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

Tools    





The events themselves clearly convey the horror to the family without always being seen by us, the audience. Let alone seen again, and then again, and lingered on. I maybe have some mild objection to some of the events themselves, but that's not the objection. The objection is the degree to which we're brought into them.

This is usually the point in the discussion where someone tells me that it "wouldn't have had the same impact" without all that lingering, and we realize we're at an impasse because there's no real way to litigate the distinction between making sure an emotion lands and being gratuitous.



The events themselves clearly convey the horror to the family without always being seen by us, the audience. Let alone seen again, and then again, and lingered on. I maybe have some mild objection to some of the events themselves, but that's not the objection. The objection is the degree to which we're brought into them.

This is usually the point in the discussion where someone tells me that it "wouldn't have had the same impact" without all that lingering, and we realize we're at an impasse because there's no real way to litigate the distinction between making sure an emotion lands and being gratuitous.
I often go back and forth on films about whether I think that a graphic scene (as seen explicitly by the audience) is (1) necessary for us as an audience to understand the characters' point of view or (2) unnecessary and exploitative and just a way of getting sex, violence, or sexual violence on camera.

I thought that the content in Hereditary was overwhelming, but for me it worked because I felt like I was in the shoes of the main characters. And as a viewer, I could both feel the terror and realize from an external point of view how that terror was being used to manipulate them.

I've definitely had plenty of moments with films where I felt as if I did not need to actually see a certain moment or image to understand the impact of it, so I don't mind that you feel that way about this film. I can only say that for me I never felt that it crossed my mental line in the sand between effective communication and exploitation. I think that a part of that is that the characters had such depth and were so well drawn that I never felt as if the movie objectified them. There was always some degree of empathy that meant they weren't just meat being put through the grinder. On a rewatch I was surprised at just how long it is before any of the "down and dirty" stuff actually happens. There's a lot of groundwork built beforehand.



No thanks.

No thanks.

In seriousness, I read one pretty meh review (I think it scored the film like a C-). I just do not dig the Soska sisters. I'd have to hear pretty high praise to get me interested.



It's definitely not good enough to overcome your Soska-aversion, so I wouldn't try to convince you to watch it. (Although there's no naked pee-pees this time, so there's that)

But if asked to say something in its favor (to other people, that is, not Takoma) I would say that Vandervoort's character/story is much more interesting than Chambers' (and she's a better actress too). The fact that an outbreak of the virus occurs during a fancy fashion show made for some funny moments. Maybe not very subtle, but it's not like the original was either. Unnecessary? Probably, but since Cronenberg's film is far from perfect I didn't find the remake to be terribly offensive.
__________________
Captain's Log
My Collection



Victim of The Night
Re: The RT 100 List, I've seen 87, so yay!

These are the ones I haven't seen, so let's see who can sell them to me

37. The Passion of Joan of Arc (1928)
46. City Lights (1931)
61. Paris, Texas (1984)
73. F for Fake (1973)
81. Bicycle Thieves (1948)
82. Sunrise (1927)
83. La Dolce Vita (1960)
84. Touch of Evil (1958)
86. Days of Heaven (1978)
87. Brazil (1984)
93. Ikiru (1952)
99. Three Colors: Red (1994)
100. The Red Shoes (1948)


Seriously speaking, most of them are on my watchlists, but I just haven't gotten to them for whatever reasons. Joan of Arc in particular is one that I'm looking forward to.
You have made Wooley very sad by not having seen Paris, Texas, possibly my favorite movie ever that I've only seen once, and to some degree Touch Of Evil.



Victim of The Night

From Beyond -


Like Stuart Gordon's preceding movie, Re-Animator, From Beyond is about scientists playing with the laws of nature who don't realize the consequences of their actions until it's too late. Re-Animator vets Jeffrey Combs as the more skeptical scientist and Barbara Crampton as his psychiatrist are in their prime. You could say the same about the creature effects of Nightmare on Elm Street vet Mark Shostrom, which are easily on par with Rick Baker and Rob Bottin's work. It's not a classic like Re-Animator and the ending is a little too pat, not to mention employs an oft-parodied cliché than dilutes its tension. Even so, it deserves credit for being full-fledged and filler-free in spite of being borne from a short story that is only 7 pages long.
FWIW, I watched the two movies a week apart this month and I significantly prefer From Beyond. Probably because it's bat-**** crazy from Jump Street and never lets up whereas Re-Animator takes a while to get going and really doesn't reach FB levels until the third act.



Victim of The Night
So I decided to check which films from the aforementioned lists I hadn't seen. First, the horror one...

Trick 'r' Treat
Cemetery Man
Lake Mungo
The Abominable Dr. Phibes
The Thing From Another World
Curse of the Demon
Triangle
The Phantom of the Opera (25)
The Bride of Frankenstein

I recommend every one of those. If you can find the Night Of The Demon edit instead of Curse Of The Demon, I prefer it.



Victim of The Night
I guess in keeping with the general conversation, what do you consider your horror "blindspots", if you have any?

The ones I hear about most often but haven't seen are:

Rosemary's Baby
Dude. It's so good.



Victim of The Night
Now that I have The Curse of Frankenstein under my belt, I was thinking of watching Horror of Dracula and letting my kid ( who is 8) watch with me. He's a pretty hardy Brooklyn kid and I don't expect anything too intense from a 1950s film, but is there any reason I should not do this?
FWIW, I watched these movies when I was pretty young as they would come on Creature Feature down here in New Orleans a lot. 8 is probably right about the time I started watching them. So if you want your kid to turn out like me, by all means...



Just watched Curse of Frankenstein or actually rewatched it. Cushing goes against type as an obsessed and morally bankrupt Victor Frankenstein. But then that was basically his character arc through four more of these. The brilliant but twisted scientist. Christopher Lee isn't given much to do as the monster but he still makes his presence known. 90/100



28 days...6 hours...42 minutes...12 seconds
Hereditary and even Midsommar really dig into what depression feels like and they are probably some of the best representations of that on screen. I think both films are great...but Hereditary is a tough re-watch for sure.

Martyrs...man, tough watch. Very effective, well made, but not something I want to revisit anytime soon. On the opposite end of that, A Serbian Film is a movie that I don't think is well made, has tough subject matter and is something I would not recommend to anyone.



Just watched Trick r Treat, I think it still holds up well for a Halloween movie.
__________________
"A laugh can be a very powerful thing. Why, sometimes in life, it's the only weapon we have."

Suspect's Reviews



Spider Baby -


Ah, '60s horror, where things were really starting to get weird. So it is with this tale of a trio of homicidally inbred siblings and their flustered caretaker that don't even try to be normal when they have guests over one day. So many shades of couldn't-make-this-today, plus it offers amusement and discomfort in roughly equal measure - enough so that I can't deny its status as a singularly off-putting horror.
I really like Spider Baby, such a weird vibe that really stuck with me. I also thought it fascinating to think how it might have differed it had been filmed just a couple years later when exploitation films had started to get more explicit in their content.



I watched Scream, Queen! a documentary about Mark Patton and his experience before, during and after starring in Nightmare on Elm Street 2.

Now I liked Freddy’s Revenge when I watched it for the first time five or so years ago. I thought it was a campy and not so subtle metaphor for being in the closet. I didn’t know it was so maligned by fans of the franchise or the behind the scenes drama over who knew it was a gay movie and who didn’t until I mentioned I watched it on RT back in the day.

This doc dives deep into Mark Patton’s life, being gay in the ‘80s and the AIDS epidemic. It’s very emotional and a lot of the time that emotion is sad. But for someone who finds Freddy’s Revenge kind of fascinating I was very satisfied with this.



Victim of The Night
Just watched Trick r Treat, I think it still holds up well for a Halloween movie.
Yeah, my horror-friends and I still love it and watch it every year.



Victim of The Night
Spider Baby -


Ah, '60s horror, where things were really starting to get weird. So it is with this tale of a trio of homicidally inbred siblings and their flustered caretaker that don't even try to be normal when they have guests over one day. So many shades of couldn't-make-this-today, plus it offers amusement and discomfort in roughly equal measure - enough so that I can't deny its status as a singularly off-putting horror.
This is one of my favorite new-watches in years. I watched it two years ago and I couldn't say enough good things about. I gushed about it to anyone who would listen.



FWIW, I watched these movies when I was pretty young as they would come on Creature Feature down here in New Orleans a lot. 8 is probably right about the time I started watching them. So if you want your kid to turn out like me, by all means...
Well, now I'm rethinking everything in my life...

Seriously, though, I suggested we watch Horror of Dracula last night. He thought it was going to be the 1930s Dracula. So we checked Criterion, which didn't have that but did have Murnau's Nosferatu, so he decided he wanted to try that. The pace was just too slow for him, though, so we bailed halfway through. I showed him the Horror of Dracula trailer today so he's back to being interested in that. So we'll see.



A system of cells interlinked
Quick commercial for another site feature, then we can carry on: Crumbs mentioned that this new group is used to a pretty bare bones (read: non-existent) feature set, so I just wanted to point out the user profile/favorite films area.

Up at the top of most any page you are on, if you click on the little thumbnail of your avatar, you will see a "View Your Profile" link on the drop-down menu. In this section, you can dress up your user profile page, check your activity log, and also set up your top ten. Other users can view this page to get to know your taste in film a bit, and a side effect of setting up your Top 10 is that each of your forum posts will have added to it a little star next to your name and avatar that is a quick drop to your top 10 list. Beyond that, if you use the site's Lists feature to track your seen films on the various site and other popular lists, a quick drop to those will also appear.

That's about all. Have fun!
__________________
“It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance.” ― Thomas Sowell



The Watcher in the Woods (1980) -


Jan and her family move into an old mansion in rural England where she becomes haunted by a...well, see the title. It's a pretty good mystery that has atmosphere in spades thanks to its centerpiece setting, its dense, surrounding forest and camerawork that makes you wonder about the secrets they contain. I also like how it makes you question if the house's caretaker, the local hermit, etc. are friends or foes to Jan and that when each one shows their hand, my reaction was more "oh!" than "huh?" The movie was originally much longer and it shows in a way that's typical of other heavily-cut movies: I don't feel like it properly introduces the main characters. I'm all for movies letting audiences write their own headcanon, but I always had a curiously distanced sensation similar to how you feel while watching the second episode of a sitcom you've never watched before. I still recommend it, especially to people who are new to this genre or to Disney's live action fare from the late '70s and early '80s.



I think Martyrs is about as extreme as I'll go with horror films. I've seen one here and there (I Spit on Your Grave, What the Waters Left Behind) that got a bit worse and I really left both with a bad taste in my mouth. Unlike some other horror films that dive into the pleasures of pain, Martyrs at least had a point to it.

Saw the Bride of Frankenstein to kick things off for October and honestly, I think it might have been a victim of its own hype. I wasn't expecting it to be humorous, which it was. Nor was I expecting it to be an examination of a monster's attempts at humanity, which it was. Lugosi did a good job of expressing subtlety as the monster learns the joys of drink and good cigars. The choice of lighting by director James Whale really gave the film a great look that made it feel ominous.

But the last act felt a bit underwhelming and as short as it was, it felt a bit padded. That scene at the beginning, although it makes sense in the context of the film, almost felt like it got cobbled from another movie altogether.

It's a good sequel, of course. But one of the best monster movies of all time or better than the original? Slow your roll.



Victim of The Night
The Watcher in the Woods (1980) -


Jan and her family move into an old mansion in rural England where she becomes haunted by a...well, see the title. It's a pretty good mystery that has atmosphere in spades thanks to its centerpiece setting, its dense, surrounding forest and camerawork that makes you wonder about the secrets they contain. I also like how it makes you question if the house's caretaker, the local hermit, etc. are friends or foes to Jan and that when each one shows their hand, my reaction was more "oh!" than "huh?" The movie was originally much longer and it shows in a way that's typical of other heavily-cut movies: I don't feel like it properly introduces the main characters. I'm all for movies letting audiences write their own headcanon, but I always had a curiously distanced sensation similar to how you feel while watching the second episode of a sitcom you've never watched before. I still recommend it, especially to people who are new to this genre or to Disney's live action fare from the late '70s and early '80s.
I saw this in the theater and loved it (holy ****, literally 40 years ago) and I've been looking to find it streaming. Where did you find it?



I saw this in the theater and loved it (holy ****, literally 40 years ago) and I've been looking to find it streaming. Where did you find it?
I had to buy the DVD on eBay. It should be on Disney+, but there's a rights dispute keeping it off there that apparently won't be resolved anytime soon. That's also why Something Wicked This Way Comes, Dragonslayer, Son of Flubber and Condorman aren't on there either.