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

Tools    





Twilight, 2008, 2nd watch (A)


Absolute banger of a movie. I thought it was average the first time I watched it, but what an absolute classic. This movie has tons of personality and so much style. It's corny and cheesy in all the right places, and it plays everything straight in a way you would never see today. What a moment in time. Love it.



I mainline Windex and horse tranquilizer
Twilight, 2008, 2nd watch (A)


Absolute banger of a movie. I thought it was average the first time I watched it, but what an absolute classic. This movie has tons of personality and so much style. It's corny and cheesy in all the right places, and it plays everything straight in a way you would never see today. What a moment in time. Love it.

He eats her because he is hungry.
__________________
A hundred percent death proof.

Tomato Necromancy - now with Vitamin R!
https://www.movieforums.com/communit...ad.php?t=65140



He eats her because he is hungry.
I'm pretty sure you also said that to me when I watched it the first time back on Rotten Tomatoes.


Scream VI, 2022 (B+)

Did not care for the previous one, but this was really good. Everything was more intense, and the story wasn't some meta commentary on movie criticism, which was good. The ending was convoluted enough to stand along with the most ridiculous Scream monologues, and the kill scenes felt fresh and new. This is definitely a movie with a reason to exist, which I remember not thinking of the previous movie.



I mainline Windex and horse tranquilizer
I'm pretty sure you also said that to me when I watched it the first time back on Rotten Tomatoes.



That was Gorb's creation but we all used it.


Who were you on RT?



That was Gorb's creation but we all used it.


Who were you on RT?

Charles b. at first, then probably just Charles. I think I was also Charles on the Corrierino, I think? the one with the black background.



Dreamcatcher, 2002 (B-)


Serviceable movie that doesn't feature the butt monsters heavily enough. It's very long but shouldn't be.



I mainline Windex and horse tranquilizer
Charles b. at first, then probably just Charles. I think I was also Charles on the Corrierino, I think? the one with the black background.






Village of the Damned, 1995 (C-)


I don't like to compare movies generally, but all I could think of was that this is just straight up not as good as the original. It's unfocused, and the lady that takes the stillborn one just hints at an underwhelming bunch of stuff about aliens that doesn't go anywhere. Keeping the story about the village and the kids with just tiny, critical hints about what goes on elsewhere was a much better decision. The climax is certainly the biggest downgrade from the 60s.



Just saw Glorious, searched for existing reviews, found exactly one, so:

Unfortunately, some of the humor just falls a bit short. There's a running joke that Wes believes he needs to sexually service Ghat as part of the deal. I mean, ha? And how do I even describe my reaction to the fact that I'd thought Wes was so squeamish because he'd be on the receiving end, but actually he thought he was supposed to be the top in the situation. Like, I'm sorry, you were going to let the world end because you didn't want to receive oral sex? I assure you that if you watch the film, I think you'll understand why this dynamic felt kind of off and not as funny (or grounded) as it's meant to. I know that in theory it's supposed to be part of the horror aspect, but it can't help but feel kind of childishly homophobic.
Interpreting this as homophobic leapfrogs several other much simpler explanations, like:

1) It's a giant insanity-generating nightmare monster; nobody would want to have sex with it.

2) Even if we want to place Lovecraftian horrors inside a modern sexual political framework, it's forcing him to do it, so he's effectively being raped.

3) They specifically have the entity say early on it's neither man nor woman.

4) The joke in question is based on the subversion of audience expectations; it isn't really about sex at all. And if it were a sex joke, the idea that it's mocking his implied sexual machismo (where he naturally assumes his seed is so valuable it must be the thing that saves the world) fits a lot better, anyway.

Then there are some character and plot elements that are saved to the very end, and I was kind of underwhelmed. I always find it frustrating when a film is clearly holding something back and then when they go TA DA you're like, "That's it?!".
I agree with this part. The twist was pretty telegraphed.

Overall impression: it's fine. Made me laugh a few times, the imagery was occasionally interesting and striking, and Simmons knocks it out of the park, predictably.
. Had more potential but it doesn't squander the premise either.



Tigers Are Not Afraid (2017)


A Mexican horror/suspense film that is very much done in the magical realist style of Pan's Labyrinth. I thought this was outstanding, these Shudder exclusives continue to deliver. Some of the best performances from child actors I've seen anywhere. Fair warning: this movie gets pretty intense at times.



Tigers Are Not Afraid (2017)


A Mexican horror/suspense film that is very much done in the magical realist style of Pan's Labyrinth. I thought this was outstanding, these Shudder exclusives continue to deliver. Some of the best performances from child actors I've seen anywhere. Fair warning: this movie gets pretty intense at times.

I was a little disappointed that this didn't make it into our 2010s list.
__________________



The trick is not minding
Tigers Are Not Afraid (2017)


A Mexican horror/suspense film that is very much done in the magical realist style of Pan's Labyrinth. I thought this was outstanding, these Shudder exclusives continue to deliver. Some of the best performances from child actors I've seen anywhere. Fair warning: this movie gets pretty intense at times.
Such a great film. Prayers for the Stolen is another great one from Mexico





The Long Walk, 2019

An older man (Yannawoutthi Chanthalungsy) is followed by the silent ghost of a young woman (Noutnapha Soydara) who he found dying in his childhood. When the man is hired by a young woman to contact the spirit of her dead mother, we follow his interactions with her as well as seeing flashbacks to the man’s experiences as a child (Por Silatsa).

With plenty of atmosphere and an appealing, time-bending mystery, this supernatural thriller is well worth a watch.

When films include time travel, or other time-bending elements, there’s often a danger of falling into one of two traps. The first trap is spending way too much time and attention on the mechanics of the time travel. The other, opposite trap is leaving the “rules” so vague that it becomes overly confusing trying to keep track of what is happening and why.

I think that this film leans a bit toward the latter problem. Honestly, I was very confused at many points during the film, and I can see someone who is a more literal, logical thinker getting frustrated. But while normally I AM that person who wants it all to make sense, this movie gets around that problem by pushing clear themes and building an aura of tension in a way that puts the emphasis of the story on the logic of the characters’ emotions, not the literal events that happen to them.

Movies like this are hard to review, because every 15-20 minutes something will happen that will totally reframe your understanding of the characters and their circumstances. A lot of the enjoyment of this film is letting those new understandings wash over you with all of their implications.

What I think I can safely say in a spoiler-free way is that I really loved the way that the film portrayed that people can have both benevolent and selfish impulses, and that sometimes those impulses are intertwined in a way that can be uncomfortable to think about. It also examines the way that our past experiences can inform our future actions, using its time-bending elements to put a different spin on that concept.

The film is generally somewhat melancholy in tone, but I think that it has things to say about optimism, kindness, and empathy. The character of the ghost---a character almost entirely without dialogue--gives a great inkblot dynamic to the scenes with both the older and younger incarnation of the main character. Is she grateful? Angry? Resigned? Understanding her point of view is key to unlocking the meaning of the film, but she remains an enigma as we watch the main character try to make the best of his situation, whether that’s a child dealing with an abusive parent or a older man dealing with long-standing social isolation.

There were times that I was frustrated with this film, even rewinding scenes to see if there was dialogue I’d missed that would help me resolve my confusion. But once I adjusted my focus to the characters and away from the time-travel mechanics, I eased into the film and ended up really enjoying it. I am still a bit bothered by two plot points I simply do not understand, but overall found it a rewarding viewing full of good performances.




Just saw Glorious, searched for existing reviews, found exactly one, so:

Interpreting this as homophobic leapfrogs several other much simpler explanations
So with the caveat that it's been a while since I watched Glorious, I watched it late at night which never really helps with my recall later, and I'd have to watch it again to be able to feel 100% confident in discussing it . . .

1) It's a giant insanity-generating nightmare monster; nobody would want to have sex with it.

2) Even if we want to place Lovecraftian horrors inside a modern sexual political framework, it's forcing him to do it, so he's effectively being raped.
I agree with these points, and I think that a lot of horror movies generate a lot of terror/disturbance/ick from the idea of being forced into sexual contact, either with other people or with monsters/aliens/etc. But my memory of the film is that the horror of such a situation was overtaken by the framing of it, namely . . .

3) They specifically have the entity say early on it's neither man nor woman.

4) The joke in question is based on the subversion of audience expectations; it isn't really about sex at all.
The joke, from my perspective, IS the explicitly queer framing of it all. A man is being asked to engage in what the film describes as a non-sexual act (except, I mean, it's oral sex) with a being who is explicitly not a man or a woman (except, I mean, it has the deep baritone voice of J.K. Simmons), and it's totally not gay at all (except, I mean, that he's being asked to engage in oral sex via a glory hole that's been cut in the wall of a stall in a men's public bathroom).

To me, what felt homophobic was that the queer aspects of the act are presented as being as troubling as the coercive nature of it.

Now, perhaps you could argue that it's the character of Wes himself who is homophobic, and maybe we're meant to get a bit of a laugh out of the idea that this guy seems equally perturbed by "sex with monster" as "sex with queer trappings". In which case you could say that the film isn't homophobic, but rather poking fun at this aspect of the main character.

I can 100% guarantee I'll end up watching Glorious again on some late late Friday night, and I'll keep this question in mind when I do.



There's no disagreement about the "queer framing." The disagreement is about whether it's homophobic. Obviously it references homosexuality: that's why the joke works! It leads you to a natural assumption about what's happening, and then reminds you that it's just an assumption, and chastises you for it. The joke isn't "haha, he doesn't wanna do something gay because gay stuff is bad!" it's "what, you thought it was THAT?" And the film is saying that to both him and us, which is why it's a good joke. Kind of a classic joke format: suggestive setup, then a punchline that feigns offense that your mind went to something so base.



About halfway through I Married a Monster from Outer Space, and thus far it is much more disturbing/scary than I'd anticipated.
Right? Both this one and Teenagers From Outer Space were so much better than the title led me to expect.



The joke isn't "haha, he doesn't wanna do something gay because gay stuff is bad!".
That's not quite what I'm saying.

**Disclaimer: I am relying on my memory for what the pacing/proportions were of the different parts of the film**

The real problem is that the movie doesn't have enough content for its run time, so it ends up lingering or repeating the same ideas. It's holding back a reveal for the end, and relying on the glory hole/gay joke. The punchline is too long coming so you're just sitting in the "Oh no! Unwanted gay sexual act!" part. In my original review, I said it felt childishly homophobic, and that's what I meant. "LOL, ew, gay." It's not like they flipped a coin to decide if the context would feel more heterosexual or homosexual. A big part of the joke is that a guy can't decide if saving the world is worth receiving oral sex, and that joke doesn't play the same way if the framing is heterosexual. (And the framing is not just homosexual, but homosexual in the way that gay sex is often framed in a negative: something predatory in a grimy public bathroom with a stranger, no intimacy outside of the mechanics of the sex act itself, etc). The film needs discomfort, and a hint of menace, around gay sex to "work". And I put "work" in quotes because obviously I thought that overall it didn't land because of how long it lingers.

The movie's on Shudder, so I'll probably rewatch it this weekend just to make sure I'm remembering closely enough.



Taboada’s Poison for the Fairies and Blacker than Night are coming to Shudder on the 8th. Really excited for this!
Hopefully, this means that better quality copies will be, eh, "available" soon. Blacker Than the Night I saw was most likely a VHS rip. Poison for the Fairies should be a mandatory watch for everyone.