Post by: Dragonfire on October 02, 2010, 08:29:59 AM
Anyway, here's my thread to post about the movies I watch for the horror marathon. There are a few movies that I like to watch every October that aren't technically horror...but I still like them this time of year.
I do have some new horror stuff to watch this year too..plus some I didn't get to before.
Post by: Dragonfire on October 02, 2010, 08:31:19 AM
| Galaxy of Terror (http://www.invelos.com/mpimages/82/826663121964f.jpg) The mind's innermost fears become reality for the crew members of the Quest when they land on the barren planet Morganthus hoping to find the missing crew members of the starship Remus — only to discover something deadly waiting for them. Each member of the rescuing team must come face to face with their darkest fears or perish. The cast onboard the Quest includes Edward Albert (The House Where Evil Dwells), Erin Moran (Happy Days), Ray Walston (My Favorite Martian), Robert Englund (A Nightmare On Elm Street series), Zalman King (Blue Sunshine) and Sig Haig (House Of 1,000 Corpses). The film also had its share of new and emerging talent behind the camera, including James Cameron (The Terminator, Aliens, Avatar), who did the production design, and Bill Paxton, who worked as a set decorator before later collaborating with Cameron in front of the camera as an actor. My Thoughts I got interested in checking out some some of the Roger Corman movies after Jimmy started posting about them - so I can officially blame him for every Corman movie I guy instead of Jon..though Jon is still blamed for all other DVD/Blu-ray purchases...just because. :D Anyway, I picked this one up a month or so ago when I found it on sale at Amazon. I ended up waiting to watch it for this marathon, though I wasn't specifically waiting. The plot is interesting, though it would have been nice if a few things had been developed a little more. A little more backstory for some of the characters would have helped..especially since there is some sort of problem between Baelon and Cabren that is never explained. Things are moving really fast for the first 15 minutes or so before slowing down a bit. The different monsters are interesting and suitably icky. The deaths are more original, especially what happens to the one woman that is not just attacked by a giant worm or maggot..but raped. That is ...well...way twisted. That was really the only thing that shocked me about the movie. Not that the other deaths were fun and pleasant, because they weren't..but hers was just more twisted. The movie was made with a small budget. The sets are decent and sort of futuristic looking. Some of them end up being uses again for Forbidden World. I noticed a few shots that look like they use matte paintings. The lighting is darker for most scenes, but that works to help build the creepy atmosphere for what is going on. The monsters are well done considering the budget. The cast is mostly fine in their parts, with some of them having a little more than others to do. There is barely any development for any of the characters. The extras, especially the new documentary on the making of the movie, are interesting and definitely worth watching. This movie is not going to appeal to a lot of people, but it is entertaining, in a twisted way.  I did get a review posted on Epinions. Galaxy of Terror (http://www1.epinions.com/review/mvie_mu-1008055/content_526511083140) |
Post by: Jimmy on October 02, 2010, 09:29:21 AM
(click to show/hide)
Post by: Dragonfire on October 02, 2010, 09:34:41 AM
(click to show/hide)
I did notice when Ranger sort of...flipped out and was complaining about Cabren. The movie is still entertaining..I just would have liked a little more of the background filled in.
Post by: Dragonfire on October 03, 2010, 04:13:10 AM
| The Monster Squad (http://www.invelos.com/mpimages/01/017153215663f.jpg) You know who to call when you have ghosts, but who do you call about monsters? Whether it's a bat in your belfry or a mummy in your microwave, THE MONSTER SQUAD ain't afraid of no ghouls! Count Dracula has until midnight to retrieve an ancient amulet that will give him final control over the delicate balance between good and evil in the world. To help him, the creepy count calls on some old friends: the weird Wolfman, grotesque Gill-Man, mildewed Mummy and freaky Frankenstein. As the ghoulish group gets closer to the amulet, it's up to THE MONSTER SQUAD, headquartered in the local tree house, to pool its questionable resources and stop the monster mayhem! My Thoughts This is a fun, entertaining movie that works well for families. I saw the DVD in Walmart a few years and I read some reviews around the same time - I believe one was from Pete too - and I decided that the movie sounded entertaining and I decided to pick it up. I'm really glad I did. It is a really fun monster movie. I do see things in the movie that I think indicates that the movie was inspired by the classic monster movies. I like this take on those characters. Several things that happen are a bit silly, but they end up working well for what is going on. This one is definitely worth watching. I have written about this one here before. I did get a review posted on Epinions two years ago. Monster Squad (http://www1.epinions.com/review/mvie_mu-1014156/content_448507121284) |
Post by: Dragonfire on October 03, 2010, 06:50:42 AM
| Poltergeist (http://www.invelos.com/mpimages/01/012569647510f.jpg) "THEY'RE HERE," playful at first...but not for long. A storm erupts, a tree attacks and little Carol Anne Freeling is whisked into a spectral void. As her family confronts horrors galore, something else is here too: a new benchmark in Hollywood ghost stories. Producers Steven Speilberg and Frank Marshall and director Tobe Hooper head the elite scream team of this classic. Welcome to Home Sweet Haunted Home. My Thoughts I've seen this one several times over the years on television. I think every one of those times was a version that was edited, though I might be wrong. I still really enjoy this one even though some things about it creep me out. The plot is interesting and entertaining. I like how things start off sort of slow while things are set up. At first, it doesn't seem like anything too bad is going on. Chairs moving around and that stuff. Diane is actually enjoying those things and finding it kind of cool. At least that is how it seems. Then everything changes after Robbie is attacked by one of the freakiest looking trees in any movie and Carol Anne is taken. Things get darker at that point, and some of what happens is rather disturbing. This isn't a family friendly movie even though it is rated PG, though it isn't as bad as some. Overall, this is a really entertaining movie about a haunted house.  I did post about this one on Epinions last year. I believe I also posted about the movie here too. Poltergeist (http://www.epinions.com/content_489175551620) |
Post by: Dragonfire on October 03, 2010, 08:47:05 AM
| Ghostbusters (http://www.invelos.com/mpimages/04/043396141223f.jpg) Suit up for classic comedy! When Doctors Venkman (Bill Murray), Stantz (Dan Aykroyd) and Spengler (Harold Ramis) suddenly find themselves downsized from the University's parapsychology department, they decide to go the entrepreneurial route, chasing down ghastly ghosts, unappetizing apparitions and the occasional insolent succubae. But the paratroopers of the paranormal face their greatest challenge when the beautiful Dana Barret (Sigourney Weaver) discovers her refrigerator door leads directly to the gates of hell! Now with the whole world watching, it's up to the Ghostbusters to keep Manhattan from becoming a madhouse in this hilariously-haunting action-comedy! My Thoughts I don't consider this one to be horror, but it does deal with ghosts so I decided it fit for the month. I also decided that I was in the mood for something a little lighter. I've lost track of have many times I've seen this movie over the years, but I still really enjoy it. It is really fun and entertaining and has a great cast. Much of what happens is a bit silly, but that works for the movie. The ghosts are interesting and look believable. The special effects are really well done, especially considering when the movie was made. The characters help to make things interesting too. Some of them are a bit goofy, but they work for the movie. I got a review posted on Epinions a few years ago. Ghostbusters (http://www.epinions.com/review/mvie_mu-1008277/content_416403852932) |
Post by: Dragonfire on October 03, 2010, 10:57:54 AM
| Ghostbusters 2 (http://www.invelos.com/mpimages/04/043396141230f.jpg) It's a fine time for slime-time when Doctors Venkman (Bill Murray), Stantz (Dan Aykroyd) and Spengler (Harold Ramis) regroup to nuke the spooks in this high-spirited comedy. Sidelined after their spectacular save of New York City five years ago, the heroes of the hereafter once again answer the call when an underground river of ghoulish goo threatens to rot the Big Apple to the core. Dana Barret (Sigourney Weaver), Louis (Rick Moranis), Winston (Ernie Hudson) and Janine (Annie Potts) are all back for the ride as these supernatural superstars swing back into hilarious action! My Thoughts I decided to go ahead and watch this one now too. Again it isn't really horror, but it works for me for this time of year since it has ghosts and stuff. The plot is entertaining and not a carbon copy of the first movie. Some different stuff is going on, which does help to keep things entertaining. Some of what happens is silly, but it works for the movie overall. The main characters are back and still entertaining. There is one or two new characters too. There is a bit of action to what is going on. The special effects are done well and help to make the movie work. Overall I really like this movie even though it isn't as good as the first one.  I did get a review posted on Epinions a few years ago. Ghostbusters 2 (http://www.epinions.com/review/mvie_mu-1008285/content_417541754500) |
Post by: KinkyCyborg on October 03, 2010, 06:45:52 PM
Post by: Rogmeister on October 04, 2010, 12:17:17 AM
Post by: Dragonfire on October 04, 2010, 04:25:20 AM
Post by: Dragonfire on October 04, 2010, 07:07:05 AM
| Elvira, Mistress of the Dark (http://www.invelos.com/mpimages/I5/I5BA18FF1E64ABDF5f.jpg) When her Great Aunt dies, famed horror hostess Elvira® heads for the uptight New England town of Falwell to claim her inheritance of a haunted house, a witch's cookbook and a punk rock poodle. But once the stuffy locals get an eyeful of the scream queen's ample assets, all hell busts out and breaks loose. Can The Madonna Of The Macabre find love with a studly cinema owner, avoid her creepy Great Uncle, titillate the town's teens and become a Las Vegas dance sensation all without being burned alive at the stake? Cassandra Peterson stars in this sexy comedy hit, filled with wild wisecracks, campy chaos and scary movie spoofs, all poured into the lowest-cut black gown in horror movie history! My Thoughts I sort of remember seeing Elvira on tv back in the 1980s. I think I did see some of the show she did hosting low budget horror movies - I can't remember the name of it now. The character, while a bit over the top, is entertaining. I have seen some of this movie on tv, though I'm not sure if I ever saw all of it before now. I decided to pick it up when I found it on sale - as you can see from the picture, I have it in a two movie set. I'll probably watch that other movie here soon. The plot is thin and not that developed, but it manages to work. A lot of what happens is silly, but again, that works for what is going on. The humor doesn't always work, but most of ends up being pretty funny. A lot of corny lines are used, usually by Elvira. Some supernatural type of stuff does turn up, and I like that those things are included. Several elements do seem to be influenced by the B horror movies. There's nothing serious about this one. It is campy and cheesy, but really fun. There are some sexual situations and a lot of sexually suggestive lines used in the movie. Most of the sex appeal comes from Elvira in her very, very low cut dress that really displays her...assets. It seems like a miracle that she didn't pop right out of that dress in some scenes with how her ..assets were bouncing around. I'm thinking heavy duty tape was used..and maybe super glue. lol Anyway, even though she does show off a lot of skin, there isn't any nudity or any sex scenes in the movie. The characters, while not that developed, are interesting enough. Chastity Pariah fits her name perfectly with how repressed and uptight she is. Overall, I really enjoyed this one and am glad I have it in my collection. It is cheesy as hell and campy, but it is fun. - I rounded up from 3.5 to 4 for Epinions.I did get a review posted on Epinions. Elvira, Mistress of the Dark (http://www1.epinions.com/review/mvie_mu-1006554/content_526697795204) |
Post by: Dragonfire on October 04, 2010, 08:50:01 AM
| Dracula (http://www.invelos.com/mpimages/IA/IA505A710C92801E6f.jpg) Although there have been numerous versions of Bram Stoker's classic tale, none is more enduring than the 1931 original. The ominous portrayal of Count Dracula by Béla Lugosi, combined with horror specialist director Tod Browning, help to create the film's eerie mood. 'Dracula' remains a masterpiece not only of the genre, but for all time. My Thoughts I first saw this one on AMC about 10 years ago. At that point, AMC still was commercial free and they showed classic horror for most of October. I really enjoyed the movie and was interested in getting the DVD for several years before I finally did. I picked up the Dracula Legacy Set a few years. The movie is based on a book that I still haven't read. The plot may not seem that original to some people since there have been so many Dracula movies made since this one, but I think it is very entertaining and well worth watching. Bela Lugosi really set the standard for how Dracula would be portrayed in future movies. The way he dresses and acts has definitely influenced others. The picture quality is pretty good considering how old the movie is. The audio is good too. Even though this is a vampire movie, it is fairly tame, especially when compared to what is done in newer movies. This one is a must see movie for anyone who likes horror, especially ones dealing with Dracula or vampires. I did get a review posted on Epinions a few years ago. Dracula (1931) (http://www1.epinions.com/review/mvie_mu-1006234/content_448730992260) |
Post by: Jimmy on October 04, 2010, 09:34:27 AM
Post by: Dragonfire on October 04, 2010, 10:02:51 AM
Post by: Dragonfire on October 04, 2010, 11:12:05 AM
| The Haunted Mansion (http://www.invelos.com/mpimages/78/786936226614f.jpg) From the studio that brought you Pirates Of The Caribbean...here's the fright-filled comedy adventure loaded with hair-raising laughs and eye-popping special effects! Eddie Murphy (Daddy Day Care) stars as a real estate agent whose family comes face to face with 999 grim, grinning ghosts in the creepy old Gracey Manor! Now, with the help of supernatural psychic Madame Leota (Jennifer Tilly - Liar, Liar), they must hilariously battle to break the mansion of its age-old curse...and do it before the clock strikes 13! My Thoughts This is another movie based on a ride at Disney. I've never been on the ride. The plot is interesting and I think it makes an entertaining family friendly haunted house movie. There are all sorts of ghosts in the movie, but nothing that happens is that scary. A few things might be a little scarier to younger kids, so parents may want to check it out first. The actors are fine in their parts, though Eddie Murphy can be a little annoying at times. Overall, I enjoy the movie and think it is a good family friendly movie to watch around Halloween. I did get a review posted on Epinions after I saw the movie in the theater originally. Haunted Mansion (http://www1.epinions.com/review/mvie_mu-1127461/content_121458888324) |
Post by: Antares on October 10, 2010, 05:50:00 PM
If you have the time try to watch the spanish version included who is even better. Carlos Villarías did a much better job with his interpretation than Bela Lugosi did...
Have to disagree with you on this one Jimmy. Overall the Spanish version has a much deeper and moody atmosphere to it, but Villarias at times appears too wooden and cartoon-like in his portrayal.
If you could put Lugosi into the Spanish version, you would have the de facto Dracula presentation.
Post by: Achim on October 11, 2010, 07:28:55 AM
For me the ultimate Dracula will always be Christopher Lee. Probably mainly because he is the first one I saw.
Post by: Jimmy on October 11, 2010, 12:01:25 PM
I agree with Achim ;D
Christopher Lee is without a doubt the best Dracula :thumbup:
Post by: Najemikon on October 11, 2010, 05:53:29 PM
Post by: Antares on October 11, 2010, 05:56:41 PM
Wooden and cartoonish...? I would describe Lugosi's acting all the same ;) Editing and direction did their part to enhance that impression.
Cartoon-like was a poor choice of adjective, what I was trying to convey was his performance was depth-less. You can tell that he truly has no concept of the character and his performance suffers because of it. Lugosi, on the other hand, grew up in a region where Vampire mythology was rampant and that is why I feel his portrayal has more substance to it.
For me the ultimate Dracula will always be Christopher Lee. Probably mainly because he is the first one I saw.
I can't comment on Lee's performance as I have never seen it.
Post by: Najemikon on October 11, 2010, 06:09:36 PM
Post by: Antares on October 11, 2010, 08:35:00 PM
Wow, considering your appreciation for British film, I would have thought you'd have dipped your toe in Hammer. ???
Just not a fan of Christopher Lee. I don't know what it is about him, but I just don't care for him. :shrug:
Post by: Najemikon on October 11, 2010, 08:38:07 PM
Post by: Antares on October 11, 2010, 10:00:50 PM
Post by: Najemikon on October 11, 2010, 11:33:17 PM
Wooden and cartoonish...? I would describe Lugosi's acting all the same ;) Editing and direction did their part to enhance that impression.
By coincidence I saw the first part of a BBC Four series on horror tonight presented by Mark Gatiss of League of Extraordinary Gentlemen fame. He makes for a marvellous host and the program was superb and very open-minded.
This first part talked about Lon Chaney's silent work (with a visit to a museum complete with Chaney's make up box!) and how Dracula was the first horror with sound. Interestingly, this contributed to the wooden effect of Lugosi as no-one understood how to talk properly on film.
And this is what I mean by open-minded, because Gatiss on one hand praises Lugosi, but points out that the film as a whole is stagy and dated (the story started as a play). It was Whale's Frankenstein that really set the standard. Still, Dracula and Karloff's monster were the pillars for the genre.
He goes on then to talk about Boris Karloff's late change in fortune (Frankenstein was his 81st film and as his daughter said, no-one saw the first 80!) and through several collaborations, Lugosi's fall. It really is very sad. For Son of Frankenstein, the cast fought the studio to pay Lugosi properly who they found they could get very cheap. Lugosi then gave possibly a career best performance as Igor.
I'd never realised it was him. He is superb in that. However, Gatiss says he never shook Dracula (who Lugosi said was his Hamlet) and gave his last performance in an Abbot and Costello spoof. As Gatiss says, that should have been a final insult, but actually, the film is an good grace note for the genre and Lugosi gives a better performance as Dracula that time around.
Sadly he tried to revive his career during a tour of the Dracula stage play in England, playing all the crappy little towns. How far to fall, and it was a failure. He died 5 years later and was buried in that blasted cape. Tragic.
The program finished with a bit on Val Lewton's legacy and again, is open to criticise in an interview with John Carpenter who can't understand the fuss and finds him overrated. Absurd! They redress the balance and finished with clips from The Body Snatcher, which was Karloff's last time alongside a subdued Lugosi.
Utterly marvellous program. Next week they explore Hammer's rise in the 60s. Can't wait. I loved those films! :thumbup:
Mondays 9pm. Try and catch this one on iPlayer. ;D
Post by: Antares on October 12, 2010, 12:31:55 AM
Post by: Achim on October 12, 2010, 06:29:18 AM
This first part talked about Lon Chaney's silent work (with a visit to a museum complete with Chaney's make up box!) and how Dracula was the first horror with sound. Interestingly, this contributed to the wooden effect of Lugosi as no-one understood how to talk properly on film.That explains Lugosi, but not the director... ;) Sound had been around since 1927...
Post by: Dragonfire on October 12, 2010, 06:50:38 AM
Post by: Rogmeister on October 12, 2010, 07:07:33 AM
Post by: Najemikon on October 12, 2010, 08:06:48 AM
;)
Post by: Najemikon on October 12, 2010, 07:26:55 PM
http://www.dvdcollectorsonline.com/index.php/topic,4278.msg80781.html#msg80781
I then kept badgering Pete to try the boxset and he finally caved! :P He enjoyed it too though:
http://www.dvdcollectorsonline.com/index.php/topic,5565.msg95652.html#msg95652
Post by: addicted2dvd on October 12, 2010, 07:36:48 PM
Post by: Antares on October 12, 2010, 07:52:26 PM
Post by: Antares on October 13, 2010, 01:59:58 AM
Sadly he tried to revive his career during a tour of the Dracula stage play in England, playing all the crappy little towns. How far to fall, and it was a failure. He died 5 years later and was buried in that blasted cape. Tragic.
I was really surprised they didn't mention his subsequent embarrassment of working for Ed Wood.
The program finished with a bit on Val Lewton's legacy and again, is open to criticise in an interview with John Carpenter who can't understand the fuss and finds him overrated. Absurd!
My sentiments exactly. This coming from a director who hasn't made a decent picture in over 25 years. Rubbish
Post by: Jimmy on October 13, 2010, 02:23:49 PM
I was really surprised they didn't mention his subsequent embarrassment of working for Ed Wood.In what way? He was a well known drug addict and no one wants to give him a job or talk to him... At least Wood give him a chance to do what he liked and earned some money... Seriously there are nothing embarassing to be in an Ed Wood film, whatever the quality of them he, contrary to many, was able to do them.
Post by: Dragonfire on October 16, 2010, 05:22:06 AM
I have looked at a Val Lewton set at Amazon..think it is the one Pete got last year..I remember him liking it, so I'm thinking I'll eventually get it.