As this thread has mentioned some great films and some classic films, I thought Id come in with a few others.
Alice, Sweet Alice:
The production values on this one are low, but there is something really unsettling about the atmosphere. I remember a good comment made about it on the internet somewhere, that it was like a good Dario Argento giallo made in the Bronx. It has some real genuine gotcha scares in it too.
The Vanishing:
The original. Scary!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Food of the Gods 2:
Not that scary on the whole, but there are some tense moments, especially for people scared of enclosed spaces, and people scared of giant rats.
Society:
This one is not scary as much as it is kinky and sick, chock full of 80s style FX and made by Brian Yuzna if I remember correctly. It stars that guy whose name I don't know but who appeared in practially every 80s teen movie ever.
Exorcist 3:
*THAT* scene with the nurse!
Superman 3:
Though technically not a horror film, I put it here because of the bit where the lady turns into a robot. Freaked me out when I saw that as a kid.
Friday the 13th, The Final Chapter:
The 4th in the series, it's great because (1) it has good Tom Savini FX; (2) it has Crispin Glover's breakdance scene; (3) it has the fat girl eating the banana; and (4) it has Corey Feldman.
Invasion of the Body Snatchers: The Donald Sutherland version.
Twilight Zone the Movie:
If only for the first 10 minutes with Albert Brooks and Dan Ackroyd. I saw this on video as a kid, and it spooked me out. I think you can catch it on youtube somewhere.
Psycho 2:
I don't know why, but for some reason this one really disturbs me. Maybe it has to do in part to the sudden eruption of violence at the film's climax.
Tales of the Unexpected TV show:
There were some episodes of this show that are just frightening. The two that come to mind are the Landlady, and the one about the little girl who is trying to get home on the bus and who thinks that the man on the bus is a serial killer.
RogueAgentSpeeding in the Tumbler...Posts: 3,676MI6 Agent
This was news to me; first Hollywood remakes Halloween, Friday The 13th and soon Nightmare On Elm Street...now this? Didn't this like...come out in the 90s? It isn't even that old.
Stephen King's "It" rises again as movie
Thu Mar 12, 2009 10:49pm EDT Email | Print | Share| Reprints | Single Page[-] Text [+]
By Borys Kit
LOS ANGELES (Hollywood Reporter) - Warner Bros. is bringing Stephen King's landmark horror novel "It" to the big screen.
Screenwriter Dave Kajganich will adapt the story, which follows a group of kids called the Losers Club. They encounter a creature called It, which preys on children and whose favorite form is that of a sadistic clown called Pennywise. When the creature resurfaces, the kids are called upon to regroup, this time as adults, even though they have no memory of the first battle.
The novel is set in 1958 and 1985, but the feature version will be set in the present day.
"It" was the best-selling book of 1986 and in 1990 was turned into an ABC miniseries that starred John Ritter, Harry Anderson, Tim Reid, Annette O'Toole and Richard Thomas. Tim Curry played Pennywise.
The screen rights have bounced around since then.
Kajganich has made a name for himself with his dark materials, writing "The Invasion" for Warners and snagging gigs such as the "Pet Semetary" remake. He recently was hired to write New Line's "Escape From New York" remake.
Mrs. Man Face: "You wouldn't hit a lady? Would you?"
Batman: "The Hammer Of Justice isUNISEX!"
-Batman: The Brave & The Bold -
RogueAgentSpeeding in the Tumbler...Posts: 3,676MI6 Agent
edited April 2009
Many members might not remember this one or maybe alot of you weren't even born but this trailer used to scare me to death as a little kid. It would always air more than once during the Roller Derby or Wrestling on late Saturday nights before I had to go to bed. My big brother cracking up at me because he knew that it was going to effect me for the rest of the night. )
Many members might not remember this one or maybe alot of you weren't even born but this trailer used to scare me to death as a little kid. It would always air more than once during the Roller Derby or Wrestling on late Saturday nights before I had to go to bed. My big brother cracking up at me because he knew that it was going to effect me for the rest of the night. )
Many members might not remember this one or maybe alot of you weren't even born but this trailer used to scare me to death as a little kid. It would always air more than once during the Roller Derby or Wrestling on late Saturday nights before I had to go to bed. My big brother cracking up at me because he knew that it was going to effect me for the rest of the night. )
To this day, I don't even know if the movie was any good or not but 70s horror trailers just knew how to scare you back then.
I have the dvd, it's an Exorcist clone and not a bad film in it's own right.
That's good to hear. I have read some saying on different websites that the transfer to dvd left the movie with a very poor grainy look. Is that true? ?:)
Mrs. Man Face: "You wouldn't hit a lady? Would you?"
Batman: "The Hammer Of Justice isUNISEX!"
-Batman: The Brave & The Bold -
Many members might not remember this one or maybe alot of you weren't even born but this trailer used to scare me to death as a little kid. It would always air more than once during the Roller Derby or Wrestling on late Saturday nights before I had to go to bed. My big brother cracking up at me because he knew that it was going to effect me for the rest of the night. )
To this day, I don't even know if the movie was any good or not but 70s horror trailers just knew how to scare you back then.
I have the dvd, it's an Exorcist clone and not a bad film in it's own right.
That's good to hear. I have read some saying on different websites that the transfer to dvd left the movie with a very poor grainy look. Is that true? ?:)
The WS print from "Code Red" looks great to me.
Sure, there's the age of the film, but I've seen a lot worse.
For all you Hammer fans, there's a new book coming out next month that compiles many of the studio's movie posters. Here's a pic of the cover and link to the Amazon.com page for it. Currently priced for pre-order at $19.77
BBC4 is doing its Horror documentary series presented by Mark Gatiss. He suggests a few rare ones such as Blood on Satan's Claw, an early 70s Witchfinder General type folk horror, and one with Peter Cushing as a Yorkshireman shopkeeper, which is very League of Gentlemen. From Beyond the Grave, I think it is.
"This is where we leave you Mr Bond."
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Sir MilesThe Wrong Side Of The WardrobePosts: 27,443Chief of Staff
BBC4 is doing its Horror documentary series presented by Mark Gatiss. He suggests a few rare ones such as Blood on Satan's Claw, an early 70s Witchfinder General type folk horror, and one with Peter Cushing as a Yorkshireman shopkeeper, which is very League of Gentlemen. From Beyond the Grave, I think it is.
A a super little series it is too...there are only three episodes in the series, which is a real shame as he's such a fan of the genre and his enthusiasm spills over....I've learned such a lot so far and would have liked more episodes so he could explain and show more.
I don't know if many of you are familiar with the television show, THE HAUNTING which is airs on The Discovery Channel everyday but there is going to be a film based on supposed true events from this program.
The Haunting in Connecticut
Actually, this particular episode is one of my favorites from the series but to how true it was is anyone's guess.
This film stars Virginia Madsen...which is good enough for me.
oooh! that looks awesome. I'm a huge fan of the show, and that episode is deff. a great one!
thanks for the trailer, Rogue!
Hey! Observer! You trying to get yourself Killed?
mountainburdphotography.wordpress.com
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
Watching a good old one tonight: the Roger Corman classic "Tomb of Ligeia," with Vincent Price B-)
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
I guess it's horror if Witchfinder General, shown last night on BBC4, is, as the theme is similar if set 300 years earlier, in 1348 the year the great pestilence came to Britain.
A young monk whose monastery is beset by plague has doubts about his vocation when his teen sweetheart rides away. His mind is made up when a band of soldiers led by Sean Bean arrive, asking for a navigator as they make their way north. Their aim is to reach a village that has mysteriously remained immune from the plague; they suspect witchcraft is behind it. The monk goes with them.
Brit director Christopher Smith does a great job of conveying energy and crispness, the landscape really looks medieval and the camera work has great visual flair. In fact, I wouldn't put him asunder for a Bond film; he reminded me of Martin Campbell in his pre-GoldenEye days; the film has some similarity to No Escape.
That said, when they reach the said village things go awry, because the first sinister figure we encounter is from a British 1980s sitcom, and it's just too much. It's a shame, because he is a good actor, but still... This is one area where Hammer might have done it better, had Christopher Lee emerged you wouldn't be disappointed at the familiar face. Also, the village looks a bit phoney, a bit Homebase.
Also, Smith seems like Campbell in that he's okay when the camera keeps moving, but doesn't know how to pace the quieter moments, when things have come to a stop. I'm not sure if Sean Bean is great casting either, he should be as a knight as we've seen him in Lord of the Rings and Sharpe. But he does seem to two-dimensional actor, not bad but without another layer of interest or intrique about him. He's no Vincent Price or even Alan Rickman, he has the persona of the soldiers who accompany Ian Ogilvy in Witchfinder General; straight as a dye but lacking something.
At 90 minutes or so it doesn't outstay its welcome, it's good medieval fare.
Son Of Barbel talked me into watching this Swedish film at the weekend. I believe an American version called Let Me In is just out, but IMO it'd be hard to top this atmospheric vampire tale.
I recently saw The Silence of The Lambs and it really is an awesome horror-thriller that deservedly won several oscars. Foster and Hopkins have an excellent chemistry and the Buffalo Bill character is extra twisted and disturbing.
I followed this up with Hannibal which I found to be a pile of **** lazily thrown together with a big budget very little explanation for Lecter's action. This in spite of an excellent performance again from Anthony Hopkins.
“Everything that irritates us about others can lead us to a better understanding of ourselves.” - Carl Jung
I followed this up with Hannibal which I found to be a pile of **** lazily thrown together with a big budget very little explanation for Lecter's action. This in spite of an excellent performance again from Anthony Hopkins.
HANNIBAL was not just "thrown together" and Hannibal's actions were all coherent if you were paying attention. Not as good as the book but only by a slim margin.
I followed this up with Hannibal which I found to be a pile of **** lazily thrown together with a big budget very little explanation for Lecter's action. This in spite of an excellent performance again from Anthony Hopkins.
HANNIBAL was not just "thrown together" and Hannibal's actions were all coherent if you were paying attention. Not as good as the book but only by a slim margin.
For about a third of the film we see things from Giancarlo Giannini's point of view with Clarice in the background, then suddenly Florence is abandoned and Clarice becomes the main character.
Also, Julianne Moore's portrayal of Clarice leaves a gaping hole where Jodie Foster should be and this really ruins the film for me, because I can't buy them as the same person. This is why Hannibal's compassion towards Clarice seems so strange.
And Giancarlo's character is clearly far too stupid to be chief of police.
And very little is done to display the link between Gary Oldman and Ray Liotta. I found Oldman's character particularly to view as a villain so sinister that Clarice should save Hannibal from him. They could have shown him as someone who deserved to suffer at Hannibal's hands.
And I was paying a great deal of attention as I was anticipating a worthy sequel to a cinema classic, alas I saw no such thing.
“Everything that irritates us about others can lead us to a better understanding of ourselves.” - Carl Jung
I followed this up with Hannibal which I found to be a pile of **** lazily thrown together with a big budget very little explanation for Lecter's action. This in spite of an excellent performance again from Anthony Hopkins.
HANNIBAL was not just "thrown together" and Hannibal's actions were all coherent if you were paying attention. Not as good as the book but only by a slim margin.
For about a third of the film we see things from Giancarlo Giannini's point of view with Clarice in the background, then suddenly Florence is abandoned and Clarice becomes the main character.
Also, Julianne Moore's portrayal of Clarice leaves a gaping hole where Jodie Foster should be and this really ruins the film for me, because I can't buy them as the same person. This is why Hannibal's compassion towards Clarice seems so strange.
And Giancarlo's character is clearly far too stupid to be chief of police.
And very little is done to display the link between Gary Oldman and Ray Liotta. I found Oldman's character particularly to view as a villain so sinister that Clarice should save Hannibal from him. They could have shown him as someone who deserved to suffer at Hannibal's hands.
And I was paying a great deal of attention as I was anticipating a worthy sequel to a cinema classic, alas I saw no such thing.
I am sorry but your recollection is very faulty here. The focus on Giancarlo's Pazzi character was very important. Firstly Pazzi was a Chief Inspector as stated several times in the film. Secoundly, he was more greedy and desperate then stupid. Pazzi's career was in shambles after being kicked off the famous "El Monstro" serial murder case. Now he was reassigned to a far less glamorous case about the disappearance of a Library Curator who Hannibal murdered. When Pazzi sniffs out Lecter, who is currently incognito as Dr. Fell, he seizes an opprotunity to restore his stature in the police department and a way please his trophy wife who has very expensive tastes. To Hannibal's delight, Pazzi is a decendent of a man who 400 years earlier was murdered by being hanged from the side of a building with his bowels hanging out. Hannibal could not help but imitate this scene by killing Pazzi in the same fashion. So there you go. That is why Pazzi was essential to this film. You need a threat to Hannibal in Florence, a character was developed, and his end is darkly poetic.
Okay Julianne Moore. The fact of the matter is, this is not the same Starling in Lambs and for good reason. Moore's Starling is older and wiser, not the scared little FBI trainee she was years before. She has become hardened by all the killing she has done and she's far more cynical. Her character is trapped in a world that simply does not care for her. She devoted her life to the FBI and now they have rejected her. Simply put, this character is miserable in this film. There really is no other way to portray her. Would I have liked to have seen Foster ? Of course. Almost never in a film do you see a character go through real psychological development over the course of multiple films while being portrayed by the same actor. The only example I can recall is Micheal Corleone from The Godfather series.
You talk about no real link between Verger and Krendler, what else do you need ? The guy is a creep and corrupt so it's easy to these two working together. This isn't a cop thriller so addressing such a insignifigant detail makes no sense. As for your complaints about Verger, he wasn't suppose to be very "sinister". He was a pathetic and twisted sadist who was also a pedophile to boot. I really enjoyed Oldman's hammy preformance.
In general, I understand people being dissappointed by this film because they are looking in wrong direction. HANNIBAL is not suppose to be a thriller, it's an Gothic horror and Ridley Scott did a brilliant job especially with the dreary operatic visuals.
Okay Julianne Moore. The fact of the matter is, this is not the same Starling in Lambs and for good reason. Moore's Starling is older and wiser, not the scared little FBI trainee she was years before. She has become hardened by all the killing she has done and she's far more cynical. Her character is trapped in a world that simply does not care for her. She devoted her life to the FBI and now they have rejected her. Simply put, this character is miserable in this film. There really is no other way to portray her. Would I have liked to have seen Foster ? Of course. Almost never in a film do you see a character go through real psychological development over the course of multiple films while being portrayed by the same actor. The only example I can recall is Micheal Corleone from The Godfather series.
The only real problem with Moore's version of Clarice is that, unlike the book, she does not follow what should have been her character's natural progression and join with Lecter at the end. For whatever reason the studio went for the "safe" Hollywood ending instead of what we got in the book which, while probably not as commercial, would have been shocking and given us something more memorable and far more lasting.
Personally, I've never found Silence of the Lambs to be a particularly scary or even engrossing movie; it is to me a very dry, by-the-numbers crime thriller with Clarice coming across as the stereotypical determined but flawed heroine trying to confront her own doubts and demons. I also could never buy into Jodie Foster's phony drawl. Ted Levine's Buffalo Bill is about as scary as a set of chattering teeth; the guy just looks goofy to me and I bust out laughing everytime I hear that "PUT THE F&*%#!G LOTION IN THE BASKET!!!" line. Other than Anthony Hopkins and Anthony Heald's smarmy Dr. Chilton, there isn't much for me there.
For me, Brett Rattner's Red Dragon was a far far more effective and engaging thriller and Feinne's Dolarhyde makes for a more compelling and well-rounded villain. People enjoy villifying Ratner (and deservedly so in some instances) but the guy knows how to pace his movie and Red Dragon is never boring, something that cannot be said of its predecessors.
The only real problem with Moore's version of Clarice is that, unlike the book, she does not follow what should have been her character's natural progression and join with Lecter at the end. For whatever reason the studio went for the "safe" Hollywood ending instead of what we got in the book which, while probably not as commercial, would have been shocking and given us something more memorable and far more lasting.
Thomas Harris also agreed that the ending should be changed however I think they keep an audience friendly verison of it if you watch carefully.
Personally, I've never found Silence of the Lambs to be a particularly scary or even engrossing movie; it is to me a very dry, by-the-numbers crime thriller with Clarice coming across as the stereotypical determined but flawed heroine trying to confront her own doubts and demons. I also could never buy into Jodie Foster's phony drawl. Ted Levine's Buffalo Bill is about as scary as a set of chattering teeth; the guy just looks goofy to me and I bust out laughing everytime I hear that "PUT THE F&*%#!G LOTION IN THE BASKET!!!" line. Other than Anthony Hopkins and Anthony Heald's smarmy Dr. Chilton, there isn't much for me there.
She is memorable for what she did and not her character persay. She let Hannibal Lecter in her mind. Not even the most seasoned professionals would have done something that dangerous that and yet she did. As for the rest of the film, I think it works. I would certaintly say it's overrated.
For me, Brett Rattner's Red Dragon was a far far more effective and engaging thriller and Feinne's Dolarhyde makes for a more compelling and well-rounded villain. People enjoy villifying Ratner (and deservedly so in some instances) but the guy knows how to pace his movie and Red Dragon is never boring, something that cannot be said of its predecessors.
Red Dragon, the book and Ratner's film, were fine thrillers with the book having a great ending. However, neither seemed as powerful as Lambs or Hannibal. Personally, I can't get enough Hannibal, the book or the film. Hell, I loved the book so much I finished it in less than a day.
I think one Hannibal film that is particularly overrated in Manhunter. I am surprised by the amount of people who love that film and feel it's not appericated enough. It's a total bastardization of the book. It's not even one of Micheal Mann's best films. All the characterizations were totally wrong. The very end is just hysterically bad. Dollarhyde blasting cops left and right with In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida blaring in the background while he shakes off bullet after bullet. I find it ironic how Mann thought this okay and felt that Dollarhyde's dragon tatoo was too over-the-top.
I am sorry but your recollection is very faulty here. The focus on Giancarlo's Pazzi character was very important. Firstly Pazzi was a Chief Inspector as stated several times in the film. Secoundly, he was more greedy and desperate then stupid. Pazzi's career was in shambles after being kicked off the famous "El Monstro" serial murder case. Now he was reassigned to a far less glamorous case about the disappearance of a Library Curator who Hannibal murdered. When Pazzi sniffs out Lecter, who is currently incognito as Dr. Fell, he seizes an opprotunity to restore his stature in the police department and a way please his trophy wife who has very expensive tastes. To Hannibal's delight, Pazzi is a decendent of a man who 400 years earlier was murdered by being hanged from the side of a building with his bowels hanging out. Hannibal could not help but imitate this scene by killing Pazzi in the same fashion. So there you go. That is why Pazzi was essential to this film. You need a threat to Hannibal in Florence, a character was developed, and his end is darkly poetic.
I'm aware of Giancarlo's character, even if I was economical with the details, for which I apologise, and I just feel that the Clarice-free Florence episode makes the film very unbalanced because for this period, in which Giancarlo is essebtially the main character. If his intention was to restore his stature in the police department, he should have co-operated with the FBI. And, he was incredibly stupid to approach Hannibal alone on at least two occasions, as well as ignoring Clarice.
Okay Julianne Moore. The fact of the matter is, this is not the same Starling in Lambs and for good reason. Moore's Starling is older and wiser, not the scared little FBI trainee she was years before. She has become hardened by all the killing she has done and she's far more cynical. Her character is trapped in a world that simply does not care for her. She devoted her life to the FBI and now they have rejected her. Simply put, this character is miserable in this film. There really is no other way to portray her. Would I have liked to have seen Foster ? Of course. .
I think you can see an early stage of this in Lambs as Clarice is shown a slight lack of respect by Crawford(Scott Glenn, I think) when he leaves her in a room full of cops while consulting the local chief of police on his own(he may have a male agent with him). We basically see Clarice enter the world to which you refer.
Almost never in a film do you see a character go through real psychological development over the course of multiple films while being portrayed by the same actor. The only example I can recall is Micheal Corleone from The Godfather series.
Sarah Connor, played by Linda Hamilton, between Terminator and T2 undergoes an enormous transformation both physically and psychologically.
And another such transformation is being attempted by Daniel Craig at present.
You talk about no real link between Verger and Krendler, what else do you need ? The guy is a creep and corrupt so it's easy to these two working together. This isn't a cop thriller so addressing such a insignifigant detail makes no sense. As for your complaints about Verger, he wasn't suppose to be very "sinister". He was a pathetic and twisted sadist who was also a pedophile to boot. I really enjoyed Oldman's hammy preformance.
Verger seems more worthy of pity than anything else, even if the man was a pedophile. And anyway, surely even pedos aren't as evil as cannibals. Plus you can't really blame him for wanting brutal vengeance over Hannibal who did slice his face off and feed it to the dogs(there is no way a dog would eat that unless it had been starved for days).
Krendler, on the other hand feels undercooked as if he is a slightly creepy idiot, rather than a ruthless and nasty bureaucrat. I don't feel for one second that he deserves what Hannibal does to him, which I actually find far more shocking than the proposed ending from the novel.
Also, I know Hannibal's affection for Clarice is very necessary to the plot but they really overdo it a bit.
And there was pretty much nothing the film to give us reason to believe that Verger's assistant, whose name escapes me, would throw him in with the pigs.
“Everything that irritates us about others can lead us to a better understanding of ourselves.” - Carl Jung
I'm aware of Giancarlo's character, even if I was economical with the details, for which I apologise, and I just feel that the Clarice-free Florence episode makes the film very unbalanced because for this period, in which Giancarlo is essebtially the main character. If his intention was to restore his stature in the police department, he should have co-operated with the FBI. And, he was incredibly stupid to approach Hannibal alone on at least two occasions, as well as ignoring Clarice.
As I already explained in great detail, there is a purpose for the film's focus Inspector Pazzi and his motivations so I am not going to repeat myself. There was also a sense of tension when Hannibal clearly discovered that Pazzi was going to try and capture him. I enjoyed the entire Pazzi affair personally and his death the icing on the cake. What also didn't hurt was the gorgeous setting of Florence. It was the ideal location for Hannibal Lecter. This is Hannibal's film more than anything so it should be in settings in which he would enjoy the most.
I think you can see an early stage of this in Lambs as Clarice is shown a slight lack of respect by Crawford(Scott Glenn, I think) when he leaves her in a room full of cops while consulting the local chief of police on his own(he may have a male agent with him). We basically see Clarice enter the world to which you refer.
That was a forgivable act on Crawford's part as Crawford explained why he left the room. That really can't be considered a foreshadow to Clarice's down right misery in Hannibal.
Verger seems more worthy of pity than anything else, even if the man was a pedophile. And anyway, surely even pedos aren't as evil as cannibals. Plus you can't really blame him for wanting brutal vengeance over Hannibal who did slice his face off and feed it to the dogs(there is no way a dog would eat that unless it had been starved for days).
Okay you are really nit-picking here. You are a fan of James Bond and you can't accept dogs eating someone's face ? )
As for Verger, I already said he was never meant to be very sinister and I understood his desire for vengance. That dosen't mean I feel sorry for the guy since he helped in Clarice's Degradation and attempted to murder Hannibal.
Krendler, on the other hand feels undercooked as if he is a slightly creepy idiot, rather than a ruthless and nasty bureaucrat. I don't feel for one second that he deserves what Hannibal does to him, which I actually find far more shocking than the proposed ending from the novel.
Also, I know Hannibal's affection for Clarice is very necessary to the plot but they really overdo it a bit.
He wasn't a ruthless or nasty bureaucrat ? He tormented Clarice any chance he got by verbally abusing her and he, like many other of the FBI officials in the film, cared a lot more about perserving the FBI's good name than anything else. What more do you need to illustrate how repugnant Paul Krendler was ? I don't see how you could really feel sorry for him, especially when he was given such a comical send-off. You didn't find anything that Krendler said during the dinner scene funny ? I thought it was hysterical in a darkly humorous fashion and I also appericated the poetry of it all. This scene was also in the novel and as a matter of fact, Clarice had no qualms about it. She was the one that actually made the remark about Paul Krender being like The Apostle Paul.
As for Hannibal's affection for Clarice being over done, all I can say is we're talking Hannibal Lecter. What he thinks is a tribute of love or an act of politeness is definetly not what common people think. He thought driving "Multiple" Miggs to suicide in Silence of The Lambs was a gesture of courtesy or when he killed an untalented flutist to improve the sound of The Boston Philharmonic Orchestra was a public service.
And there was pretty much nothing the film to give us reason to believe that Verger's assistant, whose name escapes me, would throw him in with the pigs.
It's not surprising really. Cordell clearly sees that Mason Verger is sick and he wouldn't care what happens to him.
RogueAgentSpeeding in the Tumbler...Posts: 3,676MI6 Agent
Here's the trailer for THE THING prequel set to come out later in the fall. I think that John Carpenter's a producer on this one and that's the only reason I'm interested in going to see this:
Here's the trailer for THE THING prequel set to come out later in the fall.
Prequel? Based on what I've seen, it's a remake. . .
I don't know really; I've read certain articles on it prior to production stating that it's a prequel to the 1982 one but that can change.
Looking at the cast list names of the actors seem very Norweigian to me so that might mean it's the events leading up to the Thing invading the McCready camp. Honestly, at first I didn't think this thing had a chance in hell of getting off of the ground but I was wrong about that...
Mrs. Man Face: "You wouldn't hit a lady? Would you?"
Batman: "The Hammer Of Justice isUNISEX!"
-Batman: The Brave & The Bold -
A Prequel to The Thing, That would be Cool. Always thought they could of had the Bodies of the last two members of the Team being shipped back to an Airbase , then have basicly the same movie but on a Bigger scale. )
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
You can see the expedition flag at the 19 second mark. Looks like a "remake" in the guise of a "prequel." The inclusion of a young female scientist got me to thinking. The Carpenter classic has no female roles whatsoever. I can't think of another movie at present that's strictly an all male cast.
"I just cannot believe any of this voodoo b*llshit." (Childs)
Comments
Oct 25th , 1978....world premiere of one of the greatest horror films of all time !
Respect to Don Pleasence ! {[]
Alice, Sweet Alice:
The production values on this one are low, but there is something really unsettling about the atmosphere. I remember a good comment made about it on the internet somewhere, that it was like a good Dario Argento giallo made in the Bronx. It has some real genuine gotcha scares in it too.
The Vanishing:
The original. Scary!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Food of the Gods 2:
Not that scary on the whole, but there are some tense moments, especially for people scared of enclosed spaces, and people scared of giant rats.
Society:
This one is not scary as much as it is kinky and sick, chock full of 80s style FX and made by Brian Yuzna if I remember correctly. It stars that guy whose name I don't know but who appeared in practially every 80s teen movie ever.
Exorcist 3:
*THAT* scene with the nurse!
Superman 3:
Though technically not a horror film, I put it here because of the bit where the lady turns into a robot. Freaked me out when I saw that as a kid.
Friday the 13th, The Final Chapter:
The 4th in the series, it's great because (1) it has good Tom Savini FX; (2) it has Crispin Glover's breakdance scene; (3) it has the fat girl eating the banana; and (4) it has Corey Feldman.
Invasion of the Body Snatchers: The Donald Sutherland version.
Twilight Zone the Movie:
If only for the first 10 minutes with Albert Brooks and Dan Ackroyd. I saw this on video as a kid, and it spooked me out. I think you can catch it on youtube somewhere.
Psycho 2:
I don't know why, but for some reason this one really disturbs me. Maybe it has to do in part to the sudden eruption of violence at the film's climax.
Tales of the Unexpected TV show:
There were some episodes of this show that are just frightening. The two that come to mind are the Landlady, and the one about the little girl who is trying to get home on the bus and who thinks that the man on the bus is a serial killer.
Stephen King's "It" rises again as movie
Thu Mar 12, 2009 10:49pm EDT Email | Print | Share| Reprints | Single Page[-] Text [+]
By Borys Kit
LOS ANGELES (Hollywood Reporter) - Warner Bros. is bringing Stephen King's landmark horror novel "It" to the big screen.
Screenwriter Dave Kajganich will adapt the story, which follows a group of kids called the Losers Club. They encounter a creature called It, which preys on children and whose favorite form is that of a sadistic clown called Pennywise. When the creature resurfaces, the kids are called upon to regroup, this time as adults, even though they have no memory of the first battle.
The novel is set in 1958 and 1985, but the feature version will be set in the present day.
"It" was the best-selling book of 1986 and in 1990 was turned into an ABC miniseries that starred John Ritter, Harry Anderson, Tim Reid, Annette O'Toole and Richard Thomas. Tim Curry played Pennywise.
The screen rights have bounced around since then.
Kajganich has made a name for himself with his dark materials, writing "The Invasion" for Warners and snagging gigs such as the "Pet Semetary" remake. He recently was hired to write New Line's "Escape From New York" remake.
(Editing by Sheri Linden at Reuters)
© Thomson Reuters 2009 All rights reserved
Batman: "The Hammer Of Justice is UNISEX!"
-Batman: The Brave & The Bold -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bDdncqvtfQ&feature=related
To this day, I don't even know if the movie was any good or not but 70s horror trailers just knew how to scare you back then.
Batman: "The Hammer Of Justice is UNISEX!"
-Batman: The Brave & The Bold -
here's part of the first episode
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAMorsWt4W8&feature=related
www.scottacademymartialarts.co.uk
That's good to hear. I have read some saying on different websites that the transfer to dvd left the movie with a very poor grainy look. Is that true? ?:)
Batman: "The Hammer Of Justice is UNISEX!"
-Batman: The Brave & The Bold -
Sure, there's the age of the film, but I've seen a lot worse.
LINK:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1848567375/ref=pd_wl_gw_3_2?pf_rd_p=1270506242&pf_rd_s=center-4&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_i=507846&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=193CM4T8TWA2JJMX1QZ9
Roger Moore 1927-2017
A a super little series it is too...there are only three episodes in the series, which is a real shame as he's such a fan of the genre and his enthusiasm spills over....I've learned such a lot so far and would have liked more episodes so he could explain and show more.
oooh! that looks awesome. I'm a huge fan of the show, and that episode is deff. a great one!
thanks for the trailer, Rogue!
mountainburdphotography.wordpress.com
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
I guess it's horror if Witchfinder General, shown last night on BBC4, is, as the theme is similar if set 300 years earlier, in 1348 the year the great pestilence came to Britain.
A young monk whose monastery is beset by plague has doubts about his vocation when his teen sweetheart rides away. His mind is made up when a band of soldiers led by Sean Bean arrive, asking for a navigator as they make their way north. Their aim is to reach a village that has mysteriously remained immune from the plague; they suspect witchcraft is behind it. The monk goes with them.
Brit director Christopher Smith does a great job of conveying energy and crispness, the landscape really looks medieval and the camera work has great visual flair. In fact, I wouldn't put him asunder for a Bond film; he reminded me of Martin Campbell in his pre-GoldenEye days; the film has some similarity to No Escape.
That said, when they reach the said village things go awry, because the first sinister figure we encounter is from a British 1980s sitcom, and it's just too much. It's a shame, because he is a good actor, but still... This is one area where Hammer might have done it better, had Christopher Lee emerged you wouldn't be disappointed at the familiar face. Also, the village looks a bit phoney, a bit Homebase.
Also, Smith seems like Campbell in that he's okay when the camera keeps moving, but doesn't know how to pace the quieter moments, when things have come to a stop. I'm not sure if Sean Bean is great casting either, he should be as a knight as we've seen him in Lord of the Rings and Sharpe. But he does seem to two-dimensional actor, not bad but without another layer of interest or intrique about him. He's no Vincent Price or even Alan Rickman, he has the persona of the soldiers who accompany Ian Ogilvy in Witchfinder General; straight as a dye but lacking something.
At 90 minutes or so it doesn't outstay its welcome, it's good medieval fare.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Son Of Barbel talked me into watching this Swedish film at the weekend. I believe an American version called Let Me In is just out, but IMO it'd be hard to top this atmospheric vampire tale.
I followed this up with Hannibal which I found to be a pile of **** lazily thrown together with a big budget very little explanation for Lecter's action. This in spite of an excellent performance again from Anthony Hopkins.
HANNIBAL was not just "thrown together" and Hannibal's actions were all coherent if you were paying attention. Not as good as the book but only by a slim margin.
For about a third of the film we see things from Giancarlo Giannini's point of view with Clarice in the background, then suddenly Florence is abandoned and Clarice becomes the main character.
Also, Julianne Moore's portrayal of Clarice leaves a gaping hole where Jodie Foster should be and this really ruins the film for me, because I can't buy them as the same person. This is why Hannibal's compassion towards Clarice seems so strange.
And Giancarlo's character is clearly far too stupid to be chief of police.
And very little is done to display the link between Gary Oldman and Ray Liotta. I found Oldman's character particularly to view as a villain so sinister that Clarice should save Hannibal from him. They could have shown him as someone who deserved to suffer at Hannibal's hands.
And I was paying a great deal of attention as I was anticipating a worthy sequel to a cinema classic, alas I saw no such thing.
I am sorry but your recollection is very faulty here. The focus on Giancarlo's Pazzi character was very important. Firstly Pazzi was a Chief Inspector as stated several times in the film. Secoundly, he was more greedy and desperate then stupid. Pazzi's career was in shambles after being kicked off the famous "El Monstro" serial murder case. Now he was reassigned to a far less glamorous case about the disappearance of a Library Curator who Hannibal murdered. When Pazzi sniffs out Lecter, who is currently incognito as Dr. Fell, he seizes an opprotunity to restore his stature in the police department and a way please his trophy wife who has very expensive tastes. To Hannibal's delight, Pazzi is a decendent of a man who 400 years earlier was murdered by being hanged from the side of a building with his bowels hanging out. Hannibal could not help but imitate this scene by killing Pazzi in the same fashion. So there you go. That is why Pazzi was essential to this film. You need a threat to Hannibal in Florence, a character was developed, and his end is darkly poetic.
Okay Julianne Moore. The fact of the matter is, this is not the same Starling in Lambs and for good reason. Moore's Starling is older and wiser, not the scared little FBI trainee she was years before. She has become hardened by all the killing she has done and she's far more cynical. Her character is trapped in a world that simply does not care for her. She devoted her life to the FBI and now they have rejected her. Simply put, this character is miserable in this film. There really is no other way to portray her. Would I have liked to have seen Foster ? Of course. Almost never in a film do you see a character go through real psychological development over the course of multiple films while being portrayed by the same actor. The only example I can recall is Micheal Corleone from The Godfather series.
You talk about no real link between Verger and Krendler, what else do you need ? The guy is a creep and corrupt so it's easy to these two working together. This isn't a cop thriller so addressing such a insignifigant detail makes no sense. As for your complaints about Verger, he wasn't suppose to be very "sinister". He was a pathetic and twisted sadist who was also a pedophile to boot. I really enjoyed Oldman's hammy preformance.
In general, I understand people being dissappointed by this film because they are looking in wrong direction. HANNIBAL is not suppose to be a thriller, it's an Gothic horror and Ridley Scott did a brilliant job especially with the dreary operatic visuals.
The only real problem with Moore's version of Clarice is that, unlike the book, she does not follow what should have been her character's natural progression and join with Lecter at the end. For whatever reason the studio went for the "safe" Hollywood ending instead of what we got in the book which, while probably not as commercial, would have been shocking and given us something more memorable and far more lasting.
Personally, I've never found Silence of the Lambs to be a particularly scary or even engrossing movie; it is to me a very dry, by-the-numbers crime thriller with Clarice coming across as the stereotypical determined but flawed heroine trying to confront her own doubts and demons. I also could never buy into Jodie Foster's phony drawl. Ted Levine's Buffalo Bill is about as scary as a set of chattering teeth; the guy just looks goofy to me and I bust out laughing everytime I hear that "PUT THE F&*%#!G LOTION IN THE BASKET!!!" line. Other than Anthony Hopkins and Anthony Heald's smarmy Dr. Chilton, there isn't much for me there.
For me, Brett Rattner's Red Dragon was a far far more effective and engaging thriller and Feinne's Dolarhyde makes for a more compelling and well-rounded villain. People enjoy villifying Ratner (and deservedly so in some instances) but the guy knows how to pace his movie and Red Dragon is never boring, something that cannot be said of its predecessors.
Thomas Harris also agreed that the ending should be changed however I think they keep an audience friendly verison of it if you watch carefully.
She is memorable for what she did and not her character persay. She let Hannibal Lecter in her mind. Not even the most seasoned professionals would have done something that dangerous that and yet she did. As for the rest of the film, I think it works. I would certaintly say it's overrated.
Red Dragon, the book and Ratner's film, were fine thrillers with the book having a great ending. However, neither seemed as powerful as Lambs or Hannibal. Personally, I can't get enough Hannibal, the book or the film. Hell, I loved the book so much I finished it in less than a day.
I think one Hannibal film that is particularly overrated in Manhunter. I am surprised by the amount of people who love that film and feel it's not appericated enough. It's a total bastardization of the book. It's not even one of Micheal Mann's best films. All the characterizations were totally wrong. The very end is just hysterically bad. Dollarhyde blasting cops left and right with In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida blaring in the background while he shakes off bullet after bullet. I find it ironic how Mann thought this okay and felt that Dollarhyde's dragon tatoo was too over-the-top.
And another such transformation is being attempted by Daniel Craig at present.
Verger seems more worthy of pity than anything else, even if the man was a pedophile. And anyway, surely even pedos aren't as evil as cannibals. Plus you can't really blame him for wanting brutal vengeance over Hannibal who did slice his face off and feed it to the dogs(there is no way a dog would eat that unless it had been starved for days).
Krendler, on the other hand feels undercooked as if he is a slightly creepy idiot, rather than a ruthless and nasty bureaucrat. I don't feel for one second that he deserves what Hannibal does to him, which I actually find far more shocking than the proposed ending from the novel.
Also, I know Hannibal's affection for Clarice is very necessary to the plot but they really overdo it a bit.
And there was pretty much nothing the film to give us reason to believe that Verger's assistant, whose name escapes me, would throw him in with the pigs.
As I already explained in great detail, there is a purpose for the film's focus Inspector Pazzi and his motivations so I am not going to repeat myself. There was also a sense of tension when Hannibal clearly discovered that Pazzi was going to try and capture him. I enjoyed the entire Pazzi affair personally and his death the icing on the cake. What also didn't hurt was the gorgeous setting of Florence. It was the ideal location for Hannibal Lecter. This is Hannibal's film more than anything so it should be in settings in which he would enjoy the most.
That was a forgivable act on Crawford's part as Crawford explained why he left the room. That really can't be considered a foreshadow to Clarice's down right misery in Hannibal.
Okay you are really nit-picking here. You are a fan of James Bond and you can't accept dogs eating someone's face ?
As for Verger, I already said he was never meant to be very sinister and I understood his desire for vengance. That dosen't mean I feel sorry for the guy since he helped in Clarice's Degradation and attempted to murder Hannibal.
He wasn't a ruthless or nasty bureaucrat ? He tormented Clarice any chance he got by verbally abusing her and he, like many other of the FBI officials in the film, cared a lot more about perserving the FBI's good name than anything else. What more do you need to illustrate how repugnant Paul Krendler was ? I don't see how you could really feel sorry for him, especially when he was given such a comical send-off. You didn't find anything that Krendler said during the dinner scene funny ? I thought it was hysterical in a darkly humorous fashion and I also appericated the poetry of it all. This scene was also in the novel and as a matter of fact, Clarice had no qualms about it. She was the one that actually made the remark about Paul Krender being like The Apostle Paul.
As for Hannibal's affection for Clarice being over done, all I can say is we're talking Hannibal Lecter. What he thinks is a tribute of love or an act of politeness is definetly not what common people think. He thought driving "Multiple" Miggs to suicide in Silence of The Lambs was a gesture of courtesy or when he killed an untalented flutist to improve the sound of The Boston Philharmonic Orchestra was a public service.
It's not surprising really. Cordell clearly sees that Mason Verger is sick and he wouldn't care what happens to him.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Txjm94GnrPA&feature=player_embedded
It would be nice if the film ended with the Norweigans chasing the dog in the helicopter. That would make a fitting connection to the '82 classic.
Batman: "The Hammer Of Justice is UNISEX!"
-Batman: The Brave & The Bold -
Prequel? Based on what I've seen, it's a remake. . .
Looking at the cast list names of the actors seem very Norweigian to me so that might mean it's the events leading up to the Thing invading the McCready camp. Honestly, at first I didn't think this thing had a chance in hell of getting off of the ground but I was wrong about that...
Batman: "The Hammer Of Justice is UNISEX!"
-Batman: The Brave & The Bold -
"I just cannot believe any of this voodoo b*llshit." (Childs)