A scary thing happened on the way to the Movie Forums - Horrorcrammers

Tomb of Dracula (1980)
aka Dracula Sovereign of the Damned

Nice. I look forward to it.

I love this movie. "You got money?!"

"They don't have to take the Super Crack, they could JUST SAY NO!"

You know, I've seen some things (we all have) in horror films.

But I actually had to fast-forward the third story in Tales from the Crypt. Watching some rich creep destroy a harmless, kind old man just for the heck of it was truly unbearable. And his comeuppance at the end didn't come nearly close enough to making up for it.

I am telling myself that the conceit of the film means that it is something that could happen but hasn't yet (in the reality of the film), but still . . .

You guys know how Crumbsroom is always railing against James Wan for being nothing but soulless technique?


I think John Krasinski is my James Wan. Watched A Quiet Place II over the weekend and was left completely cold. With Wan (who I mostly like) at least you can tell he's passionate about the movies he's aping. I don't know if Krasinski is passionate about anything.

I don't think he's passionate. I do think that he has affection for the kind of film he's trying to make.

I thought that A Quiet Place was . . . fine. The further I get from it, the less impressed I am with it.

The sequel is more of the same, if a little less eager to settle into a pattern of "show noisy object -> noisy object goes off". It also upgrades Krasinski to Cillian Murphy.

I actually enjoy Wan, for the most part. Saw, Insidious, The Conjuring, Aquaman, are all ok.

Everyone needs an enemy.


And now you have yours.


Congratulations!

This is the most interested I've been in A Quiet Place 2, and yet my interest went like this:

Ooh! . . . . Eh . . . . Nah.

Hm. I like Cillian Murphy

I might watch A Quiet Place II soon. Maybe. Haven't felt the motivation to watch it yet. I enjoyed the first film quite a bit in the theaters, but my appreciation of it has diminished over time. Based on what I've read about the film here, I've heard that the second film makes the same mistakes the first film does, but I'm still kind of curious. It's likely going to take some convincing for me to watch it though.

For those of you who like gore, or "gorn", you might enjoy the 2015 documentary of the great special effects wizard, Tom Savini. Presumably he's still active at aged 74, although now as a director.


https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1949591/

It is kind of amazing that in the 80's a special effects guy, mainly known for extreme gore, could become a recognizable celebrity.



Or maybe it was just his star making turn as Garbage Man #2 in Creepshow that made him such a known commodity.

Me too.

But enough to see A Quiet Place 2? Eh . . . . nah.

Day of the Dead, 1985

In an underground bunker, a collection of scientists led by a woman named Sarah (Lori Cardille) and a scientist named Logan (Richard Liberty) search for a solution to a zombie plague that has taken over the world. Rounding out the civilian count are a pilot named John (Terry Alexander) and a radio operator named Bill (Jarlath Conroy). Tensions in the bunker run high as the army squadron that was tasked with protecting the scientists grows edgy about the seemingly unending experimentation. Led by the unhinged Rhodes (Joseph Pilado), the military men seem always on the edge of violence against the civilians.

I really, really enjoyed this film.

I've spent years looking at stills and gifs of this film and had definitely formed an idea of what I thought the film was about.

The best surprise of the film is just how much it feels like a slow-burn thriller. It's evident almost from the beginning that the real enemies to be reckoned with are the soldiers, specifically Rhodes, as there is a malice and cruelty in them that is different from the undirected hunger of the zombies. From the start, the atmosphere is heavy and poisoned with the bigoted, misogynistic resentment of the military men. The protagonists find themselves trapped between two different, but equally dangerous, forces.

That said, the zombie sequences and effects are really on point. There are easily half a dozen memorable effects sequences involving the results of Logan's grisly experiments and attacks by the zombies. There's a kind of gory, bloody symmetry to it all: the humans tear the zombies apart, and the zombies are more than happy to return the favor. A subplot in which Logan attempts to domesticate a surprisingly-sentient zombie named Bub lends further uncomfortable parallels---as Bub eschews violence and plays with a phone, the human soldiers fight and wrestle in the hallways. The line between civility and brutality begins as a blur and only gets more fuzzy.

I really enjoyed the characters. Sarah is a compelling lead. Being the only woman in a bunker full of angry, aggressive men introduces stakes right from the get-go and also creates a vulnerability to the character. Sarah is a strong female protagonist without being a Strong Female Protagonist---she has values and she sticks to them, but there are also hints that she is clinging to a hope that may be impossible. John and Bill offer a nice counterbalance--the two men are wary of the tense interactions and hang out on the periphery of the action, though they are far from passive and many times show that they are willing to risk their lives to stand up for others.

On the villain side of things, Rhodes is effectively scary, as are the men who laughingly follow his demented commands. Logan makes for a more nuanced villain--though I imagine some people wouldn't consider him a baddie. His experiments on the zombies have a disturbing degree of flair to them. There's a telling quote late in the film when a character says that he acts as if he is simply processing cattle.

This movie was such a pleasant surprise. I don't know what it was that had made me decide that I'd probably just like it okay, but those were some of the fastest 100 minutes I've ever seen. I was invested in the characters and the film was neither overly cruel nor overly precious with the treatment of them. I don't have any criticisms, though some minor ones may occur to me as I get a bit of distance from it.

(Also, it turns out that if you put 7 years and some facial hair on John Amplas, I will not recognize him at all).

Fabulous!

The only film from the original Dead trilogy that I outright love. Night is obviously great, and it took me a long time to get to the point that I consider myself a (hestitant) fan of Dawn. But Day is a film with such a peculiar tone, which such starkly defined characters (some grotesque stereotypes, some fully fleshed out people, all entirely compelling) that I think it is a crime it is frequently thought of as the lame duck in the series. Yes, it is aggressively off putting in a number of ways (so much gore, so much yelling) that I get people recoiling from it at first. But it has so much to offer after deeper reflection, and I think its social commentary is much more legitimately on point, than the civil rights and consumeristic subtexts the other two films kind of stumble into.


And it was only on my most recent viewing maybe 6 months ago that it dawned on me that was Martin in the movie. God knows how many times I've seen it without picking up on that.

I can say right now that this is easily my favorite of the trilogy, and it's not even close. As you say, there's such a compelling tone (dread spiked with dark humor), and the effective co-existence of cartoonish characters and people who felt very real. I think that its commentary is on point, but that the film also functions on a purely narrative level.

I went to the IMDb to get actors' names for my write up and I was like "WHAT?!".

Took me a while to come around on that one (the movie mostly plays one note, and does so extremely loudly; struggling to think of another movie with this much shouting), but eventually the sledgehammer-like nihilism and the resulting cracks of optimism and humanity scattered throughout, proved to be cathartic in their own way. It's the one I chose for a rewatch after Romero's passing and found it especially rewarding at the time. Hmmmm, tempted to dig up my write-up from the time later (which I don't think I shared with this crowd).

__________________