CiCi's horror reviews!

→ in
Tools    





Survivor 5s #2 Bitch
Personally I prefer Shivers to either of them.

And thank you, CiCi. You're right, I do have good taste. It's one of the main reasons why disagreeing with me is so wrong.
Right, well I'll try and live my life according to your examples from now on, Honey, just to keep me right!

And anyway, one of the main reasons I liked Marilyn Burns so much was because we were born on the same day! (just about 40-50 years a part though )

And I don't even know what Shivers is about, I've only ever heard seen it in passing before!



Weirdly, someone was talking to me about Rabid the other day, totally out of the blue! Because they were going on about Bree Olson and how she says she can't live a normal life after porn and can't do anything mainstream, and then Marilyn Chambers and Rabid came up as an example of a porn star who did a mainstream film I didn't quite know where to put myself!
They were way ahead in the 70's.
__________________
5-time MoFo Award winner.



You mean me? Kei's cousin?
Shelley Duvall. I don't quite know how to describe her performance in this, but the word inconsistent springs to mind. At times, she's just fine in being a timid little housewife, and she occasionally does quite well at times when she's called to be distressed. But I noticed, for example, during the scene in which she discovers Jack's manuscript and consequently has an explosive argument with him over it, she's perfect in portraying fear, insecurity, and hopelessness through her voice, but this isn't matched by her physical mannerisms. I mean, she swings that bat with no conviction whatsoever, and I know that's probably because she's faced by her husband, but Wendy Torrance was initially created as an headstrong woman who wasn't afraid to stand up for herself, and I'll get onto that eventually. But her facial expressions during this segment was peculiar too, she looked constipated, and couldn't quite pull it off. This does look critical, but I do give her some sympathy, her treatment on the set is nothing short of legendary at this stage, and good on her for not walking off the set, and I also think her Razzie nomination was uncalled for too. I wouldn't give her an Oscar nom though, or a Saturn one... or a MTV movie award one either!

If you weren't gay before this film, chances are you will be by the end, an aged vagina is something you never want to see!
Well, I personally thought her acting was very good. Wendy was meant to be scared, and Duvall played her as such. Duvall was really and truly scared and edgy, largely due to Kubrick's manipulation (he had creepy crap happening on the set), and I think it really shows when everything goes bat-crap crazy.

As for that last comment, I'm still heterosexual, even after seeing the movie a couple of times.
__________________
Look, Dr. Lesh, we don't care about the disturbances, the pounding and the flashing, the screaming, the music. We just want you to find our little girl.



Survivor 5s #2 Bitch
She wasn't bad! But I didn't like her character either which didn't help her case.
And yeah, I don't know how she managed to keep on going after what he put her through



You mean me? Kei's cousin?
She wasn't bad! But I didn't like her character either which didn't help her case.
And yeah, I don't know how she managed to keep on going after what he put her through
I didn't hold it against her. Hell, I'd probably be scared if my wife (if I were married) went bat crap crazy and wanted to kill me and my kid (again, if I had a kid), and like the man in my avatar, who I named myself for, in Poltergeist and Clarice Starling in The Silence of Lambs, I don't "spook easily" as Jack Crawford puts it early in the latter movie. If this was my wife who I claimed I loved so much, I obviously wouldn't want to hurt her. Imagine it's you in that situation. It always helps. Also, if this came off as badgering, not my intent.



Survivor 5s #2 Bitch
Oh no, don't worry about it!

But the main reason I don't like Duvall's Wendy is because her novelised counterpart is anything but an hysterical wreck like she is in the film, Wendy was initially complex and compelling and I explained that a little bit, but the Wendy here was just beyond frustrating and I struggled to get past that.



You mean me? Kei's cousin?
Here's a little fun fact. As it turns out, Duvall apparently hated Kubrick. I didn't know that, but I'm not the least bit surprised after what he did to her.



Survivor 5s #2 Bitch
Here's a little fun fact. As it turns out, Duvall apparently hated Kubrick. I didn't know that, but I'm not the least bit surprised after what he did to her.
I think I read somewhere, possibly IMDb, that filming this was a memorable experience for her, and a one she wouldn't give up... but she'd never ever choose to repeat it either

Jack Nicholson had unpleasant things to say about him too, I think.



You mean me? Kei's cousin?
I haven't found Nicholson's comments yet, but Duvall said working with Kubrick was "almost unbearable" in an interview with Roger Ebert, which can be found on his website in print form.



28 days...6 hours...42 minutes...12 seconds

Well... I can't even begin to comprehend what the hell I just saw. It's most certainly not like anything I've seen before, and I doubt I'll see anything like it ever again (although it did remind me of Alien a little bit).

Anyway, the plot follows a dozen American scientists in the middle of Antarctica, their purposes for visiting are never explicitly revealed, although it can be presumed that they are there for Scientific purposes. But being hundreds of miles away from any other base, they are taken by surprise when a Norwegian crew approach their base, viciously hunting a dog. After the Norwegians chopper explodes and the sole, frenzied survivor is killed for shooting one of the crew, they take the "dog" in, where they realise that the specimen is far more deadly than they ever could have imagined.

Positives

The plot and narrative is so distinctly unique and so unbelievably apt and fitting for a horror film. Being unable to tell who has been infected due to the parasite's ability to perfectly replicate and imitate its victims inevitably allows us to understand how some characters completely collapse with the mental and emotional strain of being totally alone and unable to trust any of their peers, with their sense of hopelessness only being emphasised by the environment being one of the most desolate and lifeless places on Earth. Nevertheless, I feel as though credit largely falls on the writer of the original short story, a man named John Campbell Jr. However, the writer here, Bill Lancaster, did nevertheless include many original aspects that were just as effective and haunting.

The direction is superb as well, a tense atmosphere is created immediately, that is slowly enhanced throughout the first half of the film by the revelation of bloody axes, UFOs and the discovery of charred corpses that are too deformed to possibly be human. A sense of claustrophobia and discomfort also bubbles away underneath the surface due the large quantity of characters occupying such small amount of places, that simultaneously increases the tension. However, once it is revealed that the thing can perfectly emulate its victims, the whole film turns into a guessing game and you can't help but be as pre-cautious and suspicious as the characters in the film are. The death scenes are astounding as well, and are genuinely quite terrifying and shocking, and since they are spread out evenly throughout the film, we are given just enough time to recover from one ordeal before confronting the next one, that maintains a consistent level of fear. It's not difficult to see why this is John Carpenter's personal favourite out of all of his films, for his direction here is amongst his very best.

If you asked me to guess what year this film was produced in, I never would have said anything near the 1980s for the singular reason of the effects. They are absolutely sensational and manage to superbly create a sense of absolute terror and fear. Everything about their appearance and the awful ways they manage to contort themselves is petrifying. Also, the fact that they featured violence against dogs in the first half had my heart-breaking, I feel as though they definitely had some courage to stay true to the original story in that aspect, because I think most of us are more traumatised by the death of an animal over humans in all honesty.

The score is very simplistic, which is probably why it was Razzie nominated, although it works and is magnificently appropriate for the scenes it's paired with.

Negatives

The acting was nothing special, and neither was the dialogue in parts. Therefore, the film is a little slow in places, but due to the writing and direction, this isn't really a problem at all, considering both the performances and some of the dialogue is only mediocre at its worst.

I kind of feel this film suffers from the "too many cooks spoil the broth". I only memorised about three names by the end of the film, and it was difficult to keep track of what had happened to who, but after a while, you at least become accustomed to everyone's faces, so it's only a slight inconvenience, and this is used to Carpenter's advantage as described up above.

Also (this is a very subjective view) I wasn't too delighted about the fact that so so SO many questions are created but are then never answered. I could write a book that could contest War and Peace about all of the questions that I wanted answered but never were. However, in some regards, it just increases the mystery surrounding The Thing, and the fear of the unknown is certainly one of the many fears that this film manipulates.

Conclusion

An absolutely terrific addition to the horror genre by an array of talented film-makers. It is genuinely terrifying especially due to the pioneering effects. However, this film isn't a spectacular display of acting, but very few horror films are. Certain omissions may leave you a bit dissatisfied when the film does end, and it is a little tedious and dull in a very few places. So I can't give it a perfect score, but I'll give it the next best thing:
Just got me thinking about the ending to this film. I was always under the impression that it was suppose to be ambiguous, but upon closer reflection I can't help but feel that...

WARNING: "The Thing" spoilers below
Childs is The Thing. Watch the end scene again, see how much vapour is coming out of MacReady's mouth. Carpenter makes it a focal point whenever the shot is on Russell. Then we see Child's shots and you see next to nothing....


here is the scene in question:




It just brings it to another level in my opinion.
__________________
"A laugh can be a very powerful thing. Why, sometimes in life, it's the only weapon we have."

Suspect's Reviews



Just got me thinking about the ending to this film. I was always under the impression that it was suppose to be ambiguous, but upon closer reflection I can't help but feel that...

WARNING: "The Thing" spoilers below
Childs is The Thing. Watch the end scene again, see how much vapour is coming out of MacReady's mouth. Carpenter makes it a focal point whenever the shot is on Russell. Then we see Child's shots and you see next to nothing....


here is the scene in question:




It just brings it to another level in my opinion.
I think Im gonna have to put this movie in my top ten. After seeing this a dozen times I was still just zoned-into the clip.

About 1:30 into the clip you can see air coming out of Childs mouth. I was hoping you were right though This is one of those movies I wish theyd make another but I know theyd drop the ball. Meaning Carpenter make another, not that donkey crap prequel that was released a few years ago



28 days...6 hours...42 minutes...12 seconds
I think Im gonna have to put this movie in my top ten. After seeing this a dozen times I was still just zoned-into the clip.

About 1:30 into the clip you can see air coming out of Childs mouth. I was hoping you were right though This is one of those movies I wish theyd make another but I know theyd drop the ball. Meaning Carpenter make another, not that donkey crap prequel that was released a few years ago
I'm not denying there is, just the amount is CRAZY different. To the point where it is intentional.



Survivor 5s #2 Bitch
Thanks for responding, Suspect! I'm sorry it's taking me so long to reply

With someone like Carpenter, there probably is significance behind every decision, so I reckon you could be correct in all honesty. It does seem a bit odd now you've pointed it out!



Funny thing about Carrie (1976): My dad's prom was the same year that Carrie came out and one of his friends had a date named Carrie. And if you remember the tag line: "If you've got a taste for terror, take Carrie to the prom."



Survivor 5s #2 Bitch
I've finally finished my A-levels!!! So after burning removing from sight all of my work for it, I've been binge watching films, so all of these:
The Big Bird Cage
Blade Runner
Rabid


Will all be coming up soon, first one hopefully tonight!



Survivor 5s #2 Bitch
I was bored the other night, and having been thinking about B-movies recently, I immediately thought of Pam Grier prior Tarantino, particularly her stint in the 1970s with Jack Hill, who cast her in the majority of her early successes, including Coffy, and Foxy Brown. Anyway, I thought I'd try and catch her first starring role, the women-in-prison film The Big Doll House, so I looked it up on Youtube, and it was there! So I began watching it, and after 40 minutes I realised I was actually watching one of her later films.



The Big Bird Cage is a standard, women-in-prison film that follows a socialite (Anitra Ford) who is imprisoned wrongly during an incident started by Django (Sid Haig) and his lover, Blossom (Pam Grier). During her imprisonment, she and the other female inmates are subjected to an array of horrors, until they attempt to liberate themselves.

Positives
It's surprisingly complex for what looks like a run-of-the-mill exploitation film. Small interactions and scenes that initially seem to contain little importance later have severe consequences later on, which drastically affect the plot. A multitude of characters are followed as well, and although this somewhat restricts the film in some ways, it strengthens it in others, for their sub-plots and sidetracks eventually intertwine with the main plot with fluency. The dialogue always seems authentic, yet some of the character's actions can seem somewhat impulsive and not thought through very well at all, although such moments are few and far between!

I think the dialogue is particularly positive due to its deliverance. This is a low budget, B-movie, yet that doesn't necessarily determine that the acting will always be shoddy or sub-standard, and this films exemplifies that. It features a range of predominantly actresses who are skilled at what they do and have moulded their characters to make them their own, each one of them adds small nuances that make them distinctive and individual.

The eventual action scenes are entertaining as well, which can partially be attributed to the reasons above. The people involved are unique, lifelike, and therefore, you are slightly more drawn into what goes on. The violence isn't too gratuitous either (bar one scene in particular) and it doesn't go on forever, either.

Negatives
The direction is uninspired, although with such a minimal budget and little resources to work with, I can hardly blame him. It appears as though the director, Jack Hill, would eventually find his own way anyway with the now infamous films Coffy and Foxy Brown, which although I haven't seen yet, seem to be regarded as some of the greatest additions to the Blaxploitation genre. But in this regard, it's nothing innovative, although it never intends to be.

I already mentioned the gargantuan quantity of sub-plots and characters involved in this, many of which are used to illustrate certain themes or commentaries, one woman is treat as an animal due to mental illness, a black and a white woman feud before eventually uniting etc.
It's all underdeveloped, it's like it's trying to make some sort of social commentary on the treatment of the mentally ill, or the state of racial tensions, but it never goes into depth about it. It's a bit underwhelming and confusing really, and the film probably would have been greater with these segments edited out.

One scene that was implemented just to shock with no other purpose was a gang rape scene. The female prisoners take it upon themselves to deal with their horny-ness by raping a gay male guard who was fairly compassionate to them, and was never brutal towards them. It was a bit disturbing, and very out of character for pretty much every character involved. It seems quite homophobic to me, particularly the phrase "men who are only half men" which does personally offend me. Anyway, it is only a small part of the film, and this was the early 70s so it's not that surprising.

Conclusion
It is an above average genre piece, it's a women-in-prison film with some genuine substance, and a variety of interesting characters who each handle their imprisonment differently. Nevertheless, it's nothing spectacular, but worth a look if this is your type of thing