FATUM NOS IUNGET
Active Member
That's a shame. Would have been better off with A24.Originally Posted by october_midnight
tempus est umbra in mente
I kinda feel the Halloween film franchise has been thoroughly explored at this point though... do we really need more Michael Myers? I liked the original concept Carpenter had, where it would be like Halloween III, not just a bunch of Michael Myers movies but standalone movies that took place on Halloween. On that note however, I'd love to see a direct sequel to Halloween III.
I just finished reading Hell House, and the ending was such a lame bummer. I'm watching the movie now and it's ok, but nothing spectacular (outside of apparently being the sample source for a bunch of Skinny Puppy songs). Also, there's no way this movie can be true to the book at all and retain its PG rating... The book was kind of a rip off of The Haunting of Hill House but with gore and ghost rape (and a laughably bad ending that I won't spoil).
Matador de Froot Loops
Couldn't agree more.
The Michael Myers character is tired and after watching the last trilogy i could care less for a new series; but just like Star Wars they are going to milk the franchise to boredom.
"Season of the witch" has a great concept, almost unexplored and suits better for the episode format.
Just tickles my balls!
I’d like to see a direct sequel to Halloween Ends called “Halloween Ends (For Real This Time)” and do some incredible story like what happened after H20. Someone else was put into that crusher!
*ducks*
Active Member
Controversially I actually liked Halloween Ends better than Halloween 2018 and Halloween Kills. But it probably should have been it's own thing without connection to the Halloween franchise.
Matador de Froot Loops
"Halloween Kills" is the worst one of the new trilogy; it took the series in a weird direction and doesn't make sense in the long run, "Ends" is mostly dumb, but at least was entertaining, but both movies are hot garbage.
Active Member
Talk about misleading names. Eastwood - but not that one; Gibson - not that one either; and then small print Michael Ba..I mean Day.
Though I am always happy to see Batmanuel getting work. (Nestor Carbonell)
Just tickles my balls!
It got an early digital release!
Stubby Member
Hilarious. This series is such ironic fun past like part III.
Active Member
So A24's had a different movie every week this October. I went to The Witch and it was fine. It was also hampered by some very inconsiderate people so I missed the opening bit where you find out why the movie is even taking place. Plus I don't know about you but the sonorous voice of Ralph Ineson is just a little hard to hear in the best of sound systems but the crappy AMC theater these $5 films are in don't cut the mustard when it comes to punchy dialogue. Especially Ye Olde English dialogue. I liked what was left so I'll probably watch it again at home with subtitles.
The best part of that film was somehow the child actors. The twins were suitably creepy AF the entire time, the brother was a little perv but holy crap did he sell that death scene, and ATJ was very good at going back and forth between messing with the kids and being a pious daughter.
Side-note: Loki S2 opens up and it's the mom from The Witch. Had not really seen her before (The Green Knight looks like the one thing she's been in that I can recall seeing her) and now here she is again. It's kind of like when we watched The Shape of Water and then a few days later watched Paddington 2. Pro-tip: don't do that, the same person gets wet in both movies.
Went to "Under the Skin" last week and that movie is nigh impenetrable. I've read some "ending explained" essays and I'm getting it more and more but it reminds me a little too much of Annihilation: The director/writer said "oh I read that book once, that's enough for me to write a script and then direct a movie right?" No, you should at least do a second pass and if not that at least a cursory skim maybe?
Also...man if you're doing to write an article called "‘Under the Skin’ Ending Explained: Becoming More Human and the Dark Side of Mankind", maybe you should at least get some basic facts right?
Spoilers, of course, so stop reading...now.
Almost every bit of information in there is incorrect. That first paragraph is the most egregious because two of the male characters (no one has a name in the film; in the credits it's just the real names of the people involved) are combined to one, somehow. Which is especially strange when you consider the logger is bald and the other person has curly hair?After luring many men into the dark abyss, Johansson’s character begins to develop an identity. She’s aware of her body, and begins to take ownership of her choices. After seducing a logger (Dave Acton), Johansson resists his sexual advances. She doesn’t fully understand his frustration. When she wakes up in his cabin, the logger begins assaulting her. The frightened alien is terrified by his capacity for cruelty, and runs into the woods. The logger chases after her.
It’s clear that the Johansson character has started to identify with her human body. She has seen the positive things that humanity is capable of after she rescues an abandoned baby on the beach, and has a pleasant experience at the cinema. Her empathy makes the exploration of rape culture even more shocking. Glazer makes both characters’ violent behavior completely distinct; Johansson is luring men to their deaths because she’s confused and trying to learn, but the logger is attacking her out of selfishness and hatred.
Putting that aside, the entire scene in question doesn't have any of those things in it other than a man who's a logger. No seduction of a logger (it was the first guy and it was more him than her), no resisting (firstly the scene feels weird because of the implied inability to actually give consent to something the alien has no idea about, especially after she finds out she's got no parts down there, but secondly she didn't resist; if anything the "resistance" was "no parts, penis encounters resistance because it's got nowhere to go"), it's her frustration (see previous) but it's an unintentionally funny scene because she jumps out of bed, grabs the lamp, and starts inspecting the bits and bobs and can't find them.
THE NEXT SCENE is where the logger comes in after she wanders the woods for awhile and meets a logger on the trail, he talks to her about being in the woods a little but that's it. Afterward she comes upon a cabin that is there for hikers, there's a sign on the door that says as much, so the cabin isn't his it's for anyone walking the hills. She goes to sleep and is woken by the logger feeling her up so yeah, she resists then but she's justified and certainly didn't seduce anyone. Is this guy one of those "she was wearing it so it's her fault" people because wow that's certainly an interpretation.
The second paragraph is just as offensively stupid. She does not rescue the baby, she leaves it there. It's still there when the man comes to pick up the stuff of that victim later that night and he leaves it as well. Why would this person remember something that was spelled out in two different scenes? Also there's a scene where she's listening to the radio and the entire news report is "Hey, we found some bodies on the beach and man that sucks but isn't is convenient this news story is exactly about that earlier scene? Wow, good timing." Though to be fair I thought the father was trying to save a dog that got pulled out in a current, it was a lot to keep track of as the scene was - forgive me for this pun - turbulent.
She "is luring them to their deaths because she's confused and trying to learn"? How did you miss the part of the film where the people are bampfed into goo and all that's left is their skin?
It's really not implied at all, nor is the 'new form' likely as it's clear from the opening scene that the aliens are separate entities.It’s implied that in the context of the story, the alien creature is not completely destroyed. In all likelihood, the alien will take a new form as it inhabits a different body, and has a completely different experience.
I'm nitpicking but seriously, it's an "ending explained" and it's so wrong it borders on the absurd.
I'm going to see Midsommar this week. I've heard it's kind of polarizing in that if you liked the movie you'll hate the director's cut and vice versa. Since I haven't seen it at all I can't wait to make my own bad opinion on the film.
Bored
Ah, Midsommar. I watched it once and I'll never watch it again because it eff me up so much. Happy viewing!
Also: since you are a dedicated cinephile, here's a bit of trivia you might not know about Midsommar. At one point in the movie, there is an elderly couple involved in a... very shocking scene, to say the least. The ederly man is played by Björn Andrésen, who became insanely famous as a teen for playing Tadzio in Visconti's Death in Venice.
FATUM NOS IUNGET
This is a super fun interview and quite possibly the happiest I've ever seen John Carpenter. The man laughs in this, wtf.
tempus est umbra in mente
Sad to hear that John Carpenter's Suburban Screams is apparently unwatchable bullshit. I guess I'll skip that one and go straight to Fall of the House of Usher.
Active Member
I have to watch Fall of the House of Usher. I watched the one episode Carpenter "directed" (which he did via zoom at his home, so I take it lightly) and yeah, it wasn't good. The concept is terrifying, but the acting was awful.
Going to give Alfred Hitchcock Presents a watch every once in a while. Have seen a handful of episodes but reallyneed to get into the series.
FATUM NOS IUNGET
House Always Wins
Time to ruin the mystery and inevitably make an origin story of the titular force.
Active Member
Midsommar was pretty good. I don't know if it was the director's cut or not - it was supposed to be - but if it was it didn't feel like 171 minutes. it's weird but two different parts of the movie, one referenced above the other with an...eagle?...were things I'd seen before in Viking shows so they weren't as impactful (lol puns) or shocking for some reason. I ordered the 4k from A24 and can't wait to watch it again.
Would it be weird if I said there were multiple scenes where people were laughing? I get that it's a pseudo trauma response to uncomfortable situations but also there's something to be said for not laughing at certain things. Sure the "it can't be night time, it's not dark!" scene was pretty funny but the scene at the end...multiple scenes at the end...no. Plus the lady behind me had to be on something because she was tittering throughout, it was distracting at times.
It's definitely colored my experience with media after the fact. I'm reading a short story from Joe Hill and it's giving me some of the same vibes even though it's set in - you guessed it - Maine.
Throbbing Member
Time for some Phantasm! Criminally underrated.
Matador de Froot Loops
Oh man, i love that movie!
Throbbing Member
I never get to binge em anymore, which is depresso. And REGGIE!
Matador de Froot Loops
Would love a team-up with Reggie and Ash from Evil Dead!
Active Member
when I was a teen in the 2000's, I used to go to horror conventions. Phantasm was one of my favorite franchises, so one year, the cast was there and I was so stoked. I couldn't wait to meet them.
Reggie was the coolest, most down to earth celeb I ever met. One of the coolest moments of my life: I was telling Reggie I had just started guitar lessons. He happened to have his (screen used) acoustic guitar with him, and said, "go ahead man, play a few licks!" and just let me jam on it, complimented me, and started talking to others- and he just let me play the entire time he was talking to others. I played for like 2-3 mins. "Right on man, keep up the good work!" he said as I gave the guitar back to him. Angus was next to him and said, "I see the Ice Cream Man let you play his guitar, BOYYYY!!"
fucking awesome.
Throbbing Member
I saw Midsommar when it was first released in a half-full theatre and I can confirm that my audience laughed at all the shit towards the end as well. Honestly, I think they should have laughed because the situations were so absurd and the main actor just had the goofiest looks on his face the whole time. I'd bet that Ari Aster knew much of that would play as dark comedy. It's kind of his thing and I wish he would stop, but whatever.
He's great at building tension and dread and exploring family/relationship drama in his films but he seems to undermine it all with the cop out of humor. Every one of his films so far does this same exact thing. I'll give him one thing though, it is entertaining. I just wish he'd take the risk of being a little more sincere sometimes. The best part of the entire film is the opening sequence with Florence Pugh's character's family story. That scene where she is crying in the aftermath? NOBODY was making a sound during that sequence in my audience. That shit was unnerving and she probably should have won an award for that one minute of screentime alone. The rest of the film just never lives up to that opening, imo.
Also, count me in the Phantasm is awesome crowd. Especially that first film. Is he taping a bullet to that hammer right now? Yes, yes he is!
Last edited by burnmotherfucker!; 11-01-2023 at 06:03 PM.
tempus est umbra in mente
I really liked Midsommar, and I didn't think it got goofy. I know some people who laughed at the crazy shit at the end, but I thought it all worked. The whole movie is like a bad trip.
and Phantasm is classic.
Stubby Member
Heretidary was the exact same theatre experience. At the beginning of the film everyone seemed to take it seriously,by the end most of the audience was laughing. This is why it's great he finally moved into full comedy with Beau. He can't make genuine horror.
Only By Night
Did you like it though? Gotta disagree hard with that statement. Ari Aster did make genuine horror... The movie is called Hereditary.
Hence, why I never watch these types of movies in the theater anymore. People take that one scene that may have been unintentionally funny, and run with it. The only scene I sort of chuckled at, was when Charlie's voice comes through Annie. But to say he can't make genuine horror, is a tad hyperbolic for me lol. The end of that movie was overwhelming, and dark. I watched it in a pitch black room, with headphones, and the experience is night and day. Everyone has their own experiences, but Hereditary is on another level if the viewer is sharp enough to put all the pieces together, that drives the movie. It is complex, and very uneasy knowing everyone was in on it, and this family didn't stand a chance in hell
Stubby Member
I like the dramatic parts. The horror part just strikes me as misjudged/misguided overall. As a storyteller it's hard to give him props in general. You wanna frame Hereditary as something clever for a heady viewer but I see some horror genre cliches I've seen many times before shoved into a mostly competent family drama and then taken to 11th degree of self seriousness...yet also completely over the top at the same time. Of course that made it into comedy for a lot of people. They're not some dummies dismissive of "heady" "art",it's more of a question of tone and balance and execution. Like somebody above pointed out take Midsommar-nobody was laughing at the opening scene. It's well done and earnest in tone,execution and story. But by the end when yet another dumbass from the friend group gets killed off screen it's just a shitty slasher movie with artsy style. And uh Wicker Man did it better in the 70's.
Throbbing Member
I'm somewhere in between yours and @Something Underneath 's opinions here.
I'd say Hereditary as well as Midsommar both qualify as genuine horror. But I also thought they could have both been better with a few tweaks. Midsommar is the weakest of the two because in order for the film to work, the drama in the relationship needs to be as compelling as the opening sequence. It's just, not. In fact it came off to me as whiney and juvenile. And the film feels like a failure as a result. So in the end, some of the more comedic sequences aren't even the film's biggest flaw. And I actually quite like the ending sequence.
Hereditary is much better in my opinion because the drama actually is consistent throughout. But with this one, I think editing could have taken it to the next level.
The reason his horror gets laughs in my opinion is that he shows too much on the screen and for way too long. The power of suggestion and restraint are going to be much more effective than cheap thrills in the long run. And he seems to fall in love with every bit of footage he shoots. There is no reason for either of these films to run over 2 hours. Even with Hereditary, there is too much goofy shit just left in there. I can't keep a straight face when that guy is smacking his head against the desk in that school scene, for example. Or take the sex scenes in Midsommar. If they had been cut down so as to be suggestive and allow room for imagination, they would have been much more sinister. Sometimes less is more. This is why I think 20 years from now a film like The VVitch will hold up.
I also think Ari Aster is a good enough director to be aware of this, however.
I'm probably being a bit overly judgmental for horror films, but I think for good reason. Has anyone seen Cries and Whispers? Ari Aster said it's the film he showed to the cast before shooting Hereditary for inspiration. If he was trying to achieve that level of film, he missed by a pretty wide margin, imo. Throwing around inspirations like that is going to invite harsh criticism.
Ironically, I think Beau is Afraid might be his most effective horror at the end of the day. But Hereditary is still pretty great and certainly a better attempt than most of the modern shit.
I'd score it Beau>Hereditary>Midsommar
Oh, and FOR SURE The Wicker Man does everything Midsommar does, while also being much more interesting conceptually and also more profound, if I can sound like a pretentious dickhead for a second.
tempus est umbra in mente
I'm 100% the opposite. One thing I feel is missing when you watch a movie by yourself or at home is the communal experience. Comedies are funnier if the audience is laughing, and horror movies are scarier if the audience is scared. Nervousness is transferred.
Sure, someone can fuck it up by talking or laughing, but otherwise it enhances the experience. One of my favorite theater-going experiences was seeing The Descent by myself. I was stuck with nothing to do, so I randomly went to the movie, and wound up sitting next to this homeless guy who was drinking booze out of flask. He told me that he loved hanging out in the theater for this one and watching people's reactions. During one of the really claustrophobic scenes a girl a few rows in front of us screamed, covered her ears, and ran out of the theater, which made the homeless guy cheer and he handed me the flask. Seeing that movie was like being on a crazy ride.
Likes: 
Faceplams: 
Reply With Quote
