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

Tools    





You've seen worse. And better.

It's always been in the back of my head along with all the other never seens I rented (and usually copied and then continued to ignore). This, Madman and The Being may be the final ones on that list. I think I eventually watched Hunters Blood, American Gothic, Slaughterhouse.


There were probably more but the less I remember the better

EDIT: Deadly Intruder? Did I watch that??? Oh, god, I hope so



Victim of The Night
Frazzetta / Vampirella posters, to be exact
I still have last year's Frazetta calendar hanging up in my kitchen because they are sold out of this year's.



Victim of The Night
It's always been in the back of my head along with all the other never seens I rented (and usually copied and then continued to ignore). This, Madman and The Being may be the final ones on that list.=
I think you know my feelings on The Being.



The End of the World, 1977 (C)

A movie where Christopher Lee plays a weird priest, and a guy walks around while radios and televisions talk about bad cataclysms.

Very slow and uneventful movie about a SETI-type astronomer hearing stuff from space, and earthquakes happening at the same. The movie meanders without much direction, and feels empty even though there's supposed to be 3 big things happening at the same time. Radios and televisions are on pretty often, yet despite how much stuff there is to just hear and never see, the movie's sound is awful. Noise cancelling wasn't a thing at the time? I dunno. Sometimes, it sounds like the wrong microphone is on.

Anyway. Far from the worst, but absolutely nothing recommendable about this one.



Skinamarink, 2022 (F)

I never want to call a movie pretentious, but **** me if this isn't all this is.

The unjustifiably long runtime is made up almost entirely of shots of the top of walls, bottom of walls, rooms filmed from just outside, and some ceiling shots. Almost no light in every case, except from a tv or a night light. The characters do nothing but whisper, so much so that at times you need the hardsubs the director put in to understand anything.

Now, I get what the movie is going for, I'm not an idiot, but it's absolutely unbearable for it to go on this long. This should have been either a sequence in a more conventional movie, or a short film, certainly no longer than 20 minutes. Static shots of nothing for one hour and 25 minutes to pad the runtime between the 15-ish minutes of actual events doesn't make for a good movie, and it takes more than that to create atmosphere. If you bring your own entire mindspace of horror here, you might find this movie terrifying, but I reckon you'd get a better experience setting your alarm to thirty minutes past midnight and staring at a wall.



The trick is not minding
Winnie the Pooh: Blood and Honey is coming to a movie theater near me for a one day showing. February 15th. A frickin’ Wednesday.

I might take a personal day for this.



"Tell Me. Do You Bleed? You Will."
Is there any value to Werner Herzog's Nosferatu the Vampyre? I feel like my Nosferatu collection is complete with Nosferatu (1922) and Shadow of the Vampire (2000). What are some positive things that I might be overlooking with the '79 version?



Is there any value to Werner Herzog's Nosferatu the Vampyre? I feel like my Nosferatu collection is complete with Nosferatu (1922) and Shadow of the Vampire (2000). What are some positive things that I might be overlooking with the '79 version?

If nothing else, the plague scenes in it are kind of amazing. And the Herzog thing of society collapsing, which I guess is a redundant statement with saying the plague scenes.



Victim of The Night
Is there any value to Werner Herzog's Nosferatu the Vampyre? I feel like my Nosferatu collection is complete with Nosferatu (1922) and Shadow of the Vampire (2000). What are some positive things that I might be overlooking with the '79 version?
FWIW, I actually like it a lot.



I think I'm in the critical minority that actually likes the Herzog version more than the Murnau version, but that's going to be dependent on what you want out of it.
e.g. I'm clearly affected by the Gregorian chanting soundtrack.



What are some positive things that I might be overlooking with the '79 version?
in no order:

1. the Popol Vuh score
2. Isabelle Adjani
3. Roland Topor as perhaps my favorite Renfield
4. the "Mummies of Guanajuato" opening credit sequence

I've probably watched Herzog and Murnau an equal number of times



"Tell Me. Do You Bleed? You Will."
You guys are making a pretty good case for adding it to the collection.

I totally forgot about the opening mummy scene, Captain Terror. That was so morbidly beautiful. I guess you could say that the whole movie is morbidly beautiful.



You guys are making a pretty good case for adding it to the collection.

I totally forgot about the opening mummy scene, Captain Terror. That was so morbidly beautiful. I guess you could say that the whole movie is morbidly beautiful.

Morbidly beautiful is a good way to phrase it. Even down the costumes and the beautiful shots of what's either the Carpathian mountains or the stand-in for them.


It's been a long time since I've seen Shadow of the Vampire, but one thing I've noticed whenever I rewatch Murnau's version is that it rushes through the plot, in a manner that didn't feel uncommon for a number of the other movies I saw from that era. Herzog's progresses at a different pace, some of which the soundtrack really contributes to. Which one one might prefer will be dependent upon the viewer, but if nothing else, in one sense, it does make them very different beasts.



"Tell Me. Do You Bleed? You Will."
Herzog's progresses at a different pace, some of which the soundtrack really contributes to. Which one one might prefer will be dependent upon the viewer, but if nothing else, in one sense, it does make them very different beasts.
That's the one thing that plagues me about '79. Ultimately, it is a rather dull and drawn-out rendition of a story that we're all very familiar with. There is an artistic hand at work, and like I said, it is as beautiful as Adjani, but is that enough to justify its residence in a collection? I don't think so.



That's the one thing that plagues me about '79. Ultimately, it is a rather dull and drawn-out rendition of a story that we're all very familiar with. There is an artistic hand at work, and like I said, it is as beautiful as Adjani, but is that enough to justify its residence in a collection? I don't think so.

I often find movies that feel like their pacing were a challenge to get through often start to pick up the pace after a few rewatches. Just a phenomenon I've observed. I don't know why. I suspect it has something to do with familiarity or maybe expectation, but it does seem to happen. Which is to say, I find myself having no issues with the pacing in the Herzog version these days (I think the first watch or so left me a bit cold).



Not exactly a timely watch but I finally got around to seeing Violent Night, found it very entertaining for the most part. David Harbour and John Leguizamo are probably the standout performances and the action is bloody and fun with some real wince moments. Some of the kills take a bit to much set up and not all of the humor landed for me, particularly early on with a drunk Santa, but it was still a good time and could easily see it being a good Holiday tradition to watch.