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

Tools    





Makes sense. Grotesqueries like the ones in this movie aren't everyone's cup of tea. I guess a steady diet of everything from Ren & Stimpy to all of Sam Raimi's movies over the years have made me more tolerant of them, make me see them as more feature than bug, and for better or worse, make me laugh just as much as they shock me.
I'm a fan of Raimi's Evil Dead 2 and an even bigger fan of The Evil Dead, but I think the grotesque parts of those films work better since the manic energy of the performances and camera work in those films helps them to come off more as cartoonish and over-the-top whereas this film seems to be more a straight-faced horror film (not sure if that's the proper term) where the slow, subtle dread in the first half hour and the 80's flashback work the best at creating unease. The second half of Barbarian feels as if a completely different director suddenly took over the project.
__________________
IMDb
Letterboxd



I'm a fan of Raimi's Evil Dead 2 and an even bigger fan of The Evil Dead, but I think the grotesque parts of those films work better since the manic energy of the performances and camera work in those films helps them to come off more as cartoonish and over-the-top whereas this film seems to be more a straight-faced horror film (not sure if that's the proper term) where the slow, subtle dread in the first half hour and the 80's flashback work the best at creating unease. The second half of Barbarian feels as if a completely different director suddenly took over the project.
Thatís the charm. Like From Dusk Til Dawn.



Thatís the charm. Like From Dusk Til Dawn.

Even Barbarian is better than From Dusk Til Dawn.

That's a movie that has a big turn, that wasn't even particularly good before it turned.



Thatís the charm. Like From Dusk Til Dawn.
With the last sentence, I'm more referring to the shift of slow, psychological horror in the first half to the grotesque, off the rails horror in the second half. From Dusk Till Dawn is more a case of the entire genre changing. It's also more low-key with the grotesque bits (save for Sex Machine's penis mounted gun or Tarantino's character being a pedophile).



With the last sentence, I'm more referring to the shift of slow, psychological horror in the first half to the grotesque, off the rails horror in the second half. From Dusk Till Dawn is more a case of the entire genre changing. It's also more low-key with the grotesque bits (save for Sex Machine's penis mounted gun or Tarantino's character being a pedophile).
A vampire plays a guitar made entirely out of bloody human body parts then explodes.



Even Barbarian is better than From Dusk Til Dawn.

That's a movie that has a big turn, that wasn't even particularly good before it turned.
Tarantinoís first half being a ctrl+f replace of a Vega bros with Gecko bros is a pretty darn good script before it becomes Vampire Evil Dead.



A vampire plays a guitar made entirely out of bloody human body parts then explodes.
Yeah, but so do I (minus the exploding part for obvious reasons), so that's normal for me.



Tarantinoís first half being a ctrl+f replace of a Vega bros with Gecko bros is a pretty darn good script before it becomes Vampire Evil Dead.

The first half is better. The second half is the kind of try hard shit I generally don't like from Rodriguez.


I just looked at his filmography, and it's still probably one of the best of his I've seen, though. Desperado is alright, but I generally don't like the guy.



I have a weird, probably borderline-irrational soft spot for movies that take crazy turns in the middle.

I think it comes, partially, from being bombarded by trailers and press materials that describe the entire story in advance for so many years. I doubt it's a coincidence that so many of my most delightful memories and pleasant surprises, cinematically, come from films I knew very little about going in.



From Dusk Til Dawn is somehow both like a 7/10 and the best movie ever made.



The first half is better. The second half is the kind of try hard shit I generally don't like from Rodriguez.


I just looked at his filmography, and it's still probably one of the best of his I've seen, though. Desperado is alright, but I generally don't like the guy.
I have a soft spot for Rodriguez. I think he engages with everything with a sense of earnest glee that few genre filmmakers seem to actually have. I think FDTD stands alongside Desperado and Sin City as his best.

I just canít hate a flick that shifts from the core characters and struggles by adding Tom Savini, Fred Williamson, and vampire Cheech Marin, Danny Trejo and Salma Hayek to the mix.



Birdemic 3: Sea Eagle (F)

By far the worst of the trilogy. Barely even a movie. Almost no birds, even by Birdemic standards. An unbelievable amount of talking about climate change, even by Birdemic standards. The overly long dance scene had two songs, making it way longer than what was already way longer than necessary. The only thing that made the scene kind of good was the juxtaposition between the overly happy couple seemingly hiring a singer for just themselves to sing an upbeat song about global warming. Even if you're a fan of the franchise, that's an easy skip right there. Nothing of the charm of the original, or even the second one.



Baskin (2015) -


If this Turkish horror movie doesn't scare you - and it probably will - it will at least screw with your mind. It follows a tightly knit police squad, i.e., one that eats at the same restaurant together and has their own song, as they respond to a call at a seemingly abandoned building in a town that's hardly a tourist attraction. They soon discover it's a place that makes even the typical level of Silent Hill seem tame. As luck would have it, more than one member of the squad also has personal demons to contend with.

This is one of those movies that will make you ask "what just happened" in more ways than one, perhaps mostly in the way that will make you wonder what's in your drink. Everything was paid off to my liking regardless, although I recommend keeping your eyes peeled. That the "good stuff" is of the "how were they even allowed to film that" variety helps, as does the fact that the road to Hell the squad takes leads to one unholy creation indeed. That would be cult leader Baba (Mehmet Cerrahoglu), whose appearance due to the actorís unusual skin condition leaves an impression, but itís his performance that truly makes it work. No one in the squad is a slouch either, especially Sabahattin Yakut, whose Seyfi...let's just say is more affected by what he sees during their trip than the rest of them. I wish I got to know everyone in the squad a little better, though, and the trip down the rabbit hole has a few too many fits and starts and not the good kind. It remains a horror movie deserving of credit for being so unusual and for being committed to leave you with plenty to think about as much as it is to frighten you. Oh, and hopefully not to spoil it too much (or to keep you away from it), but a short primer to Zoroastrianism is recommended.

This was a good one.



Trilogy of Terror II, 1996 (B+)

Good, corny trilogy of shorts that feel much more 1970s than 1996. Very self-aware, nicely humorous, and well directed, to boot. I don't remember a ton about the original, because it's been a minute, but this right here is some good stuff.



Infinity Pool is so good. This Cronenberg guy is the real deal imo.



So is the entire run time of this going to be this guy complaining that this movie is just a bunch of shots of ceilings and doors? Even though it is clearly more than this, unless one overlooks all of the other cinematic techniques that are being used in tandem with its images. You know, like sound design, shot composition, manipulation of how the audience experiences time, allusions to greater narrative and thematic elements. You know, the things that make a film be a film.


Does he just keep saying he doesn't understand the praise? Even when he could fairly easily find write ups online which would explain exactly what fans of the film like about this.


Is he going to keep claiming he completely understands the film, even though he seems to be using movies like Hereditary and Midsommar as reference points that he is up to the task. Movies that clearly bare zero relationship to Skinamarinks intentions. That there is absolutely no reason even to mention beyond the superficial link of being from A24



Does he at any point make it known that he has any basic understanding of experimental film? Maybe an experience with something like Wavelength or Dog Star Man? The sort of film experiences that can prime one for what Ball is trying to do here?


Does he at any point even mention what he thinks the aim of this film is? Why it removes standard narrative elements, and is composed with so many lingering shots? How these might not be instructive in understanding plot, but are essential in order to lull the viewer into the same elongated experience of a child awake in the middle of the night. How this experience with time is exactly a part of the films appeal.


Does he pay any mind to how incredibly well composed each of those 'pointless' shots are. Their use of line and shadow making each a small masterpiece of minimalist design. Their use of negative space helping create a world where we are meant to always be looking, deeper and deeper into corners. You know, like a child might in the middle of the night.


Or is this epic rant just him repeating what virtually every other person who doesn't like the film says. Like, verbatim. Does he have an interesting angle on his complaints of not getting it, and not understanding how anyone else dare to like it? Does he say anything at all I can't already imagine him saying before I click on the link? Just asking, because the first five minutes are kind of frustratingly repetitive.


It's obviously not a movie for everyone. Never will be. And that's okay. I don't blame this guy for not liking it, and maybe he has great takes on things he actually has some knowledge about.

But there is something numbing and so anti curious about the idea of ranting against a film that is this different, especially if he doesn't pay any notice of what it might be doing right, at least in relation to what it is hoping to accomplish. It's also annoying when he seems to be irritated at the notion of it being called revolutionary, even when it clearly kind of is, whether he enjoys it or not. Not that I think there will be that many copycats of this particular style. People's patience for this kind of thing is going to be slim. It's much too austere. Much too single-minded in the kind of audience member it is trying to reach. But it's still very much revolutionary in how it is a completely uncompromising film, in multiplexes, which is ultimately exposing an unexpected audience to a cinematic experience usually relegated to art houses and galleries. The kind of thing most general audience members would dismiss out of hand as being pretentious twaddle. And what is encouraging is some people, even those who might not normally like this kind of thing, or even have any general understanding of experimental films at all, are finding something affecting here. Which is important. Any film that shakes up the way we normally experience a film matters. Even if it makes a lot of people cry about wanting their money back.
I lasted about 5 excruciating minutes before I had to turn it off. The first red flag was the obnoxious aggrieved tone. Then there was my pet peeve: "is there going to be ANY kind of narrative?"
It was when he said that "If I have to think about anything on my own, your screenplay is terrible" that I bailed out. (paraphrasing)

I sat down to try to refute some points and denounce his entire approach but I just now realized I don't care that much. Thanks for the link, Stu!
__________________
Captain's Log
My Collection



The Outwaters

https://boxd.it/3SuC5j

I'm sure many on here will hate it (as they did Skinamarink) but I really wanna hear what Crummy has to say about it.

3/5
I don't think two films constitute a "movement" but it IS interesting that these two films arrived at around the same time. What are these Gen Zer's up to?

I kind of disliked TO; loved a lot of Skinamarink even if I don't consider it a 100% success. But I completely support what they're both trying to do, and wouldn't mind if this becomes a "thing" for the next couple of years, so long as it's done well of course.



I sat down to try to refute some points and denounce his entire approach but I just now realized I don't care that much.

The reason there is little reason to bother refuting is, according to this kind of criticism, there is no room for discussion. They came to the film, decided it wasn't a film, and by their idiot criteria, I guess it isn't one. So what more is there to say really?



As you've noted, this guy says the quiet part out loud. If a film requires him to put in any effort, or engage beyond what it is specifically showing him, he is resentful. That isn't his job. It's supposed to all be in the script, dammit, and so why is it up to him to try. Or think. Or engage? What could he possibly gain from such a terrible punishment as that?



This is of course sacrilege to me as it completely forsakes any acknowledgement of the beautiful space where an audience member and the movie meet half way. Where the movie teases out what is inside of us. When it dares not to tell you exactly what to feel and it is allowed to become something more than just images on a screen.



But, what he is demanding of a film is also a deeply stupid expectation since even the most narratively driven movies have all manner of ways in which we have to think outside of the lines of what is shown on screen. We always bring something of ourselves to the experience. Like how we incorporate the use of vast American landscapes into the mythic nature of the characters in a John Ford film. These things aren't explained through the script. We understand them cinematically. We understand them intuitively. They act upon our innate understanding of certain images, then use the feelings those images stir in us to enhance the story. They can tell us without telling us.



So not everything is up to the script. We always have to be willing to try and put a part of ourselves into the films we watch. Always. And Skinamarink is only different in how it simply has more space to fill up. But that doesn't mean it is incomplete. Or 'not a movie'. It gives us all the relevant information we need to put it all together in our mind.


So basically we've got some lazy tit making a big show of his dislike, making it clear that he's also such a lazy tit that any discussion that counters his bold claims (it's not a movie, it's an objective failure, it makes no sense how anyone could possibly like this) will go nowhere. Because are we seriously going to trust this guy to ruminate over his entire definition of what film is? To acknowledge a different philosophy towards how to watch one? Lol. Not likely. This is a guy who, if we're being honest, thinks Skinamarink's biggest crime was it left him alone for stretches of time with his own thoughts. And he's angry at the film for how bored and unpleasant a sensation that was for him.


So, yeah, he's best left unrefuted. Let him have his slam dunk case for the terribleness of Skinamarink. Everyone just like him can congregate together and share their stories of how that's 100 minutes they'll never get back and mutter about the Emperors New Clothes. You now, the things we can expect such impeccably clever people to say whenever they are confronted with a film they don't know how to process.



Caltiki, the Immortal Monster, 1959 (B+)

Good, eventful Italian creature feature starring a blobby thing that destroyed the Mayans. No doubt inspired by Lovecraft's Mountains of Madness.

The movie largely doesn't take place in the ruins, but what we get is some nice, grand landscapes, big rooms, some jungle, and all that good stuff. A far cry from the usual America offerings and all their empty, featureless rooms. The big antagonist for a while is one guy, but even then the movie doesn't lose track of the main event, and keeps giving crumbs, all the way to the climax. Somewhat reminiscent of Quatermass against the blob, whichever Quatermass movie that was.



I don't think two films constitute a "movement" but it IS interesting that these two films arrived at around the same time. What are these Gen Zer's up to?

I kind of disliked TO; loved a lot of Skinamarink even if I don't consider it a 100% success. But I completely support what they're both trying to do, and wouldn't mind if this becomes a "thing" for the next couple of years, so long as it's done well of course.
I was teetering between how I felt about TO but decided that my support what it was attempting was at least enough to say that I ďliked it,Ē thus, 3 stars. A24 has some 17 year old making one of these so if itís not a movement yet, it sure seems like one is on the horizon.