Horror Movies

[returnofjakedog]

The guy who kept bragging about being from New York and his two fists was the biggest stand out and the final scene was hilarious. I'll have to rewatch it refresh more details and even then I have to see how much I can post because most of the good parts are very adult.

Lol! I don't know if I even liked that guy much. But the characters were all generally unlikeable, which would often spoil the movie, but not this time. There is some serious stupidity being thrown around though.

I wouldn't worry too much about the adult themes here though. Whether it is is the anal beads kung fu, or the weedwacker dong castration of Deathgasm, the playing catch with a homeless guy's schlong in Street Trash, or the multiple things I listed for this weird-assed movie, it seems that the nature of the genre excludes too much outrage anymore. The horror movie genre has been pissing off society for decades now, so it is kinda "old hat".

 

[FaCe-LeE-uS]

A good point that no one brought up yet. Yeah, the shooting of the hawk seems ridiculous considering the culture. Even if a rogue native would do this, the shot was nearly impossible and he would have been shunned for bringing it back to the tribe.
(I specifically looked up the Cherokee tribe's stance on hawks. They are considered sacred and they only collected the feathers that had been shed).

We briefly discussed the cgi animal behavior in general. It was made to show the distinct differences between predator and prey, and highlight the Predator's hunting philosophy, but it was not at all realistic.

*The wolf gets the rabbit, but is hit by an unseen opponent (Predator with light bending tech). Wolf then somehow attacks and wounds Predator. Then they circle each other in a battle confrontation scene.
Now, my one on one interactions with wolves is admittedly limited, but it would seem that the wolf should have taken the opportunity to get the fuck outta there, particularly when you could tell (despite the inviso stuff) the very, very large size.

*The cougar attacks the hunter guy, then the other hunter and the main lady wait in the tree near the lair, also the brother is somewhere near.

First off, cougar attacks on humans is exceedingly rare and they do not consider adults to be prey. Also, with it's senses the cougar would know that 3 persons are in the vicinity.
There is an almost literal zero percent chance that a cougar is going to attack high ground with 2 adult humans in it, and a third nearby. You could argue that the cougar viewed humans as prey after the original hunter was attacked, but it just wounded the guy and then fled. It didn't kill and eat him. So it didn't really view the original hunter as prey, but instead seemingly fought for survival and escaped when it was possible?

I digress, but.......

*The bear. Well, it is a full on grizzly so at least it is an actual human hunter. But it already was in the middle of eating a huge buck. I could see it being pissed and dragging the buck away, but going into raging attack mode seemed a bit strange considering that it already had a huge meal. Now if she had stumbled upon it face to face, then yeah. But being 30 yards away up a cliff........??

From that perspective, the movie threw out realism in favor of trying to make a point. Personally I think they could have done it in a more realistic manner and still had confrontations.
What the movie failed to account for is that animals in the wild generally don't take injury risks. They can't go to a hospital, or get a round of antibiotics to heal up. A small broken bone could become an eminent death sentence if it even slows them down at all. There is a readon why a lion will sometimes let several hyenas steal his kill: because it isn't worth the risk of injury.

So unless the animal is starving or already wounded, it is highly likely that it wouldn't respond with aggressiveness to a possible threat. The other option (that my bro-in-law brought up) is the possibility of erratic behavior from diseases such as rabies.

Anyways, 3 of the weak points of Prey would be the killing of the hawk, animal behavior in general, and the flower that quickly and seemingly magically drops your body temperature to match the surroundings(?). I understand why they did each of these, but I don't agree with how they did it.

I will still say it is the best all-around Predator movie in terms of film making. It is beautiful to watch, the score is very good, the acting is good, the story is great and it progresses nicely. I will reiterate that the original is a better watch but that is largely due to Arnold, Jessie, Carl, Billy Bear, and the other charismatic macho stars.

Weren’t they Comanche? Not Cherokee?

 

[returnofjakedog]

Weren’t they Comanche? Not Cherokee?

Lol! I watched a review earlier today and noticed my error, but you caught it before I could get my correction posted.

Previously, I did look up Cherokee,and not Comanche. I can't find anything specifically naming the hawk as sacred to Comanche, just listed for native tribes generally. So I'm not sure what the truth is.

 

[returnofjakedog]

Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer (1986)-

A low budget grindhouse style movie, yet was a hit with critics. I've heard of it for years, but this was my first watch.

A couple of violent ex-cons, Henry and Otis, are living in a small apartment in the scummiest area of Chicago. Otis' naive sister moves in with them and takes a liking to the stone-faced Henry. Meanwhile Henry and Otis go on a continuous killing and violence spree. Henry is the "leader" and manipulates the others to his will. This continues for the run time, until we reach a rather nasty conclusion.

The good:
*A very straightforward and gritty look at the psychotic underbelly of the bottom of society.
*The acting is mostly pretty good to decent. Michael Rooker got a lot of praise for his performance and I don't disagree but his role as a complete psycho doesn't require much, if any, range. Otis and the sister do a pretty decent job.
*Realism. Even the fact that it was shot on 16mm film due to budget constraints actually helps that feel.
*The direction and cinematography are simple but solid.
*A chilling ending.

The bad:
*It kind of meanders around and seemingly has no clear goals. This is intentional for the crazed scope of things but it can feel a little disjointed.
*It handles the budget issues and turns it into a bit of a positive (see "The good" comments) but it the cheap is obvious and can detract at times.
*Not a lot of gore, and simple kills. Again, dictated by realism and budget.
*The fact that serial killer Henry takes on a partner, and changes modus operandi from killing to killing isn't common in reality. Not a big deal, but for a movie so grounded in realism it rings a bit strange.

6.5 to 7 outta 10 area for me. All in all, a good watch for true crime and serial killer type fare. If you can handle the dated feel and cheapness of it, it can be quite enjoyable.

 

[returnofjakedog]

Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer (1986)-

A low budget grindhouse style movie, yet was a hit with critics. I've heard of it for years, but this was my first watch.

A couple of violent ex-cons, Henry and Otis, are living in a small apartment in the scummiest area of Chicago. Otis' naive sister moves in with them and takes a liking to the stone-faced Henry. Meanwhile Henry and Otis go on a continuous killing and violence spree. Henry is the "leader" and manipulates the others to his will. This continues for the run time, until we reach a rather nasty conclusion.

The good:
*A very straightforward and gritty look at the psychotic underbelly of the bottom of society.
*The acting is mostly pretty good to decent. Michael Rooker got a lot of praise for his performance and I don't disagree but his role as a complete psycho doesn't require much, if any, range. Otis and the sister do a pretty decent job.
*Realism. Even the fact that it was shot on 16mm film due to budget constraints actually helps that feel.
*The direction and cinematography are simple but solid.
*A chilling ending.

The bad:
*It kind of meanders around and seemingly has no clear goals. This is intentional for the crazed scope of things but it can feel a little disjointed.
*It handles the budget issues and turns it into a bit of a positive (see "The good" comments) but it the cheap is obvious and can detract at times.
*Not a lot of gore, and simple kills. Again, dictated by realism and budget.
*The fact that serial killer Henry takes on a partner, and changes modus operandi from killing to killing isn't common in reality. Not a big deal, but for a movie so grounded in realism it rings a bit strange.

6.5 to 7 outta 10 area for me. All in all, a good watch for true crime and serial killer type fare. If you can handle the dated feel and cheapness of it, it can be quite enjoyable.

*Note: I read up on the real Henry Lee Lewis and found out that he did partner up with Otis Toole. So I guess my comment about it not feeling realistic for a serial killer to do that, particulary in mid-career, should be disregarded. I still find it strange though.

The real Henry Lee Lucas story is pretty crazy. He killed his mom at a young age, but was released at some point. After being caught for a couple of murders he ended up confessing to about 600 unsolved murders. The cops were loving closing old cases but it turns out the vast majority were not committed by him (they did prove that in a bunch of cases). He recanted on his death bed and said he didn't kill anyone but his mother. So the number is somewhere between 1 and several hundred with estimates claiming maybe 40, but no one knows for sure.

Weird stuff.

 

[Nasty_Magician]

ＳＰＯＯＫ ＨＡＵＳ on Instagram: "Anyone want a Scooby snack? • • • • • • • • #zombies #scoobydoo #mysterymachine #spooky #spookydecor #scoobysnacks #goth #halloweenlover #cartoon #hannahbarbera #creepy #thewalkingdead #scoob #fred #vilma #meddlingk

1,149 likes, 28 comments - spook.haus on August 26, 2022: "Anyone want a Scooby snack? • • • • • • • • #zombies #scoobydoo #mysterymachine ..."

www.instagram.com

 

[Sharkonabicycle]

How was Prey!? I love a good creature feature, hopefully this one delivers!

 

[DJ]

Best part of being a dad.....LOL.

 

[Sparhawk]

How was Prey!? I love a good creature feature, hopefully this one delivers!

I enjoyed it.
I thought the SPFX were a bit weak at times, but overall, 7/10 for me.

 

[UVA_Guy81]

 

[FaCe-LeE-uS]

Now Watching: Nope (2022)

 

[DarthVedder]

So continuing our weekend tradition with my wife, we watched "Deliver us from Evil" last week, and "The Autopsy of Jane Doe" this past weekend... Both solid movies. "The Autopsy of Jane Doe" was unexpectedly good, great atmosphere and performances for a movie centered on such a small place. I expected basically another version of "The Possession of Hanna Grace", which has a similar premise but was pretty bad.

 

[returnofjakedog]

So continuing our weekend tradition with my wife, we watched "Deliver us from Evil" last week, and "The Autopsy of Jane Doe" this past weekend... Both solid movies. "The Autopsy of Jane Doe" was unexpectedly good, great atmosphere and performances for a movie centered on such a small place. I expected basically another version of "The Possession of Hanna Grace", which has a similar premise but was pretty bad.

The Autopsy of Jane Doe is a hidden classic from recent years! It is one of the few movies in recent decades that has actually freaked me out a little.

 

[FaCe-LeE-uS]

Now Watching: Nope (2022)

Well... I'mma let this one simmer for a while... But if you want some spoilers here are my initial thoughts...

Spoiler

Definitely an odd duckling type movie, but in true Jordan Peele fashion it was very well made. Great visuals & fun tactics, but it was just... quirky & odd ideas all around. Really not sure what to think of it, but it had some funny moments. Felt like it completely lost its suspense right before the climax, which made the entire ending sequence feel flat. And the way the ship changed from classic UFO to some sort of crazy jellyfish was....... something. I think I would have preferred it was the latter through the entire movie TBH. Because it really didn't make sense that it was 'alive' until it did change form.

 

[DJ]

 

[DJ]

 

[returnofjakedog]

It's been a moment.........

Puppet Master (1989)-

Some Nazis track down a puppetmaker who makes living puppets in SoCal 1939, only to find he has hidden killed himself and hidden his secrets.
Fast forward 50 years and a group of psychics meet and awaken the puppets. But it turns out that one of the psychics has a nefarious plan for using the "puppet magic", and the others (psychics and puppets) try to stop him.

Low budget. The acting ranges from average to poor. The gore fxs are minimal but decent. The story is compact for such a broad concept. The puppets are cool and their animation is ok.

The puppets are the obvious highlight. Even with them the story kinda just crawls along.

I'll go 5 outta 10 range for effort. A cool concept but not done in an overly exciting or intriguing manner.

Ok. So another Charles Band production (he was also a writer on it). Charles is another famous low budget guy in the vein of Roger Corman. Charles founded both Empire Pictures and Full Moon Productions, and has brought us the likes of Re-Animator, From Beyond, Castle Freak, the Ghoulies movies, the Subspecies movies, and many, many more. This includes the Puppetmaster series, which somehow now contains 15 movies! His best movies seem to involve Stuart Gordon, Brian Yunza, Jeffery Combs, and Barbara Crampton but the rest is generally low-level schlock with not a ton of watchability.

There is no way that I am watching all 15 of the Puppetmaster series at this time, but I did also watch what is largely considered the best of the group:

Puppet Master 3: Toulon's Revenge (1991)-

A Nazi scientist in 1941 is having some success reanimating corpses, but they are uncontrollable, violent, and often suicidal. They discover that a local puppeter had been able to animate his dolls, so they swoop in to try to discover the secrets. But the puppeter isn't cooperative which leads to a lot of violence from both the Nazis, and the puppets.

This one has a better story that flows pretty good. The acting is also upgraded with both the puppeter, and the Nazi doctor and sidekick being pretty decent, but the highlight has to be the always-great-as-a-bad-guy Richard Lynch!

While the puppet fxs are still fun, there isn't a significant upgrade from the original but there are a few more of them.

The downside would be a few cheap moments or occasionally questionable dialogue, as well as an annoying kid character that fucks things up.

There is also a retconned timeline from the first movie since the puppet master died in Cali in 1939 in the original, but is struggling with the Nazis in 1941 Germany in this one. So that makes no sense.

All in all, I'll go 6 to 6.5 outta 10 range. Worth a watch as a stand alone but I don't know if I can say that about the series as a whole. I'll probably check out more at some point though.

 

[Think McFly Think]

This may have already been posted, I don’t really know what to think yet. Lol

 

[Sharkonabicycle]

Fall - 47 Meters UP... FUCK YOU.

 

[DJ]

You opened the box and we came.