[quote]audiogarden1 wrote:
Alright so maybe i didnt miss out too much by not seeing Cabin in the Woods…[/quote]
I think that’s pretty much the opposite of what was said in this thread… ? Just watch it dude. Learn as little about it as possible beforehand[/quote]
The impression im getting is its just a mash-up of elements/characters from every classic horror film jammed into one movie trying to pay homage to the genre. Am i wrong?[/quote]
I’d say yes and no. It’s one of those movies that’s tough to explain without giving too much away. But it’s definitely a good movie.
As far as the Evil Dead remake, I think it looks pretty solid, like what it “might’ve” been if it was a straight horror not black comedy originally, and I’ll be sure to catch it. I’m still a little bummed I missed the Evil Dead musical when it was playing in NY a few years ago. Supposedly there was a “splatter zone” where the first few rows that got sprayed with “blood” at some points.
And of the subject of remakes, I saw Texas Chainsaw 3D over the weekend. The 3D was a waste of money, as usual/as expected (but that’s the only way it was showing around here). Overall it was okay, but I thought the ending was very flimsy. On the bright side though, they pretty much ignore every TCM film after the original first (not the recent remake with Biel), so that’s the only storyline they’re working from.
[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
There was a film out not long ago (Pontypool) where the scariest parts were the ones in the beginning where you saw nothing, but your imagination went wild upon hearing how a man outside was describing the horror that was occurring around him.
[/quote]
Wow, thanks for all of that ID. Sounds pretty great and I’m not quite sure how I’ve overlooked it. I will definitely scout it out and give it a view. A horror movie that pulls of minimalist successfully truly is impressive, and this seems to fit that bill.
Specifically, wasn’t Evil Dead 2, in some ways, more of a reworking of Evil Dead, rather than being an actual sequel?
II basically ignored 90% of everything that happened in the first film, and poops on anyone with any pretense of being a nit-picker.
I mean, it’s more like Sam Raimi is just having incredible fun with a concept, rather than making any sort of continuous, meaningfully connected epic. He makes Evil Dead II so damned awesome that nobody really gives a crap whether or not it was really connected all that much to the first movie.
Given that tendency in the rest of the franchise, I’m not all that worried about this remake/reboot/sequel/whatever.
[quote]Elegua360 wrote:
Is the Evil Dead series really a ‘trilogy?’
Specifically, wasn’t Evil Dead 2, in some ways, more of a reworking of Evil Dead, rather than being an actual sequel?
II basically ignored 90% of everything that happened in the first film, and poops on anyone with any pretense of being a nit-picker.
I mean, it’s more like Sam Raimi is just having incredible fun with a concept, rather than making any sort of continuous, meaningfully connected epic. He makes Evil Dead II so damned awesome that nobody really gives a crap whether or not it was really connected all that much to the first movie.
Given that tendency in the rest of the franchise, I’m not all that worried about this remake/reboot/sequel/whatever.[/quote]
I was just thinking the same thing. I always thought of Evil Dead II as just Evil Dead I with more money and a little more time write some shit down in a script but not like a traditional sequel.
[quote]SSC wrote:
… I’ve been much more impressed with much “quieter” horror films in recent years … [/quote]
There was a film out not long ago (Pontypool) where the scariest parts were the ones in the beginning where you saw nothing, but your imagination went wild upon hearing how a man outside was describing the horror that was occurring around him.
Actually, Roybot once wrote up an excellent post about it:
[/quote]
Thanks, ID. Much appreciated! Pontypool started out as a radio play, I think that’s why the radio bulletins in the movie are so affecting.
“Your blatant attempts to nitpick my posts are getting boring. I couldn’t care less if you know more about movies than I do. Stop trying so hard.”
I’m not ‘trying hard’ to nitpick roy baby, you said Jesus dies at the end of TPOTC, I just
very simply corrected you and said that he didn’t.
HEEEEY, wait a minute, maybe you were confused and saw ‘Life Of Brian’ instead?
Don’t get mad roybot, nobody’s perfect…Always look on the Bright side of Life.
[quote]SSC wrote:
… I’ve been much more impressed with much “quieter” horror films in recent years … [/quote]
There was a film out not long ago (Pontypool) where the scariest parts were the ones in the beginning where you saw nothing, but your imagination went wild upon hearing how a man outside was describing the horror that was occurring around him.
Actually, Roybot once wrote up an excellent post about it:
[/quote]
Thanks, ID. Much appreciated! Pontypool started out as a radio play, I think that’s why the radio bulletins in the movie are so affecting.[/quote]
Makes sense, and for me it translated very effectively on film. There was somehow a greater sense of realism NOT seeing any zombies. The verbal reporting of the “traffic guy” was truly terrifying to listen to, because my own imagination was building a picture of his description. I wasn’t all pleased with how the film ended up, but the earlier parts were top notch and worth the watch.
As far as Horror Films go, one the few that goes straight to psyche and chills
to bone is David Lynch’s ERASERHEAD.
Don’t watch this alone in dark room because I saw this one uninteruppted in the
middle of the friggin DAY not knowing much about it after a friend o’ mine handed
me a VHS copy years ago and told me just to, ‘watch it’…wow, not much disturbs this
jaded filmgoer…an absolutely terrifying and original classic.
[quote]Karado wrote:
As far as Horror Films go, one the few that goes straight to psyche and chills
to bone is David Lynch’s ERASERHEAD.
Don’t watch this alone in dark room because I saw this one uninteruppted in the
middle of the friggin DAY not knowing much about it after a friend o’ mine handed
me a VHS copy years ago and told me just to, ‘watch it’…wow, not much disturbs this
jaded filmgoer…an absolutely terrifying and original classic. [/quote]
One of my fave films of all time, and although it is disturbing and creepy (alternating between funny and pathetic at times), I didn’t find it terrifying.
Not to get off-topic, but I’ve always dreamed of seeing a film adaptation of Kafka’s “The Metamorphosis”, and the ONLY filmmaker whom I think could pull it off effectively and accurately would be David Lynch.
[quote]Karado wrote:
“Your blatant attempts to nitpick my posts are getting boring. I couldn’t care less if you know more about movies than I do. Stop trying so hard.”
I’m not ‘trying hard’ to nitpick roy baby, you said Jesus dies at the end of TPOTC, I just
very simply corrected you and said that he didn’t.
HEEEEY, wait a minute, maybe you were confused and saw ‘Life Of Brian’ instead?
Don’t get mad roybot, nobody’s perfect…Always look on the Bright side of Life. [/quote]
You’ve been looking for a way to redeem yourself ever since your spectacular Blade Runner trivia fail. "Jesus didn’t die " ain’t it. You must have missed the part where he DIED for our sins - they spent a fair chunk of the movie showing his execution. I know Aramaic is a dead language but you might have absorbed that little tidbit from every day conversation without having to wait for the dubbed version.
[quote]SSC wrote:
… I’ve been much more impressed with much “quieter” horror films in recent years … [/quote]
There was a film out not long ago (Pontypool) where the scariest parts were the ones in the beginning where you saw nothing, but your imagination went wild upon hearing how a man outside was describing the horror that was occurring around him.
Actually, Roybot once wrote up an excellent post about it:
[/quote]
Thanks, ID. Much appreciated! Pontypool started out as a radio play, I think that’s why the radio bulletins in the movie are so affecting.[/quote]
Makes sense, and for me it translated very effectively on film. There was somehow a greater sense of realism NOT seeing any zombies. The verbal reporting of the “traffic guy” was truly terrifying to listen to, because my own imagination was building a picture of his description. I wasn’t all pleased with how the film ended up, but the earlier parts were top notch and worth the watch.
[/quote]
I didn’t like the ending at first. It seemed random and anti-climactic, but I think it was a logical conclusion of the preceding events. The disease is unique in that it attacks people through spoken communication: its entry point is a certain word (ground zero seemed to be the missing cat’s name, Honey), then it hijacks the word, warps its meaning through repetition (a symptom of the infection) and forces the host to act on the new, violent meaning.
[Pontypool SPOILERS]
I don’t think they were ever cured. They managed to reverse the effects of the plague but instead of wanting to kill each other, they became infatuated with each other - hence the perfect romantic movie ending.
"You’ve been looking for a way to redeem yourself ever since your spectacular Blade Runner trivia fail. “Jesus didn’t die " ain’t it. You must have missed the part where he DIED for our sins - they spent a fair chunk of the movie showing his execution. I know Aramaic is a dead language but you might have absorbed that little tidbit from every day conversation without having to wait for the dubbed version.”
Well DOOOOONEE roybot! A few more semi-eloquent posts like that and you OWN BE BRO,
I’m almost intimidated, and I do agree Yeshua DID die for our sins as in TPOTC, and I’m
a filthy rag…too many hollywood biblical movies get it wrong, too somber characters
looking upwards at the sky, meek…when in REALITY they were just like us, mostly assholes,
womanizers like Solomon whose harem of women would make Hugh Hefner blush, yet I’m certain
he’s gonna be in Heaven, why wouldn’t he, he wrote Proverbs fer crying out loud.
And nice try on the Blade Runner thingy…not fallin’ for that one my friend as you could
have elaborated your position initially with a simple “Spoiler Alert” post yet you slickly
waltzed around that one when asked…bravo.
[quote]Karado wrote:
"You’ve been looking for a way to redeem yourself ever since your spectacular Blade Runner trivia fail. “Jesus didn’t die " ain’t it. You must have missed the part where he DIED for our sins - they spent a fair chunk of the movie showing his execution. I know Aramaic is a dead language but you might have absorbed that little tidbit from every day conversation without having to wait for the dubbed version.”
Well DOOOOONEE roybot! A few more semi-eloquent posts like that and you OWN BE BRO,
I’m almost intimidated…I do agree , Yeshua DID die for our sins, and I’m
a filthy rag…too many hollywood biblical movies get it wrong, too somber characters
looking upwards at the sky, meek…when in REALITY they were just like us, mostly assholes,
womanizers, etc. King Solomon who’s harem of women would make Hugh Hefner blush, yet I’m certain
he’s gonna be in Heaven, why wouldn’t he, he wrote Proverbs fer crying out loud…complicated stuff.
And nice try on the Blade Runner thingy…not fallin’ for that one my friend as you could
have elaborated your position initially with a simple “Spoiler Alert” post yet you slickly
waltzed around that one when asked…bravo.
Supposedly there was a “splatter zone” where the first few rows that got sprayed with “blood” at some points.
