Discussion of movies and ReelThoughts topics

It is currently Fri Aug 22, 2014 11:56 pm




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 165 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 9  Next
An Octoberfest of Horror Films 
Author Message
Post Re: An Octoberfest of Horror Films
The AV Club, in an excellent piece of timing, have actually posted a very cool entry on The Human Centipede (First Sequence) today. It's part of their excellent "New Cult Canon" series (if there's one thing to read on that site, this is it). Scott Tobias didn't seem to like it though, apart from Laser and a scene or two.

http://www.avclub.com/articles/the-human-centipede-first-sequence,63712/

PeachyPete wrote:
Major Aphasia wrote:
"I swear to fucking god, brother. I swear to fucking god. If you keep up this shit I'm going to make you watch me have a heart attack."


I'm probably an awful person for having Tyrone Biggums saying "And that was the first time I sucked a dick for crack...but it wouldn't be the last!" immediately come to mind when you mentioned fellating another man, but I thought it nonetheless.


Cocaine is a hell of a drug.


Thu Oct 20, 2011 10:08 pm
Post Re: An Octoberfest of Horror Films
ed_metal_head wrote:
Cocaine is a hell of a drug.


Did it once. Can't say I was entranced enough to try it again. Won't be seeking it out, either. Shrooms, now thats one helluva time.


Thu Oct 20, 2011 11:41 pm
Post Re: An Octoberfest of Horror Films
I've never done drugs and have absolutely no desire to, I probably even smoke weed if it was legalized.


Thu Oct 20, 2011 11:49 pm
Post Re: An Octoberfest of Horror Films
Vexer wrote:
I've never done drugs and have absolutely no desire to, I probably even smoke weed if it was legalized.


Kudos for that, except for the fact that marijuana, despite its classification, is not a drug. Not in the sense that cocaine or heroin are. Weed is a drug in the same way caffeine and nicoteine are drugs, save for the fact that its even less addictive.


Thu Oct 20, 2011 11:55 pm
Post Re: An Octoberfest of Horror Films
JJoshay wrote:
Vexer wrote:
I've never done drugs and have absolutely no desire to, I probably even smoke weed if it was legalized.


Kudos for that, except for the fact that marijuana, despite its classification, is not a drug. Not in the sense that cocaine or heroin are. Weed is a drug in the same way caffeine and nicoteine are drugs, save for the fact that its even less addictive.

So I was told in the Intro To Substance Abuse class I took earlier this year, once you've seen pcitures of what meth and coke do to people, you NEVER want to go near them. I don't even like drinking any type of alcoholic beverages, though that's more because I just don't like the taste of them.


Fri Oct 21, 2011 12:01 am
Post Re: An Octoberfest of Horror Films
Vexer wrote:
JJoshay wrote:
Vexer wrote:
I've never done drugs and have absolutely no desire to, I probably even smoke weed if it was legalized.


Kudos for that, except for the fact that marijuana, despite its classification, is not a drug. Not in the sense that cocaine or heroin are. Weed is a drug in the same way caffeine and nicoteine are drugs, save for the fact that its even less addictive.

So I was told in the Intro To Substance Abuse class I took earlier this year, once you've seen pcitures of what meth and coke do to people, you NEVER want to go near them. I don't even like drinking any type of alcoholic beverages, though that's more because I just don't like the taste of them.

I also dislike drinking, though I'm partial to an Adios Motherfucker from time to time.


Fri Oct 21, 2011 2:21 am
Post Re: An Octoberfest of Horror Films
Right now, I'm drinking a craft beer that was brewed right here in the state where I live.

I haven't had a psychotic break yet and I haven't gotten the "munchies" for a California cheeseburger, but I'll let everyone know what happens as the situation develops.


Fri Oct 21, 2011 3:24 am
Post Re: An Octoberfest of Horror Films
Vexer wrote:
So I was told in the Intro To Substance Abuse class I took earlier this year, once you've seen pcitures of what meth and coke do to people, you NEVER want to go near them.


Drug addicts know this but have trouble seeing the consequences as -- big shock coming -- consequences tend to be gradual. The first-time coke or meth user doesn't identify with some anonymous fellow in a picture for much the same reason you don't identify with a Somalian refugee. Sure, you have a point of comparison but you don't have a point of identification.

So I can say, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that despite my seeing what coke and meth did to people I did in fact go near them. And you know what? I came out alright. This isn't a ringing endorsement but a caution to know when intellect fails to intersect with that dealer-bought feeling.

You don't lose everything over night.


Fri Oct 21, 2011 12:15 pm
Post Re: An Octoberfest of Horror Films
Major Aphasia wrote:
Vexer wrote:
So I was told in the Intro To Substance Abuse class I took earlier this year, once you've seen pcitures of what meth and coke do to people, you NEVER want to go near them.


Drug addicts know this but have trouble seeing the consequences as -- big shock coming -- consequences tend to be gradual. The first-time coke or meth user doesn't identify with some anonymous fellow in a picture for much the same reason you don't identify with a Somalian refugee. Sure, you have a point of comparison but you don't have a point of identification.

So I can say, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that despite my seeing what coke and meth did to people I did in fact go near them. And you know what? I came out alright. This isn't a ringing endorsement but a caution to know when intellect fails to intersect with that dealer-bought feeling.

You don't lose everything over night.

Yes, i'm well aware of that, but i'm a very cautious person and I don't like taking any unncessary risks if I can help it, so when I read about how people's lives were ruined by drugs, I stayed the hell away, I didn't need a "point of identification" to tell me that it was a really bad fucking idea to do anything like that. Sure you may have come out OK, but there's many other people who aren't anywhere near as lucky as you, as they say "curiosity killed the cat" and it can easily kill anybody willing to take the risk.


Fri Oct 21, 2011 12:57 pm
Post Re: An Octoberfest of Horror Films
ImageImage

I thought both of these posters were pretty cool, so I'm posting them both. Also, because those posters are about the only cool thing worth mentioning when it comes to Roger Corman's 1963 film, The Terror.

You'd think a horror film made in 1963 with an early lead performance from Jack Nicholson and starring Boris Karloff as the villain would be pretty great, right? Maybe it wouldn't end up being the deepest thing in the world, but it should be able to provide a good amount of campy fun, no? No indeed. This is a film that's a failure on just about every level. In fact, the film ends up being unintentionally hilarious due to just about awful it is. A lot of B horror films have something similar going for them, but The Terror is on another level. There are technical errors all over the film, from continuity mistakes to dialogue not matching with the actors' mouths. There's plot twists and turns that defy all logic, and one of the silliest, most needless, and funniest twists you'll ever see in a film. That sounds like hyperbole, but I'm 100% serious. It's so random and so senseless that the movie is almost worth watching just to see how ridiculous it is. Almost.

An end product this devoid of anything resembling competent filmmaking makes sense in hindsight. Corman apparently used 4 assistant directors (notably Francis Ford Coppola and Jack Nicholson) to shoot the film in a matter of days. The movie was largely shot on leftover set pieces from a slew of other Corman films, and is rumored to have used a script that wasn't finished...when shooting wrapped!

I'm sparing you guys any sort of plot recap or analysis because it would be pointless. This isn't a movie about anything, or one that even tries to tell an interesting story. It's a practice movie - something thrown together on a whim as cheaply as possible in order for a group of young filmmakers to gain some experience behind the camera.

At 81 minutes the film moves along pretty quickly. It's never more than slightly interesting, but if you're in the mood to laugh at an awful movie, I'd recommend it. I realize that's hardly a glowing endorsement, but it's about all you're likely to get out of this one.


Mon Oct 24, 2011 5:25 pm
Post Re: An Octoberfest of Horror Films
Image

Back-to-back posts, bitches!

Thirst is a film that concerns itself with those base, animalistic desires all human beings have. Those complex, unexplainable things, like sex and love, that we all crave...or to bring the metaphor full circle, thirst after. It's a movie that, at 133 minutes, wears out its welcome a bit. However, the strength of the visuals, the weird, engaging narrative, and the thematic heft make up for its shortcomings. Director Park Chan-wook's movie is a very good, albeit flawed, one.

My main issue with the movie wasn't just the length. I don't mind long movies as long as everything in the film serves a purpose or has some kind of meaning. A tight film and a long film aren't mutually exclusive entities. Chan-wook's film, as stated, has an interesting narrative. It may not be conventional, but it's never boring. The problem is the movie tends to use certain scenes to explain issues and concepts that it's already shown and established visually. It's redundant. For instance, the movie takes it's time setting up Tae-ju's life as an abused, underappreciated servant/slave. She's clearly someone who's unhappy and treated horribly. The movie shows us this, and it's well done. The movie then uses a long scene between Tae-ju and Sang-hyun where the woman details this concept that Chan-wook has already showed the audience visually. This isn't the only example of this in the film, but it's the most glaring one. Some might call it insulting to an audience's intelligence, some might call it insecure filmmaking. I don't know which is accurate. Maybe insecurity on the part of the filmmakers is the cause and beating the audience over the head is the effect. Either way, it makes for an unnecessarily lengthy film.

What the film does well is, well, just about everything else. Visually speaking, it's beautiful. Image after image will be burned into your brain, and a lot of the story is told through these visually striking images. It's pretty great stuff. Considering how the movie begins and starts to move along, I thought it was going to be an anti-religion film that decries the institution in practice. In a way it is, but the movie takes most of its shots at religion in the first half and moves on to more universal, substantial statements in the second. Sang-hyun's transformation from priest to vampire is pulled off as naturally as you're likely to see in a movie. He's trying to maintain some form of humanity as he struggles with his newly found powers (and weaknesses) and he's hesitant to give in to them completely. He indulges (without killing) when he has to, but does his best to surround himself with friends, and eventually, love. Naturally, problems arise with this, and his avenue for comfort eventually becomes broken beyond repair. After finally turning his lover into a vampire in a last ditch, twisted effort to maintain some sort of humanity, she reveals herself to be unable to control those desires, killing not only on a whim, but for fun.

The ending of the film, from the scene in Lady Ra's house where she reveals Sang-hyun and Tae-ju all the way to the end credits, is masterfully done. Smart, beautiful, horrifying, and poetic. It's a film about self-control and rationality in the face of irrationality. Sacrifices have to be made sometimes, and while difficult to do, must be done for the greater good of people. The movie leaves it up to the viewer to decide if that's religious or not, but it makes no bones about those choices and decisions being a necessity. It takes Sang-hyun a while to realize this, but when he eventually does, it's equally as sad as it is uplifting.

I really, really liked this movie. It's far from perfect, but when it works (which is most of the time), it's flat-out amazing. I keep coming back to the word poetic, and I think it's apt. The movie is a love letter to what makes human beings pretty fucking great...even when we have to eat other people in the process. It'll be tough to knock this one from the top spot, but there's still 12 films left, so I suppose anything can happen. This is the kind of romantic, sensual, deeply felt vampire/horror film that reminded me just how effective the genre can be when it's not overly concerned with gore and false scares.


Mon Oct 24, 2011 6:24 pm
Post Re: An Octoberfest of Horror Films
PeachyPete wrote:
An end product this devoid of anything resembling competent filmmaking makes sense in hindsight. Corman apparently used 4 assistant directors (notably Francis Ford Coppola and Jack Nicholson) to shoot the film in a matter of days. The movie was largely shot on leftover set pieces from a slew of other Corman films, and is rumored to have used a script that wasn't finished...when shooting wrapped!

I'm sparing you guys any sort of plot recap or analysis because it would be pointless. This isn't a movie about anything, or one that even tries to tell an interesting story. It's a practice movie - something thrown together on a whim as cheaply as possible in order for a group of young filmmakers to gain some experience behind the camera.

At 81 minutes the film moves along pretty quickly. It's never more than slightly interesting, but if you're in the mood to laugh at an awful movie, I'd recommend it. I realize that's hardly a glowing endorsement, but it's about all you're likely to get out of this one.


Have you seen many Corman movies, Pete? I've probably seen about ten but I'm fairly sure that most of your criticisms could be applied to just about any Corman film. Most were made for next to nothing and in record time. Still, they have a certain...charm. I know AJ has rated many of them so perhaps he can jump in with a better assessment of the director, but it seems like this is pretty much par for the course.

PeachyPete wrote:
Image

Back-to-back posts, bitches!

Thirst is a film that concerns itself with those base, animalistic desires all human beings have. Those complex, unexplainable things, like sex and love, that we all crave...or to bring the metaphor full circle, thirst after. It's a movie that, at 133 minutes, wears out its welcome a bit. However, the strength of the visuals, the weird, engaging narrative, and the thematic heft make up for its shortcomings. Director Park Chan-wook's movie is a very good, albeit flawed, one.

My main issue with the movie wasn't just the length. I don't mind long movies as long as everything in the film serves a purpose or has some kind of meaning. A tight film and a long film aren't mutually exclusive entities. Chan-wook's film, as stated, has an interesting narrative. It may not be conventional, but it's never boring. The problem is the movie tends to use certain scenes to explain issues and concepts that it's already shown and established visually. It's redundant. For instance, the movie takes it's time setting up Tae-ju's life as an abused, underappreciated servant/slave. She's clearly someone who's unhappy and treated horribly. The movie shows us this, and it's well done. The movie then uses a long scene between Tae-ju and Sang-hyun where the woman details this concept that Chan-wook has already showed the audience visually. This isn't the only example of this in the film, but it's the most glaring one. Some might call it insulting to an audience's intelligence, some might call it insecure filmmaking. I don't know which is accurate. Maybe insecurity on the part of the filmmakers is the cause and beating the audience over the head is the effect. Either way, it makes for an unnecessarily lengthy film.

What the film does well is, well, just about everything else. Visually speaking, it's beautiful. Image after image will be burned into your brain, and a lot of the story is told through these visually striking images. It's pretty great stuff. Considering how the movie begins and starts to move along, I thought it was going to be an anti-religion film that decries the institution in practice. In a way it is, but the movie takes most of its shots at religion in the first half and moves on to more universal, substantial statements in the second. Sang-hyun's transformation from priest to vampire is pulled off as naturally as you're likely to see in a movie. He's trying to maintain some form of humanity as he struggles with his newly found powers (and weaknesses) and he's hesitant to give in to them completely. He indulges (without killing) when he has to, but does his best to surround himself with friends, and eventually, love. Naturally, problems arise with this, and his avenue for comfort eventually becomes broken beyond repair. After finally turning his lover into a vampire in a last ditch, twisted effort to maintain some sort of humanity, she reveals herself to be unable to control those desires, killing not only on a whim, but for fun.

The ending of the film, from the scene in Lady Ra's house where she reveals Sang-hyun and Tae-ju all the way to the end credits, is masterfully done. Smart, beautiful, horrifying, and poetic. It's a film about self-control and rationality in the face of irrationality. Sacrifices have to be made sometimes, and while difficult to do, must be done for the greater good of people. The movie leaves it up to the viewer to decide if that's religious or not, but it makes no bones about those choices and decisions being a necessity. It takes Sang-hyun a while to realize this, but when he eventually does, it's equally as sad as it is uplifting.

I really, really liked this movie. It's far from perfect, but when it works (which is most of the time), it's flat-out amazing. I keep coming back to the word poetic, and I think it's apt. The movie is a love letter to what makes human beings pretty fucking great...even when we have to eat other people in the process. It'll be tough to knock this one from the top spot, but there's still 12 films left, so I suppose anything can happen. This is the kind of romantic, sensual, deeply felt vampire/horror film that reminded me just how effective the genre can be when it's not overly concerned with gore and false scares.


Yay! If memory serves right, I'm the recommender for both Suspiria and Thirst so I'm happy that you like this (Suspiria is a less safe bet. Could go either way for you). I liked Thirst quite a bit too (probably a little more than you) and agree with most of what you've said. Again, some of your thoughts can be applied to the director's other movies. I like Park a great deal but he sometimes struggles with story. Few can top his images though. They're always interesting to look at, even if the film isn't too interesting to analyse. I'd also agree that it's a little too long. In this case I feel a little too much time was spent on the build up and detailing the "illness". Thereafter it really takes off though...


Mon Oct 24, 2011 11:19 pm
Post Re: An Octoberfest of Horror Films
ed_metal_head wrote:
I know AJ has rated many of them so perhaps he can jump in with a better assessment of the director, but it seems like this is pretty much par for the course.


I raised a stink once upon a time when Roger Corman was awarded an honorary Oscar, because regardless of how many careers got launched because soon-to-be-famous actors appeared in his productions, a lot of the movies he's made have been shit warmed over. But over the past year or so, I've calmed down a bit and even enjoyed some of his stuff -- his Poe adaptations rule, and A Bucket of Blood was a fantastic satire. He's still responsible for a lot of crap, but I'll admit that his cheezy, can-do charm has resulted in the occasional groovy flick.

And now for my own catch-up, after last week's Stan Helsing viewing left me doubting the existence of any hope for the human race...

The Undying Monster - 6/10

I'd heard this borrowed liberally from The Wolf Man, and while it has an errant lycanthrope afoot (or does it?!), it's mostly a drawing room-style mystery that focuses less on maintaining said puzzle and more on showing the hero try to debunk everything he sees.

The Call of Cthulhu - 7/10

A 45-minute silent feature made just a few years back that captures the incomprehensible horrors of Lovecraft's writing in a vintage package his adaptations don't get very often (if at all). Groovy shite.

ChromeSkull: Laid to Rest 2 - 4/10

A showcase for some damn disturbing gore effects on what couldn't have been a huge budget, but there's nothing else to it. I guess I wasn't under the impression that the first Laid to Rest was anything more than a by-the-numbers slasher flick, but apparently, the cinema gods not only decreed a sequel, but they also demanded that the lead villain's name be put in the title, as if I would be enticed to give anymore of a shit than I did the first time around.

Frankenstein's Daughter - 5/10

Strange as it may seem saying this about a film with that title, but this flick kinda let me down. It sets up some potentially interesting dynamics (two female monsters, one's crimes being blamed on the other, a mad scientist who's actually a pretty nice guy), but all of this is forgotten about halfway through. Cue the random white bread rock 'n' roll numbers and chintzy make-up.

Kuroneko - 8/10

I didn't know going in that this was from the same director as Onibaba, a film I covered during my October Horrorthon last year and came away greatly admiring. A lot of the same artistic touches are displayed here, and for the supernatural elements to be heightened without compromising the characters, story, and palpable conflict is no small feat. Chilling, thought-provoking flick.

Ernest Scared Stupid - 5/10

A week of Halloween-themed viewings begins with this cinema classic. Yeah, Ernest is a dumbass whose schtick gets old fast (and was put to better use in the...*ahem*...earnestly charming Ernest Saves Christmas), but I was impressed at the ambition this flick displayed. I never finished watching this as a kid because the troll costume scared the hell out of me, and two decades down the road, the villain still looks pretty badass. I can imagine kids getting a kick out of this. Me, I'll stick with Ernest's adventures at Camp Kikakee.


Tue Oct 25, 2011 2:19 am
Post Re: An Octoberfest of Horror Films
ed_metal_head wrote:
Have you seen many Corman movies, Pete? I've probably seen about ten but I'm fairly sure that most of your criticisms could be applied to just about any Corman film. Most were made for next to nothing and in record time. Still, they have a certain...charm. I know AJ has rated many of them so perhaps he can jump in with a better assessment of the director, but it seems like this is pretty much par for the course.


I haven't seen many of his movies, but I've seen a handful of them and it's safe to say they aren't my thing. AJ likes his Poe adaptations and a few others, none of which I've seen, so maybe I just haven't watched the right ones. I'm always open to changing my mind, so I'm not turned off on him at all. I just haven't really liked anything I've seen by him yet.

ed_metal_head wrote:
Yay! If memory serves right, I'm the recommender for both Suspiria and Thirst so I'm happy that you like this (Suspiria is a less safe bet. Could go either way for you). I liked Thirst quite a bit too (probably a little more than you) and agree with most of what you've said. Again, some of your thoughts can be applied to the director's other movies. I like Park a great deal but he sometimes struggles with story. Few can top his images though. They're always interesting to look at, even if the film isn't too interesting to analyse. I'd also agree that it's a little too long. In this case I feel a little too much time was spent on the build up and detailing the "illness". Thereafter it really takes off though...


Indeed you were the recommender for both movies. Well done, at least on this one (Suspira hasn't been watched yet, I've had to go out of order a bit due to time and access). This is the only Park film I've seen, and you can bet I'll be checking into his filmography. I've always heard good things, but for whatever reason never checked him out. I check back, and you gave Thirst an 8/10, right? I'd say that's about accurate.

A.J. Hakari wrote:
Kuroneko - 8/10

I didn't know going in that this was from the same director as Onibaba, a film I covered during my October Horrorthon last year and came away greatly admiring. A lot of the same artistic touches are displayed here, and for the supernatural elements to be heightened without compromising the characters, story, and palpable conflict is no small feat. Chilling, thought-provoking flick.


This is the one Criterion just released, no? I'm really interested. Good to hear it's very good.

A.J. Hakari wrote:
Ernest Scared Stupid - 5/10

A week of Halloween-themed viewings begins with this cinema classic. Yeah, Ernest is a dumbass whose schtick gets old fast (and was put to better use in the...*ahem*...earnestly charming Ernest Saves Christmas), but I was impressed at the ambition this flick displayed. I never finished watching this as a kid because the troll costume scared the hell out of me, and two decades down the road, the villain still looks pretty badass. I can imagine kids getting a kick out of this. Me, I'll stick with Ernest's adventures at Camp Kikakee.


I love the Ernest movies. They're all stupid and I'd probably find them annoying as hell if a first time viewing took place now, but I grew up on those movies and I thought they were the funniest things ever as a kid. Maybe they just remind me of being a kid, but I can't help watching one of them if I see it on TV.


Tue Oct 25, 2011 9:01 am
Assistant Second Unit Director

Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 12:56 pm
Posts: 90
Post Re: An Octoberfest of Horror Films
Quote:
I love the Ernest movies. They're all stupid and I'd probably find them annoying as hell if a first time viewing took place now, but I grew up on those movies and I thought they were the funniest things ever as a kid. Maybe they just remind me of being a kid, but I can't help watching one of them if I see it on TV.


MI_K. Must be MIAK!


Tue Oct 25, 2011 11:04 am
Profile
Post Re: An Octoberfest of Horror Films
Image

Angel Heart isn't really a horror movie. It's much more of a neo-noir/thriller with a few horror/supernatural elements. It's a film the really embraces the noir-ish elements of the story, which at times leads to over the top silliness but also has some legitimately creepy, atmospheric moments. However, can you really take a movie all that seriously when it has characters named Harry Angel, Louis Cyphre (Lucifer), and Epiphany Proudfoot? With names like those, this is clearly a movie that's more than willing to embrace its pulpy elements.

Alan Parker's film, in classic film noir style, follows private eye Harry Angel (Mickey Rourke) as he takes a case from a suspicious man, Louis Cyphre (Robert De Niro), who only gives him bits and pieces of the story which leads to Angel operating without a whole lot to go on. He quickly gets in over his head, and then continues digging that hole until the film's inevitable, fairly predictable twist/conclusion. It's a simple story, really. The film does a pretty good job of convoluting things, both through revelations in story and intentionally confusing misinformation. It all comes together in the end as you would expect, but this is a film more about the ride than the destination. It's a gleeful exercise in style that may seem trivial once all is said and done, but manages to be mostly entertaining.

The film's strengths are the visuals and the performances. Rourke is goes from a down on his luck, disheveled private dick to...well, a really disheveled private dick. The guy really goes for it here. It's a performance that could come off as incredibly silly (especially during the big reveal), but Rourke is able to come across as genuine. De Niro is also pretty creepy as the long finger-nailed, egg-peeling, menacing Prince of Darkness. Visually, the movie is always enjoyable. A lot of scenes, especially towards the beginning when the film is at it's most noir-ish, look like they could have been ripped right out of a 1940s noir picture. There's a great deal of contrast between light and dark and many jagged angles in the frame. As the plot transitions into the realm of the supernatural, the visuals begin to play up the nastiness and violence. The result isn't incredibly graphic or brutal, but the film doesn't shy away from bloodshed.

This is a movie that's able to keep an audience engaged for its running length, even if it ultimately doesn't end up going anywhere. It's kind of silly, knows it, and embraces that by infusing as much style into the production as it possibly can. It's a better film for that, but far from a great one. It's a decent, moderately enjoyable movie.


Wed Oct 26, 2011 12:14 pm
Post Re: An Octoberfest of Horror Films
(post reserved for Suspira, write up coming whenever Netflix ships it)


Wed Oct 26, 2011 12:21 pm
Post Re: An Octoberfest of Horror Films
Snapshot in USA Today of "TOP 5 scariest movies of all time" as surveyed from 938 Redbox customers:

5) The Shining (9%)
4) Paranormal Activity (10%)
3) Halloween (10%)
2) A Nightmare On Elm Street (1984) (12%)
1) The Exorcist (31%)


Thu Oct 27, 2011 12:31 pm
Post Re: An Octoberfest of Horror Films
Image

1973's Theater of Blood is little more than a Vincent Price vehicle full of gimmickry, but that doesn't necessarily make it a bad movie. It's first and foremost a mouthpiece for Price to indulge his hammy side while he spouts dialogue made famous centuries ago by a fella you made have heard of - William Shakespeare. The film is also a black comedy involving an actor thought to be dead who comes back and takes revenge on critics for their failure to award him with the Critic's Choice Award for Best Actor. There isn't a whole lot to say about this one other than, it's pretty funny.

Price plays actor Edward Lionheart, who moves around London accompanied by a group of alcohols/drug addicts (called meth drinkers in the credits) seeking revenge on the aforementioned professional slight. Lionheart isn't just after mere revenge, however, he's also out to prove the critics wrong by giving them something original. He orchestrates their deaths so that each critic meets his or her end similar to how a character in one of Shakespeare's plays meets theirs. The references aren't subtle, the movie makes it very clear (with a list the Lionheart is following and be even explicitly stating the plays) which play Lionheart is currently using. The idea works for about half of the film, but it's a complete gimmick and by the ninth time this charade is carried out it's nowhere near as funny as the first few. There are also a few visual puns with the way some of the critics die aside from just being Shakespeare references (one is ripped to shreds).

That's all the movie really is. It's fun to see Price's hammy performance, some of the visuals are funny, and the Shakespeare gimmick goes from inspired to tired throughout course of the film. This could have been a really funny, clever little film if it had been about 20-30 minutes shorter. Instead it wears out its welcome.


Thu Oct 27, 2011 1:38 pm
Post Re: An Octoberfest of Horror Films
johnny larue wrote:
Snapshot in USA Today of "TOP 5 scariest movies of all time" as surveyed from 938 Redbox customers:

5) The Shining (9%)
4) Paranormal Activity (10%)
3) Halloween (10%)
2) A Nightmare On Elm Street (1984) (12%)
1) The Exorcist (31%)



Funny how the #1 film isn't remotely scary, or even really all that much of a horror film. But then, any horror list that bypasses Jaws is inherently doomed. Or The Thing. Or Henry...

How about that last one, Petey? :)


Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:31 pm
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 165 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 9  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forum/DivisionCore.
Translated by Xaphos © 2007, 2008, 2009 phpBB.fr