|
Post by Hoosier X on Jun 13, 2014 15:48:36 GMT -5
Everybody says Alien: Resurrection is bad, but I love it! It doesn't bother me a bit that it's so dang dumb. Where the alien baby gets its guts sucked out through that small hole in the ship, that's one of the creepiest things I've ever seen in a movie.
|
|
|
Post by Pharozonk on Jun 13, 2014 16:03:25 GMT -5
Those puppy dog eyes it has when it gets sucked into the void of space make that scene so silly though!
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Jun 13, 2014 16:22:43 GMT -5
Those puppy dog eyes it has when it gets sucked into the void of space make that scene so silly though! That's part of why it's so great! And it says: Maaaammaaaa!
It is creepy as hell but also so f*cking funny at the same time. A very rare quality.
I saw it when it first came out and I haven't it since, but that scene has stayed with me.
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Jun 13, 2014 16:26:19 GMT -5
I saw The Hitch-Hiker last night. That's the 1953 movie with Edmond O'Brien and it's directed by Ida Lupino. It's pretty good. I've seen it before. (I kept thinking Neville Brand was in it. I must be thinking of a another movie.) Highly recommended.
Has anybody seen The Devil Thumbs a Ride? That's pretty intense. Lawrence Tierney plays a bad dude you don't want to pick up hitch-hiking. Keep driving!
|
|
|
Post by Pharozonk on Jun 13, 2014 16:51:36 GMT -5
Hoosier X, have you watched Bob Chipman's segment on the Escapist channel? I feel like you would enjoy it a lot.
He reviews a lot of obscure movies and nerd fandom news. It's pretty awesome.
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Jun 13, 2014 17:06:47 GMT -5
Thanks, Pharozonk. I saw the 1976 King Kong when it first came out. I was 12, and I loved 1933 King Kong (I bet I'd seen it ten times by 1976. It was on TV all the time!) and monster movies in general and it didn't really bother me if they were kinda dumb ... unless it went a little too far.
And the 1976 King Kong is pretty bad. I was pretty stoked for it (I've never been one to dismiss remakes just because they're remakes) but it was one of the biggest disappointments of the 1970s.
Look at that cast! Jessica Lange. Charles Grodin. Jeff Bridges.
I haven't seen it since seeing it in a theater in 1976. (I think we saw it on vacation in Daytona Beach, Fla. A new King Kong seemed like a good reason to take a break from the beach and go to the movies.) I don't remember if it's truly awful, awful, awful like The Last Action Hero or if it's just kinda disappointing like True Lies.
And I really have no interest in seeing it again to find out.
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Jun 13, 2014 17:08:15 GMT -5
IMDB says King Kong 1976 opened in December, so I must be thinking about some other movie we saw in Florida over the summer.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2014 17:12:55 GMT -5
Can someone list the splatter movies which followed 1963's Blood Feast? It was low budget but the gore surprised the hell out of me...for a 60s movie.
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Jun 13, 2014 17:29:01 GMT -5
Can someone list the splatter movies which followed 1963's Blood Feast? It was low budget but the gore surprised the hell out of me...for a 60s movie. 2,000 Maniacs
|
|
|
Post by Ish Kabbible on Jun 13, 2014 17:37:41 GMT -5
Can someone list the splatter movies which followed 1963's Blood Feast? It was low budget but the gore surprised the hell out of me...for a 60s movie. The most famous would be the original Night of the Living Dead from 1968
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Jun 13, 2014 18:01:05 GMT -5
Can someone list the splatter movies which followed 1963's Blood Feast? It was low budget but the gore surprised the hell out of me...for a 60s movie. Check out the Herschell Gordon Lewis filmography. He made a bunch of these after Blood Feast.
My favorite horror movie from this period is Carnival of Souls (but it's not particularly bloody). And Repulsion.
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,871
|
Post by shaxper on Jun 13, 2014 18:23:10 GMT -5
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,871
|
Post by shaxper on Jun 13, 2014 18:26:08 GMT -5
Everybody says Alien: Resurrection is bad, but I love it! It doesn't bother me a bit that it's so dang dumb. Where the alien baby gets its guts sucked out through that small hole in the ship, that's one of the creepiest things I've ever seen in a movie. I'm all over the place on Resurrection. I love what they did with Ripley (way to take the conflict to the next level by internalizing it), and I really like the supporting cast, but aspects of the script are very dumb, Winonah Rider is always terrible, and I could have done without the baby, though it did not ruin the film for me. All in all, though, I find the film passably entertaining and would have gladly paid full ticket price to see the next sequel the cliffhanger tried to set us up for. On the other hand, I CANNOT stand Alien 3. Worst film in the franchise on so many levels. Dumber, and did far more to piss all over the ashes of what had come before. Edit: Just realized this marks the first time anyone has ever referred to a film that I remember still being in theaters as a "classic film". Sigh. I never saw Resurrection in theaters (I became an Alien fan shortly after its release), but I remember it being "new". I am definitely treating my mid 30s like middle age.
|
|
|
Post by Pharozonk on Jun 13, 2014 18:54:31 GMT -5
Here is an interesting defense of Alien 3. I recommend it.
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,871
|
Post by shaxper on Jun 13, 2014 19:06:05 GMT -5
Here is an interesting defense of Alien 3. I recommend it. Nah. I don't see it. I agree that the visuals are strong at times, but that's Fincher's music video experience coming through -- all cool visuals with little substance. While he tries to make us believe character development has occurred, it's really just cool images of Ripley looking haunted, being completely detached from everyone, and then sleeping with a dude to somehow symbolize growth. It's light fare at best. Whether or not you agree with this, there are serious flaws with the nuts and bolts of the script. First off, Aliens was the perfect sequel. I've never seen a film do more to listen to its predecessor, echoing and completing its themes and character arcs, all while delivering a very different film with its own unique energy. The end of Aliens was a critical moment in the series -- whereas Ripley escapes in the first film, totally alone, she does so in the second film with a makeshift family: a husband figure and a daughter figure. This isn't just a pretty ending; it's the completion of the character's inner journey. To then just have these characters die off camera in the opening credits of the third film was a massive slap across the face which I cannot forgive. If Fincher had intended to send the message the above reviewer infers, that the aliens always win, this could have been done more dramatically and had more emotional repercussion for Ripley throughout the film. Instead, it comes off as Fincher sloppily discarding characters he didn't want to deal with, while Ripley quickly moves on to love again and find an inner conflict that Fincher finds more meaningful (well it isn't really an internal conflict in any sense other than an extremely literal one). Add to that the screwed up ending in which the Nostromo's log entries start randomly and inexplicably playing -- weird in and of itself until you consider that the escape shuttle playing these logs didn't come from the Nostromo. It came from the Sulaco. Then there's the whole overly dramatic climactic scene which tried waaaay too hard and felt corny as a result. Any time someone yells "Nooooooooooo!" in a climactic moment, the film has pretty much lost me, and Ripley living through the chest burst without any scrap of pain registering on her face, cradling the alien -- that was absurd. Never mind the priest beating the alien with his bare hands and yelling "Is that all you got?" Do you know how Fincher got the job of directing Alien 3? He told Signorney Weaver he wanted Ripley to be bald, and that's all it took. MTV era style over substance. That was Alien 3.
|
|