/horror/ general megathread - Let's talk about movies and shit.

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
One is shit, one is a nice throwback to the kind of shit that would have played in the 90s. I'm perfectly fine with watching shit as long as it's entertaining or original enough.
 
horrorfan89 said:
Anyways anyone have any thoughts on John Carpenter's In The Mouth Of Madness?

https://youtube.com/watch?v=AlugldzO9zY
Click to expand...
In short: A great film that could be better.

I think that it's one of Carpenters better films, but it's let down by his particular style and method of making movies. Like Romero, I've always thought that Carpenter has a kind of straightforward, workman like quality to his approach on movies that just goes for broke and relies on instinct and rawness. For films like The Thing with a bunch of ice station roughnecks dealing with a relatively straightforward narrative it works brilliantly. I don't think it's the best approach for Mouth, however, with it's more complex and subtle story.

Frankly, I think that Carpenter does a fine job of the mechanics of directing, but the final assembly leaves a lot of room for improvement. There is a real disjointed feeling to the final product that doesn't seem deliberate, and several sequences feel kind of clumsy. How much that is the fault of the editor or script versus Carpenter is up for debate, but it's a problem none the less.

The film also has some issues with it's pacing. It feels longer than it's 95 minutes over all, while at the same time feels rushed in the parts where it needed to breathe. I don't think that it needed to be padded with gratuitous landscape shots just for time, but it needs more connecting tissues to hold everything together and more setup for it's themes. It simply lacks cohesion.

Ultimately, while I like the film I find it very frustrating. Its has some sequences I really like, good actors and performances, baller music, amazing practical effects and it explores some themes and plots were rarely get to see but none of it really gels together in a satisfying way. The missed potential of what this film could have been occupies my mind more than the film itself. It's one of the reasons I keep coming back to it, as it's almost like a poem half finished, and I want to see it complete.

Do you know what influence or director I think would have made Mouth better? Kubrick. His exacting style of directing and ability to capture mood and dread on film with subtlety would have been well suited to the narrative of the material. He has a more varied and suitable array of camera techniques and framing, as well, which would have been a benefit. I'm not sure if he would go for the body horror and effects like Carpenter would, though, but if you could combine Carpenters music, Kubrick's direction, Nicoteros effects with some better work on the script and editing you'd end up with the perfect In the Mouth of Madness.
 
Pokemonquistador2 said:
The Universal mummy movies were kind of ridiculous in how they expected people to be afraid of a shambling mummy going 1 mile an hour. That's why the best of them was the original, which had Boris Karloff (the titular Mummy) throwing away his bandages after the first scene and using sorcery and charisma to accomplish his goals. I will give credit to the third Universal Mummy Movie: The Mummy's Ghost, for having the Mummy win and the girl die at the end. It was a shocking ending for the time. I will also give credit to the 1999 Mummy movie, for making the title monster a near apocalyptic force of nature, but that movie was more of an Indiana Jones type adventure film than a true horror.
Click to expand...
My favorite moment in the Universal Mummy movies: in one of them (could be Mummy's Ghost?), some characters don't even see the mummy coming up behind them. They walk away at a leisurely pace, get in their car, and drive off, without ever noticing that the mummy got within two feet of them. Literally all you have to do to escape is walk in the opposite direction.

If they had seen the mummy, they'd have frozen in place screaming and gotten killed like everybody else.

Product Placement said:
Anyone going for the 31 horror movies in 31 days thing?
Click to expand...
Yeah, I did it last year. Think I'll try to build up some lead time instead of trying to watch one movie a day. Also better change to a spookier avatar.
 
Among movies I watched in preparation for the Halloween season is the low-budget period piece action/slasher film A Sweet and Vicious Beauty. It's a two hours plus long microbudget film, the idea of which is usually scary enough, and a period piece shot on digital at that. Indeed the first fifteen minutes are a bit rough going, but once the players are introduced and the fake-out protaganist and muted spooky house trappings are quickly gotten rid of, things go into eccentric horror, Old Dark House style Gothic with lots of bloody set pieces and onscreen kills.

The story takes place in the town of Harbor Bridge, where according to local legend a person's last breath remains inside their throat. When the head is severed, that last breath can be taken by another, and the recipient becomes stronger. Narcissa Sentinel, last of her wealthy and influential family's line is suffering from a terminal illness but graverobbing has yielded amazing results for her...but it's not enough. As she gets stronger, and more crazed she decides she needs fresher last breaths, and there's only one sure way to get a hold of those. As the movie continues, things get crazier, as the murders and late night rituals ramp up, along with fight scenes featuring wuxia-inspired swashbuckling choreography (one of the extras on the Blu-ray is director Eric Thornett's unreleased Hong Kong inspired no-budget martial arts film Fifth City), and a red-cloaked, pistol-toting heroine arrives to try to put a stop to the dirty business. A fun romp that is hampered by it's so-so scripting and low budget limitations and maybe could have been 20 minutes shorter, but I can't fault the ambition.

 
JohnDoe said:
In short: A great film that could be better.

I think that it's one of Carpenters better films, but it's let down by his particular style and method of making movies. Like Romero, I've always thought that Carpenter has a kind of straightforward, workman like quality to his approach on movies that just goes for broke and relies on instinct and rawness. For films like The Thing with a bunch of ice station roughnecks dealing with a relatively straightforward narrative it works brilliantly. I don't think it's the best approach for Mouth, however, with it's more complex and subtle story.

Frankly, I think that Carpenter does a fine job of the mechanics of directing, but the final assembly leaves a lot of room for improvement. There is a real disjointed feeling to the final product that doesn't seem deliberate, and several sequences feel kind of clumsy. How much that is the fault of the editor or script versus Carpenter is up for debate, but it's a problem none the less.

The film also has some issues with it's pacing. It feels longer than it's 95 minutes over all, while at the same time feels rushed in the parts where it needed to breathe. I don't think that it needed to be padded with gratuitous landscape shots just for time, but it needs more connecting tissues to hold everything together and more setup for it's themes. It simply lacks cohesion.

Ultimately, while I like the film I find it very frustrating. Its has some sequences I really like, good actors and performances, baller music, amazing practical effects and it explores some themes and plots were rarely get to see but none of it really gels together in a satisfying way. The missed potential of what this film could have been occupies my mind more than the film itself. It's one of the reasons I keep coming back to it, as it's almost like a poem half finished, and I want to see it complete.

Do you know what influence or director I think would have made Mouth better? Kubrick. His exacting style of directing and ability to capture mood and dread on film with subtlety would have been well suited to the narrative of the material. He has a more varied and suitable array of camera techniques and framing, as well, which would have been a benefit. I'm not sure if he would go for the body horror and effects like Carpenter would, though, but if you could combine Carpenters music, Kubrick's direction, Nicoteros effects with some better work on the script and editing you'd end up with the perfect In the Mouth of Madness.
Click to expand...
I kind of feel that Carpenter peaked with the Thing and Halloween. His newer schtuff isn't that great. They are watchable but they are not must see. I for one, am gonna have Trick R Treat running on the television all October long.
 
Absurdist Laughter said:
I kind of feel that Carpenter peaked with the Thing and Halloween. His newer schtuff isn't that great. They are watchable but they are not must see. I for one, am gonna have Trick R Treat running on the television all October long.
Click to expand...
The 90's was not a great decade for ALL of the Boomer horror directors. From Carpenter to Argento everyone was floundering for one reason or another. Carpenter is more of a mixed bag. I liked Escape from LA and Vampires and In the Mouth of Madness are pretty good. The only Boomer horror director that saw critical and financial success in the 90's is Craven because of the Scream movies.
 
If you count Sam Rami, he had a good run in the 90s but the only horror movie he worked on was Army of Darkness.

Tom Holland, his last movie in the 80s was Child's Play only for end up in the 90s making the Temp and Thinner

Tobe Hooper, what a fall, guess Body Bags was alright but shit like Night Terrors and The Mangler was god awful. Feel like when Cannon went under, he stopped giving a shit.

George A. Romero, had Dark Half in the 90s which was alright, but that is the only full movie he did in the 90s. He did work on Goosebumps, Resident Evil and The Mummy movies in the 90s, but they never got made. When he did he leftover 40 scripts, bet many of them come from that era.

Clive Barker, only directed 3 movies, two of which are from the 90s Lord of Illusions and Nightbreed, neither are amazing but are somewhat enjoyable

Stuart Gordon, feels like no one would give him a budget in the 90s, The Pit and the Pendulum, and Castle Freak wouldn't call bad movies but do feel like they needed a bigger budget.

Think for most of them was one of the following, a shifting interest away from making horror movies, unable to get the funding needed for movies or just lost the love for filmmaking and were just doing it to pay bills.
 
Is Sam Raimi even really a horror director? Aside from the Evil Dead trilogy all that's left is Drag Me To Hell. You could reaaaallllly stretch it with Dark Man which has some horror elements. It's like saying John Landis is a horror director even though he only directed 2 movies (and 2 episodes of Masters of Horror but I digress).
 
BrunoMattei said:
Is Sam Raimi even really a horror director? Aside from the Evil Dead trilogy all that's left is Drag Me To Hell. You could reaaaallllly stretch it with Dark Man which has some horror elements. It's like saying John Landis is a horror director even though he only directed 2 movies (and 2 episodes of Masters of Horror but I digress).
Click to expand...
I feel the same way about Tim Burton, in his entire Career from 1985 to today only these films could be considered straight up horror; Beetlejuice, Edward Scissorhands, Sleepy Hollow, Corpse Bride, Sweeny Todd, and Dark Shadows. and some of those you kinda gotta stretch to consider horror. Edward Scissorhands is more a drama and only becomes more akin to horror in the last act, Sweeny Todd's a musical, and Corpse Bride's animated and more on the dark comedy side.
 
horrorfan89 said:
I feel the same way about Tim Burton, in his entire Career from 1985 to today only these films could be considered straight up horror; Beetlejuice, Edward Scissorhands, Sleepy Hollow, Corpse Bride, Sweeny Todd, and Dark Shadows. and some of those you kinda gotta stretch to consider horror. Edward Scissorhands is more a drama and only becomes more akin to horror in the last act, Sweeny Todd's a musical, and Corpse Bride's animated and more on the dark comedy side.
Click to expand...
Well, he also has Frankenweenie which I would say is horror for children.

Tim Burton, is more of a weird and gothic filmmaker, I mean his first movie was Pee-wee's Big Adventure.

With Sam Raimi, he did get his start in horror and I feel like it would be safe to call him a horror film-maker until the mid 90s, his first 5 movies would say 4 of them are horror and the one that isn't, Darkman does take a lot from horror movie still.

After Army of Darkness, he did move away from horror outside producing shitty horror movies and Drag me to Hell. Right now he is in the business of making blockbusters whenever he makes a movie.
 
Rewatching The Seventh Victim, a 1943 release from RKO, produced by Val Lewton, the directorial debut of Mark Robson. A blend of horror and noir, a young woman goes to New York to locate her missing sister and finds evil lurking in the big city’s dark corners and secret places. As a mystery it's solid, as horror it's unnerving.

AmcnM.jpg

MI8rG.jpg

ETeOn.png

dH2VQA.jpg
 
Last edited:
I screwed up my 31 Days of Horror already because I had to go out of town on Saturday. (My tooth caught dry socket, so I figured that was horrible enough.) For Oct. 1, I watched Cronos - which was Guillermo del Toro's film directoral debut. It was an okay vampire story, but I guess I was expecting something even weirder and creepier from the writer of Pan's Labyrinth. Oh well. Everyone has to start somewhere.
 
I started mine too, on the first I watched The Ruins, a bunch of American tourists decide to go and visit off map mayan ruins, and it all goes to shit. Pretty bad movie, but absolutely fucking stellar T&A from the blonde chick at the beginning of the movie, it's been a while since I saw someone that fit. Predictable shit but not bad enough to make you angry, just don't bother unless there's absolutely nothing going on, or you like seeing American tourists die from killer plants. Or great T&A for 30 seconds. 2/5


Second night, I watched Sleepaway Camp 1, an obvious classic I hadn't seen in years and was wondering if it would hold up. It did, mostly. Considering today's standards, some of the pedo comments at the start are really fucking jarring, I understand that you're not supposed to be sympathizing with them either, but holy shit they wouldn't let that fly today. And also the old camp chief dating an underage counsellor and then trying to murder a student. . Overall it's sleazy as fuck, and a classic for a reason, even if you know the final twist. 4/5

Tonight I'm watching Bloody Hell (2020).
 
So far we've watched

Oct 1st : Poltergeist and then the Rob Zombie Halloween because my wife hadn't seen it. (She liked it but can see why others did not, removing all the mystique from Michael Myers and turning him into a typical RZ white trailer trash analogue).

Oct 2nd : OG Halloween and then the director's cut of Alien. We discussed how Alien looked so much better shot and I explained that it had more than a shoestring budget.

Oct 3rd: Tonight we're going to watch Once Bitten from 1985 with Jim Carrey where he gets bitten by a vampire. I think this was his first leading role in a movie. Not sure what the second feature will be or if we'll keep up the two movies a night thing.
 
The only things I've watched this October so far that count as horror movies are Ringu and Kwaidan. I'm hoping to watch the Hammer Dracula movies with my wife. Maybe the 90's Francis Ford Copolla Dracula, too. I've never seen it and heard mixed opinions on whether it's good or not.
 
MoffAlbert said:
Maybe the 90's Francis Ford Copolla Dracula, too. I've never seen it and heard mixed opinions on whether it's good or not.
Click to expand...
This and the Crow is what got every 90s and early 00s goth chick wet. It's not a bad adaption of the novel in my opinion, I loved the unique armor for Dracula and Gary Oldman's performance.
 
White Devil said:
This and the Crow is what got every 90s and early 00s goth chick wet. It's not a bad adaption of the novel in my opinion, I loved the unique armor for Dracula and Gary Oldman's performance.
Click to expand...
On that note, I had a bug up my ass and re-watched the Crow: City of Angels. Good sequel and it's better than the first movie. Come at me Brandon Lee-worshipping fuccbois.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom