Horrorcram XV: Let's Scare Corrierino To Death
Discuss anything you want.
Takoma1
Re: Horrorcram XV: Let's Scare Corrierino To Death
Post by Takoma1 » Tue Dec 24, 2019 1:46 am
They Come Knocking (Into the Dark: June)
Following the Mother's Day entry is the Father's Day entry, and it's another mixed bag.
A man named Nicholas takes his two daughters, Clair and Maggie, on a cross-country RV trip. We can immediately pick up on tensions between the three, and through flashbacks we learn more and more the death of their mother. As the family camps in a desert, strange figures appear and begin to torment them, and one of the creatures bears are familiar face.
Once again the concept isn't bad and there's some decently spooky imagery scattered throughout. The interpersonal relationships are the best part of the film--with the older daughter blaming her father for his decision to take their mother off of life support--and it gives a basic level of interest to their story.
Unfortunately, however, the whole thing ends up in a rather trite place. Who the creatures are and what they want gets very muddled. The ending is kind of like "What . . . ?".
All of these films are okay, but they never seem to have both good concepts and good execution all the way through. The next one that I'm watching, "Culture Shock" is supposed to be one of the better entries, so I'm looking forward to it.
Culture Shock (Into the Dark: July)
Now this was more like it.
When it comes to a made-for-TV anthology films, standards are naturally a little lower. But this one now joins Pooka! as a film that I'd actually feel good about recommending.
Marisol is a young woman trying to flee Mexico for the US. In a quick flashback sequence we come to understand that she paid thousands of dollars to her boyfriend to help smuggle her across the border, only to have him rape her and leave her, absconding with her money.
Having saved up again, Marisol is ready to made another run for it. Only this time she's very, very pregnant. Mixed into a group that includes a boy named Ricky and a tattooed man named Santo, Marisol hopes to protect herself long enough to make it across the border.
When things go wrong at the border crossing, Marisol is being pursued across the desert, only to black out and wake up in a lovely pastel dress in a picture perfect home and no longer pregnant. Mysteriously able to speak perfect English, Marisol finds herself in a Stepford-eaque community largely populated by other Latino people. Stuck in a Groundhog Day-like loop of preparing for the town's 4th of July celebration, Marisol must figure out what is happening to her.
Finally, an episode with some teeth! And, dare I say it, some nuance!
This one has a lower rating on IMDb than some of the other entries, but a quick browse of the reviews shows that this is largely due to the film's "liberal politics".
It would have been very easy for this film to be a rip-off Get Out (and it does owe a lot to that film) with the evil white people versus the innocent Mexican immigrants. But the film is very clear about the predatory habits of the people on both sides of the border. The immigrants are in a vulnerable position, and they encounter both kindness and cruelty at the hands of both Mexicans and Americans.
I really enjoyed the lead performance from Martha Higareda as Marisol. She's able to portray both strength and vulnerability as she tries to figure out what is happening to her. I also like the supporting performances from Richard Cabral as Santo and Shawn Ashmore as Thomas, the "Mayor" of the perfect town.
If you have Hulu, I recommend this one.
Post by Wooley » Tue Dec 24, 2019 5:02 am
crumbsroom wrote: ↑
Let the tyranny of narrative go!!! Think of how many more movies you will love!!!
That said, I don't think Midsommar is all that narratively problematic. No doubt there are some issues, but reduced to its basics, there really isn't that much to fuck up here.
I think I understand people's narrative complaints of this even less then final act complaints of Hereditary.
I find the "problems" to be pretty much beyond the pale. So many and so clunky and bad and just... bad.
I've let go of narrative in a lot of films. It's one thing when a film is narratively fluid it's another when a film has a clear narrative and it's just terrible.
Slentert
Contact Slentert
Post by Slentert » Thu Dec 26, 2019 6:13 pm
I rather enjoyed Piercing (2018), more than most it seems, but I think it never really gets as dark as it should've been.
You don't necessarily have to go all Miike* with this kind of subject matter, but this was a tad too mannered for my taste.
I couldn't escape the idea that everything could've been 10 times funnier (and crueler) if it was a little more detached. You keep the same dialogue and situations, but presented in a Dogtooth-style manner. I guess that would appeal somewhat more to my sardonic sense of humor.
*The original book this movie is based on is written by Ryū Murakami, who also wrote a novel that was the groundwork for Audition.
Post by Wooley » Fri Dec 27, 2019 4:16 am
And the final act of Hereditary is fine, the final minute is not so great. Midsommar is significantly worse, script-wise, than Hereditary, which I think really only stumbles once.
Location: From beyond the moon
Post by Rock » Fri Dec 27, 2019 4:39 am
I don't know if my main problem with Midsommar had to do with plot so much as tone.
After the initial shock of the sister's suicide, the rapid shift to a significantly lighter tone felt really jarring and I never fully got back into the movie before that.
Hereditary had moments of humour, but it stayed firmly in the characters' fraught headspace. The tonal shift in Midsommar felt mocking in a way that really bothered me.
That being said, the hype around Florence Pugh is real (and if there isn't hype, there should be). Between her work here and The Little Drummer Girl, she's quickly becoming one of my current favourite actresses.
"We're outgunned and undermanned. But you know somethin'? We're gonna win. You know why? Superior attitude. Superior state of mind." - Mason Storm
crumbsroom
Post by crumbsroom » Fri Dec 27, 2019 3:22 pm
Rock wrote: ↑
That didn't bother me much, but I can see what your saying.
ThatDarnMKS
Post by ThatDarnMKS » Fri Dec 27, 2019 5:57 pm
Slentert wrote: ↑
How did this compare to Pesce's previous film, The Eyes of My Mother? That debut made me very interested in his output and I'll be seeing his Grudge remake when it drops based on it's strength alone.
Post by Slentert » Fri Dec 27, 2019 8:20 pm
ThatDarnMKS wrote: ↑
I haven't seen The Eyes of My Mother, so sadly I can't answer that. I listened to an interview with him on Shock Waves a while ago (the main reason why I checked out Piercing in the first place) and both him and the hosts did mention his debut and follow-up are totally different.
Pesce seems like a cool guy btw, down to earth but still taking his craft and the medium he is working in very seriously.
Post by Takoma1 » Sun Dec 29, 2019 5:24 pm
School Spirit (Into the Dark: August)
After some good traction with Culture Shock the series goes back to another mediocre entry.
In a cold open, two boys sneak into a high school with the intention to set up a camera in the girls' locker room. Before long both have been taken out by a mysterious figure dressed as the school mascot.
It's the first week back at school, and good girl Erica has been assigned to Saturday detention for some unknown infraction. She joins fellow students Lizzy, Vic, Brett, and Russ in the library, where alcoholic vice Principal Armstrong belittles them and tasks them with cleaning the school. When Armstrong sequesters himself away in his office, the students set out to procure booze and a marijuana vape. Erica smokes to prove she won't tell on them, and then things start to get weird.
If there were to be a prize for Most Obvious Killer, this film would be a strong contender. Plot wise there are very few surprises to be had. The film does have one good idea, namely that the "bad kids" aren't actually so bad. Is this kind of a cliche? Yes. But there's an interesting sequence where quiet, nice guy Brett goes off with Erica to find a mop. When Erica runs into her basketball player boyfriend, Brett leaves the two of them alone. Returning to the library, Lizzy tells him off for leaving Erica alone in the school while she's high. When Erica returns, Vic reads the awkward energy and asks Erica if Brett said or did something inappropriate. It's a nice moment of the "bad kids" looking out for someone who isn't their friend, but they clearly have a correct moral code of how to treat others.
Unfortunately, this idea isn't developed very far. The film gets more interested in the cliche of "what if the good girl was really kind of a sociopath?". It's way too close to how New Year, New You played out. The characters have backgrounds that sound interesting (Lizzy gets detention on purpose to avoid her alcoholic father, Erica refers to her grades as being "life or death" because of the pressure from her parents), but none of them are developed past the most superficial level.
The actors/characters of the students are all pretty likable. I didn't mind spending time with them. The film is kind of a dud, but it's not offensively bad and there are at least a handful of fun moments of gore.
Apex Predator
Post by Apex Predator » Sun Dec 29, 2019 6:17 pm
Read somewhere that if you think her 2019 was good (between Midsommar, Little Women, and Fighting with My Family), she had herself a year...wait until 2020 where Black Widow drops.
Can't wait to see Midsommar sometime next month.
Post by Takoma1 » Mon Dec 30, 2019 2:41 am
Huh. I really liked Eyes of My Mother. I skipped Piercing because I feel like killing-prostitutes-dark-comedy is a really played out concept and often either goes the route of (1) exploitation or (2) it turns out that the prostitute is some devious psychopath herself.
Now I am slightly conflicted!
Post by ThatDarnMKS » Mon Dec 30, 2019 2:59 am
Tigers Are Not Afraid is a thoroughly solid Del Toro-esque fairy tale set against the backdrop of a cartel ridden Mexican city. It owes a lot to the Devil's Backbone and while it doesn't overcome it, it makes a nice companion.
This is the kind of film that I want to write paragraphs and paragraphs about, and yet the plot develops in such a way that 90% of what I want to say would fall into spoiler territory.
The film takes place in an eerie alternate-past (maybe very late 70s to early/mid 80s?) that is nakedly consumerist and also vaguely Orwellian. People don't talk about the holidays, they ask about "the sales". People are reported by their co-workers or their neighbors for the slightest infractions.
Recently divorced bank clerk Sheila is just beginning to venture back into the world of dating. And, to put it bluntly, everyone in her life is awful. Her son is unappreciative and dating a bitchy catalog model. Her two bosses repeatedly call her in for demeaning, passive-aggressive performance reviews. The men she dates via personal ads show up with coupons that only work if they share a dessert. An anonymous co-worker reports her for taking a 2-minute bathroom break without clocking out first. Trying to boost her self-confidence, Sheila purchases a stunning red dress at a department store. But the dress seems to bring with it all sorts of misfortune and Sheila begins to be pushed to a breaking point.
Again, I can't say too much more about the plot, but I really enjoyed the film's strange alternate reality. There are little quirks of language (people don't say "nightmare", they say "a bad sleeping dream"), and then larger oddities like the department store, which is populated by women in Victorian-style dresses with ridiculously large hoops who speak in absurd language such as "Dimensions and proportions transcend the prisms of our measurements."
Something that I really appreciated about the film was the way that it allowed its story to center on a rare horror protagonist--a middle-aged black woman--without feeling the need to veer the story too far into either race or gender. Sheila is certainly the victim of biases against her because of her age and possibly her gender (such as in a scene where her bosses tell her that her handshake isn't right). Despite her ex-husband already dating another woman, her son tells her that it's "too soon" for her to think about dating. Gwen, her son's horrible girlfriend, represents everything that Sheila feels she isn't: young, pretty, thin, sophisticated. Shiela has no confidant, no girlfriends of her same age and social rank. Sheila is someone who is marginalized many times over: she is marginalized by the consumerist culture in which she works (it's no coincidence that the logo for the bank where she works is a complex maze), and marginalized by her social status as a middle aged woman who can't even be a happy housewife because her husband is gone and her son both demands dinner and feels no need to tell his mother when he plans to skip out on a meal.
Now, I knew going into this film that it was written and directed by a man, but if I hadn't known that I would have suspected that it was either written or directed by a woman. There were so many little things that the film got right. The friction between Sheila and Gwen. The unique frustration of putting on a dress that is just one size too small and then having to extricate yourself from it. The assumption by the men she dates that she should be grateful for their time and attention, critiquing her appearance even as they clearly don't match their own descriptions at all. I would love to know more about where Strickland drew his ideas for this script because there were little details that match things I know to be middle-aged woman experiences (which are really different from "how a male writer in his 20s imagines middle aged woman experience things"). It was nice to see that unconventional leading lady and also have her written with some genuine depth and authenticity.
Mostly though, guys, this movie was really really funny. I watched it with my sister, and she felt that at times it was more like a sketch comedy bit (especially in the scenes with Sheila's bosses) than a horror film. I certainly felt that it leaned pretty heavily on the comedy, but at the same time I laughed a lot. Every time I caught sight of one of the department store workers (in her Victorian era dress with its enormous hoop and her hair styled like the Bride of Frankenstein) I laughed. The film uses ominous sexual imagery that is both disturbing and hilarious (favorite quote from my sister, "Well, that was an . . . interesting way to show ejaculation."). The film explores female sexuality/desirability, but in a way that alternates between humor and discomfort and I found it really engaging. It's not so much about male gaze (or female gaze), but more about, I don't know, transaction on a personal level and the use of bodies. The dress is able to lure in its victims because it gives them what they want. Significantly, the dress fits Sheila despite being (in theory) several sizes too small for her. The dress itself is seductive because of what it tells the wearer about themselves--Sheila wants to be desired, and that comes with feeling desirable and powerful. As Sheila tries to take more ownership over her life (her sex life, her romantic life, her work, her home), the dress takes more control over her.
And while staying very far from spoiler territory, I wasn't sure that the film was going to be able to come to any kind of satisfying ending, and yet it did.
I'm sure that the film's humor isn't for everyone, but I enjoyed it from beginning to end. If any of you check it out I'd love to discuss it in the safety of spoiler tags.
Popcorn Reviews
Post by Popcorn Reviews » Mon Dec 30, 2019 4:43 am
Wrong Turn: Yeah, this franchise is probably a waste of time.
Wrong Turn 2: Actually, maybe it has some potential.
Wrong Turn 3: Nope, I guess not. Moving on...
Top 30 Favorite Films of All Time
Popcorn Reviews wrote: ↑
But, like, if all the wrong turns were in the same direction (left or right), then on the 4th wrong turn you'd be back on the right track!
Takoma1 wrote: ↑
That's true. I'll watch four and hope they make an eighth installment someday, so I can watch that one as well.
But yeah, with the ending of WT3, I was like "Well, as bad as this was, at least they gave it a satisfying ending." Then, there was that lovely post-credits scene which made me want to throw my computer out the window.
I've never been interested in the Wrong Turn films. It's one of those series where even the positive reviews are off-putting to me.
The three films I watched are, essentially, Texas Chainsaw Massacre wannabes which invite unflattering comparisons considering that they lack the charm which made the original so great. Two was kind of enjoyable as it had a couple surprises here and there, but that's about it. I don't think you're missing much by skipping them.
Post by Slentert » Mon Dec 30, 2019 10:27 am
It goes the second route
I feel like, if the movie
was solely centered around Sheila, and wouldn't switch to another character towards the end
It would most likely be in my top 10 of the year. The way they handle her character is so perfect, I was really taken by it.
The comedy aspect of the movie works especially well when seeing it with a crowd, so it's kind of sad how it barely got a real theatrical release anywhere (I saw it at a festival myself).
Post by Takoma1 » Mon Dec 30, 2019 2:10 pm
I didn't entirely mind the
shift to a different set of characters because (1) it widens the scope of consumerist exploitation beyond just being a "woman problem" and (2) it allows us to see a woman in a very different phase of her life (Reg's wife) still be seduced and drawn in by the promise of the dress.
I agree that the Sheila character and her arc was really perfect.
Post by Slentert » Mon Dec 30, 2019 4:08 pm
I like the last third of the movie but I didn't find it as well-realized as Sheila's arc. Perhaps it would work better if it was expanded upon it a bit more, but now it feels more like an afterthought. But I guess increasing the second story would mean cutting in Sheila's screentime (because 2 and a half hours of this movie would've definitely been too much) and I wouldn't want that to happen either.
I completely agree, though I liked the film and its ending enough that it didn't bother me too much.
I do wish that we'd seen more of how
Reg's life is impacted by the consumerism. With Sheila we see how she is belittled within the system (both professionally and socially) and I wish we'd had more of that with Reg. For example, in a consumerist society I feel like men feel more of a pressure to be providers, to bring home an income so that the household (ie their wives) can spend that money.
We see how Reg is ratted out by his neighbor, and we also see his wife's interest in the sales, but a more in depth look at a married man in the same system would have been neat.
I agree Reg's story could've been equally interesting as that of Sheila's if expanded upon a bit more, and even could've complimented each other nicely if done well. I think there just wasn't enough time left to give the story enough room.
I saw the movie at a festival with Peter Strickland in attendance and he said in the Q&A afterwards that In Fabric was initially supposed to be a real anthology film, with at least 3 separate installments, but when writing it became clear that there was barely enough time to cover the first 2 stories.
Also, Guillermo Del Toro just tweeted about how much he loved this movie, so we're in good company.
Pure (Into the Dark: September)
This series has had some pretty clunky entries dealing with "women's issues", and this one may be the least subtle yet. But it's actually a pretty good little film, and so its total lack of restraint is not at all a problem.
The story begins with two young women, Shay and Jo, being driven to a "purity retreat" by their father, Kyle. Shay is Kyle's illegitimate daughter, having only just joined Kyle and Jo after the death of her mother. As the weekend goes on, overseen by charismatic Pastor Seth, things begin to get strange after Shay, Jo, and two other girls perform a ritual to summon Lillith, Adam's disobedient first wife.
The horror in this film is twofold. On one hand, Shay is haunted by the demonic image of Lillith, as doors slam and the eyes of the men around her go black. And on the other hand, Shay and the other girls must contend with the controlling behavior of their fathers.
This is a film that really goes for it. I loved the way that the "purity ball" is styled explicitly as a wedding ceremony between the girls and their fathers. The girls are instructed to wear all white, the highlight of the ball is them signing a contract, and mothers are expressly forbidden from attending.
While Shay and Jo are the main characters, the film does a nice job of developing the other two girls with whom they bunk. KellyAnne's father extends his control of her body to extremes, demanding that she count calories and run every morning. When she wears a dress that she picked out instead of one he wants her to wear, he remarks "The good dress is still too small huh?". Lacey, Pastor Seth's daughter, is clearly on the edge of breaking, having had it hammered into her that even a kiss is sinful (because you are kissing someone else's future husband). It's wonderfully clear from the beginning that these girls are all being pushed to a place of being completely neurotic in their quests to keep their fathers happy.
I thought that the film did a good job of showing how language of "protection" and "love" is used to control young women (while not applying the same rules to boys). In one scene, Pastor Seth gives the infamous "chewing gum" demonstration, and all I could think about was Elizabeth Smart's comments on that particular lesson (link here). There's something especially nice about the way that the film shows how such conversations are often framed as male authority figures just wanting young women to respect themselves and have a sense of self worth, and yet the language used is often degrading and dehumanizing
The film makes you wait almost until the final moments for Lillith to truly arrive on the scene, but when she did it was a really nice payoff.
I would add this to the list of Into the Dark entries that I would strongly recommend. Hannah McPherson (who wrote and directed) hasn't done many other feature length films, but this one made me interested to see more of her work.
Post by Popcorn Reviews » Mon Dec 30, 2019 5:08 pm
The Night Eats the World (2018) - 8/10
It's hard to make a zombie film which stands out nowadays with so many forgettable, cookie-cutter ones out there. Since I saw a couple people recommend this one in the past, I decided to check it out. I can safely say that it's one of the better zombie films out there. Unlike pretty much all of the ones I've seen, this one contains very little action. The majority of it shows Sam, the main character who wakes up to find himself in the middle of the apocalypse, scavenging the flat for food and supplies, barricading the entrances, and finding ways to pass the time. While this approach will turn off and bore some people, I quite enjoyed how the film was pretty loose in structure and that it made for a realistic portrayal of the day-to-day mundane tasks which you'd likely experience from taking shelter from something like this. Overall, I'd take this any day over the fast-paced fun, but oftentimes empty schlock which usually gets released. However, that's not all this film has to offer. As the days start to go by, we get to see the effect which Sam's isolation has on his mental state, giving the film a new tone, while still maintaining the feel of what came before it. As for any issues I have, nothing sticks out. It has a few things on its mind, and it handles them pretty well. Not saying this is a masterpiece, but it's a pretty interesting and unique film and an easy recommendation.
Post by Apex Predator » Mon Dec 30, 2019 9:32 pm
Yeah, I didn't care for the first. Felt too much like Been There, Done That Before.
The second one has Henry Rollins, right?
Post by Popcorn Reviews » Mon Dec 30, 2019 10:01 pm
Apex Predator wrote: ↑
Yes, Rollins was the Marine. He was one of the few redeeming factors in it.
Post by Wooley » Tue Dec 31, 2019 12:07 pm
On the Wrong Turn series, I've sort of heard that they are maybe a little bit better than the series of TCM remakes that came out.
Would anyone confirm or deny this?
I generally don't love this genre unless it's done really well (huge fan of TCM, House of 1k Corpses, not many others of this ilk), but I thought I might dip my toe in Wrong Turn waters, but if its anything like TCM: The Beginning, which I thought was just nauseating, I'll pass.
Post by DaMU » Tue Dec 31, 2019 7:30 pm
Got halfway through Candyman: Farewell to the Flesh before sleep overtook me last night, and, uh, it's a good movie so far.
The above-written is wholly and solely the perspective of DaMU and should not be taken as an effort to rile, malign, or diminish you, dummo.
Post by ThatDarnMKS » Tue Dec 31, 2019 8:18 pm
Wooley wrote: ↑
They're more 80's than the TCM remakes (which I'm a fan of) but become schlockier and more torture porn centric as they go. The first one is an okay modern slasher and the second is by Joe Lynch and has a sense of absurdity and humor about it that makes it very enjoyable. The rest are garbage.
Post by DaMU » Wed Jan 01, 2020 2:25 am
DaMU wrote: ↑
Yeah, happy to say this was solid. Changes up the environment, goes into the backstory with (relative) success. A radio DJ feels dropped in from Do the Right Thing but functions well with the New Orleans backdrop. Also makes me wonder, is Tony Todd's Candyman the best slasher? Fascinating backstory, effortless gravitas, cush outfit. Slashers like Myers and Voorhees have that shark energy, but Candyman brings that tragedy and class.
Post by Rock » Wed Jan 01, 2020 4:19 am
I think Candyman has more depth and Todd is given more notes to play than the average slasher villain. He's credibly both menacing and seductive, which is not a combination I've seen in other slasher villains. (Not that depth necessarily makes a slasher villain more imposing, mind you - Michael Myers' simplicity in Carpenter's Halloween makes him a lot scarier than the backstory and deconstruction in the takes by Zombie and Green.) I think Freddy Krueger arguably gives him some competition (another villain who's an actual character and buoyed by the actor's charisma), but his relatively campier concept makes him a less source of horror for me.
Post by Takoma1 » Wed Jan 01, 2020 6:22 am
Also makes me wonder, is Tony Todd's Candyman the best slasher? Fascinating backstory, effortless gravitas, cush outfit. Slashers like Myers and Voorhees have that shark energy, but Candyman brings that tragedy and class.
He's way, way up there for me.
Like you say, he's got the interesting background and oodles of presence.
But I think that something else really neat about Candyman is the way that he survives via his own mythology. It's when people doubt him that he must come forward to kill, and to reassert his dominance. And what's more, the most fertile ground for his survival is people who are downtrodden. There's not an A + B = C simple relationship between his backstory and who he victimizes. It's not like "rape victim comes back to kill men" or "teen who was bullied comes back to kill popular pretty kids". Candyman doesn't go after the demographic who caused his death. He goes after whoever he needs to kill in order to keep the belief in him going strong.
daakmore
Post by daakmore » Thu Jan 02, 2020 2:12 am
Hung out with a friend on Monday and we watched a ton of recent indie and foreign horror and genre films.
Braid - I'm not entirely sure what did or didn't actually happen in this film, it may be possible to figure it our but it is beyond one viewing, that said it is often very beautiful and strange in alternating interesting and horrifying ways. I'm not sure I'd say I liked it but I certainly don't regret at least giving it a viewing.
Tigers are Not Afraid - Definitely the best film that watched, it wears it Guillermo Del Toro love very much on it's sleeve, but it has engaging characters (seriously the kids are all great and I'm usually very skeptical of child actors) and a ton of heart (that it occasionally rips out of your chest. I saw someone compare it to Devil's Backbone earlier in this thread and that is very apt, I might even like it as much though time and more rewatches would be needed to really cement that.
Hagazussa: A Heathens Curse - Gorgeous but glacially paced, even when something of consequence happens there so little reaction that it barely registers. It was a very good idea and it began promisingly enough but I just couldn't give a shit about anything happening on the screen regardless of how weird or horrifying it was. Also it's run time is really padded by shots of the scenery, it's really pretty scenery but it doesn't enhance or really even play a part in what plot there is.
Dave Made a Maze - This film has amazing set designs, entire weird rooms of cardboard surrealism and death traps. The film itself doesn't really live up to the sets themselves, some of the humor falls flat and the characters make some pretty dumb decision with regularity, but it's still entertaining enough.
The Wind - An American Western Gothic Horror, this one is definitely up my ally. Narrative structure is a little weird and occasionally it's not entirely clear what time frame a scene is in immediately but it can usually be sussed out by various factors and the structure helps slowly unfurl the story and characters.
Luz - A very odd possession film, I really can't say much more than that, it handles so many things in ways I didn't expect that are both surreal, horrifying and hilarious. Not sure it really makes sense in the end and there are definitely some questions that linger at the end, but at a brisk 70 minutes it is worth a watch to just experience it.
Last film we watched wasn't an indy or foreign but my friend hadn't seen Ready or Not yet, it really holds up for me on a second viewing, I winced in pain at all the same moments and laughed at all of the jokes as I practically recited or recalled the scenes in my head right before they happened. For me it is just such a pitch perfect black horror comedy.
Post by Takoma1 » Thu Jan 02, 2020 3:04 am
daakmore wrote: ↑
I agree that it's well worth a watch, despite some issues I had with it. I thought that it handled the unreliable narration better than most films of this sort. The last act felt a bit messy in some ways, but at the same time I had to respect certain elements (like the extended shaving sequence).
I was wildly relieved when I saw it in the theater for the second time that I still really liked it. I think that the first act is a bit too exposition heavy, but aside from that it was just good, bloody fun.
Post by Wooley » Thu Jan 02, 2020 7:35 pm
I dunno, I feel like Meyers sets the tone and that is really special, there's nothing quite like Michael in the first Halloween film.
Jason in F13 2 was pretty special, but he devolves into almost self-parody after a few films.
Really, almost all of them became self-parody fairly quickly.
The winner for most-interesting slasher before descending into self-parody for me probably has to be Freddy. A child-murderer (molester?) burned alive by the townspeople who comes back in the nightmares of their children to take revenge on the parents? I mean, that's pretty badass. I actually even thought the twist the notorious Bay version tried to put on it, that the parents were wrong and he wasn't molesting the children, they basically burned an innocent man alive, was pretty cool, too bad almost everything else about that movie was awful and, honestly, somehow Jackie Earle Haley just didn't work (even though he seemed like he might be perfect casting).
But I like Candyman, too, for sure.
I'm actually probably gonna have to rewatch this at some point. As y'all know, I thought the movie outright sucked with probably its only redeeming feature being the screen-magnetism of Samara Weaving (and I might give it points for the look) with nearly everything else being an astonishing miss, from what I felt was terribly weak humor, to a terrible script, to a terrible sense that the filmmakers really thought the movie was some kind of genius and were congratulating themselves the entire time.
But the fact that people continue to say that it is even tolerable, in fact actually good, just has me wondering.
Post by Takoma1 » Fri Jan 03, 2020 2:25 am
Uncanny Annie (Into the Dark: October)
Ha, I just realized that this is the first film that I've watched in 2020! SIGH!
Anyway, these Into the Dark films tend to have okay (if sometimes cliched) premises, and then often land with a bit of a thud, especially in their final acts. This one isn't really an exception.
A group of college aged friends gather at a group house to commemorate the one year anniversary of the death of their friend, Tony. The characters are drawn in broad strokes: Craig, the quiet nerd; Eve, the pretty but timid one; Michael, the brash guy; Grace, the outspoken one; Peter, the "smart" one; Nancy, the nice one who is clearly struggling with Tony's death.
The group decides to have a quiet night in and play a board game, and Eve emerges from the basement with a stack that includes a game called Uncanny Annie that none of them have ever seen before. Within two rounds of the game, the entire house has been dropped into a strange void and it's clear that this is a very deadly game.
This is the kind of film that tries to lampshade all of its "homages". A character declares that she won't go and chant in a dark room because "that's how the people in Candyman die" while another character wonders aloud if the rules of the game are "the same as in Jumanji." And it could probably be forgiven for all of the borrowing that it does if it did a little more with its influences. This really does play out like horror-movie Jumanji. There is some intrigue in the middle regarding the truth about Ton'y death, but it doesn't really cohere in a satisfying way.
This one is pretty middle ground for this series. It's isn't bad, but neither is it worth checking out.
Post by Takoma1 » Sat Jan 04, 2020 2:40 am
Pilgrim (Into the Dark, November)
This one was really fun, and you should check it out if you have Hulu.
A wealthy suburban family is made up of Shane, his daughter Cody, his second wife Anna, and their son Tate. Thanksgiving is a rough time of year for the family, and especially Cody, because Cody's mother left her and Shane on Thanksgiving. In an effort to connect with the family (and to stand out in the neighborhood of "Stepford wives"), Anna hires a group of Pilgrim impersonators to reenact the original Thanksgiving feast. The only problem is . . . the role-players never break character and their ideas of how one should give thanks are quite intense.
Where most of these Into the Dark films have fallen flat has been in either weak characterization (especially as the films go on) or in a premise that never goes anywhere. Fortunately, Pilgrim avoids both of these missteps.
To begin with, the movie has a strong central character in Cody. Yes, on the surface she's your typical horror movie surly, rebellious teenager. But it's really clear that she carries a lot of pain and distrust from her mother's abandonment. She is very kind to her half-brother and her suspicious/fearful response to a strange man moving into her home is completely understandable. But the movie is very wise to do more with her relationship with Anna. In one scene, Cody overhears some other neighborhood women making fun of Anna for trying too hard. It adds a vulnerability to Anna and shows that underneath Cody's grumbling she does have sympathy for her stepmother.
In terms of the horror aspect, the Pilgrims are effective villains. Ethan, the man who moves in with the family, is played with growly menace by Peter Giles (many of his acting credits are voice acting and . . .. yeah, makes sense!). The performance walks a nice line where you aren't sure exactly how much Ethan believes himself to be a real Pilgrim. He builds a small shed in the backyard and Cody grows more and more concerned as Ethan keeps finding reason to spend alone time with Tate. It's a great mix of "real-world" horror and something more menacing and abstract.
The ending, often the weak point of these films, lands pretty well. Yes, one element is super obvious/predictable, but I thought that it was satisfyingly over-the-top, mixing horror and humor pretty effectively.
Hipster Thor
Post by Hipster Thor » Sat Jan 04, 2020 5:19 am
I want to talk about the film Godmonster of Indian Flats.
There are these low tier 1970's movies that exist that seem to come from pure commercial interest mixed with apathy. Pictures like Touch of Satan or Bloodwaters of Doctor Z. Just boringly bad exploitation films. Aesthetically dry, lacking of style.
But what happens when a man who thinks he is an auteur decides to bankroll his own film and genuinely puts everything he can into his bizarre vision? Godmonster of Indian Flats is what happens when Texas Chainsaw Massacre meets Altered States. Its extremely political but without subtlety. Disturbing but not. And completely insane but mundane. Bold artistically but terrible. A lot of visual coding about the horrors of racism but they portray capitalism as the route cause for their attempt to lynch the protagonist.
The premise of the picture is simple and seemingly 20 years past its time. A sheep gives birth to a mutant offspring that grows larger. Evil mayor wants to capitalize on the sheep monster but things go wrong. I'm sure you can visualize the broad strokes. The thing that separates this notion picture from others is the madness in the finer details. The setting is a town outside of Reno with historical significance in regards to the Civil War and Ulysses S. Grant. Mayor Evil idolizes Grant and the Union victory bankrolled by the mining this town was responsible for. At the same time he refuses to sell property in the town to an aristocratic African American. So determined is he to not let this man buy property he colluded with the Sheriff to frame him for killing a dog. During the African American businessman, Barnstable, is offered to participate in an Old Western Shooting gallery. The Sheriff brings the dog over and starts having it do tricks in the middle of the shooting range. The sheriff then claims Barnstable has shot his dog and makes a big public incident out of it, thus turning the town against Barnstable. Hard cut to a funeral in a Church being attended by the whole town with a white dog sized coffin. After the funeral it is revealed that it was all a rouse and the dog merely played dead, but was still alive and well inside the dog coffin. I can't make this up.
Mixed with disturbing documentary style editing and camera work we have a psychic witch who lures in tourists with a burlesque prostitute, a man who is paid by the mayor to search through a trash mountain for leverage because citizens drop their trash off at the trash mountain, and mines the spray poison gas from the earth.
I cannot give Godmonster of Indian Flats a score, but I reluctantly have to reccomend it for those who love the most truly bizarre of cinema. Also the monster design is way more terrifying than they intended it to be.
Post by DaMU » Sat Jan 04, 2020 6:43 am
Fam, the new Grudge flick is a disappointment, except you expected it to be, so it's not, it's just not good. Credit to Andrea Riseborough, William Sadler, Frankie Faison, and I guess Lin Shaye, although she can do these performances in her sleep by this point.
Post by Rock » Sat Jan 04, 2020 6:58 am
Damn, I had decent hopes based on Pesce's involvement, the cast and the R-rating. Is there anything good about it aside from the performances? I suspect I'll end up watching it at some point anyway, just not sure if I want to fork over my hard earned dollars or wait until it hits Netflix.
I liked the fractured structure, how it's a Russian nesting doll of terror, even though that's how these flicks go. Just a nice break. The film is doggedly grim, which sometimes feels tedious but sometimes feels effectively suffocating. Out of the four mini-narratives within the whole, the John Cho / Betty Gilpin segment comes alive. They feel like characters who have a full life before the ghosts come in.
The flick's not a total loss, but I'd recommend waiting for streaming/rental.
Dukefrukem
Post by Dukefrukem » Sat Jan 04, 2020 12:59 pm
you paid to see it??
Post by Apex Predator » Sat Jan 04, 2020 7:17 pm
While you were checking that out, I was watching The Big Heat.
Post by Takoma1 » Sat Jan 04, 2020 9:14 pm
Hipster Thor wrote: ↑
Bold artistically but terrible.
So this movie basically defines Crumbsroom's aesthetic?
I thought all the previews looked pretty mediocre. Also, they've been running voice ads and there's this sound effect (a person/ghost going UHHHHHHHHH in this kind of vocal-fry/guttural way) and the first time I heard it I thought it was a noise my car was making. Thinking my engine was going was probably the biggest scare I'll get out of the film.
Yeah, well. Win some lose some.
Post by crumbsroom » Sat Jan 04, 2020 9:18 pm
And it's great.
Also believe it was one of the unaswered stills in my other thread