Black Panther - (Things I love) Chadwick Boseman, lupita Nyong'o, Danai Gurira, Andy Serkis (Things I Hate ) michael B. Jordan. Just a substandard actor in my opinion and when he has to interact with the incredible actors I listed above and the likes of Forest Whitaker and Angela Basset his shortcomings are really highlighed. Its sort of Hayden Christensen trying to keep up with the rest of the Star Wars cast. CGI was a little underwhelming but not enough to ruin anything for me and Martin Freemans character seemed out of place and forced but overall the great performances of the majority of the cast get it an A-
Last edited by Tiggnutz on Thu Mar 29, 2018 6:49 am, edited 1 time in total.
Headhunter wrote:I thought Michael B. Jordan played the most interesting villain in the MCU since Loki. I'm a big fan.
Really, I see no diffrence from this performance to his Fantastic Four performance equally shitty. Klaw should of been the Villian I loved Andy Serkis in that role. I'll take Spader as Ultron for the most interesting villian in my opinion.
Headhunter wrote:I thought Michael B. Jordan played the most interesting villain in the MCU since Loki. I'm a big fan.
Really, I see no diffrence from this performance to his Fantastic Four performance equally shitty. Klaw should of been the Villian I loved Andy Serkis in that role. I'll take Spader as Ultron for the most interesting villian in my opinion.
Nah they needed that character with that origin to be the villain or you'd be changing the premise of the whole thing, it wouldn't have made sense for Klaw to be the main villain.
Don't remember Spader but then I thought that entire movie was awful so very little really stuck with me.
Last edited by Headhunter on Wed Mar 28, 2018 8:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I liked Michael B Jordan in Black Panther too. Thought he actually outshined most of the other cast. While I think this movie's getting overpraised, I would definitely support a Supporting Actor Oscar nomination for Jordan in this.
DancesWithWerewolves wrote:I liked Michael B Jordan in Black Panther too. Thought he actually outshined most of the other cast. While I think this movie's getting overpraised, I would definitely support a Supporting Actor Oscar nomination for Jordan in this.
I cant believe what i'm reading Oscar worthy? Interesting how people see different things :geek:
Headhunter wrote:I enjoyed seeing a villain whose motivations were 100% justified and even commendable.
I usually hate seeing this "so and so is the next so and so" but I easily see Jordan as the next Denzil Washington. If he doesn't fuck it up anyway
He is definitely on a great path. And he's going to have any roles he wants in the future after his work with Coogler so he can become the black Leo if he doesn't feel the need to chase pay checks.
leatherface feels like an existing script that was reworked just enough, so that they could justify it being a texas chainsaw movie...
bride of the re-animator was pretty good. not re-animator good though. glad i watched frankenhooker before too, cause i likely wouldn't have the appreciation that i do. for that flick. that would have been a bummer.
zombie wrote:leatherface feels like an existing script that was reworked just enough, so that they could justify it being a texas chainsaw movie...
bride of the re-animator was pretty good. not re-animator good though. glad i watched frankenhooker before too, cause i likely wouldn't have the appreciation that i do. for that flick. that would have been a bummer.
zombie wrote:leatherface feels like an existing script that was reworked just enough, so that they could justify it being a texas chainsaw movie...
bride of the re-animator was pretty good. not re-animator good though. glad i watched frankenhooker before too, cause i likely wouldn't have the appreciation that i do. for that flick. that would have been a bummer.
Zomb making this thread great again.
maybe ryan cooglar and michael b. jordan should team up for a horror film.
zombie wrote:leatherface feels like an existing script that was reworked just enough, so that they could justify it being a texas chainsaw movie...
bride of the re-animator was pretty good. not re-animator good though. glad i watched frankenhooker before too, cause i likely wouldn't have the appreciation that i do. for that flick. that would have been a bummer.
Zomb making this thread great again.
maybe ryan cooglar and michael b. jordan should team up for a horror film.
Very fun, most fun I had at a Spielberg movie in a long time (probably since Jurassic Park...but JP is still WAY better). The Chucky cameo is amazing. Yeah, I spotted Freddy and Jason, but the Chucky cameo got to have the Brad laugh, so it was extra awesome.
The Avenging Conscience: or, 'Thou Shalt Not Kill' (1914)
One of the earliest full-length horror films, and one of the USA's first of note, this D.W. Griffith feature, while enjoyable, is a mixed bag.
The main problem is that this is a moderately meandering, melodramatic morality tale. Murder is bad, and thou shalt not kill, and all that rot, but it doesn't make for an amazing story. Still, for the most part, things worked out okay.
The first 55 minutes were all solid, with a few seemingly-less necessary portions, but after a certain point, things felt as they were dragging. It picked up again at the end, with a twist of sorts (though really, it makes sense in the context of the story), and I rather enjoyed the conclusion.
Henry B. Walthall did a fantastic job as a young man on the edge of sanity - you could tell that toward the end, his character was drenched in uncertainness. Walthall, overall, did a fantastic job. His uncle, played by Spottiswoode Aitken, was memorable also, though I wish we saw a bit more of him. While no one else stood out to me, everyone played their roles fine.
Making many references to Edgar Allan Poe (constantly quoting 'Annabel Lee', and alluding to both The Cask of Amontillado and The Tell-Tale Heart), portions of The Avenging Conscience do come across as perhaps darker than you would think. The score, at times jovial, at times almost frantic, really helped to make some scenes more suspenseful.
The Avenging Conscience: or, 'Thou Shalt Not Kill' may not come across to many as a real horror movie, despite both murder and revenge from beyond the grave, because of the amount of romantic drama, but I'd urge any fan of horror to still give it a shot. It's far from perfect, and not even close to the best silent horror flick, but it's still solid despite the flaws. 7.5/10.
Hardware (1990)
I've seen this once before, but since I don't even know how long ago that was, in many ways, this was virtually a new viewing.
Hardware is an interesting film. Partially, it's an industrial nightmare, much like Tetsuo from a year earlier (though Tetsuo takes it to extremes), and it's at time's artsy, but some real suspenseful action and horror sequences are thrown in also. It's a gritty movie, and while it loses it's enjoyment factor as it drags on, overall, it's solid.
Set in one of the best post-apocalyptic Earth's I've seen, Hardware is down and dirty, with a very mechanical, almost steam-punk, type vibe to it. The imagery and surroundings are really breath-taking, and certainly give the film a unique feel.
The acting isn't always great, but two of the kills were on point. While it wasn't often this movie voyaged into gory regions, when it did, it took no prisoners, and for those two scenes alone, any horror fan should give this flick a shot if they've not already.
As good as the deaths and atmosphere are, though, there are some glaring problems. While the movie at first is going well, about ten minutes past the hour mark, you sort of want things to start wrapping up, but it's not until twenty minutes later that they actually do. Part of this was, for me, because the first hour of the film is pretty enjoyable, but as it became increasingly experimental in flavor, I found myself not liking it as much the longer it went on. It just felt too long, and while the conclusion was satisfactory, it could have been 15 minutes shorter, at least, and still come out well.
When I first saw this flick, I probably didn't like it. It's not the type of movie a 14 or 15 year-kid would generally enjoy. And now, while I certainly find it an interesting ride, it's still not amazing. It's grittiness is well-done, but I didn't enjoy Tetsuo that much, so this too was a mixed-bag. It's a good movie with good gore, but as for a movie that I'd give repeated rewatches to? Nah, this ain't it. 7.5/10.
Pikovaya dama (1916)
This Russian flick (Queen of Spades, originally Pikovaya dama) comes to us a year before the Russian revolution, before the USSR came into power, and so it certainly feels historic when watching. But having seen it twice now, it really doesn't leave that much an imprint on me.
The biggest problem, for me, at least, is that while the horror elements are there (apparitions, a man losing his mind, and the like), they come so late into the film to really make a positive difference. Which isn't to say the story isn't good before that, but it feels far more a drama than anything resembling even the 1910's standards of horror.
Unfortunately, despite the well-done set up of the plot, this lack of horror early on is rather damaging. Utilizing flashbacks as a way to unfold the story was certainly fun (and perhaps even innovative), but after the first 15 minutes, the movie drags until around the last ten. Sure, the movie as a whole is just over an hour, so it's not as though it drags for a long time, but it was still noticeable.
One thing Pikovaya dama did really well, though, is the score, which is superb. Suspenseful when it needs to be, the music in this flick was a real treat, and even during portions where I was less than enthralled, the music helped keep me engaged. The other high point was our main actor, Ivan Mozzhukhin, who did a perfectly enjoyable job throughout as a man obsessed with discovering a secret best left untouched.
The final showdown, as it was, lacked the suspense one would hope, and Pikovaya dama wraps up extraordinarily quickly, which was a bit of a let-down. Still, this is a movie I would recommend a fan of silents view once, as there are some clever and enjoyable parts to be found. As a horror flick, though, there's not a whole lot to recommend this movie for. 5.5/10.
The Texas Chain Saw Massacre (1974)
Six years after the low budget hit Night of the Living Dead, and two years after Craven's gritty debut, The Last House on the Left, The Texas Chain Saw Massacre follows in it's predecessors footsteps as a gritty, violent, unforgettable experience.
My problem has always been, though, that I don't find the experience enjoyable.
So many things about this movie are amazing: Leatherface's screen presence is off the charts - all his kills are memorable. And his first on-screen appearance still scares the shit out of me. The room with the bones, feathers, and nightmarish furniture was truly horrifying. The chase scenes are tense, and feel quite real (as virtue to the lower-budget, in my opinion). Marilyn Burns does an absolutely amazing job as a woman who has been thrown off the cliff of sanity. And those final ten minutes? Still stands up amazingly to today's standards.
So given all of those positives, what's my problem? It stems basically to the fact that while memorable, I just couldn't enjoy this. It's gritty, dark, occasionally uncomfortable, and dreary as hell. And sure, while the first thirty minutes are slow (I've never been a fan of the hitchhiker scene), my main issue is that I just don't find this all that enjoying.
A masterpiece in it's own right, I recognize the contributions Hooper made to the genre with this flick. But as good as many of the portions are, and as great an actress as Burns was, this isn't a movie I find myself willingly re-watching all that often. I'd take Halloween, A Nightmare on Elm Street, hell, even Leprechaun, any time over this. A solid movie that stands out a gritty piece of history, but still, I have to give it just below average, which is what I've consistently given this flick every time I've seen it. 6.5/10.
Child's Play (1988)
This classic flick gets many things right, and very little wrong. Despite the nature of the movie, believe me, it's not at all as silly as you might think (or what later sequels would lead you to believe). I won't have a lot to say on this, so bear with me.
The story is pretty fun and captivating throughout, not to mention original. Certainly didn't really feel like other movies around the time, and still stands out to today (despite some not so great sequels). Both tense and well-paced, everything seems to work out fine in this department.
The acting is pretty top-notch all-around, also. Catherine Hicks does a fantastic job as a mother worried sick for, at first, the mental health of her child, and then about a doll trying to take over her son's body. Hicks has never been a big name, but she does beautifully here. Chris Sarandon, as a police detective, does a fine job also. It actually took me until this re-watch to realize he's also in the 1985 classic Fight Night. Big duh moment then. He was a fun character though, and certainly got his licks in.
Despite being a young kid, Alex Vincent does extremely well as Andy. The scene in which Chucky's coming for him while in the institution is perhaps one of my favorites in the film, and Vincent shows very strong acting both there and pretty much throughout the film, all without turning into an annoyance, which I appreciated. And need I mention Brad Dourif? His voice makes Chucky the memorable mofo that he is, and really helps the movie stand out from it's peers.
As aforementioned, there's more than a few kills that aren't great (keywords: window, house), but others make up for it, such as that voodoo scene. The car scene too, with Sarandon, was a fun ride (for us, not Sarandon), with Chucky trying to stab him through the seat (another scene that's stuck with me since I was a kid).
There's very little that Child's Play doesn't get right. I suppose at times Chucky could be a bit much, but really, that's part of his nature, it seems. The movie doesn't waste any time, and just throws us into the action, which I always appreciated. It never really lets up, either. A solid movie all-around, Child's Play is one that, if you've not yet seen, you no longer have an excuse to avoid. 8.5/10.
Die Augen der Mumie Ma (1918)
This is a moderately difficult flick to talk about, mainly because it straddles the line between horror and non-horror. Ultimately, I do think that Die Augen der Mumie Ma (The Eyes of the Mummy) is a horror movie, but I would not at all excuse anyone else for thinking otherwise.
If you're expecting an actual mummy, as many viewers tend to, then that might lead to many of the disappointments this movie brings. It's a heavy drama-laden flick, not to mention romance, which overshadows the horror aspects. Luckily, toward the end, things do pick up. Not that much, though. While I'm a fan of the ending, it comes in far too late to make that positive an impact, and unfortunately, there were too few scenes prior that had much a threatening feel to them.
Another thing that I can't help but criticize: most of the times, actors in silent flicks are about as good as you would expect, with a few standing out above the others. Here, it just seems to me that many of the actors' and actresses' hearts weren't into it. Harry Liedtke was fine, but didn't have the power to really carry the protagonist side of the plot, and sadly, neither did Pola Negri (her dancing didn't do much for me either, on a side-note).
Emil Jannings did the best, by far, with his performance. While he was nowhere near as good as other early mad men (he's no Lorre from Mad Love, or Barrymore Svengali), to be sure, and he didn't get a hell of a lot of characterization, I still felt that most of the time, Jannings came across as a threat. I just wish he had more screen-time to do so.
Die Augen der Mumie Ma will probably disappoint most horror fans going in expecting a Nosferatu or Das Cabinet des Dr. Caligari. Perhaps one of the few missteps Germany took during their reign over the horror genre (and it is entirely possible that this flick was meant far more a drama/romance than horror), this movie just doesn't have much to recommend, especially considering far better movies that came out around the same time. 5/10.
Phantasm II (1988)
While lacking much of the dreamy atmospheric feel that the first film possesses, Phantasm II makes up for it with both all-out action and fantastic special effects.
In many ways, this flick comes across as a buddy road trip movie, with Reggie (Reggie Bannister) and Michael (James Le Gros, replacing Michael Baldwin) attempting to track down and kill The Tall Man. It's a fun romp, and seeing Reggie with his chainsaw and Mike with his makeshift flamethrower searching through desolate buildings carries with it a lot of appeal.
Even with this film coming out nine years after the original, Reggie Bannister still does a great job with his character, and though I'd have preferred Baldwin to be recast as Mike, Le Gros doesn't come across as too out of place. Paula Irvine does a pretty good job as Liz (Mike's love interest), and Samantha Phillips, while lacking in screen-time, has a strong presence also. Needless to say, Angus Scrimm continues to dominate as The Tall Man, and does a fantastic job as a threatening, powerful, unknown force.
Like I said, the movie mostly lacks the dreamy, somewhat incoherent feel of the first film (though it does pop up now and again throughout the movie), and instead replaces that by-and-large with an action/road trip, which, while at times fun, doesn't quite have the same effect. It felt more Hollywood, in short. Which isn't to say the movie still doesn't stand out, but the feel of the movie is certainly far removed from the first.
That said, the action sequences (chainsaw fight, for example) and special effects (Tall Man's scenes near the end) were top-notch, and highly recommended to any fan of horror. Much like the first movie, Phantasm II also leaves us with a lot of unanswered questions, which has it's pros and cons. The beginning and ending both seem a bit of a jumbled mess (really makes us question what the reality of the first and second movies really were), but while somewhat annoying, it has it's charms too.
Phantasm II isn't as good as the original movie, but it is still a very strong film, and undoubtedly more fun than the original, but probably, in the end, less memorable. Certainly worth watching still, as this series really is one that has to be seen to believe. 8.5/10.
Mortuary (1983)
I've long heard about this film, and for some time now, have been interested in seeing it. Does it live up to my expectations? For the most part, but it does have one glaring problem.
Mortuary has a lot of class for a slasher, and while the story itself was lacking in the atmosphere I was hoping it'd convey, there are plenty of suspenseful and well-done scenes. The setting, a coastal California city, stood out, and many of the actors were solid.
Mary McDonough, David Wysocki, Christopher George, and Bill Paxton all stood out positively (which, for George, is a good thing, as this is his final film before his death). Paxton in particular did extremely well with his role, a quirky, possibly messed up son of a mortician. He was over-the-top at times (the scene with him skipping through the graveyard was a bit much), but his character was fun, especially toward the end.
While we had decent suspense throughout, the one big problem with this film is lack of kills. On-screen, we get very little in the way of deaths, which is disappointing, as the few we do get are decently well-done. Something like two, three death scenes tops doesn't really do it for me, and while certainly the story was interesting and captivating, a few additional tertiary characters to be bumped off would have made a positive difference.
That said, Mortuary ended up as a fine film. Sure, the route it took was one almost utterly expected (the ending itself wasn't too far removed from Happy Birthday to Me), but this film took it with class. A solid movie, I just wish it had spent a bit more time giving us some kills. Otherwise, this is certainly worth a look for fans of the slasher subgenre. 8/10.
