|
Post by DSR on Feb 2, 2010 15:06:45 GMT -5
Hey, DSR! New month on my "Classic Horror Movies" calendar, and guess what the movie of the month for February is? The original NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD! AWWW YEAH, BABY! Back where it all began for zombies....and after that film, the world was never the same! I'm sure you're referring to the way in which zombies are represented on film, rather than implying NOTLD is the first zombie film ever, right? At any rate, that's one badass calendar you got there. NOTLD is obviously a favorite. And since Romero is a dude from southwestern PA like me, he's always been something of an inspiration to my own dreams of being a horror director.
|
|
|
Post by Rorschach on Feb 2, 2010 21:40:59 GMT -5
Hey, DSR! New month on my "Classic Horror Movies" calendar, and guess what the movie of the month for February is? The original NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD! AWWW YEAH, BABY! Back where it all began for zombies....and after that film, the world was never the same! I'm sure you're referring to the way in which zombies are represented on film, rather than implying NOTLD is the first zombie film ever, right? At any rate, that's one badass calendar you got there. NOTLD is obviously a favorite. And since Romero is a dude from southwestern PA like me, he's always been something of an inspiration to my own dreams of being a horror director. Right, I didn't mean to imply that NOTLD was the first EVER zombie movie...just that it kind of changed the game for that subgenre, as it were. Speaking of zombie movies, just rewatched THE SERPENT AND THE RAINBOW. In light of recent events in Haiti, watching this film again today is kind of an odd experience. But it's definitely worth it in the long run, as this is one weird movie, examining as it does the use of voodoo in creating real life "zombies". Also, some sad news to report today: one of the producers of JAWS, David Brown, has passed away at the age of 93. news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/8494382.stm. RIP, Mr. Brown. From your producing credits, it seems as though you knew a great thing when you saw it, and I will forever be grateful that you took a chance on that Speilberg kid and his crazy idea for a summer picture about a giant shark.
|
|
|
Post by Bullhead on Feb 2, 2010 21:48:54 GMT -5
I saw The Serpent And The Rainbow a long time ago. My only memory of it is that it really freaked me out to the point where I never wanted to watch it again. Sort of the same way The Exorcist and Hellraiser did.
|
|
|
Post by DSR on Feb 3, 2010 0:17:08 GMT -5
I have vague recollections of seeing Bill Pullman getting buried alive, but beyond that I don't remember much from my one viewing of Serpent and the Rainbow. That was back in my high school days.
|
|
Lick Ness Monster
Dennis Stamp
From the eerie, eerie depths of Lake Okabena
Posts: 4,874
|
Post by Lick Ness Monster on Feb 3, 2010 10:33:05 GMT -5
It really bums me out that everyone has such vague memories of The Serpent and the Rainbow, because [controversial statement] I think that this flick is Craven's best movie, ever. Loads better than ANOES, Scream, and a bit better than the woefully underrated Red Eye on my barometer of the man's work. I've seen it many times, the first time being on MonsterVision, and it was one of the movies on Joe Bob's awesome Saturday showcase that legitimately freaked me out. DSR already mentioned the buried alive scene, but not mentioned is the nail through the scrotum (OUCH), the tarantula in the aforementioned buried alive casket, and Pullman's various nightmares throughout the film dealing with the female corpse.
Also, I FINALLY have seen Orphan...and it's just as good as Rorschach and Y2J say. The mother and father were likable while also being multi-layered (and VERY well-acted), the atmosphere was tense, Isabelle Fuhrman is ACES as Esther, and the final twist really ran me for a loop and legitimately caught me way off guard. The movie has been hashed over enough already, so here's my final prognosis: my favorite movie of 2009 (beating out Zombieland which should make Rorschach happy) and one of my ten best horror films of the 00's.
|
|
|
Post by Bullhead on Feb 3, 2010 20:16:19 GMT -5
As I said a page or two ago, I'm thinking of giving Orphan another chance. I almost bought it last night. It just seemed to drag on the first time around but it wasn't horrible and Isabelle Fuhrman was awesome. You guys seem to be right about horror movies for the most part, so I'll give it another shot.
|
|
Welfare Willis
Crow T. Robot
Pornomancer 555-BONE FDIC Bonsured
Game Center CX Kacho on!
Posts: 44,259
|
Post by Welfare Willis on Feb 3, 2010 22:20:54 GMT -5
I have vague recollections of seeing Bill Pullman getting buried alive, but beyond that I don't remember much from my one viewing of Serpent and the Rainbow. That was back in my high school days. I always felt that was one of the high points of the film and might have been better saved for the end of the film.
|
|
|
Post by DSR on Feb 4, 2010 0:41:24 GMT -5
Here's a review:
CURSE OF FRANKENSTEIN (1957) - In 1948, Universal Studios finally put to bed its Frankenstein franchise (as well as a few of its other horror legends) with ABBOTT & COSTELLO MEET FRANKENSTEIN. Roughly nine years later, a the height of America's production of "atomic scare" and "alien invasion" films, Britain's Hammer Studios brought the famed gothic story back from beyond the grave (ooooooooh!).
I assume you're all familiar with the story of Baron Frankenstein and his abominable creation, so I'll skip the usual synopsis and get to what I thought of the picture itself. For starters, Peter Cushing star turn as Baron Frankenstein is really good. I'm used to seeing him play heroic Van Helsings or kindly old Mr. Grymsdyke in TALES FROM THE CRYPT, so seeing him take on a villainous role here is quite a treat. He's unhinged, he's manipulative, he's a conniving bastard, he's a 180 from everything I'm used to him being. Needless to say, I was impressed.
Christopher Lee shows up, every so often, as the Baron's creation. Lee does an admirable job portraying the menacing quality of the creature, as though he's an animal looking to protect his territory. And, when he's chained to the wall, and the Baron is showing him off to a colleague who rejected the Baron's plan, Lee portrays the creature almost like a "special needs" patient being forced to perform tricks. It's a sad, pathetic sight, and I gotta say I really felt a strong sense of sympathy for the so-called "monster."
The rest of the cast is serviceable, if not out-and-out thrilling, set design, direction, and score are also really good. And the make-up created for Lee conjured images of Linda Blair's EXORCIST make-up some 16 years later.
However, the story of Baron Frankenstein is pretty well-worn territory, so while Cushing's performance is really good, a feeling of impatience came over me as the film progressed. The creature doesn't show up nearly enough for my liking, basically, and a lot of time is spent getting to that moment of its creation.
3.4 stars out of 5. Not overly fantastic, but certainly a good kick-start to Hammer's horror production "golden age."
|
|
|
Post by GuyOfOwnage on Feb 4, 2010 2:58:13 GMT -5
Because I don't really have anything to contribute to the discussion at the moment, I thought I'd post this little tribute to horror films that I found on YouTube. Not sure if it's been posted before, but even if it has, it's worth another look:
|
|
|
Post by Rorschach on Feb 5, 2010 3:13:27 GMT -5
Here's a review: CURSE OF FRANKENSTEIN (1957) - In 1948, Universal Studios finally put to bed its Frankenstein franchise (as well as a few of its other horror legends) with ABBOTT & COSTELLO MEET FRANKENSTEIN. Roughly nine years later, a the height of America's production of "atomic scare" and "alien invasion" films, Britain's Hammer Studios brought the famed gothic story back from beyond the grave ( ooooooooh!). I assume you're all familiar with the story of Baron Frankenstein and his abominable creation, so I'll skip the usual synopsis and get to what I thought of the picture itself. For starters, Peter Cushing star turn as Baron Frankenstein is really good. I'm used to seeing him play heroic Van Helsings or kindly old Mr. Grymsdyke in TALES FROM THE CRYPT, so seeing him take on a villainous role here is quite a treat. He's unhinged, he's manipulative, he's a conniving bastard, he's a 180 from everything I'm used to him being. Needless to say, I was impressed. Christopher Lee shows up, every so often, as the Baron's creation. Lee does an admirable job portraying the menacing quality of the creature, as though he's an animal looking to protect his territory. And, when he's chained to the wall, and the Baron is showing him off to a colleague who rejected the Baron's plan, Lee portrays the creature almost like a "special needs" patient being forced to perform tricks. It's a sad, pathetic sight, and I gotta say I really felt a strong sense of sympathy for the so-called "monster." The rest of the cast is serviceable, if not out-and-out thrilling, set design, direction, and score are also really good. And the make-up created for Lee conjured images of Linda Blair's EXORCIST make-up some 16 years later. However, the story of Baron Frankenstein is pretty well-worn territory, so while Cushing's performance is really good, a feeling of impatience came over me as the film progressed. The creature doesn't show up nearly enough for my liking, basically, and a lot of time is spent getting to that moment of its creation. 3.4 stars out of 5. Not overly fantastic, but certainly a good kick-start to Hammer's horror production "golden age." This sounds AWESOME. I'm trying to get into some of these older flicks now that I've got those ones that came with my calendar, and I have to say I appreciate each and every one of your reviews. Honestly, I appreciate ALL of the reviews from everyone in this thread, but your specialty seems to be these "forgotten classics" that I really don't have as much exposure to, so they hold a lot of interest for me. I recently picked up the new special edition of THE WOLF MAN, and MAN, is it ever nice. VERY NICE. Well worth snagging if you haven't already gotten the Universal Legacy version, as this one has a very heartfelt tribute/look at the life and career of Lon Chaney, Jr. The doc mentions a lot of his contemporaries as well, people such as Lugosi and Karloff, and they even talk a bit about Lee and Cushing on there too. All in all, watching that really gave me a deeper appreciation for the older movies that languish in obscurity. Makeup and effects like those seen in many of Chaney Jr's "monster mash" movies are seemingly a thing of the past, and while flicks like AVATAR might reinvent the wheel, I don't think they have HALF of the heart that most of these old "cheapy" monster flicks do. Oh and Guy....NICE find with that video. Gonna open that up on YT so that I can fave it and save it!
|
|
|
Post by DSR on Feb 5, 2010 4:31:04 GMT -5
This sounds AWESOME. I'm trying to get into some of these older flicks now that I've got those ones that came with my calendar, and I have to say I appreciate each and every one of your reviews. Honestly, I appreciate ALL of the reviews from everyone in this thread, but your specialty seems to be these "forgotten classics" that I really don't have as much exposure to, so they hold a lot of interest for me. I recently picked up the new special edition of THE WOLF MAN, and MAN, is it ever nice. VERY NICE. Well worth snagging if you haven't already gotten the Universal Legacy version, as this one has a very heartfelt tribute/look at the life and career of Lon Chaney, Jr. The doc mentions a lot of his contemporaries as well, people such as Lugosi and Karloff, and they even talk a bit about Lee and Cushing on there too. All in all, watching that really gave me a deeper appreciation for the older movies that languish in obscurity. Makeup and effects like those seen in many of Chaney Jr's "monster mash" movies are seemingly a thing of the past, and while flicks like AVATAR might reinvent the wheel, I don't think they have HALF of the heart that most of these old "cheapy" monster flicks do. Needless to say, I'm very flattered by your kind words. Thanks, Rorschach. As I've often said, I consider myself a product of both the 80s slasher boom and the 30s-40s Universal Monster craze (which saw a revival in popularity in the early 90s, with postage stamps and Doritos commercials, and such). As a result, I tend to think of my horror viewing tendencies as a connect-the-dots puzzle, searching for connections between the two fazes of horror that seem to have very little to do with one another. Those connections extend to today's horror pictures, true, but I haven't searched those out much. I'll get to them eventually. As for The Wolf Man, I do already have the Legacy Collection, but the Chaney Jr. doc holds special interest. I've always been fond of Chaney Jr. He may not be as famous as the mysteriously charismatic Lugosi or the versatile Karloff (or even his own father, the icon of Silent Horror), but Lon Jr. had a real sympathetic charm. He was certainly thrilling as the Wolf Man, but as his alter ego, Lawrence Talbot, you really felt for him and his struggle, desperately trying to contain the beast within him. Removed from his trademark fur (or his fangs as the Son of Dracula, or his wrappings as the Mummy, etc. etc.) Lon Jr. seemed like a genuinely sweet guy who wouldn't harm anybody. And I fully agree with your point about CGI vs. hand-made effects. CGI still looks like video games to me. Hand-made stuff, while I can usually tell its fake, at least looks more real, to my eyes. And yeah, I feel that there's more heart in it, though I don't mean to take away from people who work hard at CGI stuff, too. Lastly, if you must search out CURSE OF FRANKENSTEIN, I highly suggest you get the Double Feature DVD, which also showcases... TASTE THE BLOOD OF DRACULA (1970) - The fifth installment in Hammer's famed Dracula series, directed by Peter Sasdy (who also directed my favorite Hammer Picture, HANDS OF THE RIPPER (1971)) and starring, of course, Christopher Lee. We begin with a portly salesman being thrown from a moving carriage by a deranged co-passenger who wants his snowglobe (perhaps the most absurd opening sentence to a review I've ever typed). That salesman awakes from unconsciousness, stumbles through the woods, and eventually happens upon the famed Vampire King. Dracula has been driven through by a stake, he cries out and blood runs from his eyes like tears. He becomes nothing but a pool of blood upon a rock, and then that blood turns to dust. The end. Oh, wait, no...there's more... We move on to a trio of wealthy old white guys, respected in their community, going by the names Hargood, Paxton, and Secker. The community doesn't know, though, that these 3 men gather once monthly to visit a brothel and indulge their decadent desires. While they are visiting this whorehouse, a younger man comes along and disrupts their dirty business. The man in charge of the brothel informs the old gents that this young man was disowned by his father for partaking in some dark arts. This younger man, named Courtley, eventually converses with the elder gents, and surmises that they are becoming bored with their regular debauchery. Courtley offers them a trip further into sinful pleasures, by way of a ritual where they sell their souls! After a quick trip to the shop of that portly salesman I mentioned earlier, picking up the cloak, clasp, and blood of Dracula, this quartet takes residence in an old abandoned church. The 3 elder men get cold feet when asked to drink Dracula's blood (mixed with a single drop of Courtley's blood, that meager dust turns to so much blood the cups literally runneth over), but Courtley partakes. When he asks the old men for help, they proceed to beat him to death, run back to their homes, and vow to never mention this strange occurence (the best non-whore-related scene of the entire film) to anyone. Courtley's going to make this secret difficult to keep, however, as his body is taken over by the evil spirit of Dracula after those old coots leave! And the infamous Count vows revenge for the death of his servant. Meanwhile, Hargood's daughter Alice and Paxton's son Paul are hopelessly in love, much to Mr. Hargood's dismay. We see a few brief scenes of their romance, but when Alice attends a party with Paul that Mr. Hargood demanded she not go to, the old man decides corporal punishment is the best way to deal with this (Hargood's taken up drinking since the macabre incident involving Courtley, so his judgment's obviously impaired). Alice flees her home, only to run into the arms of the bloodthirsty Count. Alice soon finds herself in service to Dracula, and helps him dispose of her father. The Count assures the viewers that this death is merely "the first." I don't know what it is, but there's something about sequels to classic horror stories that enthralls me more than the first outing (like how I prefer DRACULA'S DAUGHTER (1936) over the somewhat flat Lugosi classic). This film in particular was pretty grand. I'll give kudos to any movie that kills the primary villain before we even see opening credits! On top of that, there's some fantastic ribaldry at the brothel, and that great scene at the abandoned church. Lee, as always, is tremendous. I don't think he utters more than 25 words in the entire 96 minutes of this picture, but he conveys that seductive otherworldly charm and grotesque viciousness flawlessly (of course, with 4 pictures prior, Lee could've essayed the role of the Count in his sleep by this point). Ralph Bates turns in an entertainingly wicked performance as Courtley, flaunting his debauched lifestyle with an air of smug superiority in the brothel, and getting bats*** crazy during the evil ceremony. The rest of the cast is perfectly serviceable, though Anthony Corlan as Paul Paxton is quite bland. You can kinda see why Alice would choose the intriguing Count over a vanilla sort of guy who looks kinda like Topher Grace with mutton chops. Beyond all that, I'm surprised that a film with a good portion of time spent with prostitutes has such a classy quality to it. But then, Hammer Films always feel sorta sophisticated, even with their focus on bloodletting and heaving breasts. Paul Sasdy does a great job as director, and the finale of the film is disorienting (in a good way). 3.9 stars out of 5. Very entertaining. The Double Feature DVD is a treat.
|
|
Welfare Willis
Crow T. Robot
Pornomancer 555-BONE FDIC Bonsured
Game Center CX Kacho on!
Posts: 44,259
|
Post by Welfare Willis on Feb 5, 2010 7:19:32 GMT -5
Well folks, it's been a long while, but I haven't really been watching a lot of horror films. That changed last night when I sat down and watched Audition.
We've discussed the film before so I can't add much to the discussion. I thought it was a great film with an ending that is truly horrifying because of the 90 so minutes before it. What starts as almost romantic ends distrubing the bejesus out of you. It's a film that really does leave you thinking about men and women.
|
|
|
Post by mysterydriver on Feb 5, 2010 11:27:34 GMT -5
Well, I'm really behind the current discussion. I know this because...I finally watched The Final Destination. And while I share the majority of the opinions already posted, I was left wondering about something.
It seems that eventually someone decides to commit suicide to give death "what he wants" but then discovers that, "Nope, you have to wait your turn." Try and swallow pills? You'll them them up. Try to hang yourself? Rope will break. Try to shoot yourself? Gun jams!
So, I'm watching with a cousin and we began joking about how far it could go, ending with me going, "I decided to get someone else to do it, so I robbed a bank! The cops kept shooting but they missed and missed! I got away with millions!" and now I want to see this happen (if they ever get up the nerve to do another one, which I kind of doubt they will).
...Well, it was funny to me.
~~~~~
I recently purchased Halloween 4 & 5. The main reason being that they have director and star commentary on them. I always enjoy commentaries, especially on "not-as-popular" movies.
~~~~~
Lionsgate has a YouTube page and has uploaded about 20 horror movies on it. It isn't their top material, but if desperate to take a look at something.
On it, I watched Midnight Masson their page. It's based on a story by F. Paul Wilson about a world taken over by vampires and the fallen priest (CLICHE ALERT) who attempts to retake his church with the help of his athiest niece (EYEROLL ALERT).
The movie takes any subtlety of the book and bashes the viewer over the head with it to the point that I was left with some many knots that...uh...I couldn't even think of a good joke to end this sentence. Darn headache. It was really disappointing to me and while I would recommend the book for a reading, I could never suggest the movie for viewing (even to razz on).
~~~~~
For a brief amount of time, the Lionsgate page had Project: Metalbeast but for some reason it has been taken down. It holds a special place to me because it was the first B-Movie I ever saw (and recalled). I mean...how do you forget a movie that has a Werewolf with Metal Skin! Hades yes.
Starring Kim Delaney (Of NYPD Blue fame) as the main scientist and Barry Bostwick (The Mayor on Spin City) as the government spook. With Kane Hodder as Metal Beast. When I was a kid I didn't understand why that was a big deal. Now...I kind of get it.
I hope they put the thing back online eventually.
~~~~~
Closer to the current topic, Serpent and the Rainbow is the movie that guarentees that I'll have respect for Wes Craven's abilities. I'm more of a John Carpenter fan, but Craven has definitely carved his name into the horror stone and that movie is the kind of film that can be pointed to whenever anyone tries to drop the "overrated" word.
|
|
Lick Ness Monster
Dennis Stamp
From the eerie, eerie depths of Lake Okabena
Posts: 4,874
|
Post by Lick Ness Monster on Feb 5, 2010 14:50:52 GMT -5
Well folks, it's been a long while, but I haven't really been watching a lot of horror films. That changed last night when I sat down and watched Audition. We've discussed the film before so I can't add much to the discussion. I thought it was a great film with an ending that is truly horrifying because of the 90 so minutes before it. What starts as almost romantic ends distrubing the bejesus out of you. It's a film that really does leave you thinking about men and women. Said it before, and I'll say it again - one of the ten best horror films of all time. Glad you finally saw it. As for the other stuff to chime in on, two excellent reviews, as always, DSR. Mysterydriver: It's good to see that somebody else besides me puts Serpent and the Rainbow in such a high regard. The movie is LOADS different from the work that most people associate with Wes Craven ( Scream, ANOES etc.), and is just creepy to the core. Finally. the not-so-eagerly-awaited return of TR's Asian Horror Theater, so named because this particular film is from the land of South Korea: Whispering Corridors (1998) - Remember how earlier I said that this movie was from the makers of Wishing Stairs? Well, as it turns out, this is the first movie in a nonofficial "series" of "Ghost School" films ( Wishing Stairs was the third) about cursed institutions of learning where all sorts of ghostly s*** goes down. This one, as it turns out, is quite excellent; the setting is an all-girls high school where a tragic suicide took place several years prior to the events of the film. A teacher is brutally murdered in the very first scene, and the higher-ups at the school tell the young kids to keep hushed about the incident. Of course, more bodies begin turning up. Can't really say too much more about this one except that it has a very unique atmosphere that reminded me a little of Suspiria, and if you're creeped out by ghosts (like I am) this movie is very disquieting. *** 1/2 out of ****.
|
|
andrew8798
FANatic
on 24/7 this month
Posts: 106,084
|
Post by andrew8798 on Feb 5, 2010 18:54:59 GMT -5
Production Officially Starts on the Child's Play Remake
|
|
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 Feb 5, 2010 23:55:28 GMT -5
So, who's up the The Crazies that's coming out pretty soon? I know "remakes" are kind of frowned apon, but at least with this it's a remake of an old more or less unknown movie which kind of makes it better.
|
|
Lick Ness Monster
Dennis Stamp
From the eerie, eerie depths of Lake Okabena
Posts: 4,874
|
Post by Lick Ness Monster on Feb 6, 2010 7:02:38 GMT -5
So, who's up the The Crazies that's coming out pretty soon? I know "remakes" are kind of frowned apon, but at least with this it's a remake of an old more or less unknown movie which kind of makes it better. I think it looks pretty damn awesome, myself. Hell, I didn't even know it was a remake.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2010 1:10:23 GMT -5
So, who's up the The Crazies that's coming out pretty soon? I know "remakes" are kind of frowned apon, but at least with this it's a remake of an old more or less unknown movie which kind of makes it better. I think it looks pretty damn awesome, myself. Hell, I didn't even know it was a remake. Let alone, a remake of a George A. Romero film. Didn't Eli Roth want to remake this? Think I read that somewhere, but of course, Ingloruious Basterds got to him first. EDIT: Never mind. He wanted to remake Tobe Hooper's The Funhouse. My bad.
|
|
|
Post by DSR on Feb 7, 2010 1:48:23 GMT -5
I've been seeing the trailer every now and then on tv. THE CRAZIES looks pretty good. I might have to check it out (and maybe the Romero original).
|
|
|
Post by Rorschach on Feb 7, 2010 1:50:39 GMT -5
I've been seeing the trailer every now and then on tv. THE CRAZIES looks pretty good. I might have to check it out (and maybe the Romero original). I have the original on DVD. While it's a damn good movie in it's own right for what it is, I'm actually not upset that it's getting the remake treatment. This is one property that probably COULD use an update/facelift.
|
|