Horror Movies

[UVA_Guy81]

I will probably catch a lot of flack for this but I finally was able to watch Alien all the way through last night. Had seen bits and pieces but never the whole thing. I really enjoyed it and I thought that it had a lot of the suspense elements that made The Thing such a fantastic movie. Going to try to catch Aliens before the free week of HBOMax goes away on my cable system.

 

[Sparhawk]

I will probably catch a lot of flack for this but I finally was able to watch Alien all the way through last night. Had seen bits and pieces but never the whole thing. I really enjoyed it and I thought that it had a lot of the suspense elements that made The Thing such a fantastic movie. Going to try to catch Aliens before the free week of HBOMax goes away on my cable system.

Honestly, Alien can be a bit slow at times and as a creature feature, you really don't get to see the actual alien until the very end.
However, when they ratchet up the fear and suspense, it's really good.
Dallas in the tunnels is exceptional.

I think what works against Alien is that after having seen Aliens, there's really no comparison.

Now, with that in mind, I believe The Thing is a superior creature feature when compared against Alien.
One of the most rewatchable movies ever.

 

[UVA_Guy81]

Honestly, Alien can be a bit slow at times and as a creature feature, you really don't get to see the actual alien until the very end.
However, when they ratchet up the fear and suspense, it's really good.
Dallas in the tunnels is exceptional.

I think what works against Alien is that after having seen Aliens, there's really no comparison.

Now, with that in mind, I believe The Thing is a superior creature feature when compared against Alien.
One of the most rewatchable movies ever.

The first half hour is definitely slow but then builds up and the payoff is worth it. That’s how I feel like the thing was. The first half hour was for The Thing, slow but built up the payoff was worth it. Another thing I liked about Alien is that the alien itself looked great and still holds up today.
The rewatchability of The Thing is why it’s my favorite movie. I feel like I’m always picking up on something new every time I watch it.

 

[returnofjakedog]

Honestly, Alien can be a bit slow at times and as a creature feature, you really don't get to see the actual alien until the very end.
However, when they ratchet up the fear and suspense, it's really good.
Dallas in the tunnels is exceptional.

I think what works against Alien is that after having seen Aliens, there's really no comparison.

Now, with that in mind, I believe The Thing is a superior creature feature when compared against Alien.
One of the most rewatchable movies ever.

Huh?
You get to see the xenomorph several times before the ending in Alien. There is even a very strong reveal when it slowly lowers itself out of the "rafters" and destroys poor Harry Dean Stanton. You see it when Tom Skeritt gets taken out (albeit very briefly). There is again an extended scene when it takes out Parker and Lambert that shows the alien quite a bit, including full reveal, action shots, and close ups. You also get the facehugger and chestburster forms (more on that below).

Alien was made on a $2 million dollar budget(about $6 million today) so Scott had to be somewhat restrained when it comes to the action but he manges to turn this into a positive via the general ambience of the dark, wet ship and the impending dread of an unknown hidden killing machine lurking about.
Additionally, I would argue that both the face hugger and the chestburster forms are both monsters (of course the chestburster being the infant form of the xenomorph) in their own right. Both of these are used far more effectively than in Aliens.

Of course Alien will always be compared to Aliens but, while they are a continuation of the same story, Aliens is a sci-fi action movie with an over $50 million budget (in today's dollars) while Alien is low budget sci-fi horror 8x less budget, no existing backstory or universe, etc.

I love Aliens, but in my opinion the original Alien is superior. It builds tension and dread much better while Aliens relies more on just shooting things. I also feel that Scott is (or at least was) generally speaking a much better director than Cameron. Both movies have very strong characters, fxs, etc. which is what makes them both great in their own right.

It comes down to personal taste, and while (again) I love Aliens, I do find action movies much less engrossing than strong story telling. For example, I love First Blood, which is action drama movie, but while some people get all jacked over Rambo 2 and 3, I find them boring, stupid, and redundant.

Again, all personal opinion. But if you are one of those people that try to convince me that Terminator 2 is better than the original Terminator then I will just pound my head into a wall and lose what little remaining faith I have in humanity.

 

[Sparhawk]

Huh?
You get to see the xenomorph several times before the ending in Alien. There is even a very strong reveal when it slowly lowers itself out of the "rafters" and destroys poor Harry Dean Stanton. You see it when Tom Skeritt gets taken out (albeit very briefly). There is again an extended scene when it takes out Parker and Lambert that shows the alien quite a bit, including full reveal, action shots, and close ups. You also get the facehugger and chestburster forms (more on that below).

Alien was made on a $2 million dollar budget(about $6 million today) so Scott had to be somewhat restrained when it comes to the action but he manges to turn this into a positive via the general ambience of the dark, wet ship and the impending dread of an unknown hidden killing machine lurking about.
Additionally, I would argue that both the face hugger and the chestburster forms are both monsters (of course the chestburster being the infant form of the xenomorph) in their own right. Both of these are used far more effectively than in Aliens.

Of course Alien will always be compared to Aliens but, while they are a continuation of the same story, Aliens is a sci-fi action movie with an over $50 million budget (in today's dollars) while Alien is low budget sci-fi horror 8x less budget, no existing backstory or universe, etc.

I love Aliens, but in my opinion the original Alien is superior. It builds tension and dread much better while Aliens relies more on just shooting things. I also feel that Scott is (or at least was) generally speaking a much better director than Cameron. Both movies have very strong characters, fxs, etc. which is what makes them both great in their own right.

It comes down to personal taste, and while (again) I love Aliens, I do find action movies much less engrossing than strong story telling. For example, I love First Blood, which is horror movie, but while some people get all jacked over Rambo 2 and 3, I find them boring, stupid, and redundant.

Again, all personal opinion. But if you are one of those people that try to convince me that Terminator 2 is better than the original Terminator then I will just pound my head into a wall and lose what little remaining faith I have in humanity.

All valid points.

My comparison was mainly with The Thing, where we got several reveals with the spider head being the most memorable roughly halfway through the movie? Don't get me wrong, all three movies are terrific for their own reasons. I was just agreeing with the poster that originally said, "I will probably catch a lot of flak for this....".

 

[gohusk]

I can never watch the thing again. That head with spider legs was was way too over the top for me. same with the dog with the bums head in invasion of the body snatchers. but the "you got to be fucking kidding me" line was classic because that's what everybody in the audience was thinking.

 

[returnofjakedog]

All valid points.

My comparison was mainly with The Thing, where we got several reveals with the spider head being the most memorable roughly halfway through the movie? Don't get me wrong, all three movies are terrific for their own reasons. I was just agreeing with the poster that originally said, "I will probably catch a lot of flak for this....".

I thought UVA_guy was referring to getting flak over not having seen Alien in it's entirety until now, but I could be wrong.

I think The Thing and Alien back to back could be the greatest drive-in double feature of all time. Quite arguably Scott's and Carpenter's best works.

One point is that the Thing's morphing ability makes reveals a little different. You could be talking directly to it and never even know. So, as I was reminded by gohusks Invasion of the Bodysnatchers reference, The Thing actually is in a semi-unique monster sub-genre where the creature absorbs and retains their victim's memories and perhaps even consciousness. Maybe I'll delve into that sub-genre a little deeper?

 

[UVA_Guy81]

I thought UVA_guy was referring to getting flak over not having seen Alien in it's entirety until now, but I could be wrong.

I think The Thing and Alien back to back could be the greatest drive-in double feature of all time. Quite arguably Scott's and Carpenter's best works.

One point is that the Thing's morphing ability makes reveals a little different. You could be talking directly to it and never even know. So, as I was reminded by gohusks Invasion of the Bodysnatchers reference, The Thing actually is in a semi-unique monster sub-genre where the creature absorbs and retains their victim's memories and perhaps even consciousness. Maybe I'll delve into that sub-genre a little deeper?

That’s what it was. I figured that was a movie that any horror aficionado (probably everyone in this thread) had seen long before now. There’s more like that out there that I’m trying to get around to watching (like the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre) since there’s really nothing being put out right now. Might give the original Hellraiser a try as well but some of the movies in that series bored me, so hoping that I’ll have better luck with the original.

 

[returnofjakedog]

That’s what it was. I figured that was a movie that any horror aficionado (probably everyone in this thread) had seen long before now. There’s more like that out there that I’m trying to get around to watching (like the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre) since there’s really nothing being put out right now. Might give the original Hellraiser a try as well but some of the movies in that series bored me, so hoping that I’ll have better luck with the original.

If you are a horror aficionado you definitely need to see TCM. It is low budget, gritty, and "dark" (not lighting) as hell.
The original Hellraiser and Hellraiser 2 are both very good imo. Everything else in the series is questionable to complete crap. So if you saw later entries in the series you might have seen a film abortion, such as the recent Hellraiser: Judgement. It is complete crap.

 

[UVA_Guy81]

If you are a horror aficionado you definitely need to see TCM. It is low budget, gritty, and "dark" (not lighting) as hell.
The original Hellraiser and Hellraiser 2 are both very good imo. Everything else in the series is questionable to complete crap. So if you saw later entries in the series you might have seen a film abortion, such as the recent Hellraiser: Judgement. It is complete crap.

I’ve seen a few of the TCM movies (the reboot with Jessica Biel the last one) so going to try to watch the original some time by the end of the weekend since it’s on Tubi right now.
The Hellraiser movies I watched were some of those DTV releases back in the late 90s-early 2000s. I think the ones I saw had Dean Winters and Nick Turturro in them.

 

[Ramiel]

I’m married and have two kids under 3 at age 26. My life is a horror movie. Lol

 

[Sharkonabicycle]

I can never watch the thing again. That head with spider legs was was way too over the top for me. same with the dog with the bums head in invasion of the body snatchers. but the "you got to be fucking kidding me" line was classic because that's what everybody in the audience was thinking.

Such a good movie though.

 

[gohusk]

Such a good movie though.

yeah, great movie. I don't understand why it was panned by so many critics.

 

[UVA_Guy81]

yeah, great movie. I don't understand why it was panned by so many critics.

Over time, I think that critics and the viewers appreciate it a lot more. Back when it originally came out, it was around the same time E.T. was out and people didn’t want an evil alien at the time, so therefore, it didn’t do well financially or critically.

 

[gohusk]

Over time, I think that critics and the viewers appreciate it a lot more. Back when it originally came out, it was around the same time E.T. was out and people didn’t want an evil alien at the time, so therefore, it didn’t do well financially or critically.

I love this fact about the movie

These South Pole Scientists Who Watch The Thing Every Year Are Just Asking for Trouble [UPDATED]

If you spend all your time doing scientific research in a frozen tundra, one might suspect you’d be less likely to enjoy a film about a bunch of alien parasites who brutally murder scientists doing research in a frozen tundra. You’d be wrong, because that’s apparently what the the crew down at...

io9.gizmodo.com

 

[gohusk]

I’m married and have two kids under 3 at age 26. My life is a horror movie. Lol

That's the way to do it. I didn't start having kids until 36 and I'll be an old man before they get out the door.

 

[DJ Fieri]

Huh?
You get to see the xenomorph several times before the ending in Alien. There is even a very strong reveal when it slowly lowers itself out of the "rafters" and destroys poor Harry Dean Stanton. You see it when Tom Skeritt gets taken out (albeit very briefly). There is again an extended scene when it takes out Parker and Lambert that shows the alien quite a bit, including full reveal, action shots, and close ups. You also get the facehugger and chestburster forms (more on that below).

Alien was made on a $2 million dollar budget(about $6 million today) so Scott had to be somewhat restrained when it comes to the action but he manges to turn this into a positive via the general ambience of the dark, wet ship and the impending dread of an unknown hidden killing machine lurking about.
Additionally, I would argue that both the face hugger and the chestburster forms are both monsters (of course the chestburster being the infant form of the xenomorph) in their own right. Both of these are used far more effectively than in Aliens.

Of course Alien will always be compared to Aliens but, while they are a continuation of the same story, Aliens is a sci-fi action movie with an over $50 million budget (in today's dollars) while Alien is low budget sci-fi horror 8x less budget, no existing backstory or universe, etc.

I love Aliens, but in my opinion the original Alien is superior. It builds tension and dread much better while Aliens relies more on just shooting things. I also feel that Scott is (or at least was) generally speaking a much better director than Cameron. Both movies have very strong characters, fxs, etc. which is what makes them both great in their own right.

It comes down to personal taste, and while (again) I love Aliens, I do find action movies much less engrossing than strong story telling. For example, I love First Blood, which is action drama movie, but while some people get all jacked over Rambo 2 and 3, I find them boring, stupid, and redundant.

Again, all personal opinion. But if you are one of those people that try to convince me that Terminator 2 is better than the original Terminator then I will just pound my head into a wall and lose what little remaining faith I have in humanity.

This.

 

[DJ Fieri]

I’m married and have two kids under 3 at age 26. My life is a horror movie. Lol

You poor bastard, Face is in a similar situation I think. When I joined here, he had 1 and has since had another. I'm 49 and have a 21yo and soon to be 20yo. GF is having a hysterectomy later this month.

DONE.

 

[returnofjakedog]

Ok. Finally got around to watching Halloween (2018). I thought it was pretty decent on it's own but I understand some of the backlash for a few "issues".

In this timeline (#6 from my Halloween timeline breakdown post) everything after the first movie is gone. The next night in the hospital? Gone. The whole blood cult controlling Big Mike? Nope. Busta Rhymes verbally abusing Michael before beating him twice with his awesome karate skills? NEVER HAPPENED!!
I guess my point here is that this is both a plus and a minus, but in a franchise as convulated and retconned as Halloween does it really matter?? (Seriously. I don't know anymore!)

So it opens with a couple of Brit reporters visiting the asylum where Michael has been held for the last 40 years before an impending move the next day. Apparently Michael hasn't spoken or responded to anything in the entire time. They don't learn much but a bit of rambling about deception and evil from the psychologist who does his best to channel a bit of good ol' Doc Loomis.

We meet Laurie, who has been ptsd'd since the original night, and is a drunk with failed relationships who lives in a parnoid deathtrap of a house. We meet Laurie's family which includes the estranged daughter, her weird husband, and the grand daughter whom we follow around for a bit.

So of course the bus transferring the patients crashes and Michael escapes by killing a dad and his son who really just wanted to dance, and taking their truck. He happens to see the Brit journalists at a gas station and kills everyone to get his original mask, which the dumbass journalist had shown to Michael earlier.

Big Mike goes on a bit of a rampage, going from house to house killing folks. Police get involved. Laurie freaks out and her daughter and weird hubby go back to her fortress home with police protection. They track down the granddaughter and she gets transported there also (Don't ask how. I'll cover that in "the bad" portion), Michael kills a bunch of people, then the girls are hunted through the house. Girls escape. House burns. Movie over.

Overall I thought it was decent. Some parts worked very well. Other parts kinda sucked. Acting and direction were generally ok.

The good:
*They kept it a tight, little story with no room for a bunch of b.s., or meta stuff, or karate kicking rap stars, or massive blood cult conspiracies, much like the original.
*I thought that the broken Laurie character was portrayed very well in the writing, and Jamie Lee Curtis' acting. It seemed very realistic. It does bear to question how come she never got the help she needed but it was pointed out that she had refused any such support.
*The story as a whole is good. There are some issue in the details and execution along the way. The overall idea works well though.
*High quality fxs when they used them. Some nice kills and blood stuff.
*A good Michael mask! You wouldn't think this could be an issue but it has been in the past. More than a couple times.
*The movie is dark and a little gritty, which contributes well to the tone.

The bad:
*According to some things I've read Michael caused the bus crash. In the version I saw the bus was already crashed when the dad and the son who just wanted to dance stumbled onto it. What really happened? I don't know. They didn't clarify at all.
*Off screen kills. Way to many kills occur off screen. That sucks. At least they had the decency to show quite a few of the post kill body displays. I wonder if there is a better cut of the movie that puts the kills back in.
*For all of the training and preparation to kill Michael that Laurie has done over the last 4 decades, her house and set up is a bit eh in my opinion. She built a hidden cellar, but it really isn't very secure (plus she gives away the location by shooting up through the floor). She has some cool stuff set up, like the room door bars, but I felt it was a bit lacking.
*The replacement Dr. Loomis (Sartain?) and his crazy turn was ridiculous. It was an obvious plot contrivance to get the granddaughter to the house but it could have been done in a much better way.

Some other stuff:
*Lots of references, easter eggs, etc. I won't go into details here, but many, many of the same shots and homages from the series are used and done well. But this is a divisive topic as many liked it, but many others thought it was too much.
*Nick Castle, who played the original Michael (The Shape), makes a return to the role for a couple scenes. Also P.J. Soles returns as a teacher.
*Danny McBride(!) spearheaded, and was a main writer of this project.
*Two more on the way! Halloween Kills next year, and Halloween Ends the year after.

I'll go 6.5 - 7 range out of 10. I would put it solidly at #4 in the movies of the franchise.

As far as timelines go, I wish that they could have incorporated the events of Halloween 2 into this one. It would have explained her ptsd, and Michael's being obsessed enough to hunt her down as she would be his sister. I can understand why they didn't as they wanted to move away from that aspect. Also trying to explain away Michael's eye injuries and death by massive fire stunt would be iffy at best. But I will withhold judgement until I see how this timeline plays out over the next 2 movies.

 

[returnofjakedog]

Oh. I forgot my other Halloween (2018) complaint!
*Michael is suddenly and obviously left handed! It never happened before, and he actually switches back to being right handed at some point. Ambidextrous? Developed his left in lock up? Hmmmmm.....