|
Post by Captain Spencer on Oct 16, 2019 16:25:49 GMT
I finally saw Alice, Sweet Alice and was disappointed in all the reverance I always perceived this had as a horror classic. Am I alone in not thinking much of this one? I never much cared for it either.
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Oct 16, 2019 16:30:06 GMT
Movies I've watched so far this October:
A Tale of Two Sisters - First time viewing. Tales of Halloween - First time viewing. Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974) - Rewatch. Creepshow (1982) - Rewatch. Night of the Demons (1988) - Rewatch. Sinister - Rewatch Insidious - Rewatch A Christmas Horror Story - FTV The Conjuring - Rewatch. Body Bags - FTV Insidious: Last Key - FTV Twilight Zone The Movie - Rewatch Annabelle Comes Home - FTV The Witch in the Window - FTV The Shining - Rewatch Rosemary's Baby - Rewatch The Amityville Horror (1979) - Rewatch Slither - Rewatch Pumpkinhead - Rewatch
|
|
fatpaul
Sophomore
@fatpaul
Posts: 502
Likes: 193
|
Post by fatpaul on Oct 16, 2019 17:06:38 GMT
You should only continue if it's fun and you're enjoying yourself. For what it's worth, the month is only half over. There's plenty of time to get your groove back! Thanks for the thought. Yeah looking back at my comment it does seem like I was having a moan about it but it wasn't my intention. I was just making a relative comparison and an appreciation that people have completed the challenge. I think the word challenge is more apt than chore. Plus my comment about being put off horror films is pure hyperbole.
|
|
fatpaul
Sophomore
@fatpaul
Posts: 502
Likes: 193
|
Post by fatpaul on Oct 16, 2019 17:19:18 GMT
Every October I pull our my horror collection and binge. Haven't done it this year, but after reaching 17 never before viewed films and overall 32 total views, I just may start this weekend!!! Of course, I'll add them to my challenge. Some of the first time horror views I wasn't enamored with. I don't like blood, guts, gore, violence - gratuitous or otherwise - some a lot of the films out there have a lot of that. Yuk! I like the psychological element in horror. I don't mind body horror or torture porn really, David Cronenberg and Eli Roth are two of my favourites but yeah, I consider myself a found footage fan and these tend to be more psychological than not. I was saving my Friday the 13th and Halloween box-sets for later so these should put the smile back on my face (not that it was ever really gone !)
|
|
|
Post by Marv on Oct 16, 2019 18:32:24 GMT
First time seeing the Phantasm films and I’m not a huge fan but I see what they’re going for. Still gotta watch 4 and 5. Seems like they made one phantasm film per decade so that’s kinda interesting to see how film quality and stuff like that changes over the years with the sequels.
|
|
|
Post by Anonymous Andy on Oct 16, 2019 20:34:15 GMT
First time seeing the Phantasm films and I’m not a huge fan but I see what they’re going for. Still gotta watch 4 and 5. Seems like they made one phantasm film per decade so that’s kinda interesting to see how film quality and stuff like that changes over the years with the sequels. If you didn't like the first three, I doubt the last two will turn it around. V in particular was dreadful, and I say that as a fan of the series who really wanted it to be good. II is where it's really at though. Love that movie.
|
|
|
Post by hitchcockthelegend on Oct 16, 2019 22:13:51 GMT
It isn’t really. The other 3 you mentioned are far more popular and loved, and Hellraiser went straight to video. Unless you mean how many movies it got then yeah it’s pretty crazy. Hellraiser didn't go straight to video. It certainly was released in the UK where it received some great reviews. In the US it made nearly $15m...not bad for a $1m budget film. Part of me wished it never had a North American release...the awful US dubbing would not have been imposed on the film had it not. Yes it definitely was released to theatres here in the UK, cuz I went and saw it myself! A very good film, the sequel is even more yucky, even if it drops down from the narrative strength of the first film. I quit the series after part 3 was a huge let down.
|
|
|
Post by hitchcockthelegend on Oct 16, 2019 22:16:29 GMT
Hellraiser didn't go straight to video. It certainly was released in the UK where it received some great reviews. In the US it made nearly $15m...not bad for a $1m budget film. Part of me wished it never had a North American release...the awful US dubbing would not have been imposed on the film had it not. I was talking about the sequels from Parts 5-10. Definitely not the first one. Hee, it definitely reads as you meant the first one!
|
|
|
Post by hitchcockthelegend on Oct 16, 2019 22:20:15 GMT
I like the 2003 remake. It's pretty intense in its own right, just glossier and not as gritty as the original. Yep me too!
|
|
|
Post by hitchcockthelegend on Oct 16, 2019 22:32:44 GMT
Both Demons and Demons 2 are among my favorite films. The 2nd doesn't beat the first for me but I really enjoyed both. Thanks for reminder as I may watch both again for challenge. I have Demons recorded for a FTV, so it's good to see it has support.
|
|
|
Post by hitchcockthelegend on Oct 16, 2019 22:43:28 GMT
The Invisible Man (1933) Terror Level: Medium I had to take a break from those Ted V. Mikels films and I just happened to have this on Blu-Ray but I've yet to see it. And I really have been sleeping on this film because it was really good. Claude Rains was a very convincing maniac and the special effects aged well. And the things he did were so menacing. I was thinking of picking Bride of Frankenstein for my marathon but I might choose this instead. 8/10. I think it's superb. My Review > It alters you, changes you. There's a snow storm blowing ferociously, a man trundles towards a signpost that reads Iping. He enters a hostelry called The Lions Head, the patrons of the bar fall silent for the man is bound in bandages. He tells, not asks, the landlady; "I want a room with a fire". This man is Dr. Jack Griffin, soon to wreak havoc and be known as The Invisible Man. One of the leading lights of the Universal Monster collection of films that terrified and enthralled audiences back in the day. Directed by genre master James Whale, The Invisible Man is a slick fusion of dark humour, berserker science and genuine evil. Quite a feat for a film released in 1933, even more so when one samples the effects used in the piece. Effects that are still today holding up so well they put to shame some of the toy like expensive tricks used by the modern wave of film makers. John P. Fulton take a bow sir. After Boris Karloff had turned down the chance to play the good doctor gone crazy, on account of the role calling for voice work throughout the film only, except a snippet at the finale, so Whale turned to Claude Rains. Small in stature but silky in voice, Rains clearly sensed an opportunity to launch himself into Hollywood. It may well be, with Whale's expert guidance of course, that he owes his whole career to that 30 second appearance of his face at the end of the film? As was his want, Whale filled out the support cast with odd ball eccentrics that are acted adroitly by the British & Irish thespians. Una O'Connor, Forrester Harvey, Edward E. Clive and Henry Travers are memorable. While American Gloria Stuart as the power insane Griffin's love interest is radiant with what little she has to do. Based on the now famous story written by H.G. Wells, Whale and R. C. Sheriff's (writer) version remains the definitive Invisible Man adaptation. There's some changes such as the time it is set, and Griffin is not the lunatic he is in the film, which is something that Wells was not too pleased about in spite of liking the film as a whole, but it's still very tight to the source. Sequels, TV series and other modern day adaptations would follow it, but none are as shrewd or as chilling as Whale's daddy is. 9/10
|
|
|
Post by hitchcockthelegend on Oct 16, 2019 22:51:52 GMT
I’m watching Se7en right now. I’ve always seen it as horror, but not many other people do. I wonder what the general consensus about the classification is here. Definitely horror, serial killers are horryfying and the one portrayed here is off the chart!
|
|
|
Post by James on Oct 16, 2019 23:07:38 GMT
I’m watching Se7en right now. I’ve always seen it as horror, but not many other people do. I wonder what the general consensus about the classification is here. Definitely horror, serial killers are horryfying and the one portrayed here is off the chart! Well I knew I wasn’t the only one.
|
|
|
Post by hitchcockthelegend on Oct 16, 2019 23:12:57 GMT
Another rewatch of Stir of Echoes (1999). Love the low-key feeling of this film with very subtle scares. It doesn't rely on jump scares. The kid was terrific, and of course, Bacon and Erbe did a wonderful job, as did Illeana Douglas. I can watch this over and over, and still get the chills!! Well done! Agreed. My Review > I see a red door and I want to paint it black! Stir of Echoes is written and directed by David Koepp who adapts from the novel of the same name written by Richard Matheson. It stars Kevin Bacon, Kathryn Erbe, Zachary David Cope, Illena Douglas, Jennifer Morrison, Kevin Dunn and Conor O'Farrell. Music is scored by James Newton Howard and cinematography by Fred Murphy. Chicago phone engineer Tom Witzky (Bacon) submits to being hypnotised by his sister-in-law and finds that his young son's imaginary friend is not imagined after all... Undeniably lost in the slip-stream of the similar themed "The Sixth Sense", Stir of Echoes screams out to be seen by more fans of supernatural mysteries. It's a near faultless production, with Koepp getting all the key ingredients right on both the page and in transfer to the screen. Pacing is often the problem with films of a similar ilk, but Koepp deftly structures it in three engrossing sections. First third establishes the main characters and the supernatural set-up, but the bonus here is that character reactions are believable, especially with Erbe's confused wife. Koepp has a great sense of atmosphere whilst ensuring we are fully immersed in Tom Wizky's new world of disorientation by way of terrifying visions and red light shocks. Second third brings the chills and the odd boo-jump, again the director is aware that too many jumps can overkill the plot, so they are nicely spaced out and accompanied by a palpable fear of the unknown. Then the last third unravels in a whirl of Roy Neary like obsessions and ghosts of the past denouements. It's a standard formula, yet it's amazing just how often film makers get it wrong, especially in horror. Not a problem here. Film is further boosted by Newton Howard's score that blends the ethereal with rising thunder and Murphy's colour photography, the latter of which helps to paint a harmonious Chicago neighbourhood, soon to be turned upside down, literally at one end of the street. The acting is super, which in Bacon's case is a given to anyone who has followed his career, and Koepp shows some nice and creepy visual filming techniques to further enhance the great Richard Matheson's story. There's the odd little misstep, such as a thread involving a secret organisation that has the "gift" of being "open" to the supernatural, that feels like filler to over state Tom's torment. While the post reaction to a suicide attempt isn't given nearly enough screen time to really add impetus to the unfolding mystery. But small complaints only, for Stir of Echoes (great title) remains a truly involving and entertaining supernatural mystery. 8.5/10
|
|
|
Post by TheOriginalPinky on Oct 17, 2019 0:53:35 GMT
Another rewatch of Stir of Echoes (1999). Love the low-key feeling of this film with very subtle scares. It doesn't rely on jump scares. The kid was terrific, and of course, Bacon and Erbe did a wonderful job, as did Illeana Douglas. I can watch this over and over, and still get the chills!! Well done! Agreed. My Review > I see a red door and I want to paint it black! Stir of Echoes is written and directed by David Koepp who adapts from the novel of the same name written by Richard Matheson. It stars Kevin Bacon, Kathryn Erbe, Zachary David Cope, Illena Douglas, Jennifer Morrison, Kevin Dunn and Conor O'Farrell. Music is scored by James Newton Howard and cinematography by Fred Murphy. Chicago phone engineer Tom Witzky (Bacon) submits to being hypnotised by his sister-in-law and finds that his young son's imaginary friend is not imagined after all... Undeniably lost in the slip-stream of the similar themed "The Sixth Sense", Stir of Echoes screams out to be seen by more fans of supernatural mysteries. It's a near faultless production, with Koepp getting all the key ingredients right on both the page and in transfer to the screen. Pacing is often the problem with films of a similar ilk, but Koepp deftly structures it in three engrossing sections. First third establishes the main characters and the supernatural set-up, but the bonus here is that character reactions are believable, especially with Erbe's confused wife. Koepp has a great sense of atmosphere whilst ensuring we are fully immersed in Tom Wizky's new world of disorientation by way of terrifying visions and red light shocks. Second third brings the chills and the odd boo-jump, again the director is aware that too many jumps can overkill the plot, so they are nicely spaced out and accompanied by a palpable fear of the unknown. Then the last third unravels in a whirl of Roy Neary like obsessions and ghosts of the past denouements. It's a standard formula, yet it's amazing just how often film makers get it wrong, especially in horror. Not a problem here. Film is further boosted by Newton Howard's score that blends the ethereal with rising thunder and Murphy's colour photography, the latter of which helps to paint a harmonious Chicago neighbourhood, soon to be turned upside down, literally at one end of the street. The acting is super, which in Bacon's case is a given to anyone who has followed his career, and Koepp shows some nice and creepy visual filming techniques to further enhance the great Richard Matheson's story. There's the odd little misstep, such as a thread involving a secret organisation that has the "gift" of being "open" to the supernatural, that feels like filler to over state Tom's torment. While the post reaction to a suicide attempt isn't given nearly enough screen time to really add impetus to the unfolding mystery. But small complaints only, for Stir of Echoes (great title) remains a truly involving and entertaining supernatural mystery. 8.5/10 Great review!
|
|
|
Post by darkreviewer2013 on Oct 17, 2019 2:43:45 GMT
Watched Friday the 13th Part VI: Jason Lives two nights ago. It really is the pinnacle of the series. Well written with good characters, nicely paced and Jason at his most awesome. The movie never takes itself too seriously and that's an approach that very much suits this franchise.
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Oct 17, 2019 2:59:35 GMT
I cant watch many films a week--yesterday I watched The Man Who Could Cheat Death 1959 and Terror Creatures From Beyond the Grave 1966.
|
|
|
Post by Nicko's Nose on Oct 17, 2019 3:00:33 GMT
Both Demons and Demons 2 are among my favorite films. The 2nd doesn't beat the first for me but I really enjoyed both. Thanks for reminder as I may watch both again for challenge. I have Demons recorded for a FTV, so it's good to see it has support. More support here: Demons is in my top 5 favorite horror movies.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2019 7:11:54 GMT
Tried to rematch "The Grudge" which is honestly the scariest movie I have ever seen. My Xbox wouldn't play it. So now I am watching "The Return" both with Sarah Michelle Gellar.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2019 9:34:21 GMT
The Return is lame. Random rewatch that I didnt remember.
|
|