Animation Revelation Forum

Alright, it's that time of year again! :joy:

It's the time for all of us non-pussified, fright-seeking bunch to sink are teeth into some of cinema's most horrific works. Of course, there are also a fair number of light-hearted flicks on hear as well which still fit the Halloween theme, but I'll try to balance them out with the legitimate horror so we have a fairly even pattern of both. But, let's start the month off with a more serious movie:




Easily one of the most critically-acclaimed horror films of the 2000's, The Descent is a story about six adventurous women who go spelunking in an uncharted cave system as a way to help one of their own, Sarah, cope with the loss of her daughter and husband in a tragic car accident the year prior. However, as they explore and descend deeper into the depths of the caverns, they are doomed to find something ancient and terrifying waiting for them within the darkness.

This is a movie that I didn't properly appreciate when it first came out. However, looking back on it now, I personally agree with much of the praise. This isn't an incredibly original or innovative film, but it makes up for it with its mastery of the craft (much like a James Wan film, some of which we will be covering later this month). If the name Neil Marshall seems familiar to you, he is also the guy responsible for directing two of the biggest Game of Thrones episodes to date: Blackwater and The Watchers on the Wall. Of course, those are two very action-heavy episodes with big battles taking place, however one similarity in style that I noticed is his ingenious way of building things up from personal drama and tension into much bigger conflicts. In that regard, what starts out as a drama about a woman coping with the loss of her family by trying to bond with her friends ends up becoming a riveting tale of survival and despair as Sarah and her friends try to escape forces that they were never prepared to deal with. This however ultimately boils back down to something personal to the main characters again, which I've noticed to be a key component of stories written and/or directed by Neil Marshall.

I think what makes this movie work is really its execution. I do end up at least caring about the main character, and the fact that we have someone likable and relate-able to follow throughout this story ends up making the moments when the horror hits us all the more scary and engaging. While it's not one of my favorite horror films of all time, it is easily one of the best of the last fifteen or so years.

Damn, I'm not familiar with this one, and I'm not going to get the time to watch it tonight. It sounds pretty decent, and like something I'd like to get into when I get the time.

Also, do we have 31 movies for this year?

If we split up the sequels into separate days, then yes. However, if you have one or two more last-minute nominations that you want to put in, then I'm all ears.

Have we done City of the Living Dead or The Beyond before?

We've done the former. Give me some time to double check our previous lists, but I'm pretty certain that we haven't done the latter yet.

Avaitor, it doesn't look like we've done The Beyond before, so if you want, we can put that movie in for this month.




Sinister is a relatively recent horror film that managed to get a good amount of buzz and a notable following thanks to its combination of on-point directing, great acting, and a pretty fresh twist for the genre. While the film does suffer from many predictable horror tropes to some extent, I really do appreciate Scott Derrickson's effort to make the content feel as fresh as possible by presenting it in different ways than what we're used to. This film essentially tells the tale of a has-been non-fiction murder-mystery author who is trying to reinvigorate his career by writing about the mysterious deaths of a family, all found hung in their backyard, with the exception of their youngest child who went missing and who's body was never found. And for him, the best way to do this is to take his family and move there, feeling that the setting of the murder will give him some newfound inspiration for writing.

Of course, as you can expect given the premise and the fact that this is a horror film, shit goes wrong pretty fast and our author and his family is subject to dark forces haunting their new home. That said, while the premise is overly familiar, what I do like is how, true to the author's line of work, the plot is approached just as much as solving a mystery as it is about being scary. Hell, I'd argue that the mystery element is much more effective here, and without it this would be a sub-par horror film at best. What particularly works from a creep-factor angle, though, are the Super 8 video tapes which are uncovered early on in the film and which explicitly showcase some gruesome murders that link to the murder which our author is investigating.

Another thing that's good about the film is the use of visuals. Director Scott Derrickson is able to use some truly creative and impressive visual techniques to create imagery that feels unique and different from what I've seen before, and I suspect that this is at least partly what got Marvel Studios interested in signing him on for the upcoming Doctor Strange film that will be released very soon later this year. Also, let's just forget about the atrocious sequel from about a year ago which neither Derrickson not Cargill were directly involved with.

Overall, Sinister doesn't break any new ground, but it is, IMO, one of the better and more interesting horror films from this decade, so far.

I work until 5 or later on weekdays, so if anyone wants to have these discussions up earlier than I'd be grateful if you can post it up for me at any time that any of you are free and have the time. Otherwise, I'll generally have these entries posted up much later in the evening. In case anyone feels like helping on any given day this week, here is my schedule for this week:

Today: Ghostbusters (original)
Tuesday: Ghostbusters II
Wednesday: The Beyond
Thursday: Insidious
Friday: Sweet Home

I'll try to do Ghostbusters tonight!

Thanks! That's much appreciated since tonight is busy for me until 9 or 10:00, so it would be pretty late tonight if I were posting it up.

Honestly still one of the funniest movies ever made, the film works so well because of how tight its chemistry is. Aykroyd and Ramis are a big part of that, as they show just how indebted to their script and characters they are, but Murray and Hudson are equally as important (even if the latter doesn't show up until almost halfway in), and make for a hell of a team. And you can't knock out Dana, Janine, or Louis as characters, as they add a lot to the feel.

The jury's still out for me if the new one lives up to this, but if the chemistry is as tight as this one's is, then I'm sure it's a fun watch as well.

While I didn't grow up with this film and don't harbor the same nostalgic love for it that many people do, it's still so easy to see why it was a hit. Before films like Guardians of the Galaxy or even Shaun of the Dead could take something fairly ridiculous and make it totally work through the proper comedic tone, Ghostbusters was the first movie to truly nail down this blockbuster formula. What always sticks out the most to me about it is that while it's certainly over the top, you could still tell that the people behind the special effects of this movie made them in such a way as they could be taken seriously in their own right, which brilliantly clashes with the dry and sarcastic sense of humor of the main cast. And the chemistry between these actors is just something that quite honestly can't be replicated.

I haven't seen the new movie yet, but even putting aside any preconceived bias, I think that regardless of how it was made, it could never escape being dwarfed by the shadow of this film because, as much as we may take it for granted, Ghostbusters is one of the most iconic films of all time for a reason.

So, I'm pretty beat tonight and don't feel like typing too much. I've also talked about this movie on numerous occasions before. Long story short, though, I feel like this is a sequel that gets far more hate than it deserves. Is it as good as the original? No, not by a long-shot, but in all honesty this movie is still fun as hell and still one of the better comedies of the late 80's. Simply because it's not as good as the best in the genre doesn't mean that it still isn't really good. For people complaining about the plot being recycled, while that's true, I've seen far worse sequels in this regard that don't get nearly as much hate for doing the same exact thing (The Force Awakens, anyone?). What really matters is the execution, and while some running gags from the first movie are brought back, most of the jokes and material for the film is brand new, and in all honesty Bill Murray has some of his funniest lines in this movie. Much like Age of Ultron or Back to the Future Part II, this is one of those times when the iconic influence of the original really just overshadowed the sequel so much that I don't believe enough people really gave it a fair shake.

While it's by no means a classic, I can still honestly say that after several re-watches, it's an incredibly entertaining movie for what it is, and it does a lot more right than some may be willing to acknowledge.

I think my favorite part of the movie is probably the first third, which brings an interesting idea as to what happened to the Ghostbusters after the first movie. I'm not as hot on the film when the plot becomes a little samey from the first, but compared to a lot of other sequels, it isn't that bad. Having a decent villain to back it up is a good start.

I'm not sure if you heard about the hurricane, but I can't make any guarantee to take over updating this from EK over the next few days.

Where are people at, though?

Don't worry about it. You're priority should be to stay safe and obviously electricity can be affected by the weather. I'll update this thread with tonight's film fairly soon.

Yes, Kurt Russell starred in not one, but two dark Westerns last year, and as much as I enjoyed The Hateful Eight, I honestly feel that this is the better film. Some may question my classification of it as a horror film, but if you look at it with the traditional sense of the word in mind, it absolutely is a combination of the Western and Horror genres. You have the classic kidnapping of a woman, which can be attributed to the "damsel in distress" trope common to both classic Westerns and Horror movies, but it also features savage, cannibalistic, in-breeding Native Americans as the stand-ins for your movie monsters. And no, this isn't some racist outlook on Native Americans as a people, as the movie makes it clear that even a local tribesmen both fears and loathes this particular clan and their people. What makes this movie work so well, though, is really the acting. The chemistry between the main cast is impeccable, and between this and Tarantino's outing later that year, Russel proves that he was practically born to play a Western bad-ass.

What makes this movie work as a Western is, thanks to the great acting, the comradery between the main cast, which makes the journey to rescue Arthur's wife so endearing. Simultaneously, the elements in which any characters are exposed to this small but deadly group of ravagers makes for some terrificly disturbing Horror. I'm usually not a fan of gross-out Horror, but this film handles it surprisingly well with a certain level of sophistication that's hard to explain when dealing with such gruesome imagery, yet it's pulled off with just enough taste and restraint to work. It also feels suitably tense since by the final act of the film you really come to care about these characters and want to see all of them make it out alive with Arthur and his wife.

Bone Tomahawk is a one of a kind film, and IMO one of the best Western and Horror filicks of this decade, and that's certainly no small feat.

Absolutely amazing film, and definitely the best classic-style western/cannibal horror movie I've seen in ages. I went in with no expectations (except for thinking that the plot and title sounded fun) and came out completely blown away. Richard Jenkins was especially phenomenal in it.

I thought the cannibals weren't actually Native Americans, though - didn't the professor at the beginning say they weren't? I can't quite remember unfortunately. Gotta' watch it again I guess!

I recall him saying that they were descended from a different tribe that practiced cannibalistic rituals and incest and passed it down through generations. He said this after being repulsed by one of the men saying that they were "his people", which is a common misconception since there existed hundreds to thousands of different individual native tribes and villages in America before it was colonized, many of which had no relations to each other whatsoever. So they were definitely natives, but those of a very exclusive, in-bred group that were fairly limited in number, rarely ever interacting with society since they lived so far out in the middle of nowhere. It's only those two outlaws unwittingly trespassing on their land who ended up leading them to the town when one of them escaped there.

The power is safe for tonight! But that's not really a surprise- things are supposed to get really bad tomorrow.

This is pretty high on my to-watch list, but it's not quite here yet. And I feel bad about it, since this looks and sounds right up my alley.

So, Insidious can be a pretty polarizing film. While it had a good amount of buzz and popularity with its release, it has also been met with a fair amount of backlash. And I can certainly understand that. While some praise it for its unique imagery when it comes to visual trickery as well as its more inventive ideas, others lambaste it for really being nothing more than a typical haunted house movie with all of the expected tropes and cliches, simply using flash to disguise itself as something more.

Where do I fall? Well, personally I do really like the movie, but it's definitely not without its flaws. Still, to me this was James Wan's first big break as a horror director. His previous attempt with the original Saw showed that he had some nice ideas, but didn't really have the experience to make for a compelling horror story or atmosphere. He made some less notable entries in the genre throughout the rest of the decade, but then he took everything that he had learned to do, and more importantly what not to do, and turned out this film, which despite what you think of it, is undeniably one of the big driving forces behind the huge resurgence of the horror genre this decade, and also really helped to make the supernatural haunting sub-genre popular again.

Essentially, Inisidious tells the story of a seemingly normal family undergoing terrifying paranormal activities, which seem to both start and escalate after their son mysteriously falls into a coma. However, the so-called twist to this film (which was already pretty much spoiled by the trailer) is that it turns out that the hauntings have nothing to do with where they live and everything to do with their son's apparent coma actually being something else entirely. It turns out that he has the ability to jump into a realm beyond the living at will, called "The Further," however in doing so he has left his body as an empty vessel, with a horde of spirits wanting to claim the vacant shell for another chance at living. And the depiction of these beings and this realm is where this film's visual creativity and prowess really shines. Admittedly, on a writing level there's nothing special here, but that's why it shows all the more just how good of a director James Wan has become, and he has arguably even improved his craft since this film.

Despite any flaws it might have, I really do like the surreal aspects of this movie, especially in the third act which really goes nuts with very strange and abstract imagery. And yeah, while the story is pretty basic, I do feel that it actually works to this movie's benefit, as it keeps the conflict grounded enough to still be interesting without losing itself too much in trying to be deep or intellectual and ensuring that it would not only appeal to an extremely niche audience. This isn't a great horror flick by any stretch, and I don't expect it to go down as a classic, but as the culmination of a talented director's struggle to make a genuinely good horror movie over the years, I find this to genuinely be James Wan's launch into stardom, and I really do think that it's worth checking out for what it is.

Sweet Home is a really peculiar little title....or two. You see, while it does have a cult following and recognized name among fans of more obscure horror (even by J-horror standards), it's really more for the video game. Yes, that's right, Sweet Home was released in conjunction with a licensed NES game directed by none other than the now-renowned video game director Shinji Mikami, creator of the Resident Evil franchise and who specifically directed the first game, its remake, and RE4, which is one of the best video games of all time. However it's really his work on Sweet Home that is credited as having officially birthed the Survival Horror genre of video games, and considering that it's a licensed game for the earliest and most technologically limited Nintendo home-console, that's pretty amazing.

That said, obviously the game had to base itself off of something, and while it has a number of differences from the film since it was co-developed alongside the movie's production in order to release on the same day, it does still largely take a lot of big cues from the movie's plot and twists. The movie itself may not be quite as memorable, but having seen it myself, I definitely can't deny that there is definitely a sense of unintentional campy entertainment-value that still makes it worth watching. The special effects are actually even kind of impressive for something so low-budget. I mean, yes, they have their own level of cheese to them, but there is some genuinely good practical design to most things in the movie.

Essentially, it deals with five people trying to excavate and study the abandoned mansion of a once-famous painter and his family long after they had died after living a life of tragedy. From there, it's your pretty typical haunted house movie, and the big twists are usually pretty easy to see coming. Even so, I can't help but feel that there was something about the genuine effort put into the movie, both in terms of its design as well as from its actors, that really helped to sell the whole thing for me. Nothing about it stands out as particularly very good, but it also still has a strange charm about it that kept me interested the entire way through, and while it's not something that I'd personally go back to revisit past an initial viewing, I'm certainly glad that I watched it once. This can be a fun flick if you are curious about an obscured and long-forgotten part of horror history.

I think I've heard this story before, but it also sounds new to me. Cool!

Time can certainly do a lot to change your perspective on a movie. When I first saw Hellboy over a decade ago, I was extremely disappointed in its lack of action and found the movie to be a bore. However, as I see the climate of comicbook films now, as well as how it was back then, I have a lot of appreciation for how unique of a movie this was since it's like nothing else from either that decade or this one. That isn't to say that Hellboy is a flawless movie. It still has its slow parts, and can feel rather clumsy at times with how it handles its plot and character development, but on the whole it's a much better movie than I initially realized.

The two obvious things that stand out here are Guillermo del Toro's excellent use of practical effects and cinematography to create some truly great visuals that still mostly hold up today. Beyond that, however, the thing that really makes both this and the sequel so appealing above anything else is Ron Perlman's performance as the titular Hellboy himself. I mean, in general the costume design in this movie is phenomenal, but I can't imagine how painstakingly long and difficult it must have been for an entire team to constantly apply hours-upon-hours worth of make-up and prosthetics onto Ron Perlman's face and body day-in and day-out. This is of course back when motion-capture technology was still fairly infantile, and only huge-budget endeavors such as The Lord of the Rings films could afford to use them, so comparatively they had to go old-school when dealing with characters like Hellboy and Abe in a mid-range-budget movie like this. That said, what these actors were able to accomplish with so much crap on them weighing them down is truly amazing, and it says a lot that despite being a role where nobody gets to properly see the actor's actual face, Ron Perlman has pretty much owned the role as Hellboy to the point that, just like with Hugh Jackman's portrayal of Wolverine or Robert Downey Jr.'s take on Tony Stark/Iron Man, I can't imagine any other actor taking that role without being immediately cast under the shadow of who came before them, and no amount of make-up or prosthetic-baggage could cover that up.

Now, as for why this film is featured in a month where we discuss horror-themed movies, that shouldn't be a problem for anyone to discern thanks to this movie's general set-up and amazing art-direction. While it may be a superhero film in essence, much like the Blade movies which we discussed last year, its roots and lore and sunk deep within the realms of horror, what with stuff like the great creature designs in the movie which are clearly inspired by old-fashioned gothic imagery of hellspawn, or the terrifying full-body Nazi costumes with those dreadful dead-eyed masks, or  the fact that our main character basically looks like a devil. Personally, I love it when horror-themed aesthetics are placed in the realm of another genre, and that helps contribute to this film's unique look and feel.

One knock that I do have against it is that the villain is pretty forgettable. If anything, the strongest parts of the movie are when the characters focus on their development and relationships with one another. While the third act is fun for what it is, it does make me realize just how little investment I had in the actual stakes of the plot, and the villain just didn't really phase me that much one way or the other. He was just someone that was there to be defeated, and in that regard the sequel substantially improved on the first movie.

Even so, any gripes aside, this is definitely a great comicbook movie and certainly a good movie to check out in the month of Halloween if you're in the mood for something a bit different than what you're used to.

Looking back on it, 2008 was a monumentally pivotal year for the state of comicbook movies. Two of the biggest films of all time in the genre were released in the same summer, Iron Man and The Dark Knight, the latter of which became the highest-grossing superhero movie in existence up to that point, though the former arguably became far more important and influential in the long run. However, sandwiched somewhere in-between those two behemoths was the sequel to the already niche Hellboy, and unfortunately having to compete in a summer with those two blockbusters pretty much spelled the death of this franchise as Hellboy II: The Golden Army was a relative flop at the box-office.

Now, as someone who genuinely enjoys all three of these movies, I say that in all seriousness and not just to sound different, having re-watched Hellboy II not once, but twice last year, it has since become my favorite of the three, and honestly one of my favorite films in the entire genre. There is so much that I just didn't appreciate about this movie back when it came out, but it really was ahead of its time in so many ways. For one thing, unlike most other comicbook movies, and much like the first movie, this is not a straight-up action movie as much as it is about these characters and their development, as well as this world and its mythology and lore. Thus, the movie focuses on things that appeal far more to me now than simply cool action and slick pacing. Hellboy II has some of the best world building that I've ever seen in this genre of film, and for as good as the set and costume designs as well as the practical effects were in the first movie, this one manages to absolutely surpass it in every way. Of course there is still more action here, and more use of CG, but it is interwoven so naturally into the movie's plot and pacing so well, and the visuals still hold up incredibly well eight whole years later, and will most likely still hold up several years from now.

However, what's most important is that this movie also improves both on what the first movie was particularly weak at, as well as the things that it already did really well. For an example of the latter, the character interactions were what made the first movie work, and in this film they are even better. Having characters have good chemistry in the heat of battle or an intense action scene is one thing, but I really appreciate how we got so many scenes of them conversing and playing off of each other in their natural element, when no imminent danger was going on, such as "Red" (Hellboy) and Liz trying to work on their relationship, or Abe developing romantic feelings of his own, or both Red and Abe getting hilariously drunk over said romantic problems that they both shared in common, as well as just about any interaction with any of the cast between them and Dr. Krauss (which is easily the best voice work that Seth MacFarlane has ever done, IMO). And wow was Dr. Krauss such a great new character. The movie sets him up one way and brilliantly subverts where you expect his character arc to go, and it really makes me sad that we never got a third film all the more, because I really wanted to see much more of this character (and really, all of these characters in general). He also had such a cool, unique ability and state of existence that is really, really out there for a comicbook movie, even by today's standards. As for an example of the former thing that I mentioned, with this movie improving on the weaknesses of the first, I mainly have to point to how much better the villain is here. While not one of the all-time greats of the genre by any stretch, Prince Nauda Silverlance is a nuanced villain with a compelling backstory and motivations behind his ambitions. While the titular Golden Army itself doesn't amount to quite as much as you might expect, it's thanks to Nauda being such a well-written villain that you do feel that the heroes are up against a legitimate threat for the entire movie.

So, yeah, while we may never be getting a Hellboy III, I am really glad that we at least got to see this film made, and if for some reason you haven't seen it, then I highly recommend it. And yes, just like the first movie, the other-worldly themes to this movie's art design alone makes it a perfect film to view during the Halloween season.

This is one that I've been meaning to check out for a while, now. I've heard great things about it, and it definitely has an interesting premise that seems right up my alley. Unfortunately, since I haven't seen it, I can't really comment on it, but I'll just leave that up to Avaitor this time since this is one of his picks.

Yeah, and this is actually my next rental from Netflix... which isn't here yet. :sweat:

I'll come back to it this week.

And this is yet another one that I've really been wanting to watch. It sounds like one of the more slower-paced but thoughtful horror movies in recent years. This would definitely be up my alley.

This one is fantastic. Not particularly scary, but exceptionally creepy. Very haunting atmosphere and interesting story. Performances are great too.

Another one that I suggested, but haven't god a chance to get to yet. I kind of wish that these were spaced separately, so I could have found more time for them.

Sorry about that. But, you can always still talk about these movies once you watch them. Also, it'd be nice if you told me when you expect to see some of these movies so that I don't accidentally put it up too early. For now I'll push some of your choices back until you say you're ready.


This is one of those films that was utterly panned by critics when it came out, but has slowly developed a strong cult following over time. Once again, I haven't seen this one so I can't make any comments on it, but while I'm not sure whether I'd enjoy it or not, it certainly does have my interest and I will check it out eventually. Good Bad Flicks actually did a really good video about the making of the movie, so at the very least I would recommend checking that out since there was a lot of interesting behind-the-scenes stuff about how much of a journey and challenge it was just to get this film made.

I mean, some of my movies aren't new to me, so I don't mind if you put, say, the Universal movies or The Beyond up for tomorrow, but I'm going to have to come back for Green Room and The Witch.

And I sadly haven't seen this one, either.

So, today was a busy day for me, and I'm pretty tired tonight and don't feel like writing too much. To be honest, it has also been a long while since I last re-watched this movies, so I can't comment on it much. I will say that while it can't hope to measure up to the original, and in and of itself is a pretty uninspired, tropey slasher film, I do still have a lot of nostalgia for it since it's one of my earliest experiences with a horror film in terms of the stuff that I grew up on, so I also can't ever find it in myself to really hate on this movie like certain others do. It's entertaining, dumb-fun, for what it is.

The only thing I liked about Halloween II was the cool pumpkin face they used for the cover.

As for the film itself...bleh.

So apparently at Halloween Horror Nights this year, they did a Halloween house, but focused on this one instead of the original. Why? I have no idea.

I saw this a couple of months ago, and thought that it had some cool moments, and the score's still classic, but I mainly wanted this here to ask what people think of the film's big twist.

Spoiler

Do you like that Laurie is Michael's sister? Because personally, I think it's a dumb idea. A big part of the original's staying power is how she's being stalked for no reason. That's way more terrifying than having a serial killer for a brother.

[close]

Quote from: Avaitor on October 13, 2016, 11:08:41 PMI saw this a couple of months ago, and thought that it had some cool moments, and the score's still classic, but I mainly wanted this here to ask what people think of the film's big twist.

Spoiler

Do you like that Laurie is Michael's sister? Because personally, I think it's a dumb idea. A big part of the original's staying power is how she's being stalked for no reason. That's way more terrifying than having a serial killer for a brother.

[close]

Pretty much all the "twists" in the series are stupid and completely demystify Michael's character.

You thought this twist was bad? Wait till you see Halloween 6.

Spoiler

Both versions. :sly:

[close]

Simply put, I doubt that I'll have any time to post tonight. Avaitor, if you want to put up any of your choices that you've already seen, then I'd be all for it.

I'm simply way too tired to write anything tonight, so I'll save my thoughts for tomorrow. I did however find it fitting to bring up this film this month, though, in commemoration of the legendary and incredibly talented comedian Gene Wilder, after his passing earlier this year.

I'm sorry that I didn't have time to post last night. It's homecoming week, and I was out with friends. And tonight is the game, so I'll have to miss that, as well.

But this is a dynamite comedy, and proof that Mel Brooks wasn't the same without Gene Wilder. His movies without Wilder just weren't the same.

Young Frankenstein is one of those comedies that you can watch multiple times and still catch tons of new jokes that you missed the first time around. Like Avaitor, I find that Mel Brooks' films really had an explosive energy to them when he was collaborating with Gene Wilder. There's just something about how Wilder's acting fit Brooks' directing style so well that made their movies work so well.

The interesting thing here is that parodying the film version of Frankenstein was hardly an original idea. Abbott and Costello did it pretty well two decades earlier, but I think what makes YF shine in its own right is just how much more crude and adult it's willing to go with some of its humor. While there are plenty of great jokes and gags that got me to like the movie when I was a kid, there were a ton more that flew over my head until I re-watched it years later, and there really is a very witty satire of Hollywood films of the time underneath all of the surface hilarity that adds a certain layer of nuance to the movie's humor.

I would've liked to say more, but I'm already running late on posting the movie for this night, so I'm just going to go ahead and move onto that.

So, I recently realized that we hadn't discussed this movie in a previous 31 NOH, and immediately decided to rectify this by replacing one of my earlier choices with it. As far as his horror novels go, Misery is easily the best adaptation of a Stephen King novel that I've ever seen to date. Stanley Kubrick's The Shining is a great film, but as an adaptation it has very little to do with the actual source material. Misery on the other hand succeeds at retaining much of the feel of a Stephen King story while still working well as a cinematic experience in its own right.

But, of course, what really makes this movie work is Kathy Bates' now legendary, haunting performance as Annie. James Caan may get top billing by having his name featured first in the promotional material for the movie, but it's Bates who people remember as the true star of the film. And in that regard, what really makes her such a great horror villain is that there is absolutely nothing supernatural about her. She's just an incredibly obsessive and psychotic woman who really feels like she could exist in real life, and that's what makes the scary aspect of this movie actually work. While it is a seemingly ridiculous scenario, having a famous writer trapped in the house of a crazy fan and being forced to write against their will in order to survive, there is just something to how grounded this story feels as it plays out that makes it seem almost plausible enough to happen in real life.

While the movie isn't necessarily as well remembered as most other classic horror movies, even including some of the weaker Stephen King adaptations, it still has earned itself a strong following from dedicated horror fans for its brilliant execution. This is definitely one of those movies that I just have to sit down and re-watch once every few years to admire how such a simple story can be so great and so terrifying based on near perfect execution alone.

This is yet another one that I haven't seen, but I recall Avaitor stating that he has, so I'm sure that he would have something to say about it. I do really need to brush up on my Italian horror films one of these days, though.

Fulci is the master of giallo, and this is probably his best work. A genuinely terrifying work that uses gore to an intense and useful extreme. It's also gorgeous as all hell.

This would be a good introduction to his work, and is probably his best overall.

I think that I'll make a post tonight for a change, if EK is okay with that.


I hope that you don't mind that I add a little bit of history here. So initially, Frankenstein was to be directed by Robert Florey, and have Bela Lugosi play the Monster fresh after his take on Dracula. This didn't come to fruition, as Lugosi had no interest in playing the Monster, and wanted to play Dr. Frankenstein instead. Meanwhile, Carl Laemmle Jr (one of the core voices of the classic age of Universal horror) wasn't happy with Florey's take, and decided to replace him with James Whale. So this Poe adaptation was approved as a compromise of sorts, to give Florey and Lugosi a job.

But Laemmle wasn't happy with how the film was turning out, and cut almost a third of it. :P

So yeah, this is kind of a mess, with a super rushed first act, and a third act that's kind of really embarrassing. Not to mention that this doesn't have a whole lot to do with the original Poe story. That said, I think it's a fun watch, arguably in spite of itself, especially with a surprisingly solid middle segment that has some genuinely spooky bits. It's also gorgeously shot like many of these films, using light and shadow excellently, which looks good on a decent TV.

I feel like you've gotta watch at least one or two Universal classics during October, and this is a good one to watch with a few friends to laugh along to. Obviously we've come a long way since, but movies like these (as well as some of the better ones) are good primers to spooky festivities.

Quote from: Avaitor on October 17, 2016, 04:53:33 PMI think that I'll make a post tonight for a change, if EK is okay with that.

It's like you read my mind. I was almost about to ask you to cover for me tonight. :thumbup:

Believe it or not, I came across this one in a bargain bin a few weeks ago. I regret not picking it up, but maybe I'll check if it's still there the next time that I go shopping.

So in the span of 24 or so hours, I got to watch two of the movies we've previously covered, one new to me- Green Room and Young Frankenstein

Young Frankenstein is as great as always, and I stand by my earlier statement that Mel Brooks did it best with Gene Wilder. The rest of the cast is great, however, and nearly every joke lands. It's all you can ask for in a comedy.

Also, here's something I recently learned- so apparently back in the early 90's when Disney's MGM Studios was out for a little, attendance was down due to a lack of rides. Michael Eisner was looking for a fresh new ride to bring more people in, particularly older park-goers, and was looking into a non-Disney owned property to make a ride out of. So he contacted Mel Brooks, being friends, and they were making plans for a Young Frankenstein-themed ride. That fell through, but before it did, Brooks suggested that Eisner look into something based off of The Twilight Zone, which is how we got the Tower of Terror!

And Green Room. Damn. Okay, so the plot isn't great- there are a couple of obvious holes, and it has some dead ends which could have easily been fixed. But on every other level, this succeeds. The characters are well-defined and given great performances around, to even where the neo-Nazis are made human, albeit far from likable or sympathetic. The tension is incredible, and the build-up to the explosive second half is paced well. Blood and gore are prevalent, but used tastefully, which is another factor to help it stand out from modern horror. And the use of color and lighting is out of this world. I can't recommend this enough!

As far as horror remakes go, or just remakes in general, this is among the very best. It takes the general idea of the original, but does its own thing with the concept. The special effects are amazing, and still hold up today. It speaks a lot about how classy this whole film feels that despite having some truly grotesque body horror, I don't really think of it as a body horror movie. To me it's a science-fiction and romantic tragedy at heart, and the chemistry between Goldblum and Davis's characters is truly what makes the whole film work. It really does help that you are thoroughly invested in Goldblum's character before his bodily degradation, so when things really start getting bad, you can't help but really feel his pain as he is trying to prevent his gradual decline into becoming and unworldly creature.

In all honesty, David Cronenberg's The Fly is still my favorite cinematic work of his.

It's a pretty terrific feat, and easily has some of Cronenberg'd coolest concepts. There's a lot to dig here.

But man, why is it that we're the only ones here? Foggle comments sporadically, but Talon's MIA, and Spark hasn't commented at all.

Easily one of the best horror remakes alongside John Carpenter's The Thing.

Once again, I'm way too tired to post tonight. For now I'll just say that this is another one of my favorite horror remakes, one which I feel manages to surpass the original, and I say that as someone who still feels that the original genuinely holds up.

Both versions are very good. I can't decide if I prefer this one or not, but it's a terrific piece of 70's sci-fi.

So, I did get the chance to re-watch this one recently. Fright Night is a movie with a really great set-up for being a horror-comedy classic. I love the idea of a 50's style horror movie host for a low-brow TV channel becoming a legitimate vampire hunter by teaming up with a hardcore fan of classic horror movies. That said, the actual execution is....OK, I guess. Yeah, the movie is kind of fun, but also doesn't hold up nearly as well as I remember. It's overly cheesy to a fault in many places, and while I certainly can't say that it was a boring watch, it's probably something that I wouldn't go back to again after having seen it as an adult. Basically, it's just alright.

I will say that the practical effects, especially in the makeup department, are still as great as ever, though. Easily among the best in that category from the 80's, only falling behind the likes of films like John Carpenter's The Thing and Aliens.

I'm with you there. It's a pretty cool concept, but it's a tad too silly and plain for my taste otherwise.

But it doesn't sound like the remake did anything better with it. Which is a shame, since I think there's something here.

Avaitor, could you post tonight? I really won't be able to. You can pick any movie you want.

Part Phantom of the Opera, part Picture of Dorian Gray, part Faust and part Tommy, you can't go wrong here. This is a blast from when De Palma was still trying to find himself. Obviously he's made better movies since, but this is highly recommended viewing.

I've talked about this one before, but Gremlins 2 is one of the funniest and most underrated sequels of all time. I hold the original in a similar regard to movies like Fright Night: good for what it is, but ultimately a product of its time and not really holding up the same value that it once did, due to some overly cheesy comedy and scares. To be honest, as beloved of a cult following as he has, the same could be said for most films directed by Joe Dante in the 80's (especially The Howling).

However, this sequel just went absolutely nuts with the concept, and is far better for it. It may be more focused on comedy, but it actually manages to nail it this time, and the fact that the Gremlins are the true stars of this movie still lets it retain its horror theme. What I really love about the film, though, is how unique and creative the various Gremlin characters are in both design and personality. The Brainy Gremlin is my personal favorite.

And come on, you just can't beat having a Christopher Lee cameo.

ParaNorman is the second film by Laika, and was my favorite of their movies until Kubo and the Two Strings came out earlier this year. That said, this is still top-tier stuff, and considering that this was following up Coraline, that's no small feat. We have a ton of movies that try to pay tribute to the 80's, and heck, with Netflix's Stranger Things having been put out this year, it has even become a thing in television. But while most movies focus too much on the nostalgia aspect of those movies and trying to recreate a formula that was clearly a product of its time, where ParaNorman succeeds is in how it twists the formula to its benefit. Clearly the people making this movie had a lot of love and respect for the kinds of movies that this was both parodying and paying homage to, and that shows in just how much heart the movie really has in addition to still trying to tap into that legitimate creep-factor that was ever-present in Coraline. But in the same regard, it's that very understanding of the nature of 80's horror/comedy flicks which allows this movie to truly stand out, as it subverts many of the tropes that you would normally expect to see, and adds layers of nuance to the characters and back-story of the town that ends up making the movie feel like so much more than most of what it was inspired by. For that reason, it's still one of my favorite animated films of the decade, so far.

Yeah, I don't care for Stranger Things since it tries so hard to remake the 80's Spielberg vibe (which I'm already not a big fan of), and does nothing new or special with to my tastes. ParaNorman has its obvious ties to that period, but Laika are a bit more clever with how they do their storytelling, and allow for this to turn into a strong story about the effects of bullying in a way that's relevant to today, and is ultimately timeless.

And the animation is fantastic, too.

Well, to be clear, I do personally enjoy Stranger Things, and I'd argue that it also has more nuance to it than most of what it's inspired by. That said, I also feel that the one weakness of the first season is how it does follow the predictable path for most of the storylines except for Nancy's.

There's nothing really wrong with Stranger Things, but it's not really for me. I do recall you saying that you're a fan before, though, so if I tried to make it sound like you were similar indifferent to it as I am, then I apologize.

Also, in terms of Laika, I really should watch The Boxtrolls already. Especially since I own it now. Until then, Laika are 3 for 3 for me.

I'm once again very exhausted tonight, so for now I'll just say that this is another one of those Stephen King stories adapted into a movie that always resonated with me because of how it feels more like a legitimate drama about the struggles of a teenage girl, with the supernatural and horror elements strictly relegated to the background until the very end.

This is still one of my favorite King stories, on page and screen, even if it's a little rough around the edges. Carrie's abilities are even less defined than most of his later psychic children stories, but I really like everything else.

Avaitor, could you post up one of yours tonight? On top of being busy, we're running out of days here and I only have two or three of my own choices left anyways, so I could use some of your picks to fill in some spots.

Alright, guess I have no choice since tonight is almost over.


This one is a film that I've come to appreciate much more over time, thanks to Fincher's unconventional directing style and the great acting. While the movie can feel slow for some, the build-up really works for me, and makes the final scene all the more disturbing in a way that both unnerves and stays with me.

Hey, sorry, I was out tonight. But I'll try to post tomorrow, which will be another wild card.

Seven didn't impress me too much the first time I saw it, but I've really warmed up to it in recent years, and consider it a dynamite mystery flick, which gets downright terrifying in parts. I also have a bizarre minority opinion that Zodiac is an inferior remake of Seven, but that's another discussion.

Could you take over tonight if possible, Avaitor?

I really hope that you don't mind, Avaitor, but I'm going to post up one of your choices tonight since we only have a few nights left and we'll run out of room for them otherwise. If you haven't seen it yet, we can always come back to discuss it later.


I remember seeing this one a long time ago as a kid. It was running on some late night horror movie marathon special from what I recall, but what I actually remember of the film is very vague. It mostly just came off as weird to me at the time.

That said, it's definitely one of those movies that I want to revisit some day.

I'm so sorry- I was going to try to post tonight, but we stayed out much later than expected, so that didn't end up happening.

But what perfect luck, you picked the movie that I was going to choose, which I watched just before!

This is a really interesting addition to the Universal horror canon, as it was almost the last film made from that golden period, and would have been if not for a later double-feature reissue of Dracula and Frankenstein inspiring the studio to give the latter franchise another chance. This one didn't do too well, which makes sense given the troubled production (James Whale almost directed it, but the script he wanted had zero chance of making it past the Hays Code, so it might have been even gayer than it is now), and just how weird it is. The lack of Dracula isn't too surprising, but it must have hurt (Van Helsing does return, but his material isn't too interesting), but the structure is kind of all over the place.

The reception has changed in recent years, and I like it about as much as the original Dracula, maybe a little less. It's less stagey and more theatrical, although it does lose the Expressionist shading that makes the original still worth digging, so take what you will of that. What really makes this interesting is Holden as the titular daughter, who is fantastic. She has a slightly different vibe to Lugosi, but somehow still compliments his performance well, even standing on her own for many of the weaker scenes here. I recommend this if you're even remotely interested in the Dracula lore. It's not the best, but there's some cool moments, and it's only an hour of your time.

I actually haven't received the copy I ordered in the mail yet, but it should be here by Halloween time. Good enough for me!

This isn't really scary at all, but it's a pretty unique and surprisingly fun look at vampires that somehow doesn't pussify them ala Twilight, True Blood, Vampire Diaries etc. It all comes down to Swinton and Hiddleston's performances, which are great and sell their ancient love story pretty well, as it even elevates the film beyond its mediocre production values. And I really like the musical references throughout, as there's a lot to dig up in that regard.

I think this is worth a look for fans of vampire lore. If you like your vampire stories with more horror to them, then it may not do much for you, but if you want something a little different, here you are.

I've been meaning to post about these movies for a while, but long story short, I'm a fan. Firstly, the "based on true case files" angle is really just a marketing ploy. You can tell that the writers of the film along with director James Wan are more interested in just crafting effective horror movies and take as many liberties as they need to with stories that by all reliable accounts were big hoaxes. Where these films work is in their execution.

To me, as far as modern horror movies go, while I personally find that the more unique and experimental ones resonate with me more, these movies tend to work for me as modern takes on traditional ghost stories. That is to say, what they lack in originality they make up for in the love and respect for their craft. In this regard, I find that the first film is by far the more effective and stronger of the two, but the sequel released earlier this year was still surprisingly well done and has some masterfully directed scenes of its own. I think more than anything, these show just what a good grasp James Wan has on the classic horror formula as a director. In his more experimental films he can try and twist that to create something unique, like with the last third of Insidious, but in these movies he does a really good job of showcasing his ability to follow the guidelines of classic haunting and possession movies to near perfection, while still allowing these stories to have their own flavor to them. And it helps that pretty much all of the actors are well-cast, with stars Farmiga and Wilson really holding both pictures together as the paranormal investigators meant to be both our expository guides while also serving as surrogate characters to experience the supernatural elements of these films along with the audience.

Neither of these are necessarily going to be remembered as classics, but for what they are they are well made, old-fashioned spook flicks.

You know, my apartment complex recently did a screening of the sequel, but I forget when it was, and since I haven't seen the first, I should probably skip it.

But I am interested in these movies, and the fact that the sequel is supposed to be pretty damn good does make me a little more interested than I already was. Because it's so rare, and welcome, for a horror sequel to stand on its own ground.

If you go in with the right expectations, I really think you'll enjoy them. Personally I find the first movie to be far superior in terms of characters and atmosphere, but the second still proves its worth through some riskier and less predictable inversions of certain tropes, and in its own right is still a good modern horror movie.

As for Only Lovers Left Alive, is it streaming anywhere? I've been interested in checking it out for a while.

Also, BTW, feel free to post up any movie that you want to talk about tonight. I do however have plans for tomorrow and Halloween, though.

Alright, it's already almost midnight where I'm at, so I'll just go ahead and post tonight's movie.


So, I did mean to post this on Devil's Night, but seeing as how it's already technically October 30th for those of you who live on the East Coast, I suppose it still sort of counts. I just wanted to give Avaitor a chance to pick one more movie if he wanted, so I decided to just go ahead and get this one out of the way now instead of later.

I recently re-watched the movie on Netflix, and while it does succumb to some of the cheesiness of early comic-book action movies, especially in the climate of the 90's era, this one still holds up remarkably well for the most part, all things considered. While Brandon Lee's tragic death did elevate the awareness of the film, much like Heath Ledger's Joker, it was his brilliant performance that people remembered rather than the fact that he died during the making of the film. Really, it's rather amazing that they managed to finish the film despite not filming all of the scenes that they wanted him in, especially considering that if you didn't know anything about the movie's production, you wouldn't even guess that there was any content missing from it since his character is in it for the perfect amount of time.

What makes this film work for me, though, is how despite its gothic/occult look, vengeance-driven plot, and R-rating, it was ultimately a movie with a pretty heartfelt undertone about dealing with loss and grief, and the acceptance that must ultimately come with it. I think that this is perfectly exemplified by how Eric Draven ultimately gives the big bad of the movie what he deserves by confronting all of his pain and suffering and passing it all onto him to experience in an instant. While this could come off as unintentionally funny emo bull-shit, the way that it's actually executed in the movie had quite an emotional ring to it.

The Crow is by no means a perfect movie, but to me it manages to prevail as more than just a product of its time. It's a well-made film with good acting and more importantly, a good story with pretty touching themes....that happens to be wrapped up in the guise of a horror action movie. Pretty amazing feat, all things considered.

And also, it has Ernie Hudson in it. Any movie with Ernie Hudson in it is automatically elevated a level in quality. Well....except for that OTHER comic book movie he was in....

I'm sorry, I was at a murder mystery party, and didn't get to post beforehand. And I don't know if Only Lovers Left Alive is streaming or not.

One thing that I like about The Crow is how reflective of 90's rock the soundtrack is. You have metal bands that were cool to listen to, like Pantera, 80's acts that were still relevant like The Cure, industrial like NIN, and of course grunge via STP. Not all of it is to my taste per say, but it's definitely a piece of the 90's.

Otherwise, it's a good, if sometimes cheesy comic book adaptation. We've had better ones since and even before, but plenty of worse ones throughout. Enough of the movie works for it to hold up pretty well.

You know, I was going to see Tim Burton's first foray into feature length stop-motion (which he wrote the original storybook of and produced, but did not direct) in theaters, but my girlfriend is not up for going out tonight, and I honestly am not either. I've seen Nightmare Before Christmas a billion times, though, while this one is a bit less seen by me.

It's a good one, though. Danny Elfman's music couldn't possibly top his setlist from Nightmare, but nothing can. What makes the movie work is the characters, as Emily is fantastic, especially with her understanding at the end. Victor and Victoria are also likable characters, and their blossoming love comes off as surprisingly effective, just as Victor more than holds his own as your average skeptic when he's away. The animation and character design is also impressive, as this helped to prove that Henry Selick wasn't the only game in town. And the visual design compliments them wonderfully, as it takes you into the Gothic atmosphere that this story tries to tell you.

In recent years, I've come to accept that Tim Burton is more of an inconsistent director at best. His 80's and early 90's films aren't as fantastic all across the board (I personally can't stand Edward Scissorhands), and he didn't stop making good movies after Ed Wood like plenty of people say. True, Alice and Dark Shadows just plain suck, and Miss Peregrine's mixed reception leaves me skeptical (the subject matter and trailers didn't interest me, but I've heard from a few Burton/film fans that I trust that it's worth a watch) but this, Big Fish, and Sweeney Todd show that he isn't too far removed from good material. And I should probably get to Frankenweenie at some point.

So, being that this may very well be the last time that I do one of these threads given how I'm both busier these days with my job, and the general lack of interest from everyone on the board except for Avaitor and myself, I figured that I wanted to put some thought into what the last movie would be to bring up. I knew I wanted something that was either classic or an adaptation of a classic horror story, but that was also a bit different than what one would expect of a typical horror movie. Then I thought of this movie, re-watched it, realized how much I still really enjoy it nearly a decade later (it's easily Burton's best film of the 2000's, and my third favorite movie that he's made overall). It adapts a classic play which itself was adapted from a classic story first told in a British paper serialization, so it can definitely be considered a classic. At the same time, it's a relatively recent movie in a history of over a century of horror movies, so it combines the best of old and new, telling a familiar story with modern film-making techniques. And on top of all of that, it's a musical, so it feels very different from any other live-action horror film.

What makes this movie work so well really are the performances, though. Burton and Depp have made for a brilliant team-up at times and a bizarrely awful one on many other occasions. Sweeney Todd thankfully manages to be a case of the former and Depp's performance really works here, somehow managing to be both absurdly over the top yet meaningfully subdued when he needs to be as well. It also helps that it's such a tried and true story that has managed to prevail for so many years for a reason. It's a clear reminder that horror does not just have to be relegated to supernatural things like ghosts or vampires, but at its core can really be boiled down to the corruption and dark depths of the human soul, which this story is all about. This is something that Burton has a clear understanding of, and that's why this movie really works in its horror theme.

Also, for the record, it wasn't my intention to feature two Tim Burton films in a row. I had no idea that Avaitor would pick Corpse Bride, but since I didn't get a chance to comment on it last night, I should say that I honestly enjoy it, and find it to be rather underrated. It's not a masterpiece or classic by any stretch, but it's a genuinely well-done film with the right amount of heart and humor to it, and it's worth watching once every few Halloweens in my book. I should also mention

Also: HAPPY HALLOWEEN, EVERYONE! :joy:

I'm sorry that I didn't post on Halloween, but Sweeney Todd is my favorite Sondheim production, and this has got to be the best adaptation of his work to film. Obviously Helena Bonham Carter is no match for Angela Lansbury, but I actually do kind of like how she and Depp aren't great singers. It gives the film a claustrophobic vibe that adds to the experience, and makes each cut feel all the more real. Also, this is a good choice to make in tribute of Alan Rickman. And I should have done Hellraiser in tribute to Lemmy.

I really like this series, but it doesn't look like there's much sense of continuing it given how low the activity was this year. I think one of the biggest problems is that we didn't have time to watch the movies that are new to us, which looks like will become more of a reality as we get older. It's a shame, since we've gotten some great discussion out of these before.