CHUD.com Community › Forums › CREATURE CORNER › Creature Corner Main › Horror RECOMMENDATION or WARNING thread.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Horror RECOMMENDATION or WARNING thread. - Page 346

post #17251 of 17427
Quote:
Originally Posted by millennium1 View Post
 

When Re-Animator came out in '85 and my parents rented it for me (I WAS 10!), I was immediately addicted to this Lovecraft guy.  We hit used bookstores every couple of weekends during that period of my upbringing.  On one of those, I came upon this:

It was recommended by Stephen King, my parents thought.  What could possibly go wrong?  Also, I learned about the word "baroque", which I think I used to describe dinner for the next two years...


​I avoid reading books recommended by Stephen King as they're almost always uniformly terrible. As in so bad, almost all the books I abandoned without finishing were recommended by him - and I finish almost everything except the very worst of the worst.

 

Maybe I've just been statistically unlucky but I've been burned too many times. Dipped my toe in one more time relatively recently and ... nope ... still terrible. Didn't even come close to finishing that one either.

 

The books he wrote in the 1970s and 1980s are still among my favourites, though, so it's not like I have a problem with his writing personally. I've just had a really, really bad run with books by other people that he's recommended.

post #17252 of 17427

 When I watched Evil Dead 1 and 2 for the first time it was because King had recommended them.

post #17253 of 17427
And King is still making kickass movie recommendations. He's always watching the current horror films and letting people know what's worth it. And his taste is great! I know he got a lot of people to see GREEN ROOM.
post #17254 of 17427
King calling Clive Barker the future of horror pretty much made that guy. And even if that didn't turn out to be strictly true, Barker went on to have a pretty damn good run, IMO. So, solid recommendation there.
post #17255 of 17427
Totally, and I don't think that was hyperbole from King. As much as I love his horror writing, BOOKS OF BLOOD is the paramount for me. Up there with Poe. I'm glad it drove King crazy, too.
post #17256 of 17427
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raynis View Post

And King is still making kickass movie recommendations. He's always watching the current horror films and letting people know what's worth it. And his taste is great! I know he got a lot of people to see GREEN ROOM.

Too bad he can't make them.

post #17257 of 17427
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevehauk View Post

You have friends?...

:'(
post #17258 of 17427
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fraid uh noman View Post
You better believe those pictures are still nightmare fuel too.

They should make a movie just based on THAT shit..

 

Oh, definitely. I had those books as a kid (I am surprised my parents allowed it) and those pictures were (and probably still are) incredibly freaky.

 

Honestly, a movie based on that would be better than what I saw tonight, which was... V/H/S: Viral. Now, as I've said before I did not like the first one and did not even like the second one or its otherwise highly regarded Safe Haven segment. However, those two films as a whole look good in comparison to the pile of shit that is Viral. The wraparound story not only continued the fine V/H/S tradition of "unlikable characters", but it both made zero sense and somehow contained moralizing. Awful beyond belief. Dante the Great... not so much. And it wasn't even found footage. Parallel Monsters was a better idea in theory than execution, and the detour into hentai territory was not needed. Bonestorm was terrible all around. Then again I am a rare person who did not like the directors' Resolution. At least the segments had one thing in common: atrocious CG.

 

As I saw it on Netflix, I did not watch the deleted segment, Gorgeous Vortex. It sounds like pretentious horseshit so maybe that's for the best. But honestly, I should have listened to everyone here and elsewhere, and never even watched Viral.

post #17259 of 17427

So, tonight I saw another horror film. It was a last minute decision, but as it's now on Amazon and it's free if you have Prime, I was finally able to see 1984's Wild Beasts, from Franco Prosperi. Yeah... that movie has questionable moments, for sure. I heard about those moments beforehand, but seeing a movie where animals in a zoo go crazy and escape after THEY DRINK WATER CONTAMINATED WITH PCP sounded like something I need to see.

 

As it's Italian of course there are gory moments... and yes, also because it's Italian horror there are plenty of moments that make little to any sense. There were scenes so goofy or dumb they made me laugh, at least... and moments like seeing a cheetah chase after a Volkswagen Bettle convertible was memorable. However, you see animals obviously in distress, animals attacking each other, and even rats set on fire. That was disturbing in a bad way and it wasn't even needed for the movie. Far worse was what I'll call "a Victor Salva moment". What else am I supposed to think after a scene early on where a girl who is like 12 is seen not only in her panties and a button-up shirt, but the shirt is only buttoned up after we briefly see her chest? I'd rather not think how that scene made it to screen, but I can't recommend it despite the wacky moments for those reasons.

post #17260 of 17427
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chaz View Post
 

 When I watched Evil Dead 1 and 2 for the first time it was because King had recommended them.


​I didn't see it because of his recommendation. I believe his recommendation was one of the things that really helped it take off, though.

 

I'm just saying I personally with books he's recommended have had a very bad run indeed. So bad that I won't read anything he's recommended if he's the only one I've seen recommending it. I'm very willing to accept I've been unlucky here but at the moment, I'm feeling like I've touched a red hot stove a few times too often including once after much time had passed (no, still hot, still burned.)

post #17261 of 17427
Antibirth hit Netflix yesterday.   What a weird fucking movie.  
post #17262 of 17427

The first 3 minutes of RINGS.

 

post #17263 of 17427
Quote:
Originally Posted by felix View Post
 

The first 3 minutes of RINGS.

 


Looks like it may actually give THE RING TWO a run for its money in the terrible movie department.

post #17264 of 17427
Well that's disappointing..
post #17265 of 17427

All of that green shit on the screen. 

post #17266 of 17427
Such a stupid scene. Even though this is a sequel and much of the audience will know what happens after seven days, the film should not show this early on. If they want to keep the suspense and tension then they shouldn't reveal their monster within the first 3 minutes. A good example of a cold opening of a monster movie done right is Jaws, the audience never gets a good look at the shark until the final act even though every human alive knows what a shark looks like. Granted this is partially due to technical problems that they had with the mechanical shark, but I still think that their workaround of leaving the shark to the viewer's imagination actually improved the film and is also why Jaws still works despite its dated creature effects.

If I could redo this plane scene I'd have the guy dance around the subject about why he's afraid, then have him run into the bathroom when things start getting all creepy. The two girls bang on the bathroom door and hear screaming as the turbulence increases and then nothing... the noise and shaking stops and they are led back to their seats. The plane lands a short while later and they tell the plane's staff that someone is still in the bathroom. Eventually the staff breaks down the door and looks in to see the guy's dead body, with his face locked into a contorted scream. His phone is on the floor of the bathroom and for a brief moment is either showing "the ring" image or just white noise static and then turns off. (I admit it's not great, but it's better than the current one.)
post #17267 of 17427

This movie's suspense would be better if it hadn't have been made. That would have been scarier. 

post #17268 of 17427

So watched 3 horror films over 3 days.

 

Morgan: Not as bad as I heard it was. I mean it was pure middle of the road whatever with a twist you see coming from the second you press play but......the cast was kind of great for such an average movie. More Kung Fu than I would have guessed.

 

Siren: Showed it's low budget roots a few times but overall I actually enjoyed it oddly enough for one of the same reasons I dug John Wick, the world building. The club Nix runs where you can find all sorts of creatures and maybe even see a ghost.....that you can hug? Seriously I would watch a sequel all about the club.

 

Pet: Really liked this as well. DO NOT WATCH THE TRAILER. It starts off as another girl is locked away by a psycho story which I have had enough of and then it gets very interesting. I highly recommend this one.

post #17269 of 17427
Quote:
Originally Posted by Waaaaaaaalt View Post
 

Morgan: Not as bad as I heard it was. I mean it was pure middle of the road whatever with a twist you see coming from the second you press play but......the cast was kind of great for such an average movie. More Kung Fu than I would have guessed.

I actually thought this was kind of okay, too.  It walks some really well-worn ground, but the cast do their best to elevate it.  Anya Taylor-Joy gives another fantastic performance in between THE WITCH and SPLIT.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Waaaaaaaalt View Post

 

Pet: Really liked this as well. DO NOT WATCH THE TRAILER. It starts off as another girl is locked away by a psycho story which I have had enough of and then it gets very interesting. I highly recommend this one.

I'm intrigued!  Gonna check this out.

post #17270 of 17427
post #17271 of 17427
Quote:
Originally Posted by felix View Post
 

Count me as a fan of this.

http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Vampires-Blu-ray/167648/#Review

Yup, I just bought that. Own their Christine Blu as well.

post #17272 of 17427

While the works of Herschel Gordon Lewis aren’t really welcoming to casual enthusiasts can I say that the box set Arrow Video put out just last season is glorious. In my opinion it’s missing one or two films keeping it from essential starter kit status but minor nitpick aside it’s great. Having the case it comes in resemble a 1960’s cereal box is just icing on the kitsch cake.

 

Pioneering splatter works aside I've been on a gothic kick lately. Revisiting Corman's Poe cycle, the b&w films of Santo, not to mention the early episodes of Dark Shadows before Barnabas shows up.

 

Also watching The Hateful Eight in heavy rotation on cable reminds me just how bad I want a western adaptation of Dracula but set in the Sierra Nevada’s during winter.

post #17273 of 17427
Had a free screening this week, so I saw RINGS last night!

REVIEW:
Sylvester-Stallone.gif
post #17274 of 17427
Quote:
Originally Posted by felix View Post

The first 3 minutes of RINGS.

 

Oof. If they released that in the hopes that it'll entice people to watch, then boy did they fail there, and that movie looks like a fail.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Waaaaaaaalt View Post

Morgan: Not as bad as I heard it was.

 

Agreed. It's just mediocre and with the cast you'd hope for something better rather than wish you watched Ex-Machina again instead, as I felt.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheepnis View Post

While the works of Herschel Gordon Lewis aren’t really welcoming to casual enthusiasts can I say that the box set Arrow Video put out just last season is glorious. 

 

Also watching The Hateful Eight in heavy rotation on cable reminds me just how bad I want a western adaptation of Dracula but set in the Sierra Nevada’s during winter.

 

That does look like a nice boxset; it's not cheap but hopefully there are enough Lewis fans out there where Arrow did not take a financial bath with the release. Also, I wouldn't mind seeing a Wild West version of Dracula.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mangy View Post

I've been hoping to see Love Witch pop up on Amazon, but no luck yet.

 

Via a Bloody Disgusting article, I discovered that just today it finally came to VOD, including Amazon.

post #17275 of 17427
You should all watch "The Love Witch." Because you're all incapable of loving someone deeply, especially within the first few minutes of having met them.
post #17276 of 17427

I caught Mirrors with Kiefer Sutherland.  I couldn't remember why I wanted to see it so long ago, until it hit me that Alexandre Aja directed it.  After High Tension and his Hills Have Eyes remake, I'll always check out Aja's stuff, but Mirrors was all over the place.  It's not as terrible as a friend recently told me it was (good set design, an interesting bathroom kill, unhinged Kiefer, etc.), but it feels like three separate movies rolled into one.  

post #17277 of 17427

I've never seen Black Water. so I watched it last night.  Impressive what little they had to work with.  It was tense and well done.  

post #17278 of 17427

Watched The Monster (2016)

 

Really weak effort. Zoe Kazan plays an alcoholic mother who is taking her daughter to her ex-husband for him to take care of. On the car trip, they get into an accident that also hits a wolf? (It’s a bit convoluted, like the vampire-revealing car crash in Twilight.) As they wait for help to arrive, a monster stalks them.

 

The monster itself is a big disappointment. It’s the kind of generic beastie you’d see in a movie within a movie; something like a Hunter from Resident Evil crossed with a bear dipped in tar. In fact, it doesn’t have any real hook or memorable gimmick to its design, like the Predator’s mandibles or the Alien’s inner mouth. For all intents and purposes, it could’ve just been a really hungry bear and the plot would’ve been exactly the same. All its monsterness does is give it a Kryptonite, which doesn’t even make sense, because the only origin we get for it is that its presumably a cryptid (and I doubt there are many animals that could go undiscovered for long if they killed the equivalent of half a dozen people every night). And if it’s a real animal that just hasn’t been discovered yet, how come it’s so vulnerable to this one element? It’s like showing a species of coyote that explodes if you pour saltwater on it. C’mon.

 

Also, though we completely get the protagonists’ deal from the opening--the mom’s an alcoholic fuck-up and her little girl resents her for it--the film is egregiously padded out with flashbacks to ‘develop’ their relationship. Which mainly serves just to show both of them as hateful and unpleasant individuals. Fun! 

 

Now, Hollywood, between this and The Babadook, maybe that’s enough horror movies about physically abusive mothers who get noble redemptive turns. You don’t see The Shining end with Jack Torrance turning out to be a really great guy.

 

And at least the Bababook mom is dealing with the death of her husband. Monster mom is just a straight-up bad person, but the filmmakers can’t conceive of not regurgitating Ripley and Newt cliches, so, *fart noise*

 

Real creative title, too.

post #17279 of 17427
I agree. That filmmaker's strong suit has always been simplicity. But this story does not benefit from that type of narrative. And like you, I didn't give a shit about that mom. I feel like you have to be in a very specific mood for this one to grab you. So *louder fart noise*
post #17280 of 17427
Quote:
Originally Posted by avian View Post
 

Watched The Monster (2016)

 

Really weak effort. Zoe Kazan plays an alcoholic mother who is taking her daughter to her ex-husband for him to take care of. On the car trip, they get into an accident that also hits a wolf? (It’s a bit convoluted, like the vampire-revealing car crash in Twilight.) As they wait for help to arrive, a monster stalks them.

 

The monster itself is a big disappointment. It’s the kind of generic beastie you’d see in a movie within a movie; something like a Hunter from Resident Evil crossed with a bear dipped in tar. In fact, it doesn’t have any real hook or memorable gimmick to its design, like the Predator’s mandibles or the Alien’s inner mouth. For all intents and purposes, it could’ve just been a really hungry bear and the plot would’ve been exactly the same. All its monsterness does is give it a Kryptonite, which doesn’t even make sense, because the only origin we get for it is that its presumably a cryptid (and I doubt there are many animals that could go undiscovered for long if they killed the equivalent of half a dozen people every night). And if it’s a real animal that just hasn’t been discovered yet, how come it’s so vulnerable to this one element? It’s like showing a species of coyote that explodes if you pour saltwater on it. C’mon.

 

Also, though we completely get the protagonists’ deal from the opening--the mom’s an alcoholic fuck-up and her little girl resents her for it--the film is egregiously padded out with flashbacks to ‘develop’ their relationship. Which mainly serves just to show both of them as hateful and unpleasant individuals. Fun! 

 

Now, Hollywood, between this and The Babadook, maybe that’s enough horror movies about physically abusive mothers who get noble redemptive turns. You don’t see The Shining end with Jack Torrance turning out to be a really great guy.

 

And at least the Bababook mom is dealing with the death of her husband. Monster mom is just a straight-up bad person, but the filmmakers can’t conceive of not regurgitating Ripley and Newt cliches, so, *fart noise*

 

Real creative title, too.

I actually liked this movie but I can't believe you haven't brought up the last 15 minutes. What Zoe Kazan does is SO DUMB and is only there so she can redeem herself.

post #17281 of 17427
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iron Maiden View Post

I caught Mirrors with Kiefer Sutherland.

 

I've only heard reviews about the movie, and maybe I should see it for the laffs factor. The stuff with the nun alone sounds hilarious.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by avian View Post

Watched The Monster (2016)

 

Oof, what you said about it, it sounds like something I should avoid as it does not sound enjoyable at all.

 

Tonight I did myself a double bill of horror movies, both of them Irish and both on Netflix Instant. The first one was The Hallow. It was pretty derivative at times and there were a few moments of dumb character behavior; even with that, it was an enjoyable picture. There were plenty of creepy moments, the Irish setting was nice and the mix of practical with CG was appreciated by me. Then, I finally saw The Canal. Yep, I should have seen that sooner. The film was darker than I expected-especially the final act-but I dug it nonetheless. While I ultimately wasn't surprised by the plot I was still enthralled with seeing the main character and how he reacted to the bad situation he was in. The cast does a nice job (even the little boy, thankfully) and the score I rate highly. Thankfully I saw two actually decent (or better) horror films in Instant, as it seems like there's way more bad ones on the service.

post #17282 of 17427
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Perfect Weapon View Post
 

 

I've only heard reviews about the movie, and maybe I should see it for the laffs factor. The stuff with the nun alone sounds hilarious.

 

 

Oof, what you said about it, it sounds like something I should avoid as it does not sound enjoyable at all.

 

Tonight I did myself a double bill of horror movies, both of them Irish and both on Netflix Instant. The first one was The Hallow. It was pretty derivative at times and there were a few moments of dumb character behavior; even with that, it was an enjoyable picture. There were plenty of creepy moments, the Irish setting was nice and the mix of practical with CG was appreciated by me. Then, I finally saw The Canal. Yep, I should have seen that sooner. The film was darker than I expected-especially the final act-but I dug it nonetheless. While I ultimately wasn't surprised by the plot I was still enthralled with seeing the main character and how he reacted to the bad situation he was in. The cast does a nice job (even the little boy, thankfully) and the score I rate highly. Thankfully I saw two actually decent (or better) horror films in Instant, as it seems like there's way more bad ones on the service.

The director who did The Hallow is doing The Conjuring spin off The Nun. Could be good. Although Annabelle was fucking terrible.

post #17283 of 17427

Has there even been a really iconic monster design in the past 10, 15 or fuck me, 20 years? Most monsters these days look like concept art porn or business class Slipknot members like that silly douchebag demon from Sinister.

post #17284 of 17427
Just off the top of my head:







Including the great design in the pop up book.

post #17285 of 17427

The only one of those films I like without reservation is The Babadook, so it's no small wonder why I misplaced them. I will concede that both Sam and Krampus look great, but are unfortunately trapped in films that only manage to hit just above the halfway mark - in my humble. 

post #17286 of 17427
I unabashedly love them but I do get the criticisms.

I just love Dougherty's designs though and WETA does a great job of realizing them.
post #17287 of 17427

The monster from The Host looked great.

 

I also liked the look of the MUTOs in Godzilla.

post #17288 of 17427

Plenty of things look good. We're working with 21st-century technology so we should at least expect that. I'm talking about monster designs that are as instantly iconic as say the Alien or the Predator and so on. Shit, Pumpkinhead is a terrible movie but it's a Stan Winston creation so it looks fucking amazing. I have barely watched Godzilla but the MUTOS look exactly like something out of a concept art portfolio of any odd artist you care to name. If you google "concept art monster" or "concept art alien", you'll have a better than fair chance of finding designs that are essentially variations of that kind of thing. 

post #17289 of 17427

I just looked up images of Bertino's titular monster. Jesus. This is an ongoing issue in modern monster movies. They don't have the budget for a cool monster, so instead of playing it smart and obscuring the thing, they manage to enhance its flaws and/or limitations by shooting it in all the wrong ways. Reminds me of Dark Was the Night, which I tore apart several months ago in this very thread. 

post #17290 of 17427
Quote:
Originally Posted by JacknifeJohnny View Post
 

I just looked up images of Bertino's titular monster. Jesus. This is an ongoing issue in modern monster movies. They don't have the budget for a cool monster, so instead of playing it smart and obscuring the thing, they manage to enhance its flaws and/or limitations by shooting it in all the wrong ways. Reminds me of Dark Was the Night, which I tore apart several months ago in this very thread. 

You mean you didn't buy an entire forest full of giant lizards going unnoticed?

post #17291 of 17427

Who cares? It's a monster movie. That's not even on the list of problems that film has.

post #17292 of 17427
Quote:
Originally Posted by JacknifeJohnny View Post
 

Who cares? It's a monster movie. That's not even on the list of problems that film has.

Yes it is. Not that the film is worth making a list.

post #17293 of 17427
Quote:
Originally Posted by Waaaaaaaalt View Post
 

The director who did The Hallow is doing The Conjuring spin off The Nun. Could be good. Although Annabelle was fucking terrible.

 

Having seen Annabelle a few months ago, it indeed was terrible. Then again, if the second Ouija movie turned out to be quite a bit better than the first, who knows... then again, a foreign director going to Hollywood for the first time, I hope he's not hamstrung by studio stupidity but 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by JacknifeJohnny View Post

Has there even been a really iconic monster design in the past 10, 15 or fuck me, 20 years? Most monsters these days look like concept art porn or business class Slipknot members like that silly douchebag demon from Sinister.

 

Unfortunately I do have to agree, there isn't a lot of creativity there; on a similar note I know that for years people have complained that the monsters in big Hollywood movies all look too similar (something I also agree with) but even in smaller movies it's either similarity or unimaginative design.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by JacknifeJohnny View Post

I just looked up images of Bertino's titular monster. Jesus. This is an ongoing issue in modern monster movies. They don't have the budget for a cool monster, so instead of playing it smart and obscuring the thing, they manage to enhance its flaws and/or limitations by shooting it in all the wrong ways. Reminds me of Dark Was the Night, which I tore apart several months ago in this very thread. 

 

I haven't seen that movie but it is lame that they don't go the Jaws route and either not show it often or hiding it in the shadows. Shitty SyFy movies happily showing off awful CGI things is expected, but I hope that more serious independent horror can be smarter and accentuate the positives instead of the negatives.

post #17294 of 17427
The Creeper in Jeepers Creepers comes to mind.

If anything, I appreciated how his look progressed throughout the film.

I say film because I have yet to see the second one, any good?
post #17295 of 17427
Creepy thin white guy with eyes in his hands from Pan's Labyrinth is pretty iconic. He just wasn't in a traditional horror narrative or franchise.
post #17296 of 17427
You don't see the monster that much in The Monster
post #17297 of 17427
The little doll from Saw is pretty recognizable. But yeah, we're in a bit of a lull when it comes to icons. I wouldn't say when it comes to Horror though.
post #17298 of 17427
I know it kind of goes against the whole premise of the movie but I kind of wish the entity in It Follows would've had some sort of memorable default form or one form in particular that you see it as the most that was unique. Something to give it a "look." Because the concept as a horror movie is fresh and out of this world. Even though it didn't quite stick the landing for me. I thought that whole scene where they tried to ambush it at the pool destroyed the movie's momentum and it never recovered. But it's still a good movie. The Babadook is probably the most memorable looking new horror character of the decade..
post #17299 of 17427

He only gets a few seconds of screentime, but this was the first thing that jumped into my brain:

 

 

I'm not as bothered by the current crop of movie monsters skewing towards biological realism, but they are definitely uninspired.  Its like JJ Abrams / Bad Robot have a hard-drive filled with generic monster designs that gets passed around from studio to studio.

 

I thought KRAMPUS and TRICK R TREAT had fantastic monster designs, so I'm really excited to see what Michael Dougherty does with a GODZILLA movie.  Could be really special.

post #17300 of 17427
Pyramid Head in Silent Hill was memorable yet brief.

Too brief.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Creature Corner Main
CHUD.com Community › Forums › CREATURE CORNER › Creature Corner Main › Horror RECOMMENDATION or WARNING thread.