WC Horror Thread 9: Tale of Scrottie McBoogerballs

[kidglov3s]

Yeah it's the French film Inside. House of the Devil sure sounds intriguing, and I'm definitely a mark for the mock VHS art.

[theryno665]

May 5, 2010 2:14:13 GMT -5 Big DSR Energy said:

May 5, 2010 1:49:04 GMT -5 Chainsaw said:

Ichi The Killer and Riki-Oh: The Story Of Ricky, while not technically horror movies, are must sees. In the horror vein...Wild Zero. It...Is...Insane.

And if you dig WILD ZERO, VERSUS and BATTLEFIELD BASEBALL might be up your alley.

I like the way you guys think. I can't really add anything else to this, at least not staying within the horror genre. I wouldn't even really classify Wild Zero or Battlefield Baseball as horror, even if they do have zombies in them. I will say Tetsuo: The Iron Man is rather eccentric and "artsy" for lack of a better word, so if you're not into that sort of thing, beware.

But as psyched as you guys got me talking about crazy Japanese movies, you've pretty much killed my buzz with the I Spit On Your Grave remake. I often say that horror remakes are pretty pointless because they're remaking classics that stand on their own. But the point of I Spit On Your Grave was its sheer brutality, so making a mainstream release of it pretty much negates its purpose and makes it that much more pointless.

[GuyOfOwnage]

May 6, 2010 18:52:00 GMT -5 Rorschach said:

May 6, 2010 16:00:03 GMT -5 kidglov3s said:

I'm looking to watch either The Beyond, Inside, or Baba Yaga tonight. Has anyone here seen Inside?

You're talking about the French film Inside right? If so, then no, I haven't seen it, but I have heard that it is FEROCIOUS from start to finish, and that it is one of the bloodier entries to our genre in recent years.

You know another movie that I had heard great things about?

HOUSE OF THE DEVIL (2009)



DIRECTED BY: Ti West

STARRING: Jocelin Donahue, Tom Noonan, and AJ Bowen.

Ti West's House of the Devil is a throwback to the Satanic Cult movies of yesteryear, and it is, in my humble opinion, just as much, if not even MORE of a love letter to the "grindhouse" genre than Quentin Tarantino's own Death Proof. West's film at least feels like it would be right at home being shown in some seedy, rundown hole in the wall theater or a desolate drive in....and believe me, I'm saying that as a complement! This movie looks and feels like it came from 1975 or 1980, like someone just this year discovered it and brought it to light. I cannot say just how awesome it is to watch this film, and feel like you're stepping back in time. THIS is what Friday the 13th, Texas Chainsaw (ESPECIALLY Texas Chainsaw!) and Last House on the Left OUGHT to have looked like, had the buffoons at Platinum Dunes had clue one what the bloody hell they were doing. But I digress.

House of the Devil is the story of a young college age girl named Samantha (Donahue) who is desperate to get out of the dorms and on her own. Problem is, she's found the perfect place and has agreed to terms with the landlady...but she's JUST short on cash. Neat cameo here: You might recognize the actress playing the landlady...she's genre icon (and all around wonderful lady) Dee Wallace! Moving on....Samantha needs cash fast, and it just so happens that on the way back to her dorm room, she passes the bulletin board where she sees an ad reading "babysitter wanted". Perfect! Sam calls the number and speaks to a very mellow voiced gentleman on the other end. They agree to meet, but as sometimes happens, things fall through and the meeting never happens. Crushed, Sam nearly gives up on her hope of having an apartment to herself when fate intervenes and the odd gentleman calls her back. Seems there's going to be a lunar eclipse in a day or so, and he and his wife are desperate to go and witness it. He had another girl lined up, he tells Sam but she "proved to be...unreliable". He then offers Sam a full $100 to take the job, as he NEEDS a girl for this night. As the sage prophets of rock n roll, AC/DC once said, money talks....so Sam agrees to be his "babysitter" and heads out to the house...and unwittingly right into the mouth of madness.

House of the Devil has been accused by it's detractors of being "slow" and "meandering", of taking forever to get to the action...but you know what? To those people I would say, "That is called building TENSION." I know not many films DO that anymore, but in my mind, it is sorely missed and I enjoyed the fact that this film made me WAIT for a payoff. In this movie, the tension and dread build until they're palpable. Donahue does such a great job conveying Samantha's growing sense of paranoia and unease that it begins to seep off the screen and infect the viewer...we grow restless and uncomfortable along with her as the big, dark, scary house menaces her with it's settling sounds, and it's shadowy corridors. Ti West does an absolutely amazing job behind the directors chair here, as he knows when to pull back and give us the long shot of the heroine (and thus playing with our heads and leading us as viewers to expect something lurking behind her when there is nothing) and when to get in almost uncomfortably close and force a claustrophobic perspective. Another thing that West does extremely well here is the use of sound. Unlike a recent remake that I detested, West goes the route of The Strangers here and proves beyond a doubt that less is more. No "sound stingers" blast away on the soundtrack here...there aren't any "CAAAAT!" scares to be found. When something BAD happens, it happens without musical cue, just like in real life. And it's just as sudden and shocking, too!

All that being said...I absolutely LOVED this movie. I think everything, from top to bottom, was amazing about it, and I think it deserves a full ***** stars out of five. If you liked The Strangers and/or you really dig old school grindhouse "cult" movies...check this one out, ASAP.

Funny you should post a review for this film...I was just looking into it earlier today. Just watching the trailer and some short clips, I couldn't believe this movie only came out last year. It has more of an old school feel than any horror film made in the last 15 years. I'm strongly considering picking up the Blu-ray (although the novelty of owning the film on VHS is intriguing as well).

[Rorschach]

Just a general question for folks here: when it comes to these recent spate of horror remakes, do you prefer folks who are stepping into these iconic roles to play it close to the original, or do you like them to make the roles their own?

I ask because recently, we've had discussions on Jackie Earle Haley and his turn as Freddy....in past threads, we've debated the merits of Malcolm McDowell's turn as Loomis vs. Donald Pleasance's iconic turn, and the consensus seems to be that anyone coming into these roles ought to play it close enough to show reverence but also add their own spin to the role, as it were.

Me, I am in the camp that believes that anyone taking on roles as iconic in the genre as Loomis, or Freddy Krueger, or even Dracula, Frankenstein's monster, or the Mummy, would be wise to at least LOOK at what came before them, and take note of what worked, and what was the best parts of those turns, while at the same time putting their own unique stamp on the character. I do believe Jackie Earle Haley tried to do this as Freddy...I just don't think he had the freedom with the character that Englund had back when he first brought it to life.

As I've said before, these characters have stood the test of time for many years (sometimes decades even!) for a reason. If you MUST redo them...try not to stray too far from what works.

[andrew8798]

Speaking of the Never Sleep Again: Elm Street Legacy DVD looks like it won't be sold in stores for a while only way to get it now is to order it online

[andrew8798]

Piranha 3D trailer



Can't wait for this movie

[Deleted]

May 6, 2010 23:47:56 GMT -5 andrew8798 said:

Speaking of the Never Sleep Again: Elm Street Legacy DVD looks like it won't be sold in stores for a while only way to get it now is to order it online

Online, eh?

*whistles and walks away slowly*

[andrew8798]

With Saw 7 suppose to be the last one in the series maybe we can get a decent box set.

Also speaking of the Elm Street series I have the old DVD boxset I need to replace part 3 as Someone stole my copy

[Big DSR Energy]

May 6, 2010 22:00:33 GMT -5 Rorschach said:

Just a general question for folks here: when it comes to these recent spate of horror remakes, do you prefer folks who are stepping into these iconic roles to play it close to the original, or do you like them to make the roles their own?

I ask because recently, we've had discussions on Jackie Earle Haley and his turn as Freddy....in past threads, we've debated the merits of Malcolm McDowell's turn as Loomis vs. Donald Pleasance's iconic turn, and the consensus seems to be that anyone coming into these roles ought to play it close enough to show reverence but also add their own spin to the role, as it were.

Me, I am in the camp that believes that anyone taking on roles as iconic in the genre as Loomis, or Freddy Krueger, or even Dracula, Frankenstein's monster, or the Mummy, would be wise to at least LOOK at what came before them, and take note of what worked, and what was the best parts of those turns, while at the same time putting their own unique stamp on the character. I do believe Jackie Earle Haley tried to do this as Freddy...I just don't think he had the freedom with the character that Englund had back when he first brought it to life.

As I've said before, these characters have stood the test of time for many years (sometimes decades even!) for a reason. If you MUST redo them...try not to stray too far from what works.

I gotta say I like when they make it their own. If I can speak on a non-horror picture for a minute, the one real problem I had with THE INCREDIBLE HULK (as in, the movie starring Edward Norton), it was the ridiculous lengths they went to to remind you of the old Bill Bixby/Lou Ferrigno TV show. When I'm watching a movie I want to get sucked into the world of that movie, I want to believe these events are actually happening, even if I know they aren't. And when I'm constantly being reminded "hey, this is just like that show/the comic/whatever source material" with little in-jokes or nods to the original material, that takes me OUT of the experience.

Now, I don't think the ideas of "make it your own" and "be reverent to the source material" are mutually exclusive. IRON MAN was very close to the comic book, but aside from Stan Lee's cameo, there weren't references to the fact that this was a STORY being RETOLD, it played out like EVENTS that were HAPPENING.

(Again, sorry for straying from the Horror discussion, but the Holy Grail of Horror remakes, THE FLY and THE THING, didn't really feature iconic characters, so the makers of the remakes just had the premise to work with...though again, I didn't see Vincent Price show up in THE FLY, and I didn't hear that high-pitched "HeLp mE!" voice at anytime, now did I?)

I guess my overall point is, reverence for the original will only get you so far ("you" meaning the actors, or writers, or directors, etc.). The point of Horror is to face the unknown, to confront it, and to hopefully come out of the experience stronger than you were before. And if you're simply reciting verbatim a story everyone already knows and isn't scared by anymore, then you're pretty much just asking the audience to face the known, and what's the point of that?!

But, not to repeat myself, but I don't think you can only go one way or the other on this debate. I certainly think you can take concepts that worked, and discard the ones that didn't. But to sit there as a writer or director and say "that scene worked and was really cool, let's redo it" or "we're gonna put that line in the remake" just feels to me to be really uninspired, like you're cut-and-pasting a movie together, rather than actually creating one.

Hope some of that made sense.

[YellowJacketY2J]

May 6, 2010 9:37:55 GMT -5 Lick Ness Monster said:

May 5, 2010 23:05:30 GMT -5 YellowJacketY2J said:

Been watching some slashers/cheesy horror movies the past few days. I've watched Slumber Party Massacre (very fun), The Pit (surprisingly good, though there was a better film underneath), Grandmother's House (first-half boring, second-half astoundingly stupid thanks to a dumb twist) and Humongous (good premise, but very boring). I'm currently watching Hunter's Blood (which I'm enjoying so far). Interesting fact about Hunter's Blood: it was Billy Bob Thornton's first role. He plays the redneck who wears the red cap at the bar (not sure if he'll show up later or not).

Jesus Christ, you must have some amazing video store. At the one chain store in my neck of the woods, ANYTHING beyond two years old is immediately discounted and purged, which makes me long even moreso for the days of that awesome Hollywood Video in my college town.

Actually, I use Netflix and order old VHS tapes off of sites like Amazon.

[kidglov3s]

Just watched Inside. Barely. I don't think I've ever had to cover my eyes more through a movie. I'm not sure if it wasn't too excessive for it's own good, but it was definitely a memorable experience. Do not believe I will ever have the stomach to watch it again in the near future. Once... is enough, I think, at least for now.

EDIT: The more I think about it the less I think that there's really anything to it beyond the gore. There's not much story there. I do feel like it's an experience, but I'm not certain it's much of a film.

[Lick Ness Monster]

Inside is a movie that I just won't be able to convince myself to sit through. The DVD cover alone is enough to put me off; I can put up with quite a bit, but violence against an unborn baby just evokes something very deep in me. Just not my cup of tea at all.

As for the "reverence vs. new stamp" debate, I'm with you on that one pretty much word-for-word, Rorschach, and the fact that you mention MacDowell's version of Loomis is pretty noteworthy. That's a fine example of a character that just strays TOO far from the original, turning a likable, heroic doctor into a sniveling profiteer (at least in Halloween 2) with no redeeming qualities. To me, that's JUST as distracting as someone attempting to play a role exactly the way it was in the original, as someone who has seen the previous film is constantly thinking to themselves, "man, this is NOTHING like the original." Although in the case of ZombieWeen, it's not the actor's fault - it's RZ and his questionable (and that's putting it nicely) script writing.

Got a new review up on my blog! Tobe Hooper's 1981 "slasher" film, The Funhouse).

[Jiren]

I saw "A Nightmare On Elm Street" today, I think just about sums up my feelings



I wish I was able to sleep through this nightmare

[Deleted]

Wow...i'm shocked. Doom hated it. Who knew?

[Jiren]

It's not my fault Platinum Dunes are clueless.

Although I liked JEH as Freddy

[Ken Ivory]

Just got back from watching Nightmare 2010. I've many thought son it but the main rant at the moment is as follows:

SPOILER: Click to show

{Spoiler}The blatant copying of the end of Freddy Vs Jason. I mean they didn't tip the hat, they basically lifted the ending of F v J and pasted it to the end of NOES 2010, right down to the "this is my world bitch" parting shot. I felt majorly gypped with that ending

[BayleyTiffyCodyCenaJudyHopps]

Something I felt would be the most appropriate here: why are zombie fans so strict about the sub-genre's "rules"?

I know that Romero zombies have rigor mortis and typically move slowly, and the zombie-like creatures in the 28 Days Later films have gotten some heat for their speed, as did the ones in the "Return of the Living Dead" for the ability to speak a little.

[Rorschach]

May 7, 2010 17:31:22 GMT -5 BayleyTiffyCodyCenaJudyHopps said:

Something I felt would be the most appropriate here: why are zombie fans so strict about the sub-genre's "rules"?

I know that Romero zombies have rigor mortis and typically move slowly, and the zombie-like creatures in the 28 Days Later films have gotten some heat for their speed, as did the ones in the "Return of the Living Dead" for the ability to speak a little.

*In before TR goes ballistic on the Romero "Dead" films* ;D ;D

I think it just has to do with personal preference, myself. If you're the type of analytical, scientific minded person who thinks that something that's been dead and in the ground ought NOT to move with the speed of a gazelle...then you're going to hate all the "fast zombie" movies with a passion.

If on the other hand you think that slow moving corpses lack any sort of viable threat, then you're going to absolutely HATE the Romero films, and all the "slow zombie" imitators of them. I really don't think there's much of a middle ground, though there are people that just like zombie films in general, and can appreciate both. I just haven't run into many of them. ;D

Speaking of zombies, though...I found an AWESOME new short story anthology I've been wanting to let you all know about:



This has got a little bit of something for everyone in it...tragedy, comedy, surrealism...and yeah, boatloads of brain-craving, shambling, stumbling walking dead!

[Deleted]

Ah, Max Brooks. One of the revivialists of the zombie genre. Doesn't hurt either that his pop is one of the greatest comedic minds ever.

[Big DSR Energy]

May 7, 2010 18:05:11 GMT -5 Rorschach said:

May 7, 2010 17:31:22 GMT -5 BayleyTiffyCodyCenaJudyHopps said:

Something I felt would be the most appropriate here: why are zombie fans so strict about the sub-genre's "rules"?

I know that Romero zombies have rigor mortis and typically move slowly, and the zombie-like creatures in the 28 Days Later films have gotten some heat for their speed, as did the ones in the "Return of the Living Dead" for the ability to speak a little.

*In before TR goes ballistic on the Romero "Dead" films* ;D ;D

I think it just has to do with personal preference, myself. If you're the type of analytical, scientific minded person who thinks that something that's been dead and in the ground ought NOT to move with the speed of a gazelle...then you're going to hate all the "fast zombie" movies with a passion.

If on the other hand you think that slow moving corpses lack any sort of viable threat, then you're going to absolutely HATE the Romero films, and all the "slow zombie" imitators of them. I really don't think there's much of a middle ground, though there are people that just like zombie films in general, and can appreciate both. I just haven't run into many of them. ;D

I appreciate both.

Well, at least I did, before there became a glut on the market for zombie movies, and people taking the damn things SO seriously. There's people that treat The Zombie Survival Guide like its sacred writ or something, but I honestly found the book far too dry and boring to even finish.