Wooley's Pre-Horrorthon, Vol.4
 

Edit: I am pleased to announce that I have been able to partner with Torgo for an even better thread! More content! More juicy, delicious movie reviews! More discussion than you can shake a stick at!

So, welcome all and thank you, Torgo, for partnering with me on this pre-October journey of cinematic excitement.

For my part:
On past forums, I have done a Horrorthon thread for the past 14 years (and I have watched a Horrorthon for the past 16), which consists of at least 31 Horror Movies over the 31 days of October.
However, a few years ago, I started a new thread. Partly this was due to my issues over what I feel actually qualifies as Horror (yes, I'm that guy) but more specifically my strong feelings about what I think counts as October/Halloween Horror. So there were a lot of movies that may be tense or scary or otherwise could get lumped in (slashers and giallos and thrillers, maybe even some sci-fi, and certainly some grindhousey kinda stuff) - films that I have come to think of as Horror Adjacent - that I could never watch during that time and so they just always got skipped. And then partly because I came to like a little ramp-up where I watch some things to get me in the mood for the Horror to come. Thus the new thread began in September and is now my "traditional" Pre-Horrorthon.


So that is what I will do here. I will watch movies that get me in the mood and generate that... SPARK (reference)... which will hopefully catch fire at the beginning of October. These films, as I say, will include Thrillers of various ilks (giallos and murders mysteries and maybe even edgier Spy Thrillers), Slashers (which don't contain any supernatural and therefore don't qualify for October), Grindhouse flicks, edgier or darker Sci-Fi/Fantasy, and the generally Weird.


Hopefully, there will be a few things that people enjoy and, regardless, it will get my juices flowing for what I hope will be a wonderful Horrorthon next month.
Hope y'all join in and get warmed up with me.

(I will have a first write-up momentarily).

We actually do that here as well...


https://www.movieforums.com/communit...ad.php?t=62388
https://www.movieforums.com/communit...ight=halloween


I will be doing the Challenge again this year and I'm putting a lot of thought into the categories to give people like you the option to contribute while still following with your specific ethos.

One of the things this year that has me pumped is release schedule is packed...

September 10th - Malignant (HBOMAX)
September 24th - Midnight Mass (Netflix) (Series)
October 6th - VHS/94 (Shudder)
October 8th - Lamb(Theaters)
October 15th - Halloween Kills(Theaters)
October 29th - Last Night in Soho (Theaters)
October 29th - Antlers (Theaters)

Re: Wooley's Pre-Horrorthon, Vol.4
 

I will be attempting, and probably failing, to balance ramping up my horror watching for the next couple of months, while also catching up on flicks for the 2000s countdown.

Antlers, Lamb and Last Night in Soho are high on my must see list.
I’m particularly hopeful that Antlers and Lamb are shown in one of my local cinemas.

Also, I’m very happy to hear you’re doing the Halloween Challenge again!

That'll be interesting, I'll certainly be getting Halloween Kills and hopefully Last Night In Soho. I'll have to do some homework on the others.

I know Malignant will be playing at my local cinema, but haven’t decided if I’ll go or just wait to rent/stream it.

"They're all gonna die." - Hooper

(I did already talk about this some in the 'cram but it was intended for this thread... I just couldn't help myself.)

Here is a movie that always gives me a conundrum on placement, since I am the Horror Police, ultimate arbiter (to myself) of what is and is not Horror. I have generally always conceded that it was a Horror movie, warmly and willingly actually because I love the movie so much, and because it is when it is, but this most recent viewing certainly reminded me why sometimes it feels like it isn't. And that something is John Williams' score. But more on that later.
If there is anyone on god's green Earth that doesn't know what this movie is about, it is the story of a small New England town that is suddenly visited by a rogue Great White. The town depends on the Summer tourist business to survive and the new Chief Of Police, former New York police-officer Martin Brody must navigate economic tensions, his worry for his family, and his own fear of the water to protect the people of Amity (as you know, Amity means friendship!) from a toothy death.
You may notice from my synopsis that the movie is not really about shark attacks. That is because it is a good, nay, great movie. Spielberg understands that to care about the MacGuffin, there must be more than the MacGuffin. There must actually be a story about people and you must care about that story and those people if you're to really care about the film. And just to get in my "get off my lawn" for the day, that is what is missing from most contemporary theatrical-release films, regardless of genre.
As many unflattering things as I have said about Spielberg, I have never questioned his ability and this has to be about as good a sophomore effort as one can submit. Despite it's troubled production, a masterpiece emerged. Some of it is a great understanding of storytelling by the director, which would continue to be his greatest strength. Some of it, to be sure, is a fantastic ensemble performance and a compelling, very human lead by Roy Scheider. Some of it is arguably the most famous score in cinema history. Some of it is great technical work from the cinematography to the editing to the special effects. And some of it is simply that getting eaten by a Great White shark is a ****ing terrifying prospect.
And then some of it is just phenomenal luck. I am going to lump casting in here because none of the principals were the first choice. Scheider was second (at best) for , Shaw was third for Quint, and Richard Dreyfuss was way down the list for Hooper. And yet I cannot imagine the film without even one of them, much less all three. Re-cast this film, in your mind, with Robert DuVall, Lee Marvin, and Jon Voigt. I'm sure it wouldn't be a bad film, but it wouldn't be this film.
And then of course there is the good bad-luck of Bruce, the shark, not functioning. I'm sure everyone knows the story so I won't belabor it, but how do you make a Hitchcock movie about a killer shark? Have the shark not work and be forced to come up with creative ways to suggest its presence without ever showing it. As Spielberg said in interview, "I wanted to show the shark in the first scene." And this, of course, is why Jaws is better than most of his films. Because at the end of the day, for all his talents, he's the "I wanted to show the shark in the first scene" Guy.
And then there's the score. This isn't luck, this is more trust, but reportedly, when Williams initially played Spielberg the shark's main theme, Spielberg thought it was a joke. But Williams had struck on something and he knew it. There is so much dread in that theme, from its flat-second interval to its deep orchestration (with a tuba playing the part that would normally be played by a French horn). But this is also where the movie blurs the line between Horror and something else. If Williams sticks to dark and foreboding and frightening throughout, then Jaws is a great Horror movie, without a doubt, and likely still just as good a film. But when he applies the more Adventure-oriented themes suggesting pirate movies and open-sea adventures, the film, for better or worse, blurs and transcends the genre or really genre-placement period. Whether this is a good thing or a bad thing is perhaps up to each viewer.
Finally, I would like to end at the beginning with something I don't hear enough of. When discussions of the best opening scenes in movies or the best opening scenes in Horror are undertaken, the opening scene of Jaws, honestly, needs to be at the top of the genre and near the top of all films. Spielberg terrifies the audience within just a few minutes with a very naturalistic scene of people on a beach (I mean, the beach part of the scene really reminds me of Robert Altman more than anything Spielberg has done) and then a sudden, totally unexpected, and rather brutal death. There's real shock and then desperation to cling to life and then the knowledge that it didn't matter. Whatever death was under that water was far too great to overcome and the audience still had 2 hours to go.
Thank god he didn't show the shark.

Re: Wooley's Pre-Horrorthon, Vol.4
 

Never heard of it :)

Happy to be aboard! Like I said in Rate Your Last Movie You Watched, I'm doing a sci-fi/fantasy September. Here's my thoughts on Solaris (2002) in case you missed them in that thread:

https://i.imgur.com/TOUWpo2.jpeg

Even though I enjoyed Soderbergh's adaptation of Stanislaw Lem's novel much less than Tarkovsky's, I still consider it to be a great movie. Not to discount the performances in the 1972 one, but what the 2002 one lacks in flair, it makes up for in the strength of its performances. Clooney gives one of his best as psychologist Chris Kelvin for how he makes his regrets about lost love Rheya (the also great Natascha McElhone) and his dilemma about Solaris's seemingly too good to be true chance to cope with them believable and palpable. I also like Jeremy Davies' neurotic, Crispin Glover-adjacent performance that he could probably do in his sleep by now as the space station's more right-brained officer as well as Viola Davis' as the all-business left-brained one. I prefer the look and feel of the 1972 movie, but I can’t say anything bad about this one’s visuals, which manage to ride a fine line between looking contemporary and futuristic at the same time. As for the scenes with Chris and Rheya, they're just as resonant as those in the original, and while I'm not the biggest fan of flashbacks in general, the accompanying ones that show the evolution of their relationship are efficient and well-timed enough to enhance these scenes rather than detract. While the movie is more exposition heavy than I remember Tarkovsky's being, it's hard for me to criticize this difference since I already know the story. I prefer how the 1972 movie describes the science behind Solaris, but would its approach mesh with this movie's? Maybe not. Again, even though it's leaner, more efficient and not as much of a visual marvel as Tarkovsky's version, Soderbergh's is also bound to make you stare at the screen in awe and devastation as the credits roll.

https://i.imgur.com/oZU4zye.jpeg

If '80s cinema is - or should be - known for anything, it's how many quality sword and sorcery movies it has, with this movie being no exception. Love and romance figures into the plot of many of them, most notably Krull and The Princess Bride, and it's also essential to this one. Its central conceit involves a couple who, thanks to a curse, are always together yet always apart at the same time, with Navarre (Rutger Hauer) having to live as a wolf by night and partner Isabeau (Michelle Pfeiffer) living as the titular bird by day. While questing to break this curse, they are aided by an unlikely new member to their party: Mouse (Matthew Broderick in one of his first roles), a hapless pickpocket and recent prison breaker.

This is one of the best looking '80 fantasy movies, which is not hard to do when legendary cinematographer Vittorio Storaro is composing the shots and the Italian countryside is at your disposal. There are scenes that I wanted to go on a little bit longer - the ones in the woods in particular - just so I could take in the scenery. Action is also this movie's strong suit, with each fight scene making the excitement last until there's no more to be had. This is especially true of the cathedral grand finale, which not only succeeds thanks the visuals and editing, but also because of over the top yet adorable sound flourishes like making the sword clangs echo. As for the performances, while Hauer, Broderick, Leo McKern’s devoted ally and John Wood’s annoyingly confident villain are as good as you would expect, Pfeiffer is the movie's secret weapon. Unlike Navarre, Isabeau is in animal form more than she is in human form, but she makes her human scenes count. I of course wanted to see the curse lifted for Navarre and Isabeau's sake, but I admit to being more invested in the chance to see Pfeiffer again!

While I have more good to say about the movie than bad, I wouldn't rank it near the top of '80s fantasy, but it's far from the worst. Despite its romance and clever premise, it is not nearly as quotable or timeless as its subgenre's classics and lacks qualities that make it one, whether it’s the commentary on adolescence in Labyrinth or the uniquely sly self-awareness in The Princess Bride. Plus, there's the cheesy soundtrack, which I can't imagine even the most extreme ‘80s aficionado being nostalgic about. There is, of course, still enough about this movie for me to recommend it. Just expect something light, fun and that would be a good way to spend an afternoon than something that will also leave a deep impression.

(As I replied elsewhere...)
I think I'm inclined to agree with you on all counts. Which is to say that I started to take exception with the notion that it didn't belong at the top but the more I thought about it, the more I thought, wellll... and then you mentioned the soundtrack and I'm like, "Oh yeah, I forgot, that dated the hell out of it."
But when I went back and watched this a few years ago (having first seen it once or twice int theater and then maybe another dozen times on HBO when I was a kid), I have to say I thought it held up a lot better than I expected. Not as juvenile as I was expecting. It's a shame Rutger Hauer wasn't a bigger star on my side of the pond, he was a really compelling actor. And I think you're right, Pfeiffer, and the way the director and cinematographer handle her, creates a haunting yet luminescent presence.
All in all, I thought it was a well put-together fantasy. Which is one of my favorite genres.

Turned it off after five minutes. Felt slow.

:p

Two Jaws related things that happened today:

1) Re: the film itself
I was reading the book The Jumbies to my class, and there's a sequence where a Jumbie (like a forest spirit) makes herself invisible and goes down to a river bed where she can look up at some children swimming in the river above. She decides to attack them and the chapter ends with her hand reaching for one of the kids. "Ooh!" said one of my students. "It's like that scene in Jaws!" A few other students nodded. These children were born in 2011.

2) Re: that ridiculous conversation about masculinity and Jaws
I was watching a Western today, and an injured boy is being cared for by a doctor, but refuses to cry out. He tells the doctor "Men don't cry." The doctor replies, "I reckon men do cry. Real men. It's the greenhorns who aren't so sure they're men who are afraid to." Anyway, swap out "asking for help" with "crying" and that pretty much sums up my feelings on it.

Damn, 9 and 10 years olds watching Jaws? I mean, I guess I did, but I was a bit rogue.
And man, I can't agree with you more. If there even is such a thing as "being a man", being comfortable enough in your own skin to show emotion and ask for help would be way up on my list of what that means. And I'm actually kind of an old-schooler, having been a child in the 70s.

My sister and her best friend watched Jaws every Friday night for two years, starting in like 4th or 5th grade.

Jaws played on TV constantly when I was of school age, so I first saw it pretty young as well. (Maybe 7 or 8.)


Now if Tak's students were referring to the sequels, that would be something else. :rotfl:

This is a movie I saw in the theater because I was a big fan of Soderbergh's Out Of Sight and I love Sci-Fi. Had no idea what to expect back in '98. But I absolutely loved it. I found it incredibly moving, like I may have cried in the theater.

I saw the '72 movie first, but I had a similar reaction and I think I prefer how this movie's ending made me feel, which was an odd mix of joy and sorrow. I mean, what would you do? If I also had nothing else to live for and felt like an alien on my home planet, I doubt if I would care if what I was experiencing is real or not.

The cost of paradise does make for good sci-fi. These movies, parts of The Matrix and the Star Trek: TOS episode "This Side of Paradise" also do a good job of exploring that theme.

One of my favorite episodes.

Here is one of my favorite films from my middle teenage years... that I have seen ONCE in the last 30 years. In 2005. How would it hold up?
I loved it.
This was so fun, I actually backed it up several times to watch scenes again and then when it was over I went back and watched the climax twice more.
So what the hell is it?
Well, it's a Canadian, Bakshi-esque animated film about an aging Rock superstar in a post-apocalyptic world populated by anthropomorphic animals, searching for the voice that will help him raise a demon and rule the World.
The Rock-star, the villain of our story, is a sort of combination of David Bowie, Iggy Pop, and The Grinch, name of Mok...


... and the Heroine, possessor of the magic voice, is Angel (seen here with demons)...


... an aspiring singer in a cut-rate band with a selfish ******* leader, Omar.

But man, is this film fun. The Bakshi influence is obvious but there's also some other, edgier animation in parts, as well as some really great imagery at times...


Not to mention, Mok is voiced, in song, by both Lou Reed (in the song above and another) and Iggy Pop, Angel by Debbie Harry (singing the haunting and triumphant "Send Love Through"), and Omar by Cheap Trick's Robin Zander.
That's a lot of entertainment for a few bucks.
Anyway, this film delivered for me in a big way. The nostalgia factor was so great that I actually started crying the first time Angel sang her song. No joke. But it also struck me how much better the whole production is than I expected, nostalgia aside. Imagine if one of Bakshi's better films actually had a cogent narrative that flowed and good songs by those superstars I've already mentioned and you have Rock & Rule.
Highly recommended for people who like this sort of thing.

Wow, that sounds right up my alley. It's too bad it's not exactly readily available. It's only available to buy for $20 at Amazon? In the immortal words of Joe Biden, "c'mon, man!"

https://i.imgur.com/24KJeXO.jpeg

A movie that could be described as Back to the Future before Back to the Future - it even has a joke about Ronald Reagan being the president - The Philadelphia Experiment is not the classic that that movie is, but it has enough going for it to make it worth checking out. It is based on a myth about World War II battleship U.S.S. Eldridge, which may or may not have been equipped with experimental radar-deflecting technology. Once activated, crewmen David Herdeg (Michael Paré) and Jim Parker (Bobby Di Cicco) find themselves in 1984. With the help of unwilling accomplice Allison (Nancy Allen), they look for a way to return, all the while dealing with the future shock of everything from television to pop-top cans of Coke.

Much of what makes this movie work and worth watching is Paré's performance. He is very convincing as a man who is out of place, looking for answers and unwilling to become a pawn of scientists and the government, all of whom pursue Jim, Allison, and himself pretty much as soon as he arrives in the future. His bemused reactions to modern conveniences also made me laugh while his more grieved ones, like seeing pictures of himself on a wall in his father's mechanic business, became my own. The special effects are not half bad either, especially the all-consuming vortex in the sky which is an unfortunate byproduct of the Eldridge's failed experiment. The high-contrast lighting that accompanies the time shifts, on the other hand, has not aged well, but it at least gets its purpose across.

What prevents this movie from being a classic time travel story? In spite of its real-life inspirations and relatively unique vehicle, it's a pretty standard entry in this subgenre. It also doesn't help that much of the science, ramifications of going to the future, etc. are sidelined in favor of David and Allison's romance. Despite not totally coming across like a Stockholm Syndrome case as well as Paré and Allen's chemistry and strong acting, I felt that it marginalized a lot of the technical mumbo jumbo, which to me is the "good stuff" that is a perk to movies like this one. Also, while I've praised the effects and some of the acting - Steven Tobolowsky also impresses in an early role as a scientist - it often resembles a TV movie from its era and the general performance is of average quality at best. I still enjoyed it and it scratched my itch for good sci-fi, but if you somehow haven't seen that other time travel movie that came out the following year yet, watch it first.

Re: Wooley & Torgo's September Excite-o-rama!
 

random thoughts:

1. A Torgo/Wooley collab. This is like that time Jagger and Bowie made a record.

2. I somehow missed Ladyhawke back in the day, but a friend and I rented it in 2000-something because we were in the mood for vintage fantasy. That first blast of synth completely threw us off our game, and we heckled the film from that point on. The soundtrack is definitely the first thing that comes to mind whenever the film is mentioned. So I owe it another chance.

3. If someone hacked into my brain's pleasure center, and made a movie based on what they found there, that movie would be Rock & Rule.

Aww, thanks. Hold on, I'm not sure if that's complimentary...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHkhIjG0DKc

Yeah, that occurred to me also. Let's go with Bowie & Queen instead.

ps-- The director of Rock & Rule made a bunch of weird/awesome TV specials that might interest readers of this thread.
Please Don't Eat the Planet, A Cosmic Christmas, and especially The Devil and Daniel Mouse which is about rock musician mice.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knENwlh0FFA

Full movie, pretty good print.

That's pretty much what happened to me, when I was like 13 and then again at 48.

And welcome to the thread. Been waiting for you.

Huh, how did I not know of this?

I suspect I watched this movie half a dozen times when I was a lad with HBO in the early to mid 1980s. I was a fan.
For a brief period, for me, Michael Pare could do no wrong between Eddie And The Cruisers, Streets Of Fire, and The Philadelphia Experiment.
I also always had a crush on Nancy Allen.

Don't know, but I suggest you rectify.

Have you ever seen a movie on your watchlist and you had no idea how it got there? That was the case with this one for me. It's possible that I added it after you or someone else mentioned it way back when on the Rotten Tomatoes forums! As for Paré, I really want to see Cruisers now. Streets of Fire left me cold, which is odd since it's up my alley (no puns intended), but I'm willing to give it another chance.

I am now two for two on Stewart Raffill movies. Yes, I like the mostly hated Mac & Me.

You wound me with Streets Of Fire, a movie I truly love. It does sag a bit in the middle, after the raid on The Bombers, but it's a small price to pay for the rest of the awesome.
Eddie and the Cruisers was a movie I really enjoyed (several times) but I haven't seen in a billion years.

I am confused why I don't like it that much, especially since I like everything else Walter Hill has directed. It's just one of those rare occasions where a movie has a lot of things I like - rock 'n roll, gang fights, it takes place in a possible future, etc. - and it does little for me. Rockatansky had a similar reaction to Mandy, if I remember correctly, and even though I love that movie, I can relate. Hopefully, that's not my reaction to Rock & Rule because it looks like it was made for me!

I hope to have some more tasty content for this thread later this weekend. :cool:

This is the shocker.
Not because this weird movie exists, but because of how frankly it embraces attitudes likely inherent in the 40s but already unacceptable when this film was made and pretty freaking startling by today's standards.
But I'll get to that.
This is a fairly early HBO Pictures production, 1991 to be exact, that was made for the single HBO cable channel that existed back then. The budget is according, but to be honest, they did a pretty decent job (mostly) with the money they had. I mean, it rains blood in this movie.


So that's not bad.
The story is that in the late 1940s, the World has learned to live with the existence of magic and integrate it into everyday life. Everyone uses a little magic, some more than others, everyone has some charm or totem or talisman, and some are even pretty good witches and sorcerers and such.
Except for Phillip Lovecraft (the always enjoyable and game Fred Ward), formerly of the LAPD and now private investigator. He rejects magic outright and refuses to participate in it in any way, not denying that it's there, you hardly can when you run into werewolves at the police station being released on bail after all-night, full-moon benders...


... but refusing to engage in it in the slightest, preferring the world as it was before the magic came.
He is hired by wealthy warlock David Warner (pictured in blood-raining scene above) to acquire a book for him. Which should seem simple enough. Except that a character was murdered (with magic, death by paper-cuts, no joke) for the book in the opening scene of the film by Warner's evil rival, Harry Bordon (Clancy Brown). And the book is The Necronomicon.
From here, Lovecraft winds his way through a typical pot-boiler detective story but with gargoyles tailing him and demons attacking him.
I mean, this movie's got everything, vampire prostitutes, unicorns, gremlins in the car engine, a voodoo priestess landlady, a zombie work force, not to mention Shub Niggurath or Yog Sothoth, or Cthulhu (I don't think it's Cthulhu, but he is name-dropped), or one of those guys. And Oscar-winner Julianne Moore.
It also has homophobia, transphobia, and some pretty dubious Lolita business.
And this brings me, finally to what's so shocking about this movie (as big as spoilers get):


Anyway, otherwise a kind of fun little movie, transphobia and all, but man, if you can get over your shock at the ending, I dunno... yeah, actually I just don't even know what to say about it.
So, I'll just leave you with this:

Re: Wooley & Torgo's September Excite-o-rama!
 

I'm going to check that one out. You got me curious.

I saw Deathtrap when I was 8 :shifty:

Here's a blast from the past. I'm also not sure how it would hold up but it was fun on acid in high school.

True story: These guys once 69'd with Bette Midler in a closet during a party in the 70s, which many witnesses got to hear. It must have been a pretty big closet to fit all of their jaws.

So that's what she meant by "you got to have friends."

I think I've watched it in various states of mind and it holds up.

Well, while I don't get it I do know that you're not alone in feeling that way, so I'll let it slide. ;)

I would really be interested to hear what other people thought of Rock & Rule.

https://i.imgur.com/5QMFrVT.jpg

I've wanted to watch this movie again since I finished the very good Netflix series The Dark Crystal: Age of Resistance and this thread gave me as good an excuse as any to do so. Coming across like an epic even though it's only a little over 90 minutes long, it takes place in a broken world - as evidenced by the titular broken jewel - and focuses on two races who could not be any more different. There's the Mystics, who as their name implies are always looking to the skies for answers, and the Skeksis - one of the most gruesome and unappealing villains in all of fiction, if you ask me - who are only concerned with their ill-gotten power. Our hero, though, is Jen, the apparent last member of the Gelfling race who is prophesized to restore the crystal and thus balance.

This may say more about me than the movies I watch, but so many of them these days have me reaching for my cell phone. This one, on the other hand, made me put it down. Not only is every frame a visual feast, but they also reward the observant eye whether it's the cleverly designed flora and fauna in the woods or the crowd of Podlings in the wings of the palace. Also, the painted vistas and puppetry hold up despite their age and have a physicality and personal touch that even the most sophisticated modern CGI could not replicate. The movie is labeled as dark fantasy, which I think fits given the subject matter and how revolting the villains are - especially during the dinner scene - but it still manages to be adorable and funny and at just the right times. Fizzgig and the Podlings - the non-turned ones, that is - have a lot to do with this, as does the irascible Aughra, who comes across like a mix of Tom Bombadil from The Lord of the Rings and Dorothy from Golden Girls. Credit also goes to Trevor Jones' score, especially for how it adds so much atmosphere and wonder with its simple motif.

Like the best fantasy, there is much more to take in while watching this movie beyond its imagination, lore, and old-fashioned underdog story. I can relate to its desire for those in power, who lately seem to fall into the movie's dominant camps, to understand one another, come together and that in doing so would make our world one worth living in and preserving. If there's a fault in the movie worth calling out, it's that it could be more tonally consistent, especially when it comes to the scary scenes. While I've praised the comic relief, it reminded me of the first Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles movie - which the Hensons also worked on, coincidentally - in that the violence does not always mesh with the scenes that are meant to appeal to children. Granted, I first watched this movie as an adult, but scenes like the one where the Skeksis drain the poor Podling's essence are pure nightmare fuel. Despite this flaw, I still rank this as one of the best fantasy movies I've seen and consider it an achievement in puppetry on par with the original Yoda. It's just too bad that with the Netflix series' cancellation, we may never get to visit this world again.

As I said elsewhere, this is an absolute favorite from my youth that I've enjoyed every time I revisited it. And I'm genuinely bummed out about the excellent show being cancelled.
Aughra was my favorite. And Chamberlain for his part, I guess.

I've been posting these in the Rate... thread so they're counted as reviews in case you were wondering.

But yeah, I love it as an adult, but I wish I'd seen it as a kid because I'm sure it would've blown my young mind. Also, the Chancellor rules. Best decision the series made? Retaining that little curious groan noise he makes! I love that. Oh, and the Game of Thrones series sucks. Least payoff of anything I was obsessed with from the last decade.

I'll post about something that's not from the '80s eventually. That decade, like these genres, is my bread & butter.

Re: Wooley & Torgo's September Excite-o-rama!
 

When it comes to its visuals and its world building, few films knock it out of the park as hard as Dark Crystal.


And, personally, I miss the days when a kids movie was designed not only to instill wonder in children, but was also willing to terrify the freckles off of them. I think it took about ten years off my life when I watched it in the theatre, and probably is one of the three movies that convinced me the world was much too frightening a place to ever voluntarily participate in. Somehow it articulates corruption, villainy and death with such unfliching clarity, its make believe world really puts the real one we live in into way too much focus.

I don't know what the bolded means. Counted by who?

Otherwise, I'm sorry you didn't get to see it as a kid, I was just young enough for it to not get caught in that zone where you're too old for it and then got to see it as an adult when that no longer matters.
Yeah, Chamberlain's noise is great. I thought the voice actors were amazing for that show.
Lotta good material in these genres from the 80s.

There's a checkbox on the Post Reply page that adds reviews to this collection when you check it. I was missing some necessary details for it to be added, but I put them in that other thread because I didn't want to gum this one up with them.

As for crumbs' post about scary stuff in children's entertainment, it's an interesting topic. I still remember scenes like seeing Gmork in The Neverending Story, the lost souls room in Beetlejuice, tons of stuff in The Wizard of Oz, etc. like I saw them yesterday. Did they warp me a bit, make me a little more world-weary and give me something to talk about? Yes. Were they good for me? I'm not sure. Did they traumatize me? Not really. I do think animators, directors, etc. should risk scaring kids as long as it's not in too bad of taste, of course.

Have you seen Return to Oz? An interesting mid-80s film that usually gets put in the "way-too-disturbing-for-children" category. But a very interesting film to look back on.

There are some movies I loved as a child that I found out as an adult really weren't well received when they were released.
The Dark Crystal, The Thing, The Black Cauldron.


I haven't revisited The Black Cauldron since I don't know when. At latest, my teenage years, but even that's probably later than reality. I do sometimes wonder what I'd think of it today.


I remember revisiting The Dark Crystal in adulthood and still remember being a fan. No idea how Labyrinth would hold up for me though.

I have, but like Dark Crystal, it was as an adult. I'm sure the Wheelers would've given me nightmares as a kid since I find them freakish now.

Speaking of, I wonder if nightmare fuel, overly scary moments in children's entertainment, etc. are even things any more. I say this because it seems like they're often side effects of mistakes, having to do more with less, etc. That probably sounds arrogant since I don't know what freaks out children these days, but when you consider how much meticulously-detailed CGI is in our entertainment lately, nightmare fuel seems less likely to occur.

I think there's plenty of nightmare fuel out there, and, what's more, I think it's necessary. I think nightmare fuel is an important reason why these archetypes have perpetrated for as long as they have. I'm not saying "terrify your children", I'm just saying that a certain amount of terror (for a child is almost indistinguishable from 'awe') is healthy, and a necessary part of the emotional and imaginative coping mechanisms.

It's true:



https://youtu.be/3tst_xE53Z0

As a kid I think I quite enjoyed getting an awful fright during a film that led me through some pretty dark places - and The Dark Crystal did that so expertly that I demanded my parents take me to see it more than once.

So.
Imagine if you took all the worst instincts of the not-so-good parts of Return Of The Jedi and repackaged them as a full length Fantasy film that you then somehow managed to make seem like it was made on half its actual budget.
Here ya go.
I can probably name ten better sword and sorcery movies without using Google.
Also, I'm just gonna say it, Warwick Davis was no Peter Dinklage.

Shoulda watched Krull.

Was that your first time watching Willow? I'm pretty sure I've never seen it. I was too old for such things when it came out. I've always intended to get around to it one day, but your review isn't encouraging. Dang.

Re: Wooley & Torgo's September Excite-o-rama!
 

Watch it.

Should've watched some Italian barbarian films :D

But yeah, Willow isn't that great. The red-headed daughter of the main villain is kinda hot, though, if I remember correctly.

I'm a Willow fan. It's derivative and it has a lot of mediocre acting and writing, but Val Kilmer's performance, Franjean & Rool's comic relief and most of the action scenes make it worth watching.

I mean, there's this guy:




but then there's "directed by Ron Howard". So I'm torn. I'll keep it on the watchlist for now.

Correct.

I've always assumed that Willow and Legend are actually the same movie.


I haven't seen either. :shifty:

No, I'd seen it in the theater and on VHS back in its day. It does not hold up.

Oh, I'm sure I'll be watching some of those, Conquest is almost certainly gonna be in here, for example.

And you remember correctly.

A blatant Black Cauldron ripoff that doesn't play nearly as well. Frankly the whole movie is pretty much a ripoff, it felt close enough to Tolkien to me that I felt like his family could easily have sued. This is not a good Ron Howard film, a lot of it really comes across as just crappy.

Legend is not great, though I've heard the DC is good if you can find it, but I would definitely rather watch it than Willow.

We're all just gonna sit here and listen to these outrageous slanders about a movie where a warrior, a magical dwarf, and a baby ride a shield down a hill like it's a sled?!?!?!

Re: Wooley & Torgo's September Excite-o-rama!
 

I know I hated Willow as a kid. But it was probably released just at the time where I was on the cusp of abandoning these sorts of movies. At twelve it was time to tear down my Val Kilmore posters and replace them with Doris Wishman polaroids. You know, like a normal kid.

I remember enjoying Conquest, but more for how weird a fit Fulci's style is for the genre than for being a "good" sword and sandal movie.

Cerebellum is a helluva drug.


One Italian fantasy I'd throw out there that is an oddball movie is She (1982), sometimes referred to as She (Barbarian). It stars Sandhal Bergman and... the less one knows going into it, the better, IMO.

Yeah, She is a helluva drug, but it's not a very good movie.

Conquest is an odd one. It's like an arthouse barbarian film. I liked it a lot more on my adult rewatch than I did as a kid (when films like The Sword of the Barbarians or Thor the Conqueror were much more to my liking). I think I still have some Italian barbs on VHS hidden somewhere (bought a lot of them used when DVDs took over).

Truly the highlight of an otherwise mostly dreary movie.
The troll-dragon scene was admittedly fun but much less so than the similar castle-defense scene from Army Of Darkness. Ron Howard < Sam Raimi.

I actually saw an edited for TV version of this when I was a kid and was just enamored my entire life with the lightsaber-bow-and-arrow. That's all that really matters.

https://i.imgur.com/6Y4n1A5.jpg

Silent Running -

Have you ever had a group assignment in which nobody seemed interested in doing a good job except yourself? On the other hand, have you ever been in a group with one person who was a goody-two-shoes control freak? Either way, this movie proves that it's worth listening to such people every once in a while. In a future in which the only remaining plant life is housed on orbiting spaceships, the small crew of the Valley Forge complies with an unexplained order to jettison and nuke this life. One crewman, however, is unwilling to do so: ecologist Freeman Lowell (Bruce Dern), who I would describe as someone who would be the first in line to volunteer for the Biosphere project from the early '90s. His battle soon becomes a solitary one, although he programs his station's droids to assist him and to provide company.

Douglas Trumbull, who is most probably famous for designing the visual effects for Blade Runner, directed this movie and also contributed to its look. Qualities that make that movie great sci-fi can also be found here, such as how nearly everyone except for one or a select few - in this case Lowell - has, to quote The Buggles, bought the fake and sold what's real. Besides the rest of the crew's eagerness to finish their work and go home, there's Lowell's impassioned speeches as to why they should do the opposite. The theme of machine company being more attractive than human company is also done well here with the scenes of Lowell bonding with the droids he affectionately dubs Huey and Dewey. They're especially rewarding considering that despite having legs, the bots have no anthropomorphic features. Speaking of, since this is mostly a one-person show, it would fall apart if the actor were not game, but Bruce Dern very much is. In addition to his speechifying, he again proves that few actors are better at saying so much with a single (eagle-eyed) glare. The aesthetic is also worth calling out for being reminiscent of the art of Chesley Bonestell, and with its smattering of corporate logos proves that Trumbull's fascination with corporate control also didn't start with Blade Runner.

While there's nothing terribly wrong with the movie, even at 90 minutes, it still seems a bit lean. Also, I didn't need everything to be explained, but it would have been nice to know why Earth sent the order to destroy the plant life. With that said, it's a fine example of eco-sci fi that not only inspires for how far Lowell is willing to go to preserve his work, but also for how it makes you ask what cause you would also fight tooth and nail for. Again, I also love the scenes showing Lowell and the droids' companionship. It's no wonder that the movie inspired Joel Hodgson while developing Mystery Science Theater 3000. Oh, and if the story doesn't leave you teary-eyed, Joan Baez's songs definitely will.

Re: Wooley & Torgo's September Excite-o-rama!
 

I was kind of disappointed by Silent Running. The setup and the premise were fine and promising, but after the inciting incident came and went, I got the sense that Trumbull didn't know where to take the movie next, so Dern's character sort of just passed the time as he went about the ship, dealing with the occasional problem as it arises. It felt like a shell of a potentially great film.

I do love the music in it though:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NkF05D-NJMU

I get that criticism. That's sort of what I meant when I criticized the movie as lean. Even though a lot of the middle contains scenes that express Lowell's loneliness - training and playing cards with Huey and Louie, flashing back to his crewmates even though he didn't get along with them, etc. - that are not bad in any way and pay off in the end, they still give the impression that the movie is spinning its wheels a bit.

Also, you picked one of the songs for the song contest, didn't you? I thought I recognized one of them.

Yep, I picked Rejoice in the Sun for the competition. Sadly though, I'm pretty sure it came in last place for that particular round.

I hereby sentence you to Hundra




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_FXdVNyfZJs

Ouch. I guess some other people deserve to blown up in space.
...Too extreme?

Actually, I just checked the thread and it came in second last place for that round. So, yeah, maybe blowing them up in space is a bit too extreme. How about only blowing half of their bodies up in space? That way, they can go on living.

Hmm, sounds fair. Joan would be proud of us.

I liked but didn't love this one.
It contains so much of what I love about Sci-Fi and would seem to be tailored for me... and yet...
There's just not enough there. I was not sorry I watched it and I will probably watch it again, but it could have delivered a lot more for me.
I will tell you that your review sent me down a Chesley Bonestell/Sci-Fi Art rabbit-hole for about an hour and half.

Haha, I'm glad (as long as you didn't get in trouble with your employer, of course)! One of the best artist discoveries I've made in the last few years.
There's a documentary about him I haven't seen yet called Chesley Bonestell: A Brush with the Future. I think it's available to rent on Prime and YouTube.

No, I have a weird job where I sometimes end up in my office for significant stretches with not much to do.
I've been a huge fan of Fantasy/Sci-Fi Art since the first time I ever saw movie posters and book covers as a child. I actually, just today, purchased a new copy of this book I used to keep from my school library for months at a time until they harassed me enough.


And this one I had since I was like maybe 8 years old.

This was a childhood favorite---



And this is a recent purchase that I recommend---



Also, I've seen the Bonestell doc and it's a bit amateurish I guess but there's some cool stuff in there. Worth checking out.

I need those books! I only follow the Instagram accounts scifi_art and seventiesscifiart.
There's also the website Good Show Sir, which shares bad or weird sci-fi and fantasy book covers:

https://i.imgur.com/5jKXDmP.jpg

Well, I guess I'm not getting anything done today.

LOL.
Wooley & Torgo's September Excite-o-rama. Killing productivity since September 1, 2021.

This is one of my favorite bits from the Frank Paul book. I'm terribly disappointed that our military has not pursued the Giant Buzz Saw concept. I've run the numbers and have determined that the physics all check out.

Something I always include in my Horrorthon Thread (which I may or may not do this year) is a lot of posters for Horror movies I'm not watching but are pretty awesome, and I meant to include some of those here as well (for Sci-Fi/Fantasy/Thriller/Slasher/Etc.).
So, since we're on the subject of bad/weird Sci-Fi/Fantasy Art, let me drop the poster for Evils Of The Night, which is actually almost the entire and only reason I watched the movie.



And I'll leave a few more fun ones in here as we go, too.

Messenger of DEATH!!!

With Fred "The Hammer" Williamson!!!

(Not to mention Megaforce's Persis Khambatta. Rowr.)

All aboard the Badass Express!

Holy crap. And I thought Blaine from Dark Tower was threatening.

Love that the one cat person is standing but the other is on all fours. You think that's a touchy subject for their people?

https://i.imgur.com/nYj9Es2.jpg

If his name isn't Ad-Elf, the book is a waste.