the latest victim of an ages-old creature that has lived on Earth secretly and can take on the characteristics of any creature that it feeds upon, as well as anything those creatures may have conjured up in their imaginations or dreams. This ragtag group now has to figure out a way to kill this Ancient Enemy in order to prevent it from wiping out the human race. Yeah, this was a pretty fun little movie. I like that the main females are smarter than your average final girl, as they actually pick up on some subtler clues left behind by this mysterious creature. Dean Koontz himself wrote the screenplay to the picture (adapting his own book), so I assume he's responsible for the more intelligent aspects of the movie. But the actors themselves do a fine job with their parts. Going and McGowan are very believable in their parts, Liev Schreiber puts in a brilliant awkward performance, and Affleck was the bomb had a fine showing. In what could've been a more "vanilla" leading man role, he brings a bit more life and energy to the character. Joe Chappelle does a fine job in the director's chair, too. While there are certainly a handful of "LOUD NOISE/JUMP CUT" scares thrown in, there's also a sense of dread and suspense that pervades the movie between those scares. It's not a perfect movie, though, as some scenes that were intended as scary are unintentionally funny and sort of fudge with the overall tone of the picture. But this is the guy responsible for Halloween: The Curse of Michael Myers and Hellraiser: Bloodline. PHANTOMS may actually be his best picture, in my opinion. At any rate, despite a pretty corny ending, this is a solid, underrated little gem. 4 stars out of 5. I actually did like Phantoms quite a bit, but my experience with it was tainted. Ah, the Halloween house arrest of 2004 when my former roommate invited his three-year-long crush and HER BOYFRIEND (who also happened to be our mutual friend at the time) up for a couple days. Yeah, 'cus he didn't think that would be awkward or anything. Anyway, Phantoms was one of the "scary" flicks that we chose to rent (along with Ringu and, I believe, The Exorcist). Pretty fun little horrorfest.
|
|
|
Post by DSR on Oct 7, 2009 2:21:48 GMT -5
I actually did like Phantoms quite a bit, but my experience with it was tainted. Ah, the Halloween house arrest of 2004 when my former roommate invited his three-year-long crush and HER BOYFRIEND (who also happened to be our mutual friend at the time) up for a couple days. Yeah, 'cus he didn't think that would be awkward or anything. Thank you for segue-ing me into my next review batch of reviews. THE MAD GHOUL is a 1943 Universal b-horror picture. In it, George Zucco plays a college professor and scientist of some sort (he appears to be a chemist, but his star pupil is a surgeon). The Prof has discovered an ancient chemical that has the power to turn those that breath in its fumes into essentially zombies, and the only way to reverse the effect is the use of some human heart substance. That star pupil I mentioned earlier, named Ted Allison, is happily engaged to a singer. The professor has been infatuated with this singer for quite some time, and decides to use that mysterious chemical to turn poor Ted into his own human puppet, thus taking him out of the equation. Unfortunately, the beautiful singer isn't quite in love with her boyfriend anyway, as it seems she's actually grown to love Eric, the man who accompanies her singing by playing the piano. While the mad scientist struggles to lop some sides off of this love rectangle, he must also find fresh bodies for Zombie Ted to use that surgical skill of his to turn back to normal (the effects don't last long, though). And a comic relief reporter is hot on the trail of the Mad Ghoul (as the paper he works for has dubbed him), as it seems that every city the singer stops on her tour, this Ghoul strikes another fresh victim! Yeah, this was a fun little picture. The multiple love stories going on were intriguing, the grave-desecration and surgically precise body defiling feel sort of like a precursor to the giallo and slasher movies of later decades, and that comic relief reporter manages to perform his schtick WHILE progressing the story, rather than hindering it like many comic relief characters before or since. And the whole thing clocks in at about 67 minutes, so there's hardly any time for dilly-dallying (though they do throw in a few numbers from that singer broad). It's no masterpiece, mind you, but its certainly an interesting (and brisk) little b-picture. 4 stars out of 5. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Prior to that, I watched AIP's THE DUNWICH HORROR (1970). This HP Lovecraft adaptation stars Dean Stockwell (perhaps most famous as Al from the series Quantum Leap) as Wilbur Whately, a mysterious individual looking to seduce a buxom blonde college student. Not just for his own purposes, mind you, he needs a virgin in order to perform the ritual that will open a portal to another dimension, and thus allow the Old Ones to return to the Earth and reclaim it from humanity. Meanwhile, the virgin girl's best friend is worried sick, and she goes to Dunwich to look for her. She doesn't travel alone, though, she's also got Dr. Armitage (Ed Begley Sr.) with her, a man who's spent his life studying The Necronomicon (which Wilbur also means to take for his devious purposes) as well as its connection to the Whately family. The girl and the Doc will no doubt be aided by the townsfolk of Dunwich, who've always had a sneaking suspicion that the Whately's weren't exactly the best neighbors to have (incidentally, one of those townsfolk is played by Talia Coppola, more famously known as Talia Shire, Adrian from the ROCKY movies). Like a lot of AIP's horror pictures at the time, this story has a mix of gothic and psychedelic sensibilities, which adds to the otherworldly mood of the narrative. Scene's have a tendency to flash into different colors rapidly (not unlike Suspiria), creating a disorienting effect. Which, I gotta say, helps disguise the creature effects we get (yeah, there's a creature in there). Not that it's a bad-looking creature, but the fact that we only get a few brief glimpses of pieces of it, and they are often shown in these whacked-out hues and tints really adds to the mystery surrounding it. It's all quite effective. The story itself, though, feels as though its being dragged out on occasion. At times it feels like that slow-creeping sense of dread that I enjoy, but at other times it just feels like they needed to make it feature length. But overall I found it an effective little low-budget chiller. 3.8 stars out of 5. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Lastly (which incidentally would've been firstly had I put these reviews in the order I watched them), is finally a movie that ISN'T about a man trying to get laid: SAW (2004). There's been plenty of discussion about this series of films over the course of these threads, so I'll forego the plot synopsis, and skip to the analysis (assuming anyone's still reading after all that mess above). A major point that I want to make is that I feel there is a subtext to the film regarding horror audiences and horror films. The Jigsaw Killer is said to have a habit of putting people in situations where they could live or die, and simply watching them play out. In this way, he acts more like a horror film audience than an actual horror film killer. But rather than glorify in the death scenes around him, Jigsaw is interested in seeing these people discover the value of life. I feel as though this is sort of an argument for the existence of horror films within a horror film itself, as though audiences seek to affirm the value of life, just in a more unconventional way than audiences for other kinds of movies. Beyond that, I thought the movie was good, but not great. The overall concept was very thought-provoking, and the set design was exquisite in its putrescence. And Tobin Bell...he spends most of the movie lying down, but that voice of his (though distorted) has a way of getting under your skin. For his voice alone, its pretty easy to see why he's become something of a horror icon for the 00's. The things I don't like, however, include the fast-motion, MTV-inspired editing, combined with bizarre heavy metal musical cues that, while entertaining for the wrong reasons in 80s horror movies, really throw off the mood in this more "serious" picture. I also wasn't particularly thrilled with the two lead actors, Leigh Whannell and Cary Elwes. I AM a fan of Elwes, but his acting career seems to be generally hit-or-miss. And, while he wasn't terrible in this film, there were times during his hysterical performance in the finale where I couldn't take him seriously. Whannel showed he had potential, but his first-time actor status was apparent throughout. It didn't help that the character he was playing was pretty damn annoying (though I understand the point of much of this franchise is to show unlikeable characters become more likeable in the face of the deadly situations they're put in). At any rate, seeing this movie the second time, I'm left with the same overall feeling as when I saw it the first time. I can understand why it has a following, as it was a pretty intriguing (though flawed) little movie, and I could even understand a sequel coming out, but if you told me this would be the start of a 7-picture franchise, I would've scratched my head in bewilderment. 3.6 stars out of 5. Is anybody still reading after all that?
|
|
Ken Ivory
Hank Scorpio
This sorta thing IS my bag, baby.
Posts: 5,282
|
Post by Ken Ivory on Oct 7, 2009 2:58:10 GMT -5
Going to continue my Halloween Horror Fest this evening by sticking on the under-rated New Nightmare
|
|
andrew8798
FANatic
on 24/7 this month
Posts: 106,084
|
Post by andrew8798 on Oct 7, 2009 9:29:35 GMT -5
Saw Zombieland yesterday I loved it would have to say it's my favorite movie of the year
|
|
Lick Ness Monster
Dennis Stamp
From the eerie, eerie depths of Lake Okabena
Posts: 4,874
|
Post by Lick Ness Monster on Oct 7, 2009 11:20:32 GMT -5
At any rate, seeing this movie the second time, I'm left with the same overall feeling as when I saw it the first time. I can understand why it has a following, as it was a pretty intriguing (though flawed) little movie, and I could even understand a sequel coming out, but if you told me this would be the start of a 7-picture franchise, I would've scratched my head in bewilderment. 3.6 stars out of 5. Is anybody still reading after all that? I don't get it either, man, I really don't, in light of the amazing clusterf*** that the series becomes in the second "threesome" of movies. Bobbing and weaving between events in different films, combined with the fact that the very same MTV-style editing that you mention becoming even MORE prevalent, results in one giant goddamn headache. Personally, I think that the series would have made an AWESOME trilogy, and told exactly the story that it needed to tell. First movie, introduce the characters. Second movie, raise the stakes. And third, tie it all neatly together. While the first two flicks are (I believe) fine in those respective roles, the third is where it fails in epic fashion. If they had taken a character, put them through Jigsaw's gauntlet, and actually had the character truly redeem him/herself by the end of the film, and ENDED it there, I think the real point of the series would have been achieved nicely. Instead, we've got Saw VII 3-D in Space. Or something. As for the other two reviews, very interesting stuff. I'm obviously not a real big Gothic/classical horror buff, as I still haven't cracked open that 50-movie set I bought (due to how much it pissed me off that it's lacking in subtitles). I love reading about them, though.
|
|
|
Post by Maidpool w/ Cleaning Action on Oct 7, 2009 21:35:13 GMT -5
|
|
Lick Ness Monster
Dennis Stamp
From the eerie, eerie depths of Lake Okabena
Posts: 4,874
|
Post by Lick Ness Monster on Oct 7, 2009 22:47:51 GMT -5
That thing kicked my ass. 12/25, and I couldn't BELIEVE the ones that I missed. I forgot about MBV 3-D, The Haunting, Amityville Horror and The Omen...although I don't know if I'd count The Stepford Wives as a horror film. At least not in the way that we usually think of them. From a box office and quality standpoint, #1 and #2 definitely deserve their spots at the top of the heap.
|
|
|
Post by Maidpool w/ Cleaning Action on Oct 7, 2009 22:49:50 GMT -5
I wouldn't count Stepford Wives either TR, but I used Box Office Mojo as my refrence and they included it.
|
|
Lick Ness Monster
Dennis Stamp
From the eerie, eerie depths of Lake Okabena
Posts: 4,874
|
Post by Lick Ness Monster on Oct 7, 2009 22:56:45 GMT -5
Yet more TR segue-ing: The Stepford Wives actually LOST a ton of money. Why? It was budgeted at $90 MILLION BUCKS, which honestly amazes me. You know, usually when a movie costs a lot of money you can tell where it went up on the screen. But for the life of me I just cannot fathom how they POSSIBLY spent that much money on this movie. Unless it all went to separate trailers for all of the big names in that massive cast.
Meanwhile, Takashi Shimizu's first American version of The Grudge cost $10 million, and, IMO, it looks just as good (if not better) than The Stepford Wives. And outgrosses it by $40 million.
|
|
|
Post by Maidpool w/ Cleaning Action on Oct 7, 2009 23:00:37 GMT -5
That amazes me. The Stepford Wives should not have cost that much at all. I mean costumes can up a budget... but not that badly.
|
|
|
Post by mysterydriver on Oct 7, 2009 23:05:50 GMT -5
Stepford Wives most likely spent too much on casting.
I'm sure Christopher Walken alone charged Stepford Wives $17 million.
What?
Too little?
|
|