31 Films in 31 Days - Horror Challenge Subset
10-20-08, 11:05 AM
#176
DVD Talk Limited Edition
The Invisible Woman puts a lot of comedy into the mix with varied results. It's a little strange to see John Barrymore mixed up in a horror film but the effects are good and comedic relief comes from talents like Charlie Ruggles, Oskar Homolka, and in one of his non stooge roles Shemp Howard.
This was the only thing I've seen her in besides The Wizard of Oz, so that was a treat. I really enjoyed this one; it's easily my favorite of the sequels on the Invisible Man Legacy set, although I liked the last two as well, just not as much. Except for Vincent Price, I didn't like anything about The Invisible Man Returns; I thought it was way too slow.Rob
10-21-08, 03:52 AM
#177
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 665
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hard
I don't know if anyone else watched this, but I'll go ahead and post my thoughts here, since it's one of my favorite movies, even with its flaws. I never even knew I was going to like the movie, I bought it one day when I was bored and wanted to watch a movie I hadn't seen before, and I picked it up, saw that it was a cop movie, and didn't even read the back of the movie or any of the reviews, I just bought it blind, so I had no idea what it was going to be about or any of the themes in the movie, and I'm kind of glad it ended up that way, because I was more surprised for not knowing what to expect.
I might sound like I'm raving, since this is certainly a low budget affair, but some independent movies are like children to me. I know that sounds strange but it's true. I see them, struggling with their meager little budget, to tell a story and convey a message and all the hard work and dedication and effort on display in the film beats the hell out of some big time Hollywood productions made with ten times the budget but with no heart at all. So when I see one of these little films and it has a greatness that shines through its flaws I'm proud of it, and I want to jump around on the rooftops and tell everyone I know to buy it and see it. "Hard" is just such a movie. I bought copies for six of my friends so far and asked them to watch it just because there are so many things this movie does right that I want other people to see it. I see its flaws, believe me, and I found myself yelling at the screen more than once during the course of the film the first time I watched it, taking the cast and crew to task for its glaring missteps, but something beneath the surface speaks of passion and greatness and a love for filmmaking that manage to overwhelm anything negative and make me want to watch the movie over and over again. I've seen it over 50 times now.
The story is a fairly straightforward serial killer drama, but little touches manage to elevate the style and substance above the usual serial killer fare. Unlike some films that try to mask the killer's identity, this film opens with a scene of the killer taking his first victim, so we know from the beginning who he is. And he's sadistic, too, and even though the opening scene doesn't show any actual violence, it's difficult to watch because of the way he talks to his victim and degrades the boy. We know what he's going to do to the boy, and the boy says "I won't like it," practically in tears, and when the killer replies, "I will," it's chilling to me.
This is a pattern that is repeated throughout the rest of the film. Whatever uneven moments Malcolm Moorman may have in his performance, his screen presence and charisma are undeniably powerful. He manages to be both repulsive and alluring as the killer Jack, and whenever he is stalking one of his victims the sense of fear is palpable. It's the kind of adrenaline inducing good performance where you find yourself screaming at the victims to run away before it's too late (why don't they ever listen to us?) The lead actor, Noel Palomaria, while his hair doesn't move due to overwhelming amounts of hair spray and his line delivery is often as stiff as his hair (as though he were a telemarketer reading a script on his first day on the job) manages to be sympathetic somehow in spite of his shortcomings, and by the end of the movie he seems to have relaxed a bit and his performance improves by leaps and bounds. The actor who plays his partner (the seasoned veteran detective), Charles Lanyer, is capable and believable in his performance. He's a hard ass at first (the movie begins with Palomaria on his first day as Lanyer's partner) but as the movie progresses he warms up to his partner and sticks his neck out to help when things start getting nasty.
And nasty is the perfect word for the events that unfold. Jack seems to have the superhuman power to manipulate everyone around him and he's so slimy it's sometimes uncomfortable to watch (particularly when he manipulates a young boy who can't be older than ten years old...we now that he's going to rape the boy and even though it's not shown, it's implied in such a way that it's still disturbing; a fact which impressed me greatly). Though the graphic murders are never shown the aftermath of the murders is gruesome, and along with the scenes of Moorman taunting his victims there is one scene of him torturing a victim that is mesmerizing. Some torture movies, as much as I like them and defend their right to depict torture if they so choose, just show so much torture that it becomes mind-numbing and we don't care about the victims after awhile. In this case, seeing Moorman taunt and torture the victim Tex, it's hard for me to watch even with as many times as I've seen the movie because I feel so bad for the poor guy. Jack beats him unconscious while he begs to be released, then pisses on him to wake him up, and Tex is weeping and begging Jack not to kill him, and it's harsh but believable and horrifying to me in a way a lot of horror movies fail to be horrifying.
The film carries a not-so-subtle message that gay police officers often face great difficulties on the force, and while some might think that the scenes of Raymond's fellow detectives harassing him are a little too heavy handed to be as effective as they could have been, Palomaria's reactions to the harassment are sufficiently moving enough to make the scenes work, at least for me.
In fact, some of the scenes that might at times appear to be far too obvious (such as some of the police officers and the coroner making comments that the world is better off without the young gay men that Jack slaughters) are in fact quite accurate to how a lot of officers feel about the subject (I've heard officers make such comments to my face in the past, so while it may seem like the movie is overstating the issue, the scenes ring true to me). That is indeed one of the strongest points of the movie, its treatment of the question of whether some lives are worth less than others; whether some victims are expendable. I mean, take Tex for example. He was cruising the streets turning tricks and that's how the killer got to him (this killer preys on young male prostitutes) so some would say his death was his fault (I've heard that sentiment echoed myself) but I have a hard time with that. A lot of people turn to prostitution out of desperation...they know they can make money at it and survive. So is the world better off without these people who arguably aren't contributing to society? The question is powerful and while a little more finesse would have made the movie more capable of driving home the point without drilling it into the viewer's head, the heavy-handedness doesn't totally discount the message for me.
Don't let the grainy quality of the film or the often terrible acting or the convenient plot elements fool you; this is a movie made by people who were obviously overjoyed to be making a movie, and their enthusiasm shows in every frame. I learned by watching the special features that the movie was financed with several credit cards and that all the actors, technical advisers, and other crew donated their time because they believed in the movie so much. That's what I'm talking about people; filmmakers who want so badly to make a film that they endure indie filmmaking hell for FREE just to get a movie made. I SWEAR that kind of dedication covers a multitude of sins, as the whole turns out better than the sum of its parts. I grow so tired of overproduced mainstream movie garbage that looks pretty onscreen but is totally forgotten five seconds after I walk out of the theater that with a movie like this, where the good aspects are still sticking in my mind now, outweighing all the bad and making me want to watch again just to see them, I'm reminded again that these are the moments I'm proud to be a movie fan. So I always tell people, "see this movie, laugh and throw things at the screen if you must, but whatever you do, don't dismiss it offhand. There are plenty of gems in this puddle of mud."
I might sound like I'm raving, since this is certainly a low budget affair, but some independent movies are like children to me. I know that sounds strange but it's true. I see them, struggling with their meager little budget, to tell a story and convey a message and all the hard work and dedication and effort on display in the film beats the hell out of some big time Hollywood productions made with ten times the budget but with no heart at all. So when I see one of these little films and it has a greatness that shines through its flaws I'm proud of it, and I want to jump around on the rooftops and tell everyone I know to buy it and see it. "Hard" is just such a movie. I bought copies for six of my friends so far and asked them to watch it just because there are so many things this movie does right that I want other people to see it. I see its flaws, believe me, and I found myself yelling at the screen more than once during the course of the film the first time I watched it, taking the cast and crew to task for its glaring missteps, but something beneath the surface speaks of passion and greatness and a love for filmmaking that manage to overwhelm anything negative and make me want to watch the movie over and over again. I've seen it over 50 times now.
The story is a fairly straightforward serial killer drama, but little touches manage to elevate the style and substance above the usual serial killer fare. Unlike some films that try to mask the killer's identity, this film opens with a scene of the killer taking his first victim, so we know from the beginning who he is. And he's sadistic, too, and even though the opening scene doesn't show any actual violence, it's difficult to watch because of the way he talks to his victim and degrades the boy. We know what he's going to do to the boy, and the boy says "I won't like it," practically in tears, and when the killer replies, "I will," it's chilling to me.
This is a pattern that is repeated throughout the rest of the film. Whatever uneven moments Malcolm Moorman may have in his performance, his screen presence and charisma are undeniably powerful. He manages to be both repulsive and alluring as the killer Jack, and whenever he is stalking one of his victims the sense of fear is palpable. It's the kind of adrenaline inducing good performance where you find yourself screaming at the victims to run away before it's too late (why don't they ever listen to us?) The lead actor, Noel Palomaria, while his hair doesn't move due to overwhelming amounts of hair spray and his line delivery is often as stiff as his hair (as though he were a telemarketer reading a script on his first day on the job) manages to be sympathetic somehow in spite of his shortcomings, and by the end of the movie he seems to have relaxed a bit and his performance improves by leaps and bounds. The actor who plays his partner (the seasoned veteran detective), Charles Lanyer, is capable and believable in his performance. He's a hard ass at first (the movie begins with Palomaria on his first day as Lanyer's partner) but as the movie progresses he warms up to his partner and sticks his neck out to help when things start getting nasty.
And nasty is the perfect word for the events that unfold. Jack seems to have the superhuman power to manipulate everyone around him and he's so slimy it's sometimes uncomfortable to watch (particularly when he manipulates a young boy who can't be older than ten years old...we now that he's going to rape the boy and even though it's not shown, it's implied in such a way that it's still disturbing; a fact which impressed me greatly). Though the graphic murders are never shown the aftermath of the murders is gruesome, and along with the scenes of Moorman taunting his victims there is one scene of him torturing a victim that is mesmerizing. Some torture movies, as much as I like them and defend their right to depict torture if they so choose, just show so much torture that it becomes mind-numbing and we don't care about the victims after awhile. In this case, seeing Moorman taunt and torture the victim Tex, it's hard for me to watch even with as many times as I've seen the movie because I feel so bad for the poor guy. Jack beats him unconscious while he begs to be released, then pisses on him to wake him up, and Tex is weeping and begging Jack not to kill him, and it's harsh but believable and horrifying to me in a way a lot of horror movies fail to be horrifying.
The film carries a not-so-subtle message that gay police officers often face great difficulties on the force, and while some might think that the scenes of Raymond's fellow detectives harassing him are a little too heavy handed to be as effective as they could have been, Palomaria's reactions to the harassment are sufficiently moving enough to make the scenes work, at least for me.
In fact, some of the scenes that might at times appear to be far too obvious (such as some of the police officers and the coroner making comments that the world is better off without the young gay men that Jack slaughters) are in fact quite accurate to how a lot of officers feel about the subject (I've heard officers make such comments to my face in the past, so while it may seem like the movie is overstating the issue, the scenes ring true to me). That is indeed one of the strongest points of the movie, its treatment of the question of whether some lives are worth less than others; whether some victims are expendable. I mean, take Tex for example. He was cruising the streets turning tricks and that's how the killer got to him (this killer preys on young male prostitutes) so some would say his death was his fault (I've heard that sentiment echoed myself) but I have a hard time with that. A lot of people turn to prostitution out of desperation...they know they can make money at it and survive. So is the world better off without these people who arguably aren't contributing to society? The question is powerful and while a little more finesse would have made the movie more capable of driving home the point without drilling it into the viewer's head, the heavy-handedness doesn't totally discount the message for me.
Don't let the grainy quality of the film or the often terrible acting or the convenient plot elements fool you; this is a movie made by people who were obviously overjoyed to be making a movie, and their enthusiasm shows in every frame. I learned by watching the special features that the movie was financed with several credit cards and that all the actors, technical advisers, and other crew donated their time because they believed in the movie so much. That's what I'm talking about people; filmmakers who want so badly to make a film that they endure indie filmmaking hell for FREE just to get a movie made. I SWEAR that kind of dedication covers a multitude of sins, as the whole turns out better than the sum of its parts. I grow so tired of overproduced mainstream movie garbage that looks pretty onscreen but is totally forgotten five seconds after I walk out of the theater that with a movie like this, where the good aspects are still sticking in my mind now, outweighing all the bad and making me want to watch again just to see them, I'm reminded again that these are the moments I'm proud to be a movie fan. So I always tell people, "see this movie, laugh and throw things at the screen if you must, but whatever you do, don't dismiss it offhand. There are plenty of gems in this puddle of mud."
10-21-08, 02:17 PM
#178
Challenge Guru & Comic Nerd
Thread Starter
Hard
Nice review. I pretty much agree with your pros and cons. But to me, the pros aren't quite as strong as you think, and the cons are worse, way too heavy handed in its message for example.
A fine effort though, I admire the filmmakers. Nice choice to get us to watch something new and off our normal viewing habits perhaps.
A fine effort though, I admire the filmmakers. Nice choice to get us to watch something new and off our normal viewing habits perhaps.
10-21-08, 04:57 PM
#179
DVD Talk Legend
I always enjoy watching The Invisible Man. The scene in which Claude Rains raises hell in the town, wisecracking while stealing bicycles and throwing hats in the river is a real hoot. James Whale was always great at blending horror with inspired bits of humor.
10-22-08, 12:17 AM
#180
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
I have to admit that I'm guilty of being one of those people who ended up completely cracking up through the end of Saw. There were only a couple of other people in the theater not including my friend. Fortunately, we were all cracking up.
10-22-08, 10:14 AM
#182
Challenge Guru & Comic Nerd
Thread Starter
The Thing
I know that there are a few people on this forum that always answer, The Thing, when asked what's the greatest movie ever. The more I watch this film the more I think I may agree. Definitely in my top ten or twenty overall, tops in any sci-fi or horror list unless you count Jaws as horror.
Even if you take out the ground breaking special effects, remove all the alien/monster stuff, and make it just a film about men and isolation, it's still an amazing film.
Even if you take out the ground breaking special effects, remove all the alien/monster stuff, and make it just a film about men and isolation, it's still an amazing film.
10-22-08, 10:54 AM
#183
DVD Talk Gold Edition
The Thing
I know that there are a few people on this forum that always answer, The Thing, when asked what's the greatest movie ever. The more I watch this film the more I think I may agree. Definitely in my top ten or twenty overall, tops in any sci-fi or horror list unless you count Jaws as horror.
Even if you take out the ground breaking special effects, remove all the alien/monster stuff, and make it just a film about men and isolation, it's still an amazing film.
Even if you take out the ground breaking special effects, remove all the alien/monster stuff, and make it just a film about men and isolation, it's still an amazing film.
The commentary and the documentary are excellent too.
10-22-08, 11:09 AM
#184
DVD Talk Gold Edition
That's how I feel about all the best Horror films. From the Bride of Frankenstein to the Exorcist to Jaws and Alien. They have so much more to them than some scares. I stopped rating Horror by the scare-factor a longtime ago. And onced I realized that I really appreciated the genre.
10-22-08, 12:01 PM
#185
DVD Talk Legend
Just watched The Thing last night for the first time. Enjoyed it quite a bit. I was quick to put it back on the shelf and begin another movie, but you've reminded me that I need to check out the special features sooner, rather than later.
10-22-08, 12:09 PM
#186
Challenge Guru & Comic Nerd
Thread Starter
The Thing
Listened to them both yesterday, they are really well done. Makes me wish I was on set for the making of it, despite there being no women there at all.
Yep. Jaws for example, is so much more than just a scare movie, or a summer blockbuster.
Interestingly, if I had to list my four favorite horror films, it would be The Thing and three of the four you mentioned. Haven't watched Bride often enough to know if it would be the fifth.
That's how I feel about all the best Horror films. From the Bride of Frankenstein to the Exorcist to Jaws and Alien. They have so much more to them than some scares. I stopped rating Horror by the scare-factor a longtime ago. And onced I realized that I really appreciated the genre.
Interestingly, if I had to list my four favorite horror films, it would be The Thing and three of the four you mentioned. Haven't watched Bride often enough to know if it would be the fifth.
10-25-08, 01:15 PM
#187
Challenge Guru & Comic Nerd
Thread Starter
The Evil Dead
Paging Xage....
Listened to this with the producer/director commentary. Is it just me or did Sam Raimi sleep thru half of this? He seemed to only talk when the producer dragged comments out of him.
Listened to this with the producer/director commentary. Is it just me or did Sam Raimi sleep thru half of this? He seemed to only talk when the producer dragged comments out of him.
10-25-08, 09:39 PM
#188
Challenge Guru & Comic Nerd
Thread Starter
Psycho
I'm pretty sure this is my favorite Hitchcock film, although I still need to re-watch several other classics to be sure. Lots of his films I've only seen once as a kid, or maybe even not at all.
10-25-08, 09:49 PM
#189
DVD Talk Gold Edition
I'm not sure if that makes sense at all, but it's tough for me when there is a cross in genres. I know the two movies mentioned above have similar elements, but they are quite a different viewing experience.
10-25-08, 09:54 PM
#190
Challenge Guru & Comic Nerd
Thread Starter
The Mummy
Probably my least favorite of the Universal icons, but still a solid 7/10.
Zita Johann is gorgeous, and Karloff is great as usual, but not quite enough time as the mummy. More a romance/drama than a horror for the most part.
Zita Johann is gorgeous, and Karloff is great as usual, but not quite enough time as the mummy. More a romance/drama than a horror for the most part.
10-26-08, 09:13 AM
#191
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 665
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I actually love "Strangers on a Train" the best, but these two are excellent too.
My ramblings about "Psycho."
When I was a kid I wasn't allowed to watch "Psycho" so I grew up wanting to see it and reading about it and of course, having the twist ending spoiled for me. I even read the novel because I wanted to see the movie so badly so I had to find some way to experience the story (don't ask me why my mom wouldn't let me watch the movie but would let me read the book, she did the same thing with "The Shining" and it's never made sense to me). Because of all this, when I first saw the movie in my 20s, I thought there would be nothing for me to appreciate since I already knew every twist, but something hit me that I never expected. I know Anthony Perkins as this weird, creepy old guy, but back when "Psycho" came out, he was hot. Total fox. And I think if I'd been a woman watching the movie at the time "Psycho" was originally released, seeing him be this gorgeous gentle-sounding, soft spoken guy who seemed tortured, and then learning he was the killer and seeing him dressed as his dead mother, that would have really gotten under my skin and shocked me. It hit me so hard because even though I knew what was going to happen and knew what I was going to see, it still bothered me to see that climax with him holding the knife, dressed in a wig and dress. That gave me a whole new perspective on the movie. It also taught me something I think I'm still learning; that when I don't like movies because of whatever my expectations were, I need to give them another chance. Sometimes that doesn't work out (like with "The Exorcist") but sometimes I can really grow to love the movie for what it is and not what I expect it to be. After all, I hated "A Nightmare on Elm Street" when I first saw it, and "Hellraiser" too, don't ask me why because they're two of my favorites now, but whatever I expected from them I was let down and that pissed me off when I first saw them. With "Psycho," I can look past a lot of the things I find hokey about the movie that are a reflection of the time it was filmed and concentrate on seeing Anthony Perkins' face when he wields that knife, in a dress and wig, and see the genius behind the scene and indeed the whole movie.
My ramblings about "Psycho."
When I was a kid I wasn't allowed to watch "Psycho" so I grew up wanting to see it and reading about it and of course, having the twist ending spoiled for me. I even read the novel because I wanted to see the movie so badly so I had to find some way to experience the story (don't ask me why my mom wouldn't let me watch the movie but would let me read the book, she did the same thing with "The Shining" and it's never made sense to me). Because of all this, when I first saw the movie in my 20s, I thought there would be nothing for me to appreciate since I already knew every twist, but something hit me that I never expected. I know Anthony Perkins as this weird, creepy old guy, but back when "Psycho" came out, he was hot. Total fox. And I think if I'd been a woman watching the movie at the time "Psycho" was originally released, seeing him be this gorgeous gentle-sounding, soft spoken guy who seemed tortured, and then learning he was the killer and seeing him dressed as his dead mother, that would have really gotten under my skin and shocked me. It hit me so hard because even though I knew what was going to happen and knew what I was going to see, it still bothered me to see that climax with him holding the knife, dressed in a wig and dress. That gave me a whole new perspective on the movie. It also taught me something I think I'm still learning; that when I don't like movies because of whatever my expectations were, I need to give them another chance. Sometimes that doesn't work out (like with "The Exorcist") but sometimes I can really grow to love the movie for what it is and not what I expect it to be. After all, I hated "A Nightmare on Elm Street" when I first saw it, and "Hellraiser" too, don't ask me why because they're two of my favorites now, but whatever I expected from them I was let down and that pissed me off when I first saw them. With "Psycho," I can look past a lot of the things I find hokey about the movie that are a reflection of the time it was filmed and concentrate on seeing Anthony Perkins' face when he wields that knife, in a dress and wig, and see the genius behind the scene and indeed the whole movie.
10-27-08, 01:05 AM
#192
Needs to contact an admin about multiple accounts
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have nothing but respect for you, but your least favorite of the icons? To me personally I prefer it to The Wolf Man, The Invisible Man, and The Creature From the Black Lagoon. That doesn't mean that I dislike the other films, being at the bottom of that list is like winning 85 million dollars instead of winning 100 million dollars.
Personally it ranks a solid third. Dracula and Frankenstein switch back and forth as far as my favorite is concerned usually depending on which I've watched more recently and my mood at that time. Of course, The Bride of Frankenstein being one of my favorite films leans me towards Frankenstein but that's a statement about the franchise not the single film.
It's one of the great things about DVDs and film watching and forums in general. We can voice our own opinions and base them on what we really feel instead of what other encourage us to feel. I am a bit shocked by your opinion but I respect that you're willing to state it boldly, that is really what makes me listen to someone.
Last edited by poster mayhem; 10-27-08 at 01:09 AM.
10-27-08, 06:49 AM
#193
Challenge Guru & Comic Nerd
Thread Starter
The Mummy
Like you sort of said though, it's like picking the favorite or least favorite of your five children. I love all five franchises, and five main films, but one of them has to be last.
I like the Mummy franchise as a whole better than the first film, which just doesn't grab me as well as the other originals do. Rating the series as a whole, the Mummy would likely not be last. Still have to watch some of the other film's sequels, but I quite enjoy all the Mummy films.
I like the Mummy franchise as a whole better than the first film, which just doesn't grab me as well as the other originals do. Rating the series as a whole, the Mummy would likely not be last. Still have to watch some of the other film's sequels, but I quite enjoy all the Mummy films.
10-27-08, 07:02 AM
#196
DVD Talk Gold Edition
Pit and the Pendulum
First off, I'm assuming it was the 1961 Roger Corman version that we were supposed to watch, correct? It happened to be on HDNet Movies last night, so that is what I am referencing.
I thought this movie was just ok for me. It's a little hard for me to judge, because I don't think I've seen any horror movies pre-1970 besides Night of the Living Dead and Psycho. For full disclosure, I don't think I've seen Vincent Price in anything but Scooby-Doo and as Egghead in the Batman TV series! In fact, didn't one of the Batman episodes have a pendulum as one of the killing devices for the mid-episode cliffhanger?
I have never read the story by Poe, but it seemed fairly obvious what was going to happen at the end. Not that it's a flaw with the movie, and prior to the reveal of the infidelity similarities between Nicholas' mom and his wife, I was in suspense and unsure of what exactly was going on. For the whole movie, I was wondering when there was going to be a Pit and/or a Pendulum
The very end was interesting, but when did they put something over Elizabeth's mouth? Also, from what the inside of the cage looked like before they put her in it, it looked like she would have had plenty of room to use her hands to take off anything that was on her mouth.
Ah well, it was interesting, but not really my cup of tea. I have Tales of Terror recorded from HDNet Movies too, I'll check that out tonight.
I thought this movie was just ok for me. It's a little hard for me to judge, because I don't think I've seen any horror movies pre-1970 besides Night of the Living Dead and Psycho. For full disclosure, I don't think I've seen Vincent Price in anything but Scooby-Doo and as Egghead in the Batman TV series! In fact, didn't one of the Batman episodes have a pendulum as one of the killing devices for the mid-episode cliffhanger?
I have never read the story by Poe, but it seemed fairly obvious what was going to happen at the end. Not that it's a flaw with the movie, and prior to the reveal of the infidelity similarities between Nicholas' mom and his wife, I was in suspense and unsure of what exactly was going on. For the whole movie, I was wondering when there was going to be a Pit and/or a Pendulum
The very end was interesting, but when did they put something over Elizabeth's mouth? Also, from what the inside of the cage looked like before they put her in it, it looked like she would have had plenty of room to use her hands to take off anything that was on her mouth.
Ah well, it was interesting, but not really my cup of tea. I have Tales of Terror recorded from HDNet Movies too, I'll check that out tonight.
10-27-08, 11:29 AM
#197
Challenge Guru & Comic Nerd
Thread Starter
The Pit and the Pendulum
Triple what!?!
Numes, I'm shocked that a horror fan would say any of those three things. I'm speechless actually, thank God I have a keyboard to express my surprise and dismay.
The very end was interesting, but when did they put something over Elizabeth's mouth? Also, from what the inside of the cage looked like before they put her in it, it looked like she would have had plenty of room to use her hands to take off anything that was on her mouth.
10-27-08, 11:58 AM
#198
DVD Talk Gold Edition
Ok. I knew I would probably get some flames with my comments.
One thing I want to make clear, though, is that I never said I was a Horror "fan." I like horror movies and enjoy them a lot, but if I had to pick my favorite genre, it would definitely be Sci-Fi. This challenge was a great way for me to watch some of my Horror movies since I almost never grab those off the shelf when I pick out a movie to watch. As you look at my list, I'm sure you can see that my stuff is more "mainstream," than most peoples lists.
So, I am happy to expand my Horror experience this year with movies like "Pit and the Pendulum" and "Claw of Terror." This challenge has been great. I know I'm already going to be short of titles for next year, so perhaps I'll check out some of these older titles that you (and others) enjoy so much that I've never seen.
Edit: Maybe scratch "Claw of Terror" from my happy to expand list. Although I did read on one of the Phantasm bios that Angus Scrimm (The Tall man) was in "Claw of Terror."
One thing I want to make clear, though, is that I never said I was a Horror "fan." I like horror movies and enjoy them a lot, but if I had to pick my favorite genre, it would definitely be Sci-Fi. This challenge was a great way for me to watch some of my Horror movies since I almost never grab those off the shelf when I pick out a movie to watch. As you look at my list, I'm sure you can see that my stuff is more "mainstream," than most peoples lists.
So, I am happy to expand my Horror experience this year with movies like "Pit and the Pendulum" and "Claw of Terror." This challenge has been great. I know I'm already going to be short of titles for next year, so perhaps I'll check out some of these older titles that you (and others) enjoy so much that I've never seen.
Edit: Maybe scratch "Claw of Terror" from my happy to expand list. Although I did read on one of the Phantasm bios that Angus Scrimm (The Tall man) was in "Claw of Terror."
Last edited by Numes; 10-27-08 at 12:04 PM.
10-27-08, 12:00 PM
#199
Challenge Guru & Comic Nerd
Thread Starter
The Pit and the Pendulum
I'm a huge fan of Edgar Allan Poe, and of Vincent Price, but went into this film expecting it to be rubbish. Perhaps this is unwarranted, but I thought that Roger Corman movies were always bad.
Was shocked to find this film both entertaining and well crafted. The Poe story was only a few pages, so they understandably had to add a lot of material to make a feature length film out of it. The screenplay, by the always capable Richard Matheson, does a fine job of sounding like Poe.
The camera work, including some interesting angles and tinting, suggests to me that it influenced some of the Italian horror masters, although I am not well enough schooled in them to comment perhaps. Nice use of music and colors as well.
Cast was very good, Price slightly hammy, but then again, he often is, part of his charm perhaps.
Loved the ending, and the creepiness and scares were well placed throughout the film.
Nice wiki article, and here is the imdb entry.
Was shocked to find this film both entertaining and well crafted. The Poe story was only a few pages, so they understandably had to add a lot of material to make a feature length film out of it. The screenplay, by the always capable Richard Matheson, does a fine job of sounding like Poe.
The camera work, including some interesting angles and tinting, suggests to me that it influenced some of the Italian horror masters, although I am not well enough schooled in them to comment perhaps. Nice use of music and colors as well.
Cast was very good, Price slightly hammy, but then again, he often is, part of his charm perhaps.
Loved the ending, and the creepiness and scares were well placed throughout the film.
Nice wiki article, and here is the imdb entry.
10-27-08, 03:17 PM
#200
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
Trevor, I'm happy to see that you were pleasantly surprised by Corman.
A lot of good films came from Roger Corman. I think he gets so much attention for his ultra-low-budget, shot in only a couple days movies that people forget that there was some good quality stuff being made.
And no bullshit, Roger Corman has got to be among the most important figures in American film, if not the world in general. Just look at a few of the names that got their starts working under Corman: Martin Scorsese, Francis Ford Coppola, Jonathan Demme, Jack Nicholson, Ron Howard. If people like those guys went to Corman to cut their teeth, the man obviously knows how to make a picture.
And I just went to Corman's IMDB page, and he has 385 producing credits and 55 directing credits!
A lot of good films came from Roger Corman. I think he gets so much attention for his ultra-low-budget, shot in only a couple days movies that people forget that there was some good quality stuff being made.
And no bullshit, Roger Corman has got to be among the most important figures in American film, if not the world in general. Just look at a few of the names that got their starts working under Corman: Martin Scorsese, Francis Ford Coppola, Jonathan Demme, Jack Nicholson, Ron Howard. If people like those guys went to Corman to cut their teeth, the man obviously knows how to make a picture.
And I just went to Corman's IMDB page, and he has 385 producing credits and 55 directing credits!
