Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Horror Show

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • I recently saw "2001 Maniacs: Fields of Screams" and oh my.

    What a load of dross. It's nasty, puerile, amateurish and just all round terrible, except....

    Kevin Ogilvie--better known as Nivek Ogre of Skinny Puppy--is hilarious as Dr. Parker. It's amazing that for someone who has zero previous acting experience managed to out perform all the "professional" actors in this steaming heaping of movie.

    I doubt I'll bother with the sequel, but I do hope that Ogre lands another role in something a little less dire.
    “Sans arme, sans violence et sans haine”

    Comment


    • To elaborate on the earlier discussion of "The Exorcist"-

      In the opening of the film, Father Merrin in Iraq senses that he is being called to go back to America to do battle with the demon, and before he leaves he seeks out a site where there is an ancient statue of the demon. We are left thinking, well, surely this is a very stylized and fanciful rendition of what ancient peoples imagined the creature to look like. But then during the exorcism of Regan in the final part of the film, during a very jarring and confusing sequence there comes a moment where we get a two or three second look at the actual demon manifesting beside Regan's bed and grabbing her by the arm, and it looks EXACTLY like the statue seen earlier. Do you think we are to take this literally, or as Father Merrin flashing back to his earlier viewing of the statue?

      Comment


      • The only two excepts, for me, were The Shining, and The Dead Zone--the latter being one of my favourite King adaptions ever
        Now you're talking, Magpie...both classics!

        All the best

        Dave

        Comment


        • Originally posted by kensei View Post
          To elaborate on the earlier discussion of "The Exorcist"-

          In the opening of the film, Father Merrin in Iraq senses that he is being called to go back to America to do battle with the demon, and before he leaves he seeks out a site where there is an ancient statue of the demon. We are left thinking, well, surely this is a very stylized and fanciful rendition of what ancient peoples imagined the creature to look like. But then during the exorcism of Regan in the final part of the film, during a very jarring and confusing sequence there comes a moment where we get a two or three second look at the actual demon manifesting beside Regan's bed and grabbing her by the arm, and it looks EXACTLY like the statue seen earlier. Do you think we are to take this literally, or as Father Merrin flashing back to his earlier viewing of the statue?
          Kensie, I would be wary of taking the imagery to literally. Friedkin was perhaps suggesting a symbolic link between Regan, who represents contemporary Western society, and the old world's intuitive and emotional
          representation of this same phenomena.
          SCORPIO

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Magpie View Post
            I love the Hammer horror movies. None of which are particularly "scary", but are fascinating. Other movies like The Creeping Flesh, from the same time, are haunting rather than scary.
            I saw a lot of those on late night TV when I was in elementary school. They were probably even edited for TV, but they were just the right amount of scary for a kid. I saw the edited-for-TV Exorcist when it made its broadcast TV debut sometime in 1978 or so, when I was about 11. It was just the right amount of scary also. I got to see it unedited, in a theater, when I was in college, and that was when I first realized how much camp was in it.

            The original 1973 audience probably consisted of a lot of people who'd just taken windowpane, which is why people were running, screaming, and fainting.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by RivkahChaya View Post
              I saw a lot of those on late night TV when I was in elementary school. They were probably even edited for TV, but they were just the right amount of scary for a kid. I saw the edited-for-TV Exorcist when it made its broadcast TV debut sometime in 1978 or so, when I was about 11. It was just the right amount of scary also. I got to see it unedited, in a theater, when I was in college, and that was when I first realized how much camp was in it.

              The original 1973 audience probably consisted of a lot of people who'd just taken windowpane, which is why people were running, screaming, and fainting.
              Tv comedian Craig Ferguson recently mentioned something hilarious about the edited-for-tv version of "The Exorcist" and one of its particularly offensive lines when Regan was spouting all of her profanities. The line as it appeared on tv was "Your mother darns socks in Hell, Karras!" And if anyone doesn't know what that line was in the original version, too bad, I'm not going to quote it here.

              I saw the film in a theater only once, when it was re-released in I think 1998 for its 25th anniversary, with a couple of restored scenes never seen before and some kinda-cool CGI added in here and there, such as the demon manifesting as a vague apparition on Regan's bedroom door just after her mom walks through it, unnoticed by her, and other stuff like that. The ending was also different- I mean the very end, when Father Dyer looks down the staircase and then walks away. In the anniversary version he was joined by Lt. Kinderman, who closed the movie by asking if Father Dyer wanted to come and see a film with him. Apparently an alternate ending just not used before. In my opinion it was just as scary as ever.

              Just curious- which parts exactly are you referring to as "camp"?
              Last edited by kensei; 06-12-2013, 09:40 AM.

              Comment


              • Here's a nod to something else weird and bizarre about "The Exorcist," that being the pure timelessness of Max Von Sydow. I haven't followed his whole career but have only seen him in a handful of films. I think we can all agree that he looked pretty darn old in Exorcist, even frail. That was 1973. Then in 1980 and 1982 I saw him as Ming the Merciless in "Flash Gordon" and as King Osric in "Conan the Barbarian," both of which had him looking dramatically younger. Finally I saw him play a lawyer in 1999's "Snow Falling on Cedars" in which he looked about the same age he looked in Exorcist. In a courtroom scene in that film he is reprimanded by the judge to please act his age, and he responds, "If I did that, Your Honor, I would be dead." At that point I just had to look him up and see how old he actually was. He was born in 1929 and is 84 today. When he played Father Merrin in Exorcist he was actually only 44! I swear, that had to be one of the greatest makeup jobs that has ever been done to age an actor in the history of cinema.

                Comment


                • Along with Gandalf,Saruman and Rhadagast, I believe that Max Von Sydow is a member of the immortal Istari.
                  SCORPIO

                  Comment


                  • In the sci-fi horror genre, two classic's really stand out.
                    Alien ( 1979 )
                    The Thing ( 1982 )
                    Despite both films being atmospheric and hugely watchable, Alien was far more critically successful. This seems to defy horror movie logic as The Thing was far more Visceral and pessimistic, and shocking imagery and negative emotions are surely the soul of horror flick's. Could it be that the Alien sustains tension into its final act with more success and provides a more emotionally satisfying ending like The Texas Chainsaw Massacre that gives more sense of closure?.
                    SCORPIO

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Scorpio View Post
                      In the sci-fi horror genre, two classic's really stand out.
                      Alien ( 1979 )
                      The Thing ( 1982 )
                      Despite both films being atmospheric and hugely watchable, Alien was far more critically successful. This seems to defy horror movie logic as The Thing was far more Visceral and pessimistic, and shocking imagery and negative emotions are surely the soul of horror flick's. Could it be that the Alien sustains tension into its final act with more success and provides a more emotionally satisfying ending like The Texas Chainsaw Massacre that gives more sense of closure?.
                      I wish I could provide the kind of answer to your point here that I think you're looking for, having seen both films, but unfortunately I only saw "The Thng" once and it was many years ago and I don't remember much about it, whereas I've been an ongoing fan of the whole "Alien" franchise and have seen the first two of those (the best ones) several times over. "Alien 3" and "Alien Resurrection" were fairly forgettable, and the tie-ins to the "Predator" films were fun but huge departures.

                      By far though, I feel that the best in the franchise was the second film, "Aliens," for which Sigourney Weaver was even nominated for the Oscar for best actress (extremely rare for a horror or sci-fi performance). The relationship between Ripley (Weaver) and the little girl Newt (Carrie Henn) was heartbreaking. That little girl- my god, what a good little actress she was, though I think it was actually the only movie she was ever in. It delivered two of my most favorite lines in movie history. The first was by Henn, delivered with such childish innocence:

                      "My mommy always said there was no such thing as monsters, not real ones, but there are. Why do they tell little kids that?"

                      The second was Weaver's, in the final conflict against the alien queen, defending that child to the death with a line that rivals Clint Eastwood's "Go ahead, make my day." It's crude, but it was SO effective and totally made the movie for me:

                      "Get away from her, you BITCH!"

                      Good stuff.

                      p.s. This thread is 18 pages long and I haven't gone back to make sure but I wouldn't be surprised if I have already written some of what I've said here. Sorry if so, but these really are some of my very favorite horror movie moments.
                      Last edited by kensei; 08-05-2013, 09:06 AM.

                      Comment


                      • SPOILERS...SPOILERS...SPOILERS...SPOILERS!!!

                        Originally posted by Scorpio View Post
                        In the sci-fi horror genre, two classic's really stand out.
                        Alien ( 1979 )
                        Did you see this in the theater when it first came out? I did, and something very clever happened that made the ending almost unbearably tense, and isn't repeatable-- you just can't experience it anymore.

                        That actors died in reverse order of their degree of bankability. That's totally counter to what normally happens in a Hollywood (yes, I know this was a British co-production) film. Usually the most famous person is alive at the end, if anyone is, and the unknowns are red-shirted. If the star dies before the end, you can pretty much count on everyone dying.

                        In 1979, John Hurt was hugely famous. He'd been popular in Britain for years, and was a hit in the US with I, Claudius. Tom Skerritt had been working for almost two decades, and had just been in a hit film with Shirley MacLaine & Anne Bancroft. Veronica Cartwright had been acting since childhood. She'd had a recurring role on Leave It to Beaver, and had been in Alfred Hitchcock's The Birds. Sigourney Weaver, no one had heard of. She'd had one line in a Woody Allen movie, and a part in a TV mini-series, and that was pretty much it. The ink was still damp on her SAG card.

                        So, first of all, it's a shock when John Hurt dies at all, because your expectation is that Ripley (Weaver) is the throw-away character, and that either Dallas (Skerritt) or Kane (Hurt) will be alive at the end, if anyone is. Once both of them are dead, you're sort of ready for an outer-space disaster movie, where everyone dies-- another thing to know is that it isn't entirely clear from the commercials and previews exactly what the Nostromo encounters, and there had been a fad for disaster movies, like The Towering Inferno, & The Poseidon Adventure, which were sort of "who's going to die?-- maybe everyone" suspense movies; Alien came at the end of this fad.

                        So, really, when the ship is counting down, you aren't expecting Ripley to make it. When she and the cat are asleep, you stay to watch the credits roll, still expecting a surprise. It isn't until the screen goes black, that you are really sure she made it.

                        It's still an awesome movie, but there's no way to see it now, without knowing that Sigourney Weaver is a huge star, and famous for playing tough women, and maybe getting young Tom Skerritt confused with Kris Kristofferson.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Scorpio View Post
                          Along with Gandalf,Saruman and Rhadagast, I believe that Max Von Sydow is a member of the immortal Istari.
                          Max von Sydow = totally amazing.

                          What a fantastic career: he's done Ingmar Bergman movies, he's played a pope, Jesus, Otto Frank, Eugene O'Neill, August Strindberg, he was married to Barbara Hershey in a Woody Allen movie, he did a TV-movie version of the Nuremberg trials (that compares surprisingly well to the earlier film) with Alec Baldwin & Jill Hennessy, and he also voiced one of the ghosts in Ghostbusters II. Among other things. In at least three different languages. I'm kinda surprised he hasn't done a voice-over on The Simpsons.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by RivkahChaya View Post
                            SPOILERS...SPOILERS...SPOILERS...SPOILERS!!!


                            Did you see this in the theater when it first came out? I did, and something very clever happened that made the ending almost unbearably tense, and isn't repeatable-- you just can't experience it anymore.

                            That actors died in reverse order of their degree of bankability. That's totally counter to what normally happens in a Hollywood (yes, I know this was a British co-production) film. Usually the most famous person is alive at the end, if anyone is, and the unknowns are red-shirted. If the star dies before the end, you can pretty much count on everyone dying.

                            In 1979, John Hurt was hugely famous. He'd been popular in Britain for years, and was a hit in the US with I, Claudius. Tom Skerritt had been working for almost two decades, and had just been in a hit film with Shirley MacLaine & Anne Bancroft. Veronica Cartwright had been acting since childhood. She'd had a recurring role on Leave It to Beaver, and had been in Alfred Hitchcock's The Birds. Sigourney Weaver, no one had heard of. She'd had one line in a Woody Allen movie, and a part in a TV mini-series, and that was pretty much it. The ink was still damp on her SAG card.

                            So, first of all, it's a shock when John Hurt dies at all, because your expectation is that Ripley (Weaver) is the throw-away character, and that either Dallas (Skerritt) or Kane (Hurt) will be alive at the end, if anyone is. Once both of them are dead, you're sort of ready for an outer-space disaster movie, where everyone dies-- another thing to know is that it isn't entirely clear from the commercials and previews exactly what the Nostromo encounters, and there had been a fad for disaster movies, like The Towering Inferno, & The Poseidon Adventure, which were sort of "who's going to die?-- maybe everyone" suspense movies; Alien came at the end of this fad.

                            So, really, when the ship is counting down, you aren't expecting Ripley to make it. When she and the cat are asleep, you stay to watch the credits roll, still expecting a surprise. It isn't until the screen goes black, that you are really sure she made it.

                            It's still an awesome movie, but there's no way to see it now, without knowing that Sigourney Weaver is a huge star, and famous for playing tough women, and maybe getting young Tom Skerritt confused with Kris Kristofferson.
                            Some great observations, but you left out Yaphet Kotto and Ian Holm, who'd been making movies since the early and late 60s respectively. Kotto dies at the same time as Cartwright, while Holm gets it just previous to them though he doesn't really "die" because he turns out to be an android and isn't really alive to begin with. I think the bankability of some of the cast could have been viewed as equal at that time, but it's still a good point you make. Sigourney Weaver must have felt a little star-struck on that set.

                            A good joke can be made about the line that was used to advertise "Alien"- "In space no one can hear you scream." Really? There was an awful lot of screaming in that movie. The monster was such an incredible and original creation, though, as designed by H.R. Geiger. The face-hugger, the metamorphosis, the acid for blood, the mouth within a mouth- nothing even remotely like it had ever been seen before. It truly embodied the very word "alien."

                            P.S./Edit- Woops, now we both left someone out. Harry Dean Stanton, who was second to die in the film after John Hurt, had the longest history of all as he'd been making movies since 1956.
                            Last edited by kensei; 08-06-2013, 09:46 AM.

                            Comment


                            • Well, bankability, is partly in the ey of the beholder, but I don't think you can argue that Hurt was not the best kniwn, or that Weaver was the only true unknown. For some, it msy have been a US/UK thing-- Ian Holm was probably better known in the UK, and Kotto better known in the US. Skerritt had bankability as a lead actor type, while Cartwright had sentimental appeal, and a sort of in-joke for older viewers-- her sister Angela was part of the main cast of Lost in Space .

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by RivkahChaya View Post
                                Max von Sydow = totally amazing.

                                What a fantastic career: he's done Ingmar Bergman movies, he's played a pope, Jesus, Otto Frank, Eugene O'Neill, August Strindberg, he was married to Barbara Hershey in a Woody Allen movie, he did a TV-movie version of the Nuremberg trials (that compares surprisingly well to the earlier film) with Alec Baldwin & Jill Hennessy, and he also voiced one of the ghosts in Ghostbusters II. Among other things. In at least three different languages. I'm kinda surprised he hasn't done a voice-over on The Simpsons.
                                Max was also supposed to be Peter Weyland in Prometheus. Critics feel that he would have made a more convincing centenarian than Guy Pierce.
                                SCORPIO

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X