HORRORCRAM XIV: DaMU you all to Hell

Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 12995
ERotICI've been on quite the horror kick lately, and I just got Shudder, so here are my thoughts on some newly watched movies.



Lake Mungo 7/10 - Probably one that I respect more than I enjoyed, it's lowkey to the point of near-mumblecore status. Manages to have some genuinely chilling moments, if only because of the idea and not execution. More effective at making me jump out of my seat than most jump-scare movies though.

Murder Party 7/10- Didn't realize until halfway through that this was the debut from the guy who made Green Room, but it's fairly obvious with its punk-rock sensibility and apparent disdain for wannabe artists. It's microbudget is painfully obvious at times, but that would be a bigger deal if this wasn't 100 percent straight up a comedy, not horror-comedy.

Demons 8/10- A perfect mix of wonderfully bad dialogue, awkward acting/dubbing, and great gore effects. One of the better examples of Italian trash that I've seen.

We Go On 7/10- Surprisingly good Shudder exclusive. Is effective more due to the cleverness of the script than because it's especially chilling. A lot of fun ideas to be found in this one.

The Honeymoon 6/10- A near-perfect set-up with a not-so-perfect payoff. The leads are great actors and very likeable characters, and the "mystery" is intriguing and builds suspense effectively. But when the credits roll, you're kind of left wondering, "Oh, that was it, huh."

Splinter 6/10- It was fine! Solid creature feature. I don't have much to say about it. Too much shakey cam to hide the low budget effects, but the premise for the creature was neat.

Also, anyone else with Shudder have issues with some movies being unsearchable? I try in both the app and the browser to search for a few movies that I know are on there and they don't show up.

Lake Mungo is a good example of a film that leads with creepy atmosphere throughout ahead of everything else. Thought more highly of it than you did, but 7 out of 10 is decent.

Splinter is the film with Jill Wagner (Wipeout) and Paulo Costanzo (Joey), right? I thought it was pretty good, a nasty thriller.

Now, you're making me second guess my decision not to watch Murder Party for October.
Sep 25, 2017 9:10 PM
0 0
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 11158
Lake Mungo is the best horror film of the last ten years, the only exception maybe being Let the Right One In.

Demons is fantastic. Demons 2 is also pretty great.

Terror Train is better than Prom Night, but Prom Night will always remain one of the greatest odd duck slashers in history, and those are my favourite kind.

In many ways the end of The Honeymoon is a minor let down considering the set up, but considering it wasn't the ending I wanted, it still works pretty well regardless.
Sep 25, 2017 10:29 PM
0 0
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 9533
crumbsroomLake Mungo is the best horror film of the last ten years


*hug*

Yes.
Sep 25, 2017 11:42 PM
0 0
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 2466
Spent the weekend (figuratively) with director Mickey Keating

Ritual
Suspenseful in parts, kind of liked it, but ultimately empty. If you're a Forensic Files junkie like I am, it's fun to loudly chastise the two protagonists as they unwittingly leave clues willy-nilly all over their crime scene.

POD
Crazy guy (or is he?) is convinced he's the victim of military experiments and claims he's got proof locked in a room. Enjoyed the first 2/3, despite the crazy character's mannerisms which were kind of a cross between Eisenberg's Luthor and Charlie Manson. Lost interest in the final third, due to some spoilery goings-on.


Darling
Pretty sure some of you have reviewed this in the past but I can't find any of that now. Should have appealed to my penchant for slow-as-molasses nothing-happens mood pieces but even I was getting antsy at one point. Picked up enough steam in the middle that I ultimately give it a thumb's-up but be warned that there's not much here. Full disclosure: I've been sweet on this actress for a few years (specifically her mesmerizing eyeballs), so factor that into the movie's watchability for yourself.

Carnage Park
This one's a bit more Rob Zombie, with its brightly-lit desert setting and rock music interludes. Pat Healy plays a murderous redneck, and I've come to like him in just about everything I've seen.

Enjoyed all four to varying degrees while they were on but in hindsight they're all sort of empty. If you've got the patience and you like a little style-over-substance every now and then, I guess my rec would be Darling. If you're more of a Devil's Rejects kind of guy, go with Carnage Park.
Sep 26, 2017 12:34 AM
0 0
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 27528
Lake Mungo is amazing.

That is all.
Sep 26, 2017 1:02 AM
0 0
MKS
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 46783
Lake Mungo has a few aspects that ring a bit hollow for me but that ending is as haunting and creepy as anything I've seen.

Murder Party rocks. I'm a big fan of Saulnier and consider him a kindred spirit in taste and cinematic approach when I work on projects. Watching Green Room and Blue Ruin were ominous experiences because they felt so similar to my own sensibilities. Murder Party is far more rough technically, as well as emphasizes humor, but certainly fits in thematically.

Demons and Demons 2 are a ton of fun. They're utterly insane and D2 feels like a B reel of ideas that they didn't get to use for Demons but they're a level of amusing Italian excess that pair great with Evil Dead and Demon Knight.

Honeymoon felt like it ended before it's climax. Great acting and some wonderful scenes but amounts to an "oh, alright."
Sep 26, 2017 1:27 AM
0 0
MKS
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 46783
Wooley
MKS
Wooley
MKS
DaMUGreat discussion on Fisher. Loving the praise.

Regarding why he's not considered more as an equal and inspiration in the horror pantheon, Captain Terror may be onto something with Fisher working dominantly in reworking Dracula / Mummy / Frankenstein stories. We tend to pair new style-bearers in tandem with new kinds of stories. James Whale's expressionist camp works in service of the Universal tragic monsters. Val Lewton's noir quietude works in service of heavily psychological thrillers. Bava with expressive color use in service of gialli. Carpenter's sliding camera and the first slasher. Raimi's coked-up energy and splatstick.

Fisher, meanwhile, is reconfiguring stories we've seen before. And, if I can be cruel for a moment, I don't think his reworkings of Universal stories ever really lap their originators, although Horror of Dracula probably comes closest. He's an excellent director, yes, and pioneering in terms of style, for sure, but the films he was making immediately invite some unfair comparing against horror films that are straight-up totemic. Like his works permanently live under a shadow.

[Half-formed morning thoughts, unsure how much I agree with what I just said, need to make some eggs.]

This was more or less the conclusion I came to when JJ and I discussed it. I think it also has to due with the brand outshining the director. Hammer is ubiquitous and Fisher is often a footnote. It's similar to Chang Cheh and Shaw Brothers. The brand gets the influential credit.
However, I'd say that Fisher's iterations of Dracula, Mummy and Wolfman outshine their universal counterparts by a sizeable margin, especially Mummy. He never managed to surpass Frankenstein by Whale's first two films are daunting tasks to take on.

Yes, I think Hammer stole Fisher's thunder.
As for the Universal films, I think Dracula is much better than Horror of Dracula, obviously the original Frankenstein films are classics that are head and shoulders above, and yes, you're right, he kicks The Mummy's ass.
It's really in the sequels that Francis builds up credit, in the sense that none of the movies that Dracula spawned are really good films, but the subsequent Hammer Draculas, for example, maintain a certain standard.

Where you lead on Dracula, I simply cannot follow. Legosi was great in the role but the film surrounding him is so rote and emotionless that I can't believe that it came from the same director as Freaks. Something I demand from a Dracula adaptation is some degree of atmosphere but there's nothing except a painfully dry plodding from moment to moment with no sense of tension or fun.

For that, I vastly prefer the colorful and stylish Horror of Dracula and would take Lee and Cushing in their respective roles as Dracula and Van Helsing over any competitor that comes to mind. I think it's usage of a false protagonist, predating Psycho by a few years, makes it a less faithful adaptation in terms of plot but makes it a far more faithful adaptation in terms of tone and unpredictability. I'd also take Prince of Darkness, Dracula Has Risen From the Grave and Taste the Blood of Dracula over Browning's film, though not all of those are by Fisher. Freddie Francis is the other Hammer director that doesn't get enough love and I think whether using color or stark black and white, his films may be the most beautiful in the catalogue.

Have you seen Curse of the Werewolf?

I actually like the rest of Dracula a lot. I love the way Mina descends toward darkness over the course of the third act, and I think Renfield and his arc are just aces. I also love the way the rivalry between Dracula and Van Helsing are portrayed in this version. Really, obviously, I like a LOT about this movie. Saw it in the theater a couple years ago and was just really, really impressed. My friend, seeing it for the first time, thought it was the tits.
As for Horror of Dracula, I just thought the story was pretty poor and I really struggle with the climactic moment when Cushing crosses a pair of candlesticks and it's enough to defeat the Prince of Darkness. Like, I seriously wonder how this guy lived as long as he did. And while, it may not be a fair complaint, they butchered Stoker's story to the point of being nearly unrecognizable. Doesn't mean it can't be a good movie, but the changes seemed so random and unnecessary that it distracted me frequently. This is not to say I don't enjoy the film, I do, but I prefer Dracula (1931) and, among the Hammer films, I prefer Dracula: Prince of Darkness and Dracula Has Risen From The Grave?(possibly the best of the series for me)?to Horror of.
Definitely seen Curse of the Werewolf, really enjoy it, think it's a pretty underappreciated film. Like Drac, I do prefer the Universal version, The Wolf Man (I know they're very different stories), but not by as much as one might think.?
And I have plenty of respect for Freddie Francis too. As I've said DHRftG is a favorite, always loved Dr. Terror's House of Horrors (since I was a kid), and while The Creeping Flesh is a weaker film and Torture Garden is really bad, they both look pretty good.

You didn't think that Dracula was just a tad flat? It felt like they had all the ingredients of a Universal classic and had it been put in the hands of James Whale or perhaps Browning in a few years time, that I'd love it, but it was just so uninteresting to look at. The sense of pacing and framing was just so rudimentary compared even to German Expressionism and it feels older and more archaic at times to Nosferatu.
I've come to accept and expect Dracula adaptations to be far from the source and Hammer's film did something that very few films in that era did: it surprised me. The fact that it also looks 20 years younger than it is was also another eye opener for me. Some of the changes are excessive and needless from a narrative standpoint, but in developing a style that insists that anything can happen with this Dracula, it works. I do agree on the ending but Dracula tends to go out like a punk fairly often. The melting effect was surprisingly good (looks better when replayed in PoD, I believe). I just accept it as Lee's Dracula not being hard to kill, just impossible to keep dead.
I think the closest film to Curse of the Werewolf is Perfume: Story of a Murderer. It's just such an ambitious film with such massive scope compared to virtually all other werewolf films that I can't help but admire it more than Wolfman, though I'm a big fan of that as well. I don't even remember having an issue with Lon Chaney Jr..
I think Francis' finest hour is as a cinematographer for the Innocents. That film is pure atmosphere.
Sep 26, 2017 1:35 AM
0 0
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 20648
Spanish Dracula best Dracula.

Blood for Dracula second best Dracula.

Props to the Demons and The Innocents (and hell, even Prom Night) love.

Hated Darling. Tried really hard to be Repulsion but without any of the tension or competence. Looked nice, though.

These are my opinions.
Sep 26, 2017 1:46 AM
0 0
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 2466
?MKS The sense of pacing and framing was just so rudimentary compared even to German Expressionism and it feels older and more archaic at times to Nosferatu.

I'm a fan of the '31 version but will concede that it's not the liveliest film. My DVD has an alternate audio track with a Phillip Glass score. Normally I'd be 100% against such revisionism, but the score is relatively unobtrusive and as simple as it is, it manages to inject a bit of life into some of the slower scenes in England. Ever heard it?
Sep 26, 2017 3:35 AM
0 0
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 12995
Captain Terror
?MKS The sense of pacing and framing was just so rudimentary compared even to German Expressionism and it feels older and more archaic at times to Nosferatu.

I'm a fan of the '31 version but will concede that it's not the liveliest film. My DVD has an alternate audio track with a Phillip Glass score. Normally I'd be 100% against such revisionism, but the score is relatively unobtrusive and as simple as it is, it manages to inject a bit of life into some of the slower scenes in England. Ever heard it?

Also a fan of the 1931 film which consists of two strong performances that make up for the occasional lulls. Curious about the Glass take.
Sep 26, 2017 4:18 AM
0 0
Joined: Aug 2017
Posts: 402
Anyone seen Ti West's The Sacrament? Is it worth watching? So far I'm 1-1 with West as I did not like The House of the Devil but liked The Innkeepers, except for the very ending. Either way I just want some horror to watch after a couple of comedy/dramas.
Sep 26, 2017 5:51 AM
0 0
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 60222
last splashAnyone seen Ti West's The Sacrament? Is it worth watching? So far I'm 1-1 with West as I did not like The House of the Devil but liked The Innkeepers, except for the very ending. Either way I just want some horror to watch after a couple of comedy/dramas.

The Sacrament isn't as bad as everyone thinks it is. It's just a little too straightforward and doesn't have anything interesting to say.
Sep 26, 2017 6:16 AM
0 0
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 21557
Apex Predator
Wooley
Apex Predator
WooleyWatched Terror Train last night.
Totally enjoyable little slasher/thriller in the mold of the time.
Outside of the classics, I felt like it was as good as any of the also-rans. Liked the way they handled the identity of the killer, thought a lot of the lighting was nice, and it's shot pretty well, enjoyed the story in general really, and Jamie Lee is always perfect in these films.
So there ya have it.

I felt like it was marginally the weakest of the Jamie Lee screamers.

Although it's a small distinction, having Jamie Lee being innocent (Halloween, Prom Night) worked better for me than have her helping to pull off the disaster on the horizon prank.

But as a 1980s horror, it was fine. David Copperfield showing up does keep you on your toes with the implications in the plot and the idea of what the killer is doing is fairly neat.

Ah, this distinction goes to Prom Night, for me, by a thousand miles. That was the slummingest thing I've seen in a long time. I actually thought, while watching Terror Train, how it was nice to watch a Jamie Lee Curtis horror that was up to some kind of standard again (after Prom Night being the most recent I'd seen and her previous film). Different tier of film, to me.
On the innocence thing, I thought the film was pretty clear that she didn't know what the prank was and had no idea there was a dead body in the bed, and that's why she hated "Doc", and she never forgave herself for her involvement in the prank, even though she didn't know. She repeatedly demonstrates empathy toward Kenny during the film talking about how he was sick and they should never have done what they did to him. So I kinda felt like they purified her pretty well.
So then when you throw in the cool setting, the solid slasher narrative (as compared to something like, say, The Prowler), the quality look of the film for the budget, David Copperfield, the red herring, and Jamie Lee, I feel like you get a pretty competent little slasher, at least on par with House On Sorority Row or maybe even the original My Bloody Valentine (not quite, but not far). It ain't Halloween or The Fog, but it's better, IMO, than H20 or Resurrection.

To me, Halloween was head and shoulders ahead of both Terror Train and Prom Night.

Gave a slight edge to Prom Night because of Leslie Nielsen pulling off the serious principal role, who doesn't give a crap about due process and for making one of the better overweight characters in horror history. Also, I think they handled who was doing the killings pretty well considering the time it took place.

But to me, honestly, I think they're both B- or C+ films to me. Not great, but certainly good for some nostalgia and some cleverness.

Gotcha.
No, certainly I agree that Halloween is in a different tier from the other two.
For me, though, Terror Train is probably a B slasher, while Prom Night is a D- or maybe a C in a remediated class. I agree with the individual things you point out about the latter, but they are not nearly enough overcome just how piss-poor the overall movie is, IMO. I actually believe that movie is only about 40 minutes long with 40 minutes of pointless filler.
Sep 26, 2017 11:04 AM
0 0
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 21557
Apex Predator
Wooley
Apex Predator
WooleyWatched Terror Train last night.
Totally enjoyable little slasher/thriller in the mold of the time.
Outside of the classics, I felt like it was as good as any of the also-rans. Liked the way they handled the identity of the killer, thought a lot of the lighting was nice, and it's shot pretty well, enjoyed the story in general really, and Jamie Lee is always perfect in these films.
So there ya have it.

I felt like it was marginally the weakest of the Jamie Lee screamers.

Although it's a small distinction, having Jamie Lee being innocent (Halloween, Prom Night) worked better for me than have her helping to pull off the disaster on the horizon prank.

But as a 1980s horror, it was fine. David Copperfield showing up does keep you on your toes with the implications in the plot and the idea of what the killer is doing is fairly neat.

Ah, this distinction goes to Prom Night, for me, by a thousand miles. That was the slummingest thing I've seen in a long time. I actually thought, while watching Terror Train, how it was nice to watch a Jamie Lee Curtis horror that was up to some kind of standard again (after Prom Night being the most recent I'd seen and her previous film). Different tier of film, to me.
On the innocence thing, I thought the film was pretty clear that she didn't know what the prank was and had no idea there was a dead body in the bed, and that's why she hated "Doc", and she never forgave herself for her involvement in the prank, even though she didn't know. She repeatedly demonstrates empathy toward Kenny during the film talking about how he was sick and they should never have done what they did to him. So I kinda felt like they purified her pretty well.
So then when you throw in the cool setting, the solid slasher narrative (as compared to something like, say, The Prowler), the quality look of the film for the budget, David Copperfield, the red herring, and Jamie Lee, I feel like you get a pretty competent little slasher, at least on par with House On Sorority Row or maybe even the original My Bloody Valentine (not quite, but not far). It ain't Halloween or The Fog, but it's better, IMO, than H20 or Resurrection.

To me, Halloween was head and shoulders ahead of both Terror Train and Prom Night.

Gave a slight edge to Prom Night because of Leslie Nielsen pulling off the serious principal role, who doesn't give a crap about due process and for making one of the better overweight characters in horror history. Also, I think they handled who was doing the killings pretty well considering the time it took place.

But to me, honestly, I think they're both B- or C+ films to me. Not great, but certainly good for some nostalgia and some cleverness.

Gotcha.
No, certainly I agree that Halloween is in a different tier from the other two.
For me, though, Terror Train is probably a B slasher, while Prom Night is a D- or maybe a C in a remediated class. I agree with the individual things you point out about the latter, but they are not nearly enough overcome just how piss-poor the overall movie is, IMO. I actually believe that movie is only about 40 minutes long with 40 minutes of pointless filler.
Sep 26, 2017 11:04 AM
0 0
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 21557
MKS
Wooley
MKS
Wooley
MKS
DaMUGreat discussion on Fisher. Loving the praise.

Regarding why he's not considered more as an equal and inspiration in the horror pantheon, Captain Terror may be onto something with Fisher working dominantly in reworking Dracula / Mummy / Frankenstein stories. We tend to pair new style-bearers in tandem with new kinds of stories. James Whale's expressionist camp works in service of the Universal tragic monsters. Val Lewton's noir quietude works in service of heavily psychological thrillers. Bava with expressive color use in service of gialli. Carpenter's sliding camera and the first slasher. Raimi's coked-up energy and splatstick.

Fisher, meanwhile, is reconfiguring stories we've seen before. And, if I can be cruel for a moment, I don't think his reworkings of Universal stories ever really lap their originators, although Horror of Dracula probably comes closest. He's an excellent director, yes, and pioneering in terms of style, for sure, but the films he was making immediately invite some unfair comparing against horror films that are straight-up totemic. Like his works permanently live under a shadow.

[Half-formed morning thoughts, unsure how much I agree with what I just said, need to make some eggs.]

This was more or less the conclusion I came to when JJ and I discussed it. I think it also has to due with the brand outshining the director. Hammer is ubiquitous and Fisher is often a footnote. It's similar to Chang Cheh and Shaw Brothers. The brand gets the influential credit.
However, I'd say that Fisher's iterations of Dracula, Mummy and Wolfman outshine their universal counterparts by a sizeable margin, especially Mummy. He never managed to surpass Frankenstein by Whale's first two films are daunting tasks to take on.

Yes, I think Hammer stole Fisher's thunder.
As for the Universal films, I think Dracula is much better than Horror of Dracula, obviously the original Frankenstein films are classics that are head and shoulders above, and yes, you're right, he kicks The Mummy's ass.
It's really in the sequels that Francis builds up credit, in the sense that none of the movies that Dracula spawned are really good films, but the subsequent Hammer Draculas, for example, maintain a certain standard.

Where you lead on Dracula, I simply cannot follow. Legosi was great in the role but the film surrounding him is so rote and emotionless that I can't believe that it came from the same director as Freaks. Something I demand from a Dracula adaptation is some degree of atmosphere but there's nothing except a painfully dry plodding from moment to moment with no sense of tension or fun.

For that, I vastly prefer the colorful and stylish Horror of Dracula and would take Lee and Cushing in their respective roles as Dracula and Van Helsing over any competitor that comes to mind. I think it's usage of a false protagonist, predating Psycho by a few years, makes it a less faithful adaptation in terms of plot but makes it a far more faithful adaptation in terms of tone and unpredictability. I'd also take Prince of Darkness, Dracula Has Risen From the Grave and Taste the Blood of Dracula over Browning's film, though not all of those are by Fisher. Freddie Francis is the other Hammer director that doesn't get enough love and I think whether using color or stark black and white, his films may be the most beautiful in the catalogue.

Have you seen Curse of the Werewolf?

I actually like the rest of Dracula a lot. I love the way Mina descends toward darkness over the course of the third act, and I think Renfield and his arc are just aces. I also love the way the rivalry between Dracula and Van Helsing are portrayed in this version. Really, obviously, I like a LOT about this movie. Saw it in the theater a couple years ago and was just really, really impressed. My friend, seeing it for the first time, thought it was the tits.
As for Horror of Dracula, I just thought the story was pretty poor and I really struggle with the climactic moment when Cushing crosses a pair of candlesticks and it's enough to defeat the Prince of Darkness. Like, I seriously wonder how this guy lived as long as he did. And while, it may not be a fair complaint, they butchered Stoker's story to the point of being nearly unrecognizable. Doesn't mean it can't be a good movie, but the changes seemed so random and unnecessary that it distracted me frequently. This is not to say I don't enjoy the film, I do, but I prefer Dracula (1931) and, among the Hammer films, I prefer Dracula: Prince of Darkness and Dracula Has Risen From The Grave?(possibly the best of the series for me)?to Horror of.
Definitely seen Curse of the Werewolf, really enjoy it, think it's a pretty underappreciated film. Like Drac, I do prefer the Universal version, The Wolf Man (I know they're very different stories), but not by as much as one might think.?
And I have plenty of respect for Freddie Francis too. As I've said DHRftG is a favorite, always loved Dr. Terror's House of Horrors (since I was a kid), and while The Creeping Flesh is a weaker film and Torture Garden is really bad, they both look pretty good.

You didn't think that Dracula was just a tad flat? It felt like they had all the ingredients of a Universal classic and had it been put in the hands of James Whale or perhaps Browning in a few years time, that I'd love it, but it was just so uninteresting to look at. The sense of pacing and framing was just so rudimentary compared even to German Expressionism and it feels older and more archaic at times to Nosferatu.
I've come to accept and expect Dracula adaptations to be far from the source and Hammer's film did something that very few films in that era did: it surprised me. The fact that it also looks 20 years younger than it is was also another eye opener for me. Some of the changes are excessive and needless from a narrative standpoint, but in developing a style that insists that anything can happen with this Dracula, it works. I do agree on the ending but Dracula tends to go out like a punk fairly often. The melting effect was surprisingly good (looks better when replayed in PoD, I believe). I just accept it as Lee's Dracula not being hard to kill, just impossible to keep dead.
I think the closest film to Curse of the Werewolf is Perfume: Story of a Murderer. It's just such an ambitious film with such massive scope compared to virtually all other werewolf films that I can't help but admire it more than Wolfman, though I'm a big fan of that as well. I don't even remember having an issue with Lon Chaney Jr..
I think Francis' finest hour is as a cinematographer for the Innocents. That film is pure atmosphere.

I hear you, I just think, for the reasons I already stated, that Dracula is a true classic, not just a movie living off reputation and Lugosi (though he doesn't hurt). I don't really compare it to the German Expressionist movie, I just take it as it is, feels like a totally successfully constructed film for its era to me.
The Wolf Man gets a little bit of extra credit for me, I admit, because it's the goddamn Wolf Man. I mean, it's the one. ?Sure Werewolf of London predates it, but when one thinks of the THE werewolf movie of all time, it's The Wolf Man, and I think that, Chaney, Claude Rains, the old gypsy, the curse, all that just wins me over.
Sep 26, 2017 11:13 AM
0 0
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 2466
?Apex Predator
Also a fan of the 1931 film which consists of two strong performances that make up for the occasional lulls. Curious about the Glass take.

The Transylvania segment is perfection, so I usually start the DVD with the original soundtrack. I'll switch over to the Glass version when Drac gets to England. Sometime after the "flowah fa ya butt'n'ole, sir?" girl gets attacked.
Sep 26, 2017 12:45 PM
0 0
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 21557
last splashAnyone seen Ti West's The Sacrament? Is it worth watching? So far I'm 1-1 with West as I did not like The House of the Devil but liked The Innkeepers, except for the very ending. Either way I just want some horror to watch after a couple of comedy/dramas.

I think Ti West is another that suffers from Danny Boyle Syndrome of not knowing hot to end an otherwise good movie. I do like HotD, but the ending felt really lackluster for all the buildup and Innkeepers is probably even more guilty, even if it is an even better film up to that point.
Sep 26, 2017 1:29 PM
0 0
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 21557
Rock
Blood for Dracula second best Dracula.

Oh lord.
Sep 26, 2017 1:30 PM
0 0
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 11158
Wooley
Rock
Blood for Dracula second best Dracula.

Oh lord.

Exactly. It is clearly the best Dracula film.
Sep 26, 2017 1:52 PM
0 0
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 11158
I'd actually have trouble figuring out my top Vampire films

1) Blood for Dracula
2) Martin
3) Let the Right One In
4) Fright Night
5) What We Do In Shadows
6) Vampire's Kiss
7) Near Dark
8) Thirst
9) Fascination
10) Vampire Ferat

HM Lost Boys

I'm clearly a non traditionalist. If it sticks with genre trappings, generally not interested.
Sep 26, 2017 1:56 PM
0 0