Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Recently Watched Horror


Recommended Posts

15 hours ago, Eucalpytus P. Millstone said:

So, scaring Julie ain't got nothin' on scaring Jessica, eh?

 

No if you are referring to "Let's Scare Jessica to Death" now that's a masterpiece compare to this lame time waster!

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/14/2021 at 11:51 AM, jaragon said:

No if you are referring to "Let's Scare Jessica to Death" now that's a masterpiece compare to this lame time waster!

The camera work looks good.  But the performances, at least based on the trailer, seem kind of one note.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, cinemaspeak59 said:

The camera work looks good.  But the performances, at least based on the trailer, seem kind of one note.  

For some reason the no talent director wanted to shoot the movie in one take- but they cheat of course it adds nothing to the story ( has that ever really worked anyway? to me cutting is the best way to create tension? It's like the Spanish language about the woman alone in the cabin which was remade into an ever worst movie ? ) The story is about girls doing a prank that goes on- the problem is that we never see it!

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Great locations are waste in this too familiar found footage film about a bunch of dad bod bros encountering the supernatural....on Amazon prime if you must

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, jaragon said:

Great locations are waste in this too familiar found footage film about a bunch of dad bod bros encountering the supernatural....on Amazon prime if you must

 

Found footage, POV movies are not my cup of tea, so maybe I'll skip it.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Arsan404 said:

Found footage, POV movies are not my cup of tea, so maybe I'll skip it.

The only one that has ever worked for me was "The Blair Witch Project"

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, jaragon said:

For some reason the no talent director wanted to shoot the movie in one take- but they cheat of course it adds nothing to the story ( has that ever really worked anyway? to me cutting is the best way to create tension? It's like the Spanish language about the woman alone in the cabin which was remade into an ever worst movie ? ) The story is about girls doing a prank that goes on- the problem is that we never see it!

 

Two movies come to mind  that were shot to resemble one continuous take were Rope (1948)  and Birdman (2014).  But I don't know if the technique made the films any better.   They probably would have been just as good had they been cut.   

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, cinemaspeak59 said:

I found it mediocre. It was visually flat and uninvolving. I didn't mind the twist ending, but it didn't feel earned. Elizabeth Olsen was the best thing about the movie. 

The movie makes no sense of course- my favorite part is when she runs out of the house but then goes back in because then the movie would be over- the twist was kind of lame- yes Olsen was good

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/21/2021 at 12:43 PM, jaragon said:

For some reason the no talent director wanted to shoot the movie in one take- but they cheat of course it adds nothing to the story ( has that ever really worked anyway? to me cutting is the best way to create tension?

I'm not a fan of "one-shot" cinema. Watching such movies makes me claustrophobic. I feel trapped by the filmmaker who forces me to see via his/her limited and (for me) ofttimes dull vision and perspective.

In real life, I could be walking down a street and a lovely lass passes by, distracting me to shift my attention and watch (ogle) her.

In a one-shot flick, the filmmaker could be walking down the same street. But when the desirable dish passes by, his/her attention will stay focused on whatever protagonist/character/object/scene is important to the plot.

Hey, Man! Did you SEE that babe? What the heck is w-r-o-n-g with you? Get the camera off The Star--  and follow those legs!!!

Of course, editing also controls what a viewer sees and how a story is told. But if ennui or rigor mortis starts to set in, the dullness will be momentary.

Whereas in a one-shot endurance test, boredom can be excruciatingly long -- sometimes interminable!

One-Shot Movies That Made Me Want to Chew Off a Limb While Watching Them

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Eucalpytus P. Millstone said:

I'm not a fan of "one-shot" cinema. Watching such movies makes me claustrophobic. I feel trapped by the filmmaker who forces me to see via his/her limited and (for me) ofttimes dull vision and perspective.

In real life, I could be walking down a street and a lovely lass passes by, distracting me to shift my attention and watch (ogle) her.

In a one-shot flick, the filmmaker could be walking down the same street. But when the desirable dish passes by, his/her attention will stay focused on whatever protagonist/character/object/scene is important to the plot.

Hey, Man! Did you SEE that babe? What the heck is w-r-o-n-g with you? Get the camera off The Star--  and follow those legs!!!

Of course, editing also controls what a viewer sees and how a story is told. But if ennui or rigor mortis starts to set in, the dullness will be momentary.

Whereas in a one-shot endurance test, boredom can be excruciatingly long -- sometimes interminable!

One-Shot Movies That Made Me Want to Chew Off a Limb While Watching Them

 

To me it feels like a technical gimmick- the key to cinema is editing- the last movie which the one take made sense to me was "1916" but I'm sure they found a way to cheat- which is probably easier in digital.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/30/2021 at 8:46 AM, jaragon said:

I re-watched the new "Suspiria" which is better if one does not think of it as remake- it's still too long

 

I partially agree. I do not find Suspiria (2018) too long.

I enjoyed Luca Guadagnino's interpretation of Dario Argento's 1977 classic chiller. Was a remake necessary? No. Is Guadagnino's remake good? Yes, to me. Better than the original? A matter of opinion and a matter of taste. I dig both flicks. Guadagnino's rendition is not a pointless, slavish copy of Argento's original (Thank goodness!). IMO, it perfectly exemplifies the opinion expressed by jamesjazzguitar:

". . . there are other directors in this world that would like to take the fine source material and see if they can make a version that expresses their view of said source material."

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Eucalpytus P. Millstone said:

I partially agree. I do not find Suspiria (2018) too long.

I enjoyed Luca Guadagnino's interpretation of Dario Argento's 1977 classic chiller. Was a remake necessary? No. Is Guadagnino's remake good? Yes, to me. Better than the original? A matter of opinion and a matter of taste. I dig both flicks. Guadagnino's rendition is not a pointless, slavish copy of Argento's original (Thank goodness!). IMO, it perfectly exemplifies the opinion expressed by jamesjazzguitar:

". . . there are other directors in this world that would like to take the fine source material and see if they can make a version that expresses their view of said source material."

I find the subplot about the terrorist goes no where not sure how he links to the witches- but you are right he was smart not too do an exact shot by shot remake of the original film

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ken Russell's "Gothic" On a warm summer night in 1816 at the Swiss lakeside chateau of Lord Byron (Gabriel Byrne), the poet and his guests -- Percy Bysshe Shelley (Julian Sands) ; his fiancée, Mary Wollstonecraft (Natasha Richardson) ; her half-sister, Claire (Myriam Cyr) ; and his private doctor John Polidori (Timothy Spall) -- spend the evening sharing ghost stories while under the influence of experimental compounds provided by the doctor.  This film does not work as either horror or biography and even for a Ken Russell film it seems tame now ...

specially the teasing between  Byron and Shelly who only share one kiss...

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jaragon said:

I find the subplot about the terrorist goes no where not sure how he links to the witches- but you are right he was smart not too do an exact shot by shot remake of the original film

 

 I haven't seen the 1977 version in a long time, so I think I'll watch it again before the remake.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jaragon said:

Ken Russell's "Gothic" On a warm summer night in 1816 at the Swiss lakeside chateau of Lord Byron (Gabriel Byrne), the poet and his guests -- Percy Bysshe Shelley (Julian Sands) ; his fiancée, Mary Wollstonecraft (Natasha Richardson) ; her half-sister, Claire (Myriam Cyr) ; and his private doctor John Polidori (Timothy Spall) -- spend the evening sharing ghost stories while under the influence of experimental compounds provided by the doctor.  This film does not work as either horror or biography and even for a Ken Russell film it seems tame now ...

specially the teasing between  Byron and Shelly who only share one kiss...

I saw it when it first came out and didn't like it. Russell gives it a lot of visual style, but ultimately the movie feels underwhelming.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Arsan404 said:

I saw it when it first came out and didn't like it. Russell gives it a lot of visual style, but ultimately the movie feels underwhelming.

It's interesting to compare to another movie "Haunted Summer" (1988) which tells the same story in a more conventional matter.  The plot of both movies is the same but in "Haunted "is more psychological than Russell's craziness.  Shelly gets naked in both films-but Erich Stoltz goes full frontal for  dip in a river.   Alice Kriege seems smarter as Mary.   The biggest difference is the portrayal of Dr Polidori- he is a grotesque sexually repressed freak in "Gothic" but he is a bit more sensitive in "Haunted" and even gets a discreet sex scene with Byron.  Alex Winter is more attractive than Timothy Spall. , In both films we are teased with  a sexual encounter between Shelly and Byron which never goes beyond a kiss . And does anyone know what happened to Philip Anglim- his last IMBD credit is from 1998.   Here is the trailer for "Haunted Summer" which over sells the Shelley- Byron bromance

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Arsan404 said:

I saw it when it first came out and didn't like it. Russell gives it a lot of visual style, but ultimately the movie feels underwhelming.

I've seen Gothic only once, and don't remember any of it, which is, I guess, a damning criticism. I'm a major Ken Russell fan. That Gothic did not make an impression on me is thus odd. I'm keen on seeing it again.

In his review of the movie, Harlan Ellison waxed schizophrenic, branding it "loopy and fatally flawed and an aberration." Yet, in the very next "breath," he gushed, " I treasure the film." The scene when Miriam Cyr as Claire bares her breasts, which have eyes instead of nipples, particularly annoyed Ellison, who felt "Russell had overindulged his adolescent fantasies" by having the eyes blink.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Eucalpytus P. Millstone said:

I've seen Gothic only once, and don't remember any of it, which is, I guess, a damning criticism. I'm a major Ken Russell fan. That Gothic did not make an impression on me is thus odd. I'm keen on seeing it again.

In his review of the movie, Harlan Ellison waxed schizophrenic, branding it "loopy and fatally flawed and an aberration." Yet, in the very next "breath," he gushed, " I treasure the film." The scene when Miriam Cyr as Claire bares her breasts, which have eyes instead of nipples, particularly annoyed Ellison, who felt "Russell had overindulged his adolescent fantasies" by having the eyes blink.

I had seen the film a long time ago and I don't think I was that impressed the first time either- but for director like Russell who knows how to push the sexual boundaries in cinema the film seems tame- just a lot of bisexual teasing. I found the grotesque portrayal of Polidori specially annoying . 

Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Eucalpytus P. Millstone said:

I've seen Gothic only once, and don't remember any of it, which is, I guess, a damning criticism. I'm a major Ken Russell fan. That Gothic did not make an impression on me is thus odd. I'm keen on seeing it again.

In his review of the movie, Harlan Ellison waxed schizophrenic, branding it "loopy and fatally flawed and an aberration." Yet, in the very next "breath," he gushed, " I treasure the film." The scene when Miriam Cyr as Claire bares her breasts, which have eyes instead of nipples, particularly annoyed Ellison, who felt "Russell had overindulged his adolescent fantasies" by having the eyes blink.

I didn't remember much from the movie, either,  but the trailer reminded me of some scenes and images, and how disappointed I was with the movie.

Russell was always an interesting director, and even though I'm not that keen on seeing again, maybe I should revisit the movie.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
© 2021 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...