Gus Richlen Was Wrong
Patti Mayonnaise
Metal Maestro: Co-winner of the FAN Idol Throwdown!
Fun while it lasted
Posts: 38,466
|
Post by Gus Richlen Was Wrong on Mar 2, 2011 14:27:39 GMT -5
what does everyone think of the movie "Phantoms"?
i personally love it, esp. since it has Rose McGowan (and i am a proud Rose fan) and Liev Schreiber is a blast to watch.
|
|
|
Post by Heinekenrana on Mar 2, 2011 14:37:09 GMT -5
Linnea Quigley will always be one of my very favorite actresses ever, not just for "Night of the Demons" though; she was also pretty... uhm - good - in "Return of the Living Dead". Tremendous body of work there.
|
|
|
Post by YellowJacketY2J on Mar 2, 2011 14:39:56 GMT -5
Rented Hatchet II last night. Will watch it later tonight, as well as posting my thoughts.
Rorschach, I too loved the original Night of the Demons and was indifferent towards the remake! For me, I felt the new one tried too hard and only hit the mark very few times. I like Edward Furlong, but was more saddened to see him here, as he's really let himself go. I hope we don't hear a dreadful news story soon.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2011 14:40:10 GMT -5
Linnea Quigley will always be one of my very favorite actresses ever, not just for "Night of the Demons" though; she was also pretty... uhm - good - in "Return of the Living Dead". Tremendous body of work there. Well obviously.
|
|
andrew8798
FANatic
on 24/7 this month
Posts: 106,084
|
Post by andrew8798 on Mar 2, 2011 21:00:36 GMT -5
I heard of some strange ass movies in my life but I think Rubber (the killer tire) has to take the cake. A killer tire that kills people with psychic powers. Strange enough I might just check it out
|
|
|
Post by DSR on Mar 2, 2011 22:31:49 GMT -5
what does everyone think of the movie "Phantoms"? i personally love it, esp. since it has Rose McGowan (and i am a proud Rose fan) and Liev Schreiber is a blast to watch. It's been a while since I've seen it, but I recall enjoying it. I'm one of the few people in the world willing to admit I like Ben Affleck for some reason, but him, Liev, Rose, and Joanna Going turn in nice performances. It's not a favorite movie of mine, or anything, but I could think of a lot worse things to do with 2 hours.
|
|
Raging_Demons
Don Corleone
I Can Ride My Bike With No Handlebars, No Handlebars, No Handlebars!
Posts: 1,620
|
Post by Raging_Demons on Mar 2, 2011 22:35:52 GMT -5
what does everyone think of the movie "Phantoms"? i personally love it, esp. since it has Rose McGowan (and i am a proud Rose fan) and Liev Schreiber is a blast to watch.
|
|
|
Post by YellowJacketY2J on Mar 2, 2011 23:50:40 GMT -5
Just finished Hatchet II. Had an absolute blast! Just like the first, it had great atmosphere and felt like an 80's slasher flick. This one does what every slasher sequel does and doubles the body count (possibly even tripling it). The kills are inventive and gorey as hell! This movie earns it's uncut moniker! I loved Kane Hodder as Victor Crowley once again, as well as Tony Todd getting more screen time. Good to see some back story, as well.
The only downside was Danielle Harris as Marybeth. I found her more annoying than sympathetic. It doesn't help her character's motives are questionable and don't make much sense. She drags the film down, as opposed to giving it an emotional boost.
Other than that, I loved the film! Bring on Hatchet III!
|
|
|
Post by Rorschach on Mar 3, 2011 4:54:32 GMT -5
Just finished Hatchet II. Had an absolute blast! Just like the first, it had great atmosphere and felt like an 80's slasher flick. This one does what every slasher sequel does and doubles the body count (possibly even tripling it). The kills are inventive and gorey as hell! This movie earns it's uncut moniker! I loved Kane Hodder as Victor Crowley once again, as well as Tony Todd getting more screen time. Good to see some back story, as well. The only downside was Danielle Harris as Marybeth. I found her more annoying than sympathetic. It doesn't help her character's motives are questionable and don't make much sense. She drags the film down, as opposed to giving it an emotional boost. Other than that, I loved the film! Bring on Hatchet III! The problem I had with it is that it's being sold as horror, when (just like a LOT of Japanese company Tokyo Shock's stuff) it's more hilarious than horrific due to the ludicrous nature of the kills. Speaking of ludicrous kills....I went and put myself through mental anguish AGAIN for you guys, and I sat down and watched the "new" version of I Spit on Your Grave. Where to begin with this one.... I Spit on Your Grave Directed by: Steven R. Monroe Starring: Sarah Butler, Jeff Branson, and Andrew Howard Essentially, this film is the dictionary definition of "has no reason to exist". If you want shock-sploitation, the 1978 original is scummier, nastier and more visceral feeling than this pointless remake, and I dare say that Meir Zarchi's original film (Zarchi is credited as a writer here) told it's savage story in a much better paced, and to the point way. Plus, not to knock this film for no reason, but in 1978, Zarchi's Day of the Woman truly WAS a shocking, numbing, and utterly polarizing experience to see in theaters. Not that I was around to do so, mind you, but just going back and reading some of the vitriol that theater patrons and film critics alike spewed about Zarchi's film is MORE than enough to establish that this was a movie that crossed a VERY taboo line with a lot of people. (most notably Roger Ebert, whose acid laced review can be found at the following link: rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19800716/REVIEWS/7160301/1023 ) So yeah, the 1978 original film has a sort of notoriety to it, and I can only think that the "name value" of the original, and the "Saw bandwagon" are the only two reasons this film was remade. Much like the remake of Wes Craven's Last House on the Left, cleaning up and "Hollywood"-izing such a gritty, grungy, DIRTY original movie does it NO favors. Nor does the more modern setting, which in THIS movie is a real head scratcher because not only does this utterly, utterly STUPID script introduce a device that could spare the titular heroine ALL of her woe, but it also THEN has to devise a way to get rid of that device before "attack time". For those of you unfamiliar with the original movie, the basic outline is still the same here: young amateur writer Jennifer Hills heads out to what she believes will be the peace and quiet of a country cabin to pen her first novel. What awaits her at that cabin in the woods is an assault and a rape so vicious and brutal it makes Ned Beatty's scene from Deliverance look like two virgins holding hands at a Jonas Brothers concert. Naturally, the four hicks involved don't finish the job and Jennifer is left to lick her wounds, and plan a demented, brutal revenge on those who wronged her. Such an interesting premise, and the way it is presented in Zarchi's film is much the same as it's presented here, though some details are reversed: in the original, the rape begins out of doors and ends at the cabin (which makes sense because hey, that's where Jennifer runs to for safety) but in the remake, it's the other way round, and instead of passing out and being left for dead in her cabin, the hicks brutalize Jennifer in a clearing, and this time she walks along a public road, hitching and jerking like a naked Sadako from The Ring and pitches herself buck naked into the river off to the side of the road. This is the first of MANY logic bombs and pointless alterations from the original that this remake serves up to the viewer; bear in mind that these logic bombs were averted back in the script from 1978, but in the year 2010, couldn't be picked up on by this film's incompetent editor, or it's maverick director either. Want more? How about how {Spoiler} in the original, the ways that Jennifer killed her male assailants made sense, and were common, everyday methods that a person might associate with killing someone: knifing(and castration, a scene that this remake tries to ape, and despite a disgusting new twist, STILL cannot match the tension of), shooting, hanging and perhaps the MOST "over the top", a death by boat motor. In the 2010 version, this Jennifer Hills goes from nerdy bookworm to a distaff Bear Grylls-meets-Jigsaw without explanation, rigging up torture traps that involve balancing a man on two-by-fours over a bathtub filled with lye soap, hanging a man with a noose (that hangs him JUST enough that he's incapacitated for MOST of the film but can come back to life in time for it's finale), the aforementioned string up and castration scene (replete with a man having his own severed dick stuffed in his mouth), DEATH BY BIRDS (no I'm not making that up...Jennifer literally uses CROWS to kill one of her tormentors...she lashes him to a tree and smears fish guts in his eyes and lets CROWS peck his eyes out, which kills him somehow) and a laughable rip-off of a scene from f*****g CRANK 2 of all things, where a man has a pump shotgun literally shoved up his ass. Hey, if you're gonna steal, steal from the best, right? Another bugaboo with this film is it's timeline. In the original, because Jennifer was left to die in her cabin (actually the retarded character is sent back to "finish her" and fakes it because he can't bear to kill her) the idiots responsible leave the cabin alone and allow for time to pass wherein Jennifer heals and plots her revenge. In the ass-backwards remake, because Jennifer takes that crazy ass backflip into the river, we're treated to a LENGTHY section of film where she's MIA, and one character even states out loud that it's been at least a month since they've seen her (because this version even includes the dreaded trope of an evil sheriff who's *GASP* IN ON IT ALL ALONG and thus has ordered his hillbilly lackeys to scour the area of the attack day and night until Jennifer's body is found). So....where the F*** was Jennifer all that time? When she does show back up again, she's dressed better than when they originally attacked her, and she even changes outfits at one point to seduce one of her attackers back towards her cabin where she wants him. WTF.....so all this time she was, what, playing RAMBO out in the woods and eating squirrels and opossums to say alive while stealthily evading her redneck trackers? BULL....S***. Really, this movie does a MILLION things wrong like that, with little or no thought to how BIG of a logic gap it is creating. Like with the aformentioned cell phone. Why introduce something like that if you only HAVE to then destroy it later JUST so that your character in peril CANNOT use it when it would literally save her life? Not to mention the fact that out in bumf*** backwoods NOWHERE, this chick gets better reception on her cell than *I* do in a major city on my smartphone. That's also not taking into account the laptop this movie introduces, yet never has the lead character think about using to CALL 911 with or anything. Nope...no logic flaw there. Or how about the fact this this version has one of the inbred hicks taping the ENTIRE incident on a camcorder, a move so damn STUPID that you'd have to think even one of the OTHER imbeciles would stop to comment on. 'Yeah, maybe we better not record this, lest that tape somehow fall into the wrong hands or anything, and lead to us being arrested by the feds". Nope. No such brainwaves here, though later on, when Jennifer steals that camcorder AND the tape inside it and drops the tape by the Sheriff's house so his pregnant wife and his daughter can watch it (yes, this dumb movie goes there: it actually has Jennifer interact with, and threaten the Sheriff's family...*FACEPALM*) the Sheriff explodes with rage on Camcorder Hick and damn near makes him literally eat the tape. And yet, the hits keep coming, because characters alude to things they were never there to see (the breaking of the cell phone for example) and they do these things without batting an eye. I guess they just assumed that anyone who wanted to see this film was mainly there for the torture aspect of it and nothing else, and wouldn't be paying close attention to the plot anyway. See, Zarchi's original film provoked people's rage because it was a raw, violent and unflinching look at a hideous attack and the repercussions of it. This remake provokes MY rage because it's dumb as hell and all the gore in the world can't hide the many and sundry logic errors, script flaws, and laugh out loud ridiculousness this movie contains. Quality-wise, it's a good looking film, and the actors ARE competent in their roles. The villains are hateable and Sarah Butler is more than a match for Camille Keaton in the original film. But that's about it as far as positives go; everything else fails on every level. The 2010 version of I Spit on Your Grave will, at least in my books, go down as the "Lisa Simpson" of horror films: the answer to a question that NOBODY asked. ** out of five, mainly for Sarah Butler's gutsy performance.
|
|
|
Post by YellowJacketY2J on Mar 3, 2011 4:58:26 GMT -5
Hatchet II is definitely more comedy than horror. Then again, 90% of slashers fall into that same line, but are promoted as horror anyway. Most likely because those with a weak heart would be frightened by the gore, no matter how over the top.
Kudos for reviewing the new I Spit On Your Grave. I seen it at the local video store and pondered renting it, just to test myself (I did the same thing with the original). Decided to go with Hatchet II instead. I made the right decision, it seems.
|
|
Lick Ness Monster
Dennis Stamp
From the eerie, eerie depths of Lake Okabena
Posts: 4,874
|
Post by Lick Ness Monster on Mar 3, 2011 10:42:14 GMT -5
The 2010 version of I Spit on Your Grave will, at least in my books, go down as the "Lisa Simpson" of horror films: the answer to a question that NOBODY asked. Really...that line is just aces there, 'Schach. I had no intentions of seeing the new ISOYG for the same reason you were apprehensive about it - what's the point? Oh, and DSR, nothing wrong at all about being a fan of Ben Affleck. An underrated actor (he was robbed of an Oscar nom for Hollywoodland) who's also already got two bona fide modern classics under his belt as a director.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 3, 2011 14:39:32 GMT -5
Exactly. There's no point in seeing that remake. Completely senseless filmmaking right there, only to get a rise out of the SAW audience.
And to answer the question of the Hatchet II debate. I would throw this movie into the "comedy/horror" genre. They knew they wanted to go over-the-top with it, and they did it tenfold. Hell, I believe that the creators of the film knew it wasn't scary as much as it was funny due to the things they pull off here. I can take that.
Remember, some horror films don't have to scare the pants off of you. Some horror movies can be fun and entertaining. The kind of movie to have your friends watching with, downing back a couple beers.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 3, 2011 17:58:34 GMT -5
So yeah. There's news coming out that Trent Reznor is scoring Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter as well as playing the role of the vampire who willl kill Lincoln's mom.
Okay...
|
|
Lick Ness Monster
Dennis Stamp
From the eerie, eerie depths of Lake Okabena
Posts: 4,874
|
Post by Lick Ness Monster on Mar 4, 2011 11:09:52 GMT -5
Brand new IHR induction!!?? This time it's one of my all-time slasher movie champs... There are few childhood memories more precious than Channels 15 and 16. Back when the Horror Nerd was just a little nerd, those were the channels reserved for Cinemax and The Movie Channel in the Lickness (my evil alter-ego) household. Occasionally, when certain specifications were met (on the sixth day of every month during a lunar eclipse...or sometimes just when the wind was coming in from the north), the normally impenetrable fuzz of Channel 16 (this would be TMC) would start to bleed over and give tantalizing looks at the forbidden fruit of pay cable. On said occasions, my brother would SCREAM for yours truly to run down to the basement and see what good fortune had in store for us on that day. Well, on some fateful summer day in 1989, The Burning was the movie in question that the cable TV gods saw fit to grace us with. Ordinarily, horror movies scared the s*** out of the six-year-old Horror Nerd; this movie was quite the opposite. It had its creepy moments, but there is such a fun, cheesy, tongue-in-cheek quality to this film that it's hard not to enjoy it as pure camp. My brother laughed his ass off, and I joined him. The movie is still one of my favorites, and while the Horror Nerd's brother is no longer with us, this is a movie that still brings a smile to my face every time I see it. Oh boy, this is some movie. In a factoid that must embarrass the Weinsteins to no end, The Burning is the movie that put their fledgling company Miramax Studios on the map. The year was 1981, and slasher flicks ruled the landscape. As such, there is virtually nothing - AT ALL - original or groundbreaking about the movie. All of the elements (summer camp setting, virtuous and nonvirtuous teens, gratuitous nudity, a hideous freak of a killer, etc.) had obviously been done a thousand times before, and have been done a thousand times since. None of it matters, because this flick is just loads of fun to watch. It also doesn't hurt that it has some real actors, including George Costanza himself as the requisite "practical joker" camper and Holly Hunter in a few "blink and you miss her" appearances. THE MOVIE!! Like a lot of '80s slasher films, The Burning begins with a sort of "legend" story, a la Paul Holt telling the other camp counselors the story of Jason Voorhees in Friday the 13th Part II. A group of young campers at some mythical movie summer camp are planning to play a nasty prank on Cropsy (Lou David, who projects tons of lecherous sliminess in the role), the nasty handyman at the camp who has wronged all of them in one way or another. In one of those "what could possibly go wrong here?" twists, the incident goes horribly awry, resulting in Cropsy being burned from head to toe and winding up in a burn ward for the next several years, where he slowly goes insane. All things added up, he gets out five years later with sweet revenge on his mind, promptly kills a prostitute, and makes his way to his old stomping grounds... At this point, the movie sets us up with its "teenage" mini plots. There's a group of likable teens, where Jason Alexander shows up (with hair, no less) and immediately becomes the most awesome character in the entire movie. His friend Eddy (Ned Eisenburg) has the hots for Karen (Carolyn Houlihan), but she is reluctant to consummate the relationship due to Eddy's bad boy reputation. Meanwhile, unpopular camper Alfred (Brian Backer) struggles to fit in with Alexander and his wisecracking friends, all the while feuding with douchy jock Glazer (Larry Joshua, infinitely hateable in this role) and his would-be girlfriend Sally (Carrick Glenn). While all of this is going on, the two camp counselors (Brian Matthews and Leah Ahres) are your typical summer camp movie likable "adults-in-charge." Lots of fun, s***s and giggles to be had. There's one very important thing you should know about The Burning - the makeup effects are done by Tom Savini, and this may arguably be the finest job he has ever done. Not only is Cropsy a nasty-looking son of a bitch, but the movie's money scene - a lake raft massacre - is one of the most impressive set pieces I've seen in any '80s slasher movie. Some directors and makeup artists like to cut away from the moment of impact and leave the absolute worst of the worst stuff up to your imagination, but I'm a huge mark for the way Savini does it (along with director Tony Maylam), always lingering as the various slashy implements penetrate the skin. When Cropsy starts his inevitable revenge in this movie, it's a very visceral movie. At times, The Burning is also a very funny movie. Even more amazingly, a good deal of the lines that make the audience laugh were actually MEANT to do so. Alexander's comic timing was already well on display here, and I wouldn't be surprised to find out if a lot of his lines were improvised. There have been some examples of GREAT casting in the pantheon of slasher movies (first and foremost has to be Crispin Glover in Friday the 13th: The Final Chapter), and a young Jason Alexander as a summer camper with a penchant for shooting the camp douchebag in the ass with a pellet gun has to be ranked right up there with the best. Every time he's onscreen in The Burning, it's a must-pay-attention scene. As for the unintentional comedy, there should be more than enough questionable lines in the screenplay (a college friend of mine was actually a member of a band called "Down with Glazer" to give you an example of the type of movie we're working with here) and welcome slasher cliches to sate any MST3K-style party you may want to throw with this flick as the main course. Also, for all the guys out there, both of the movie's slutty teens show off their goods...and they're quite glorious. Both Carrick Glenn and Carolyn Houlihan have amazing assets, if I say so myself. If you're like me, seeing gratuitous nudity in horror movies is always an enjoyable experience for reasons other than eye candy, because it takes you back to the days when this was an essential ingredient in mainstream horror films, and when "neck-up-only" shower shots that wuss out weren't the norm. Not so in The Burning; all the good stuff is right out there for you to see. Conclusion paragraph time...there is little that stands out about The Burning, but it doesn't even matter. It's loads of fun to watch either by yourself or with a group, it's got some absolutely amazing gore effects work from Tom Savini, and it's got the bald guy from Seinfeld as an honest-to-christ cool teen. For fans of '80s slasher cinema, there are few flicks that satisfy the craving quite like this one. P.S. - I typed this entire review in Quick Reply with Friskey's sig clearly visible in the browser window, and I DEMAND a freaking medal for having the willpower to focus on the task at hand with THAT in my line of sight.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 4, 2011 14:21:58 GMT -5
Bravo, my good sir. BRAVO! And not just for the review! How long did that take you? A couple hours?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 4, 2011 14:57:34 GMT -5
New trailer for a new movie called Dylan Dog: Dead of Night, courtesy of yours truly (no seriously, I ripped and put this on my YouTube channel, so GIVE ME VIEWS!). This movie seemed to be in the can for awhile as it was looking for a distributor, and it looks like it found one.
Looks like a boatload of awesome right there.
|
|
|
Post by Rorschach on Mar 4, 2011 20:07:07 GMT -5
Brand new IHR induction!!?? This time it's one of my all-time slasher movie champs... There are few childhood memories more precious than Channels 15 and 16. Back when the Horror Nerd was just a little nerd, those were the channels reserved for Cinemax and The Movie Channel in the Lickness (my evil alter-ego) household. Occasionally, when certain specifications were met (on the sixth day of every month during a lunar eclipse...or sometimes just when the wind was coming in from the north), the normally impenetrable fuzz of Channel 16 (this would be TMC) would start to bleed over and give tantalizing looks at the forbidden fruit of pay cable. On said occasions, my brother would SCREAM for yours truly to run down to the basement and see what good fortune had in store for us on that day. Well, on some fateful summer day in 1989, The Burning was the movie in question that the cable TV gods saw fit to grace us with. Ordinarily, horror movies scared the s*** out of the six-year-old Horror Nerd; this movie was quite the opposite. It had its creepy moments, but there is such a fun, cheesy, tongue-in-cheek quality to this film that it's hard not to enjoy it as pure camp. My brother laughed his ass off, and I joined him. The movie is still one of my favorites, and while the Horror Nerd's brother is no longer with us, this is a movie that still brings a smile to my face every time I see it. Oh boy, this is some movie. In a factoid that must embarrass the Weinsteins to no end, The Burning is the movie that put their fledgling company Miramax Studios on the map. The year was 1981, and slasher flicks ruled the landscape. As such, there is virtually nothing - AT ALL - original or groundbreaking about the movie. All of the elements (summer camp setting, virtuous and nonvirtuous teens, gratuitous nudity, a hideous freak of a killer, etc.) had obviously been done a thousand times before, and have been done a thousand times since. None of it matters, because this flick is just loads of fun to watch. It also doesn't hurt that it has some real actors, including George Costanza himself as the requisite "practical joker" camper and Holly Hunter in a few "blink and you miss her" appearances. THE MOVIE!! Like a lot of '80s slasher films, The Burning begins with a sort of "legend" story, a la Paul Holt telling the other camp counselors the story of Jason Voorhees in Friday the 13th Part II. A group of young campers at some mythical movie summer camp are planning to play a nasty prank on Cropsy (Lou David, who projects tons of lecherous sliminess in the role), the nasty handyman at the camp who has wronged all of them in one way or another. In one of those "what could possibly go wrong here?" twists, the incident goes horribly awry, resulting in Cropsy being burned from head to toe and winding up in a burn ward for the next several years, where he slowly goes insane. All things added up, he gets out five years later with sweet revenge on his mind, promptly kills a prostitute, and makes his way to his old stomping grounds... At this point, the movie sets us up with its "teenage" mini plots. There's a group of likable teens, where Jason Alexander shows up (with hair, no less) and immediately becomes the most awesome character in the entire movie. His friend Eddy (Ned Eisenburg) has the hots for Karen (Carolyn Houlihan), but she is reluctant to consummate the relationship due to Eddy's bad boy reputation. Meanwhile, unpopular camper Alfred (Brian Backer) struggles to fit in with Alexander and his wisecracking friends, all the while feuding with douchy jock Glazer (Larry Joshua, infinitely hateable in this role) and his would-be girlfriend Sally (Carrick Glenn). While all of this is going on, the two camp counselors (Brian Matthews and Leah Ahres) are your typical summer camp movie likable "adults-in-charge." Lots of fun, s***s and giggles to be had. There's one very important thing you should know about The Burning - the makeup effects are done by Tom Savini, and this may arguably be the finest job he has ever done. Not only is Cropsy a nasty-looking son of a bitch, but the movie's money scene - a lake raft massacre - is one of the most impressive set pieces I've seen in any '80s slasher movie. Some directors and makeup artists like to cut away from the moment of impact and leave the absolute worst of the worst stuff up to your imagination, but I'm a huge mark for the way Savini does it (along with director Tony Maylam), always lingering as the various slashy implements penetrate the skin. When Cropsy starts his inevitable revenge in this movie, it's a very visceral movie. At times, The Burning is also a very funny movie. Even more amazingly, a good deal of the lines that make the audience laugh were actually MEANT to do so. Alexander's comic timing was already well on display here, and I wouldn't be surprised to find out if a lot of his lines were improvised. There have been some examples of GREAT casting in the pantheon of slasher movies (first and foremost has to be Crispin Glover in Friday the 13th: The Final Chapter), and a young Jason Alexander as a summer camper with a penchant for shooting the camp douchebag in the ass with a pellet gun has to be ranked right up there with the best. Every time he's onscreen in The Burning, it's a must-pay-attention scene. As for the unintentional comedy, there should be more than enough questionable lines in the screenplay (a college friend of mine was actually a member of a band called "Down with Glazer" to give you an example of the type of movie we're working with here) and welcome slasher cliches to sate any MST3K-style party you may want to throw with this flick as the main course. Also, for all the guys out there, both of the movie's slutty teens show off their goods...and they're quite glorious. Both Carrick Glenn and Carolyn Houlihan have amazing assets, if I say so myself. If you're like me, seeing gratuitous nudity in horror movies is always an enjoyable experience for reasons other than eye candy, because it takes you back to the days when this was an essential ingredient in mainstream horror films, and when "neck-up-only" shower shots that wuss out weren't the norm. Not so in The Burning; all the good stuff is right out there for you to see. Conclusion paragraph time...there is little that stands out about The Burning, but it doesn't even matter. It's loads of fun to watch either by yourself or with a group, it's got some absolutely amazing gore effects work from Tom Savini, and it's got the bald guy from Seinfeld as an honest-to-christ cool teen. For fans of '80s slasher cinema, there are few flicks that satisfy the craving quite like this one. P.S. - I typed this entire review in Quick Reply with Friskey's sig clearly visible in the browser window, and I DEMAND a freaking medal for having the willpower to focus on the task at hand with THAT in my line of sight. AMEN. Not that I want to provoke anyone to DO so, but how in the HELL this movie escaped being remade, while obscure niche films like I Spit On Your Grave and Last House on The Left got the ROYAL studio treatment is beyond me. I mean, they already trotted out Freddy, Jason, Myers, and Leatherface in new films...how the HELL they missed Cropsy I'll never know. I mean, for horror junkies like ourselves, the films I mentioned were WIDELY known for a good long while, but before their (IMO) less than stellar reboots, who really knew or cared about them or was actively clamoring for a new version of EITHER of them? Only really hardcore horror-philes would actively seek out I Spit On Your Grave or Last House on the Left...but The Burning is right up there with Sleepaway Camp in the pantheon of 80's summer camp slashers. Heh....maybe it's for the better that Cropsy didn't have ten sequels to his film. I shudder to think what PD would do to The Burning.
|
|
Lick Ness Monster
Dennis Stamp
From the eerie, eerie depths of Lake Okabena
Posts: 4,874
|
Post by Lick Ness Monster on Mar 4, 2011 20:44:21 GMT -5
Bravo, my good sir. BRAVO! And not just for the review! How long did that take you? A couple hours? You're right on the money - almost two hours. And the sig was a constant obstacle.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 4, 2011 20:56:59 GMT -5
Hell, how Cropsy hasn't been Screen Gemmed is BEYOND me. That doesn't scream PD as much as it screams the people who have remade Prom Night, When A Stranger Calls, The Stepfather, and Single White Female. (The Roommate? Come on, we can see right through that.
|
|
|
Post by Rorschach on Mar 4, 2011 21:33:13 GMT -5
Hell, how Cropsy hasn't been Screen Gemmed is BEYOND me. That doesn't scream PD as much as it screams the people who have remade Prom Night, When A Stranger Calls, The Stepfather, and Single White Female. (The Roommate? Come on, we can see right through that. Though that being said, I think if ANYONE could do a sequel to The Burning and have it NOT suck, it would be Adam Greene. Bring back Savini for the make-up and FX, and hell, while you're at it, a cameo from Jason Alexander as a grown up version of his character from the first film would be a nice nod to the original. (As two busty female counselors walk by while he's dropping his son off) "Ahhh....thirty f*****g years and things haven't changed a BIT!" ;D
|
|