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

Tools    





If I had such a low standard for what people were capable of, then my opinion of cynically produced films might be a bit higher.



And I agreed, as ungenerously as possible.



I didn't discount his "long history of success". I discounted the last 25 years of his non-success. It is inane to consider that a wider dismissal of his legacy since I specifically referred to his "recent years".
If I had the inability to enjoy films within the context of their own franchise, sub genre and goals, I’d probably sound as cynical as you.

You’re not making the point about Blum you think you’re making. At least not one at all relevant to his his business practices impacted the 2018 film and its resulting two sequels.

You did exactly that. You said that they were trying to restore Carpenter’s integrity then added as if he’s had integrity for the last 25 years. This is exactly discounting his legacy due to your perception of his current output. Your comment was inane. My interpretation was accurate to its inanity. Express yourself more clearly when you’re spouting your negative nonsense if you want it to sound less so. Currently not doing a great job at that so it may be best to duck out before you say something else you’ll have to correct and say it was on me.



If I had the inability to enjoy films within the context of their own franchise, sub genre and goals, I’d probably sound as cynical as you.
I'm starting to think that you don't know what the word 'cynical' means.


You did exactly that. You said that they were trying to restore Carpenter’s integrity then added as if he’s had integrity for the last 25 years. This is exactly discounting his legacy due to your perception of his current output.
I wouldn't be so cruel to John Carpenter as to suggest that his legacy should depend on his output of the past 25 years. You would think that it might count for something that I've said that Carpenter has made the only Halloween film worth calling a classic. He hasn't made any good movies in 25 years and he sold all the rights to the great ones he once made so that they could be remade into not good movies. Luckily that first 10-15 years earned him the right to no longer give a ****.



Express yourself more clearly when you’re spouting your negative nonsense if you want it to sound less so. Currently not doing a great job at that so it may be best to duck out before you say something else you’ll have to correct and say it was on me.



I'm starting to think that you don't know what the word 'cynical' means.



I wouldn't be so cruel to John Carpenter as to suggest that his legacy should depend on his output of the past 25 years. You would think that it might count for something that I've said that Carpenter has made the only Halloween film worth calling a classic. He hasn't made any good movies in 25 years and he sold all the rights to the great ones he once made so that they could be remade into not good movies. Luckily that first 10-15 years earned him the right to no longer give a ****.




You got me. No clue what cynical means. I also don’t know how to use a dictionary. Or the internet. Your sleuthing is as strong as your argumentation.



Save the blood bath for the next Evil Dead, people.


Alien double feature. I'm questioning which one I prefer. As a critic, I have to address that the second film had a better story, cast, characterization and level of SFX. The sets are about equal, but the first had a slow-building tension that no one can copy. It's probably the scariest movie I've ever seen. Having said that, the faster pace of the second notonly represents a perfect balance between action thrillers and sci-fi horrors, but is a clear and healthy choice built upon the obvious truth that emulating the original would be as impossible as emulating Led Zeppelin (without a significant drop in quality like Greta Van Fleet). So with both movies using two polar opposites to mingle with the characters and atmispheric tension, it practically boils down to whether or not your a horror person or an action person. And with that said, I'm both.



Alien double feature. I'm questioning which one I prefer. As a critic, I have to address that the second film had a better story, cast, characterization and level of SFX. The sets are about equal, but the first had a slow-building tension that no one can copy. It's probably the scariest movie I've ever seen. Having said that, the faster pace of the second notonly represents a perfect balance between action thrillers and sci-fi horrors, but is a clear and healthy choice built upon the obvious truth that emulating the original would be as impossible as emulating Led Zeppelin (without a significant drop in quality like Greta Van Fleet). So with both movies using two polar opposites to mingle with the characters and atmispheric tension, it practically boils down to whether or not your a horror person or an action person. And with that said, I'm both.
While I certainly appreciate what Cameron did in expanding the universe and adding some action flair for me I'll always choose the original Alien and largely for the "probably the scariest movie I've ever seen" reason. I didn't actually sit down to watch it fully until a point when I already knew about the chest burster and that Ripley survives and despite that it still blew me away and scared me.



I saw Spaceballs before I knew anything about Alien, so when I first saw that scene I was thinking, "Oh, so that's why they did it."



Alien double feature. I'm questioning which one I prefer. As a critic, I have to address that the second film had a better story, cast, characterization and level of SFX. The sets are about equal, but the first had a slow-building tension that no one can copy. It's probably the scariest movie I've ever seen. Having said that, the faster pace of the second notonly represents a perfect balance between action thrillers and sci-fi horrors, but is a clear and healthy choice built upon the obvious truth that emulating the original would be as impossible as emulating Led Zeppelin (without a significant drop in quality like Greta Van Fleet). So with both movies using two polar opposites to mingle with the characters and atmispheric tension, it practically boils down to whether or not your a horror person or an action person. And with that said, I'm both.
I'm a fan of the first two Alien movies, but it's no question for me; Aliens is a great movie, and just about the best result we could've hoped for with the series going into an action-oriented direction (which also helps keep it from feeling like a rehash of the original), but Alien is the greatest Horror movie movie of all time, so I'm always going to go with it for my favorite of the series. Again, I do feel Aliens is a great movie, but its more utilitarian set design, with the anonymous, FPS-style industrial corridors, and the way that they "nerfed" the Xenomorph by turning the species into endless waves of cannon fodder, still keeps it a notch below the original for me.

Anyway, as for your points about Aliens having a better story, cast, characterization, etc., a lot of that feels like an apple-to-oranges comparison to me (although I absolutely feel the original has the better cast); Aliens may have (slightly) more moving parts to its plot, but it isn't automatically better just because it's more complicated on that front, and the relative simplicity of Alien suits its purporses perfectly, achieving the same kind of purity as a story as the alien itself has, while also doing just as good job with the characterizations, which are remarkably well-drawn and consistent throughout (Ripley's the calm, cool survivor, Dallas is a bit jaded and fly-by-the-seat of his pants, Parker's the tough, aggressive guy, which ends up being his downfall, etc.). And as for the FX, while Aliens has a lot of great work in that aspect, I'm also giving the edge to the original movie, merely because none of the effects in it look as janky as this:






I have to disagree with the "none of the effects" part, because there are a couple of moments where it's easy to see that the alien suit is quite obviously a suit. And as for cannon fodder, that seems justified since this time it's us who's invading them.


And I know it was the 70's, but I just can't get over the fact that apparently in the future, we have spaceships, and we have artificial intelligence, but we don't even have Windows 95.



Victim of The Night
Even putting aside the regular complaint of Season of the Witch (which is pretty irrelevant unless you were not aware going into it that there is no Michael Myers), I get people still not liking it. While I think it has some amount of style, it mostly looks like some kind of garbage TV special that might show up one Halloween and never be seen again. But regardless of this, I think if you stick with it, the movie wins you over. Once you get on board, it is both a cheesy 80's after thought, but also legitimately eerie and disturbing. There is a nihilism about it that is weirdly incongruent with how you want to absorb it, which is as something disposable. Something that has something to do with Tom Atkins moustache. But I think it is significantly better than that. While I don't think it is a necessarily great film, I think it is an original, and definitely effective enough to be considered 80's horror cannon.


Halloween 2 doesn't work for me. I don't think it is technically bad. It's more than competent . But there is something studied about it that reminds me of my issues with The Conjuring. It really knows what a Halloween movie looks like. It just about nails it. Except it doesn't have any soul. Instead ,while keeping itself busy trying to fool us into thinking it's a Carpenter film, it forgot to matter. It's watchable. I even kind of like it (it would be probably next best of the list, before that list turns into completely hateable ****). But it leaves me emotionally dead inside.
I agree with you on all points but I have an affection for Halloween II because I saw it when I was very young so it scared the hell out of me then and there were some aspects I really liked about it and it has one of my favorite moments in the franchise (lifting the nurse). SotW won me over a long time ago and, while I agree with all your points about it, I also kinda love it.
Who doesn't love
WARNING: "so spoilery" spoilers below
witchcraft-powered cyborgs
?



Victim of The Night
Dracula: Prince of Darkness -


Drac's back in another very entertaining entry in the Hammer Dracula series that sort of plays out like a colonialism cautionary tale. Two British couples, while touring the Carpathians, rest in a tavern where local priest Father Sandor (Andrew Keir) warns them not to visit Dracula's castle, so what do they do? Take a wild guess. As much as I enjoyed this movie's Lee-free predecessor, it was nice to see him again, especially since he is terrifying as ever. While it's a dialogue-free performance, I see no reason to criticize the lack thereof because dialogue isn't really necessary in any of his scenes. On the other hand, I missed seeing Peter Cushing, but Keir makes up for it with his endearingly gruff performance as the local vampire expert. Thorley Walters is no slouch either as the Renfield-adjacent Ludwig. This also may be the best-looking and most atmospheric entry so far, especially for the scenes in the woods, which manage to be pastoral and foreboding at the same time. In short, it's an all-around fun vampire movie that, if anything, proves that when the locals tell you not to do a thing, you should not do that thing. Oh, and there are few things are more satisfying than warming your backside in front of an open fire while enjoying a glass of claret.
I look forward to your review of Dracula Has Risen From The Grave.



Victim of The Night
Save the blood bath for the next Evil Dead, people.


Alien double feature. I'm questioning which one I prefer. As a critic, I have to address that the second film had a better story, cast, characterization and level of SFX. The sets are about equal, but the first had a slow-building tension that no one can copy. It's probably the scariest movie I've ever seen. Having said that, the faster pace of the second notonly represents a perfect balance between action thrillers and sci-fi horrors, but is a clear and healthy choice built upon the obvious truth that emulating the original would be as impossible as emulating Led Zeppelin (without a significant drop in quality like Greta Van Fleet). So with both movies using two polar opposites to mingle with the characters and atmispheric tension, it practically boils down to whether or not your a horror person or an action person. And with that said, I'm both.
For me, and I know we've all had this discussion a million times but, for me, it's the original by a country mile. Like, I like Aliens, I do, but to me it's a huge step down from Scott's film.



Victim of The Night
I have to disagree with the "none of the effects" part, because there are a couple of moments where it's easy to see that the alien suit is quite obviously a suit. And as for cannon fodder, that seems justified since this time it's us who's invading them.


And I know it was the 70's, but I just can't get over the fact that apparently in the future, we have spaceships, and we have artificial intelligence, but we don't even have Windows 95.
I also greatly prefer the technology in Alien. One of the many movies that made me such a retrofuturist.



Victim of The Night
And to wrap up this string of posts, since we're still on about the Halloween franchise, I thought I'd copy/paste my response to the Halloween thread that popped up:

Hmmm... Well, for many years Halloween was my favorite horror movie and maybe my second favorite movie overall.
I have not had much patience for the films that were made from the late 80s to the early 2000s. Oddly, I did not mind the one with Paul Rudd all that much because after IV and V, I felt like the ship had sailed and I was willing to just go along with this whole cult thing and accept that they were just churning out whatever and it could still be a fun diversion. Could not say the same for Resurrection and, honestly, I didn't care much for H20 before it, either. I was extremely, and I mean extremely excited for Zombie's remake and was extremely disappointed but I really liked his sequel despite some issues. The recent Halloween from 2018 was a pretty mixed bag for me with some hits and a number of misses.
Guess I would rank them something like this:

Halloween ('78)
Halloween II ('81)
Halloween III: Season Of The Witch
Halloween II (Zombie Version)
Halloween ('18)
Halloween VI: The Curse Of Michael Meyers
Halloween H20 and Halloween (Zombie Version), a tie
Halloween IV and Halloween V (interchangeable for me)
Halloween: Resurrection

Yeah, that looks about right to me.



Save the blood bath for the next Evil Dead, people.


Alien double feature. I'm questioning which one I prefer. As a critic, I have to address that the second film had a better story, cast, characterization and level of SFX. The sets are about equal, but the first had a slow-building tension that no one can copy. It's probably the scariest movie I've ever seen. Having said that, the faster pace of the second notonly represents a perfect balance between action thrillers and sci-fi horrors, but is a clear and healthy choice built upon the obvious truth that emulating the original would be as impossible as emulating Led Zeppelin (without a significant drop in quality like Greta Van Fleet). So with both movies using two polar opposites to mingle with the characters and atmispheric tension, it practically boils down to whether or not your a horror person or an action person. And with that said, I'm both.

Some of it might also depend upon how one feels about Cameron's writing for fleshing out characters.


With Cameron there's going to be "more" script. I'm not sure that necessarily translates to more character in the characters.


Since they're both horror to some degree, I'd describe the divide as horror-suspense/thriller (think The Thing) vs horror-action. There are entries in the latter that I do really enjoy (including Aliens), but the former I engage with more on both an emotional and cerebral level. As such, if asked which one I think is the better movie, Alien, hands-down, and I suspect any argument I'd have would really be indirectly arguing the merits of those two subgenres. Which, well, might very well be a legitimate argument overall, but it could easily just be, I prefer one subgenre to another.



Hello all. It's been a while. I'm trying to think of what horror movies I watched the past two years that are of note.


I still haven't seen a Rob Zombie movie, so I can't weigh in on that conversation.


Generally a fan of Halloween 3, while acknowledging it might not be the strongest film in the world.


And while I like Naked Lunch, Videodrome, and The Fly more, I do love the undercurrent of anarchy for Shivers.


Speaking of Canadians. I did catch up with Orloff: The Mad Mutilator this past year. An enjoyable amount of prancing in that one.


Messiah of Evil, still solid.
The Visitor... I found the dead space spots, very dead and wonder if John Huston walking down a large flight of stairs would be more enjoyable on rewatch.


I found myself fairly pro-Saint Maude.
Color Out of Space - awesome
The Addiction - left me a little distant, but I really want to rewatch.
Long Weekend and Deathdream - both very solid
Wolfen - not as good as I remembered from childhood


And now you're all caught up with me for movies that weren't rewatches (e.g. Possession, It Comes at Night, Nosferatu).



Also, I finally saw one of The Conjuring movies this summer (the first one) and found it risible. Apologies to anyone who loves them. Which means no apologies to Crumbsroom.



Hi Ash!


We're all big fans of a little movie called Nightbeast in this forum. Have you heard of it?



Hi Ash!


We're all big fans of a little movie called Rawhead Rex in this forum. Have you heard of it?
Fixed



One day, I’ll be able to fix that with Death Nurse 2 and it won’t simply be a beautiful lie.