piggsy
SERIAL KILLER
????#???? ?$ ?
Posts: 1,044
|
Post by piggsy on Apr 18, 2008 20:38:24 GMT -5
I think Friday the 13th was an okay slasher, but I agree with Lazario in that it's very flawed...and not to mention it rips off of Bava's films.
The sequels, however, are great. Those are probably the horror highlights of the 80's.
|
|
|
Post by tsmooth31 on Apr 18, 2008 20:58:05 GMT -5
Killer Klowns from Outer Space was a good movie but the blob was much better
the 80's also had alot of good fun trash/cheese like the ghoulies movie, critters, gremlins
the 80's had it all.. good movies, fun movies, cheesy movies, trashy movies.. which is why it is the best horror decade
|
|
|
Post by malbowski13 on Apr 18, 2008 21:14:43 GMT -5
Brain Damage- wicked music with ultra-trippy visuals Return of the Living Dead,Day of the Dead- 2 very solid zombie epics Fright Night,Lost Boys,Near Dark- A good chunk of the "great" vampire films
I would call Klowns Vs. Blob a draw.Too close to call.Both great for some similar and different reasons.
|
|
|
Post by tsmooth31 on Apr 18, 2008 23:40:46 GMT -5
^^ i forgot about fright night... another great movie
|
|
|
Post by lazario on Apr 19, 2008 7:27:20 GMT -5
Killer Klowns from Outer Space was a good movie but the blob was much better That's impossible. Nothing from the 1980's was better than Killer Klowns from Outer Space. Except maybe The Evil Dead and that was filmed mostly in 1979 (they just did the sound work and some of the Shemp scenes and the editing in 1980). And yeah, American Werewolf in London is close after that, but both Evil Dead and Killer Klowns are better. the 80's also had alot of good fun trash/cheese like the ghoulies movie, critters, gremlins What does that mean? As good as Gremlins was, it can't actually compare to the masterpieces of the 1970's. It can only really compare to Dante's film Piranha. And as good as Jerry Goldsmith's music was, Pino Donaggio's score for Piranha was better. Not to mention the build up of Piranha made it scarier than Gremlins, even if Gremlins stands head and shoulders above the other "little creature" movies. the 80's had it all.. good movies, fun movies, cheesy movies, trashy movies.. which is why it is the best horror decade Who says "trashy" is where Horror started? Before the 1980's, the trashy movies were "teen exploitation" films. Stuff like Beach Blanket Bingo and How to Stuff a Wild Bikini. In the 1970's, trashy was porn. Like Deep Throat and Debbie Does Dallas. The 1980's was a lot of fun (and you should never forget the immortal Sorority Babes in the Slimeball Bowl-O-Rama), but the 1970's made better movies overall. They had better scenes and moments that live on in the popular fears and psyches of audiences. Even if their not horror films - like Jaws. Jaws was the Psycho of the 70's. And then of course all the movies I mentioned before. Brain Damage- wicked music with ultra-trippy visuals I'll give you that one. A hugely underrated (and/or underseen film that really measures up to Nightmare on Elm Street and Hellraiser but almost nobody puts it in that category). Excellent addition. But not quite enough to compare to Texas Chainsaw Massacre and Suspiria. They're just on another level. Return of the Living Dead, Day of the Dead- 2 very solid zombie epics Return of the Living Dead is excellent and definitely deserves to be in an official "greatest of the 1980's" lineup. Kind of outclasses and outshines Troma's radiation / pollution horror films. Day of the Dead... I don't think so. People basically remember that film for the gore and the music and that's it. And there's not enough gore in it. There's some in the end, a little in the beginning, and maybe 1 gory scene in the middle. It's almost 2 hours long and all it is is people yelling and shouting in an underground bunker. That's not enough to make a horror film. Disqualified. Plus- the fanbase for this film are really disturbing. That piece of shit playing the general character who yells all the time the fans of Day of the Dead think is a cool guy or a hero. What the fuck is that about? That's pure insanity right there. Plus- Day cannot compare to Dawn of the Dead. No way. Fright Night, Lost Boys, Near Dark- A good chunk of the "great" vampire films Well you're right that the 1980's were a very good decade for vampire films. And I should give you that just because a lot of horror fans dismiss the vampire subgenre... But The Lost Boys is better as an erotic-fantasy film than a horror film. There's a great storyline about the older brother getting taken away from his human life by the overindulgent "pleasures" of the sort of dark-side. But then that's just ruined by the horrible Goonies / Monster Squad bullshit that the little brother brings in. I have nothing against The Goonies or Monster Squad personally. Heck, they're great. But a movie that already has an effective approach to this stuff and a really fascinating / interesting story can't suddenly change the whole movie. What the fuck is that? And Corey Haim is not even funny. That cannot be ignored or forgiven when taking the movie into account. Near Dark was very good as a movie. I watched it and I couldn't complain about anything. It was very professional and the pace and the action was very impressive. I was never bored. It was exciting. But... it was never scary, either. The director devoted more into making the movie like a western than a horror film. Just because there are vampires and they kill people, she used it as an excuse to make the movie more of an action movie to show off her action-directing skills. Though it is interesting if you take it as a parable of drug addiction. But... then, Brain Damage was a little better in that regard. What makes Near Dark a masterpiece worthy of comparing to Texas Chainsaw Massacre? That one famous scene in the bar? I'm not knocking the film. Just saying- it's not one of the best horror films of the 1980's. Fright Night - half of it is really too "adventure" oriented. Like The Lost Boys. And they tried to make the film so old-fashioned, that the acting feels too schlocky. The movie uses technical tricks and all that to cover up the acting but there are too many people scenes. I think Near Dark is superior and that kind of means Fright Night can't compete with the best of the 70's. Now, if I was going to nominate some movies from the '80s to "try" and compete with the '70s, I would probably say: The Evil Dead, Killer Klowns from Outer Space, Bad Taste, Creepshow, An American Werewolf in London, Brain Damage, A Nightmare on Elm Street, Return of the Living Dead, and the combined power of the Friday the 13th films is a strong line-up. But individually, only the first 4 films in that line-up can compare to the best of the 70's. And the best of the 70's are still perfect films. Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Suspiria, and Carrie are perfect films. No true flaw among the trio.
|
|
|
Post by malbowski13 on Apr 19, 2008 13:32:38 GMT -5
My only complaint about TCM was Franklin, the uber-annoying brother."Sall-yyyyyyyyyy!" He met a fitting end but still was completely irritating.Other than that, masterpiece.
Suspiria is a favorite of mine so I won't touch that.
Question: Did the bucket kill Carrie's date with the albino-fro? Always wondered.John travolta played a great role in this too. Masterpiece status confirmed.
I think that the overall tone of Day of the Dead is what made it have a small fanbase( at first). It's just more dreary and has more serious dialogue. I thought that Cpt. Rhodes was great as a cracked-under-pressure tyrant.His interactions with Bub are priceless. "Choke on 'em!"
What the 80's lacked in storytelling and suspense, they surely made up for with gore and SFX. Most of the blood I've seen from the 70's was shitty looking. If I remember correctly, the 80's horror films were under the magnifying glass a whole lot more when it comes to the MPAA and soccer-mom/special interest groups.Add that Margaret Thatcher "Video-Nasties" List into the mix and you have a really limited pallet to work with and enjoy.(I think that's how you spell pallet.)
Night of the Demons belongs on here too. It has the perfect 80's atmosphere and tone/mood.
|
|
|
Post by lazario on Apr 19, 2008 14:10:39 GMT -5
My only complaint about TCM was Franklin, the uber-annoying brother."Sall-yyyyyyyyyy!" He met a fitting end but still was completely irritating. Other than that, masterpiece. He was supposed to be completely irritating. That's the point. The movie is an experience horror film. It is supposed to make you feel like the characters in the movie. Franklin annoys them, Franklin annoys us. Besides, the famous trailer says "this is the movie that is just as real, just as close..." so it feels real and close. Like he's whining and spitting right next to you. Making the film all the more powerful. Besides, look at all the other scenes that show us how hot the weather is, how dark the night is, how tight and constrictive the trees in the woods look, how scared Sally looks, how brutal and painful the deaths are. Question: Did the bucket kill Carrie's date with the albino-fro? Always wondered. John travolta played a great role in this too. Masterpiece status confirmed. I think you'd have to read the book to know. He definitely died at the Prom. But the movie never tells us whether the bucket or the fire killed him. So there's no way to know without reading the book. I think that the overall tone of Day of the Dead is what made it have a small fanbase (at first). It's just more dreary and has more serious dialogue. I thought that Cpt. Rhodes was great as a cracked-under-pressure tyrant. His interactions with Bub are priceless. "Choke on 'em!" Cpt. Rhodes is an asshole who proves he was always an asshole. In fact, in Dawn of the Dead he was an asshole too. He was hired for Day of the Dead to do what Romero always hired him to do. So I'm already tired of this guy from the first frame he's in. Everything he does is predictable and pointless. I could see everything he did in my mind without even watching the screen - and I've only seen the movie once all the way through. My first time watching Night of the Living Dead and Dawn of the Dead, I could tell there was something special in both films. Day of the Dead clearly is a fanboy movie that takes some self-convincing that it's better than it actually is. Power to whoever likes it. But it's crud on a stick. I agree it had a little style to it. But as for the ugly, dirty, unpleasent setting... Lucio Fulci and Tobe Hooper had already conquered that kind of film several times each. Plus, George A. Romero's other military horror film, The Crazies, was better than this film. Not much, of course. But better nonetheless. What the 80's lacked in storytelling and suspense, they surely made up for with gore and SFX. Most of the blood I've seen from the 70's was shitty looking. If I remember correctly, the 80's horror films were under the magnifying glass a whole lot more when it comes to the MPAA and soccer-mom/special interest groups. Add that Margaret Thatcher "Video-Nasties" List into the mix and you have a really limited pallet to work with and enjoy. The 80's clearly had its' own appeal and charm. But all I'm saying is it just can't beat the 70's. You're right that the blood looked better. But horror is a lot more than blood. Just look back at where it began with German expressionism, silent horror, Universal monster movies, 1940's ghost and Satanic horror, 1950's sci-fi horror, and Alfred Hitchcock psychological horror. All those films worked without blood. And I think the best horror movies of our modern years mixed the more extreme blood/gore and sexual elements with a classic sense of atmosphere, style, and writing. Can't neglect writing, characters, and the style of a good psychological set-up. Night of the Demons belongs on here too. It has the perfect 80's atmosphere and tone/mood. I saw a clip of the movie on YouTube about 2 weeks ago and I'm definitely intrigued. If I ever get rich, I'll check it out.
|
|
|
Post by tsmooth31 on Apr 19, 2008 17:00:52 GMT -5
well we can keep going on and on about this but there is no righ or wrong answer... you can make a great case for both decades.. and im sure if you asked 100 diehard horror fans what decade they were a fan of more it would come out close to 50/50 they were both very good decades so lets just leave it at that
|
|
|
Post by malbowski13 on Apr 19, 2008 20:05:49 GMT -5
Now, as for the 30's...
|
|
|
Post by tsmooth31 on Apr 20, 2008 2:39:26 GMT -5
^^ your on your own with that one buddy
|
|
|
Post by malbowski13 on Jul 18, 2008 9:31:06 GMT -5
Just read on Bloody-Disgusting that the makers of this remake aren't fucking around and are going for an R rating. Might not be too bad...
|
|
piggsy
SERIAL KILLER
????#???? ?$ ?
Posts: 1,044
|
Post by piggsy on Jul 18, 2008 9:54:59 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by lazario on Jul 18, 2008 11:38:04 GMT -5
That pic of the movie looks like shit. I hope they're fucking joking.
|
|
piggsy
SERIAL KILLER
????#???? ?$ ?
Posts: 1,044
|
Post by piggsy on Jul 18, 2008 12:39:18 GMT -5
I think that's not really Jason - maybe a friend of that girl in the water, trying to scare her. Jason would kill him and claim his mask, much like part 3.
|
|
|
Post by lazario on Jul 18, 2008 16:12:05 GMT -5
Good. That's what I hope it is too. And that's a good idea for the movie to keep the "prankster" thing going.
|
|
|
Post by tsmooth31 on Jul 18, 2008 16:39:38 GMT -5
i will watch the movie just for willa ford
|
|
|
Post by malbowski13 on Jul 18, 2008 18:35:48 GMT -5
I wish they would just use Kane Hodder already.
|
|
piggsy
SERIAL KILLER
????#???? ?$ ?
Posts: 1,044
|
Post by piggsy on Jul 18, 2008 18:44:44 GMT -5
No, no, no, for the love of all that is holy, NO! Kane Hodder is way over-used. Sure, he was a cool Jason, but let's face it...the man's getting pretty old.
And...Jason Voorhees is not going to be a hulking zombie in this film. He will be deformed, yes, but still human-looking. He'll be lean and lanky, like the pt. 2 and 3 Jason. Kane Hodder just wouldn't get the job done right.
|
|
piggsy
SERIAL KILLER
????#???? ?$ ?
Posts: 1,044
|
Post by piggsy on Jul 18, 2008 19:51:39 GMT -5
|
|
lowkey
SERIAL KILLER
Posts: 574
|
Post by lowkey on Jul 18, 2008 20:46:30 GMT -5
Before Kane Hodder everyone who played Jason just thought of it as another job, and a crappy one at that. Ted White(Final Chapter) asked not to be credited, because he didn't want his name on such a "piece of shit." He flat out refused to return for part V.
Kane Hodder loves the role though. Kane has also made a huge effort to meet with fans, and sign autographs at conventions. He could always be counted on to return to the role. Ted White on the other hand has always been rather condescending towards fans when asked about it. I know it's not like doing Shakespeare or something, but I like the idea of it going to someone who really enjoys doing it, and doesn't think fans of the series are just a bunch of losers.
|
|