list http://www.spout.com/ Recent community activity around The Evil Dead on Spout Copyright 2005-9 Spout, LLC Spout RSS http://www.spout.com/images/SpoutLogoRSS.jpg http://www.spout.com/ 136 30 http://www.spout.com/films/The_Evil_Dead/10808/default.aspx Title: The Evil Dead
Year: 1983
Director: Sam Raimi
Plot: This auspicious feature debut from Sam Raimi -- shot on 16mm in the woods of Tennesse for around $350,000 -- secured the young director's cult status as a creative force to be reckoned with. The nominal plot involves five vacationing college kids -- Ash (Bruce Campbell), his girlfriend Linda (Betsy Baker), and their classmates Cheryl (Ellen Sandweiss), Scott (Hal Delrich) and Shelly (Sarah York) -- making an unplanned stopover in an abandoned mountain cabin surrounded by impenetrable woods. Before settling in for the night, they come across an ancient-looking occult tome filled with dense hieroglyphics and macabre illustrations, a dagger fashioned from human bones, and a reel-to-reel tape recorder. The taped message, dictated by a professor of archaeology, describes the contents of the Sumerian "Book of the Dead," filled with incantations used to bring otherworldly demons to life, giving them license to possess the living. The message goes on to explain that those possessed by these demons can only be stopped by total bodily dismemberment. When played among the group later that evening, the professor's recorded translations of the ritual chants traumatize the strangely prescient Shelly ... and simultaneously release an ominous presence from the depths of the forest. The evil spirits take to their dirty work with gusto, first assuming control of Shelly and transforming her into a cackling, murderous hag with superhuman strength; the others imprison her in the fruit cellar and chain the trapdoor shut. The spirits then begin to possess the other women, including Linda -- who immediately turns on Ash with a barrage of punches and sadistic taunts. Unable to bring himself to chop up his lover's corpse, Ash gives her a more customary burial in the woods -- which proves to be a big mistake. As the others succumb to demonic influence, Ash's horrific predicament becomes increasingly grim until, when all hope seems lost, he stumbles upon a final, desperate solution to the ghoulish onslaught ... well, maybe not. Despite the shoestring production values, Raimi has fashioned a tight, lightning-paced fever dream of a movie, filled with operatic overacting and outrageously gory effects that give the project a comic-book feel. Based on an earlier 8mm short titled Within the Woods, this feature version was fraught with distribution difficulties before finding its first audience overseas. After considerable word of mouth (and a glowing endorsement from horror author Stephen King), the film became a hit on home video, where it achieved further notoriety thanks to its highly-publicized banning in Britain amid the notorious "Video Nasties" censorship campaign. Raimi, along with producer Robert Tapert, writer Scott Spiegel and much of the same crew, cranked up the story's comic aspects several dozen notches for the rollicking semi-remake, Evil Dead 2: Dead by Dawn. ~ Cavett Binion, All Movie Guide
Times Tagged: 56
Number of Lists: 73
Number of blog posts: 9
Number of discussion threads: 17
SpoutRating: 4
]]>Fri, 14 Aug 2009 04:13:09 GMTThe Evil Dead1983Sam RaimiThis auspicious feature debut from <a href="/players/P___107427/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Sam Raimi</a> -- shot on 16mm in the woods of Tennesse for around $350,000 -- secured the young director's cult status as a creative force to be reckoned with. The nominal plot involves five vacationing college kids -- Ash (<a href="/players/P____10476/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Bruce Campbell</a>), his girlfriend Linda (Betsy Baker), and their classmates Cheryl (Ellen Sandweiss), Scott (Hal Delrich) and Shelly (Sarah York) -- making an unplanned stopover in an abandoned mountain cabin surrounded by impenetrable woods. Before settling in for the night, they come across an ancient-looking occult tome filled with dense hieroglyphics and macabre illustrations, a dagger fashioned from human bones, and a reel-to-reel tape recorder. The taped message, dictated by a professor of archaeology, describes the contents of the Sumerian "Book of the Dead," filled with incantations used to bring otherworldly demons to life, giving them license to possess the living. The message goes on to explain that those possessed by these demons can only be stopped by total bodily dismemberment. When played among the group later that evening, the professor's recorded translations of the ritual chants traumatize the strangely prescient Shelly ... and simultaneously release an ominous presence from the depths of the forest. The evil spirits take to their dirty work with gusto, first assuming control of Shelly and transforming her into a cackling, murderous hag with superhuman strength; the others imprison her in the fruit cellar and chain the trapdoor shut. The spirits then begin to possess the other women, including Linda -- who immediately turns on Ash with a barrage of punches and sadistic taunts. Unable to bring himself to chop up his lover's corpse, Ash gives her a more customary burial in the woods -- which proves to be a big mistake. As the others succumb to demonic influence, Ash's horrific predicament becomes increasingly grim until, when all hope seems lost, he stumbles upon a final, desperate solution to the ghoulish onslaught ... well, maybe not. Despite the shoestring production values, Raimi has fashioned a tight, lightning-paced fever dream of a movie, filled with operatic overacting and outrageously gory effects that give the project a comic-book feel. Based on an earlier 8mm short titled <a href=/films/267410/default.aspx style='text-decoration:underline'>Within the Woods</a>, this feature version was fraught with distribution difficulties before finding its first audience overseas. After considerable word of mouth (and a glowing endorsement from horror author <a href="/players/P____97473/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Stephen King</a>), the film became a hit on home video, where it achieved further notoriety thanks to its highly-publicized banning in Britain amid the notorious "Video Nasties" censorship campaign. Raimi, along with producer Robert Tapert, writer Scott Spiegel and much of the same crew, cranked up the story's comic aspects several dozen notches for the rollicking semi-remake, Evil Dead 2: Dead by Dawn. ~ Cavett Binion, All Movie Guide56Tag Target (>10)739174http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/u48176noz5n.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/The_Evil_Dead/10808/default.aspxFilm http://www.spout.com/blogs/risselada/archive/2008/11/6/37035.aspx Post By: Risselada
Post To: Risselada Blog
Post Date: 11/6/2008 4:53:40 PM
Body: Equinox A friend of mine showed me this one as a cult classic that was the creation of many of the special effects team that went on to work on Star Wars. Portions of the plot also bear several uncanny resemblences to The Evil Dead. But this film isn't anywhere near as entertaining as either of those two. The affects might be more amusing than what you might normally see on MST3K, but otherwise the plot and acting would qualify this for a good candidate for that show. They shot it over several years so the actors ages and hair styles keep changing. And then I was told that a producer was hired to fix the story but ended up just making it more convoluted. It's on the Criterion Collection though as a double disc set, so there are plenty of extras if you want to spend more time analyzing this movie than it's probably worth. Rating: 2/10
]]>Thu, 06 Nov 2008 21:53:40 GMTRisseladaRisselada Blog11/6/2008 4:53:40 PMEquinox A friend of mine showed me this one as a cult classic that was the creation of many of the special effects team that went on to work on Star Wars. Portions of the plot also bear several uncanny resemblences to The Evil Dead. But this film isn't anywhere near as entertaining as either of those two. The affects might be more amusing than what you might normally see on MST3K, but otherwise the plot and acting would qualify this for a good candidate for that show. They shot it over several years so the actors ages and hair styles keep changing. And then I was told that a producer was hired to fix the story but ended up just making it more convoluted. It's on the Criterion Collection though as a double disc set, so there are plenty of extras if you want to spend more time analyzing this movie than it's probably worth. Rating: 2/10 http://www.spout.com/groups/Weekly_Theme/Re_Weekly_Theme_for_November_3_The_Movies_in_the/625/36954/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: mciocco
Post To: Weekly Theme
Post Date: 11/4/2008 1:51:29 PM
Body: I was listening to the commentary track on Evil Dead II last week and Sam Raimi mentioned an interesting progression of movie references in horror films. It all starts with Wes Craven's The Hills Have Eyes, where a ripped poster of Jaws appears. Raimi interpreted that as Craven's suggestion that Hills was scarier than Jaws, so when making The Evil Dead, Raimi included a ripped poster of The Hills Have Eyes, implying that his movie was even scarier than both Hills and Jaws. In response to this, Craven showed one of his characters watching The Evil Dead on TV in A Nightmare on Elm Street. Noticing this, Raimi went ahead and included Freddy Krueger's glove in a couple of scenes (I believe in the toolshed) in Evil Dead II. I found this fascinating because while I'm sure a lot of film geeks would have noticed individual references, there is actually a long line of references lasting 10 years and going through 5 films. Interesting stuff. Now that film is becoming a more mature medium, it's interesting to see that it's becoming more and more referential, to the point where you can't go to one of the "references" pages on IMDB and not see a ton of entries (of course, a lot of those are vague and not very well documented, but still). I do find it fun when I notice these sorts of things, but obviously it's not necessary to enjoy most of these movies...
]]>Tue, 04 Nov 2008 18:51:29 GMTmcioccoWeekly Theme11/4/2008 1:51:29 PMI was listening to the commentary track on Evil Dead II last week and Sam Raimi mentioned an interesting progression of movie references in horror films. It all starts with Wes Craven's The Hills Have Eyes, where a ripped poster of Jaws appears. Raimi interpreted that as Craven's suggestion that Hills was scarier than Jaws, so when making The Evil Dead, Raimi included a ripped poster of The Hills Have Eyes, implying that his movie was even scarier than both Hills and Jaws. In response to this, Craven showed one of his characters watching The Evil Dead on TV in A Nightmare on Elm Street. Noticing this, Raimi went ahead and included Freddy Krueger's glove in a couple of scenes (I believe in the toolshed) in Evil Dead II. I found this fascinating because while I'm sure a lot of film geeks would have noticed individual references, there is actually a long line of references lasting 10 years and going through 5 films. Interesting stuff. Now that film is becoming a more mature medium, it's interesting to see that it's becoming more and more referential, to the point where you can't go to one of the "references" pages on IMDB and not see a ton of entries (of course, a lot of those are vague and not very well documented, but still). I do find it fun when I notice these sorts of things, but obviously it's not necessary to enjoy most of these movies... http://www.spout.com/groups/Weekly_Theme/Re_Weekly_Theme_for_November_3_The_Movies_in_the/625/36904/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: mercurial
Post To: Weekly Theme
Post Date: 11/3/2008 1:35:14 PM
Body: This is one of those things that's really hard to recall, yet I know I know an insane amount of them. WALL-E - > Hello, Dolly! Donnie Darko - > Evil Dead The Dreamers - > Freaks, Bande à Part, etc. Full of references. Interview With The Vampire - > Tequila Sunrise, Superman, Gone With The WInd Natural Born Killers - > Loaded with references to countless films and television. Home Alone - > Angels With Dirty Faces That's it for now . . .
]]>Mon, 03 Nov 2008 18:35:14 GMTmercurialWeekly Theme11/3/2008 1:35:14 PMThis is one of those things that's really hard to recall, yet I know I know an insane amount of them. WALL-E - &gt; Hello, Dolly! Donnie Darko - &gt; Evil Dead The Dreamers - &gt; Freaks, Bande &agrave; Part, etc. Full of references. Interview With The Vampire - &gt; Tequila Sunrise, Superman, Gone With The WInd Natural Born Killers - &gt; Loaded with references to countless films and television. Home Alone - &gt; Angels With Dirty Faces That's it for now . . . http://www.spout.com/blogs/rik_tod/archive/2008/9/10/34966.aspx Post By: rik_tod
Post To: The Cinema 4 Pylon: SpOutpost
Post Date: 9/10/2008 2:04:56 AM
Body: Director: Shawn KuUS, 22 minutes, colorCinema 4 Rating: 5Despite a title sure to be at least partially tempting to any horror nut, Pretty Dead Girl: A Musical Necromance turns out to be rather tame. And if you could get the subject of necrophilia past the initial tsk-tsking of your grandma, there is a good chance that she would end up at film’s end thinking the movie was rather sad and sweet, and would hardly take offense at all to what is being suggested by its potentially creepy premise.I first saw Pretty Dead Girl on some cable network sometime about a year ago. I am not sure if it was Sundance or IFC, but honestly, I mix those channels up so much that I am never able to check out any of their shows regularly. Of course, most of the shows I have seen on there are of the variety about which I don’t give a rat’s ass, except for the ones done by Henry Rollins and Jon Favreau, but honestly, even thinking really hard, I can’t remember which one of the channels, Sundance or IFC, either show was actually on. I keep wanting to check out Live from Abbey Road – which is also on one of them -- but every time I flick over to it because someone I like – Muse, for instance – is on there, I end up having to sit through someone deplorable, like Josh Groban, Big and Rich or some Idol failure, to get to the good stuff, all of which seems to be interspersed with the horrendous. Can’t they just concentrate on one artist for a show? And one of these channels shows a bunch of '70s horror flicks on Friday nights -- all of which I already own, but it's nice to have them at one's fingertips anyway -- and one of them shows a lot of Japanese samurai and gangster films from the ‘50s and ‘60s, so they have that going for them. Whichever channel they are.What does this have to do with Pretty Dead Girl? Well, nothing at all, but -– Hey! Maybe I saw this on one of the Showtime networks instead? All I know is that I had Pretty Dead Girl on my DVR queue for a good long while, meaning to show it to Jen, who has some measured interest in musical films, and musical theatre in general. I watched it and enjoyed it, whatever channel it was on, though I wasn’t blown away it by it. This possibly had something to do with the musical episode from Buffy, titled Once More With Feeling, and how it seems, in my head at least, that any attempt to music up the horror or sci-fi genres should actually run through Mr. Whedon first. (Oh, if only Firefly had made it to that style of episode…) We are now in an age where, every time one turns around, it seems that another classic horror or science fiction film is being adapted into a musical (or opera – big difference there…) onstage. (Plan 9 from Outer Space, The Evil Dead, Carrie, Creature from the Black Lagoon, The Fly, etc.) Or, at least the notion gets raised that such-and-such (say, Chainsaw) would make a swell musical. I don’t know why things are trending this way – perhaps because the horror genre itself has gotten more and more trapped in its current torture porn rut – but outside of an almost rubbernecking interest I have towards these things, since I like both musicals and horror films, I actually start to despise the gimmick after a short while. And then it affects my attitude when confronted with mildly ambitious little films like Pretty Dead Girl.It’s not a fair comparison, though, because Pretty Dead Girl is not really in the horror genre; it merely teases the viewer with promises of sick glory via its title. Honestly, once I realized it was a musical, I started to imagine a remake of Return of the Living Dead 3 with that hot little zombie chick played to pierced goth glory by a smokin' Mindy Clarke. Now, that would be highly interesting (and also make RotLD3 a much better overall film.) Pretty Dead Girl doesn't even get near such possibilities, centering itself on all-out romantic tragedy instead. All told, it is no more offensive than any number of other Romeo and Juliet-style stories, where suicide is playfully dangled in the air due to the hopelessness of the romance. The title, though, implies so much more beyond a simple desperate love affair that it really is disappointing to see that all told, Pretty Dead Girl is nothing more than magic potion fluff, with a bottle of poison bringing on the appearance of suicide, but only if every single drop is gulped down the gullet (hence the magic part). Otherwise, it becomes a full-on suicide. That this storyline springs forth from the actions of a morgue techie (with a clearly misguided missile) who cavorts and dances about (always in a G-rated way) with the bodies of deceased hotties does make it seem potentially horrific at first, and one almost can’t wait for the film to go all Re-Animator on us and suddenly we shall find torrents of blood gushing from the stumps from where the limbs of unsuspecting doctors have been ripped, and there shall then commence a rising bout of rampant cannibalism in the halls of the hospital, syringes stuck through eyeballs of screaming nurses, zombie fetuses that devour their mothers from the inside out, and, perhaps worst of all, an Alaskan governor will then get dangerously close to the White House. And then only one of those things happens… and it’s not even in the movie.Unlike most of the examples listed two paragraphs above, the musical part in Pretty Dead Girl is not the gimmick. Instead, it is the false trappings of horror that are the actual gimmick, and it almost seems like a gimmick which has only been employed to get people to watch the film who are ultimately going to be disappointed once the film doesn’t follow through on its sick promise. It certainly tricked me into watching it the first time. And instead of where I thought it was going, I got a nice – just nice – little musical instead, with a couple of catchy tunes (I have had that “I have waited more than the better of my life” melody ear-worming me for the past couple of weeks since I started watching the film again), a lot of leggy dames hoofin’ it in a dream sequence, a trio of well-turned (and well cast) performances in the main roles and… well, that’s about it. It doesn’t go beyond that for me. It’s good, it's pleasant, and then I forget about it.When I first saved it on my DVR to show Jen, I never followed through. A couple of months later, as it sat there unwatched, I finally deleted it after convincing myself that she really wouldn’t think that much of it. And then I forgot about it until I received the Shorts! Volume 3 collection from Spout Mavens. Now, with DVD in hand, I have once more sidled up to the “should I show it to her?” stage, and already I am convincing myself to the negative impulse again of not even showing it to her. The problem here is one of too much familiarity with the genre. The more experience or expertise one has in a certain genre, the more lesser items in that genre start to give way almost immediately to feelings of ennui. At least, that’s the way it normally works. I know some people that are horror nuts – some even on this very website -- who unabashedly adore every single horror movie that comes out, practically carving little gory hearts with dripping arrows through them into the top of their computer desk while once more giving five stars to something like Saw IV. Sure, some are better than others, but still… horror is great! Isn’t it? Aren’t all horror movies, no matter how bad, instantly awesome and cool, just because they are horror movies? Well, no. Some just blankly suck outright, and some are just downright atrocious from every conceivable angle. The same with every genre.As I have said before, at least 75 percent of everything is garbage, no matter what form of media, no matter how much there is, and into this giant slice of pie, I heap mounds of the merely average. There is another slice of percentage, a chunk that perhaps appears as a normal slice of that pie, which accounts for the merely good. And finally, there is left a much thinner slice, the remainder, that denotes that which exists in the "very good to great" range. The continued and legendary greatness of certain entries in any genre make it increasingly harder, over time, to enjoy that category’s far more noxious efforts. It is towards a target sublime to which artists, even popular artists, should aim their talents. Back to the point, because my girlfriend has a good deal of experience, and therefore opinion, regarding the musical genre, and is well versed in those films which serve as the pinnacles of the form, I know instinctively that it is going to take far more to impress her in this genre than it would, say, me.And I already think that Pretty Dead Girl is merely a good short musical film. Not fantastic, not knock your socks off, but just good. And so, for someone with the more than average eye for musicals in general, having seen the excellence which can be achieved in the genre, watching this is like seeing a dance sequence pop up in Ally McBeal. Sure, the actors might be giving it their all, but they are miles from being in the real thing. And, further discounting it for the gimmick factor of its fake fantasy horror trappings, Pretty Dead Girl can seem pretty dead from the beginning. And, if not dead, then just merely playing possum. And nicely at that.And, speaking for myself, though I liked it well enough, nice is not what most people who would be intrigued by such a title as Pretty Dead Girl are going to be expecting.
]]>Wed, 10 Sep 2008 06:04:56 GMTrik_todThe Cinema 4 Pylon: SpOutpost9/10/2008 2:04:56 AMDirector: Shawn KuUS, 22 minutes, colorCinema 4 Rating: 5Despite a title sure to be at least partially tempting to any horror nut, Pretty Dead Girl: A Musical Necromance turns out to be rather tame. And if you could get the subject of necrophilia past the initial tsk-tsking of your grandma, there is a good chance that she would end up at film&rsquo;s end thinking the movie was rather sad and sweet, and would hardly take offense at all to what is being suggested by its potentially creepy premise.I first saw Pretty Dead Girl on some cable network sometime about a year ago. I am not sure if it was Sundance or IFC, but honestly, I mix those channels up so much that I am never able to check out any of their shows regularly. Of course, most of the shows I have seen on there are of the variety about which I don&rsquo;t give a rat&rsquo;s ass, except for the ones done by Henry Rollins and Jon Favreau, but honestly, even thinking really hard, I can&rsquo;t remember which one of the channels, Sundance or IFC, either show was actually on. I keep wanting to check out Live from Abbey Road &ndash; which is also on one of them -- but every time I flick over to it because someone I like &ndash; Muse, for instance &ndash; is on there, I end up having to sit through someone deplorable, like Josh Groban, Big and Rich or some Idol failure, to get to the good stuff, all of which seems to be interspersed with the horrendous. Can&rsquo;t they just concentrate on one artist for a show? And one of these channels shows a bunch of '70s horror flicks on Friday nights -- all of which I already own, but it's nice to have them at one's fingertips anyway -- and one of them shows a lot of Japanese samurai and gangster films from the &lsquo;50s and &lsquo;60s, so they have that going for them. Whichever channel they are.What does this have to do with Pretty Dead Girl? Well, nothing at all, but -&ndash; Hey! Maybe I saw this on one of the Showtime networks instead? All I know is that I had Pretty Dead Girl on my DVR queue for a good long while, meaning to show it to Jen, who has some measured interest in musical films, and musical theatre in general. I watched it and enjoyed it, whatever channel it was on, though I wasn&rsquo;t blown away it by it. This possibly had something to do with the musical episode from Buffy, titled Once More With Feeling, and how it seems, in my head at least, that any attempt to music up the horror or sci-fi genres should actually run through Mr. Whedon first. (Oh, if only Firefly had made it to that style of episode&hellip;) We are now in an age where, every time one turns around, it seems that another classic horror or science fiction film is being adapted into a musical (or opera &ndash; big difference there&hellip;) onstage. (Plan 9 from Outer Space, The Evil Dead, Carrie, Creature from the Black Lagoon, The Fly, etc.) Or, at least the notion gets raised that such-and-such (say, Chainsaw) would make a swell musical. I don&rsquo;t know why things are trending this way &ndash; perhaps because the horror genre itself has gotten more and more trapped in its current torture porn rut &ndash; but outside of an almost rubbernecking interest I have towards these things, since I like both musicals and horror films, I actually start to despise the gimmick after a short while. And then it affects my attitude when confronted with mildly ambitious little films like Pretty Dead Girl.It&rsquo;s not a fair comparison, though, because Pretty Dead Girl is not really in the horror genre; it merely teases the viewer with promises of sick glory via its title. Honestly, once I realized it was a musical, I started to imagine a remake of Return of the Living Dead 3 with that hot little zombie chick played to pierced goth glory by a smokin' Mindy Clarke. Now, that would be highly interesting (and also make RotLD3 a much better overall film.) Pretty Dead Girl doesn't even get near such possibilities, centering itself on all-out romantic tragedy instead. All told, it is no more offensive than any number of other Romeo and Juliet-style stories, where suicide is playfully dangled in the air due to the hopelessness of the romance. The title, though, implies so much more beyond a simple desperate love affair that it really is disappointing to see that all told, Pretty Dead Girl is nothing more than magic potion fluff, with a bottle of poison bringing on the appearance of suicide, but only if every single drop is gulped down the gullet (hence the magic part). Otherwise, it becomes a full-on suicide. That this storyline springs forth from the actions of a morgue techie (with a clearly misguided missile) who cavorts and dances about (always in a G-rated way) with the bodies of deceased hotties does make it seem potentially horrific at first, and one almost can&rsquo;t wait for the film to go all Re-Animator on us and suddenly we shall find torrents of blood gushing from the stumps from where the limbs of unsuspecting doctors have been ripped, and there shall then commence a rising bout of rampant cannibalism in the halls of the hospital, syringes stuck through eyeballs of screaming nurses, zombie fetuses that devour their mothers from the inside out, and, perhaps worst of all, an Alaskan governor will then get dangerously close to the White House. And then only one of those things happens&hellip; and it&rsquo;s not even in the movie.Unlike most of the examples listed two paragraphs above, the musical part in Pretty Dead Girl is not the gimmick. Instead, it is the false trappings of horror that are the actual gimmick, and it almost seems like a gimmick which has only been employed to get people to watch the film who are ultimately going to be disappointed once the film doesn&rsquo;t follow through on its sick promise. It certainly tricked me into watching it the first time. And instead of where I thought it was going, I got a nice &ndash; just nice &ndash; little musical instead, with a couple of catchy tunes (I have had that &ldquo;I have waited more than the better of my life&rdquo; melody ear-worming me for the past couple of weeks since I started watching the film again), a lot of leggy dames hoofin&rsquo; it in a dream sequence, a trio of well-turned (and well cast) performances in the main roles and&hellip; well, that&rsquo;s about it. It doesn&rsquo;t go beyond that for me. It&rsquo;s good, it's pleasant, and then I forget about it.When I first saved it on my DVR to show Jen, I never followed through. A couple of months later, as it sat there unwatched, I finally deleted it after convincing myself that she really wouldn&rsquo;t think that much of it. And then I forgot about it until I received the Shorts! Volume 3 collection from Spout Mavens. Now, with DVD in hand, I have once more sidled up to the &ldquo;should I show it to her?&rdquo; stage, and already I am convincing myself to the negative impulse again of not even showing it to her. The problem here is one of too much familiarity with the genre. The more experience or expertise one has in a certain genre, the more lesser items in that genre start to give way almost immediately to feelings of ennui. At least, that&rsquo;s the way it normally works. I know some people that are horror nuts &ndash; some even on this very website -- who unabashedly adore every single horror movie that comes out, practically carving little gory hearts with dripping arrows through them into the top of their computer desk while once more giving five stars to something like Saw IV. Sure, some are better than others, but still&hellip; horror is great! Isn&rsquo;t it? Aren&rsquo;t all horror movies, no matter how bad, instantly awesome and cool, just because they are horror movies? Well, no. Some just blankly suck outright, and some are just downright atrocious from every conceivable angle. The same with every genre.As I have said before, at least 75 percent of everything is garbage, no matter what form of media, no matter how much there is, and into this giant slice of pie, I heap mounds of the merely average. There is another slice of percentage, a chunk that perhaps appears as a normal slice of that pie, which accounts for the merely good. And finally, there is left a much thinner slice, the remainder, that denotes that which exists in the "very good to great" range. The continued and legendary greatness of certain entries in any genre make it increasingly harder, over time, to enjoy that category&rsquo;s far more noxious efforts. It is towards a target sublime to which artists, even popular artists, should aim their talents. Back to the point, because my girlfriend has a good deal of experience, and therefore opinion, regarding the musical genre, and is well versed in those films which serve as the pinnacles of the form, I know instinctively that it is going to take far more to impress her in this genre than it would, say, me.And I already think that Pretty Dead Girl is merely a good short musical film. Not fantastic, not knock your socks off, but just good. And so, for someone with the more than average eye for musicals in general, having seen the excellence which can be achieved in the genre, watching this is like seeing a dance sequence pop up in Ally McBeal. Sure, the actors might be giving it their all, but they are miles from being in the real thing. And, further discounting it for the gimmick factor of its fake fantasy horror trappings, Pretty Dead Girl can seem pretty dead from the beginning. And, if not dead, then just merely playing possum. And nicely at that.And, speaking for myself, though I liked it well enough, nice is not what most people who would be intrigued by such a title as Pretty Dead Girl are going to be expecting. http://www.spout.com/blogs/smooth_j/archive/2008/8/3/33487.aspx Post By: Smooth_J
Post To: Smooth_J Blog
Post Date: 8/3/2008 4:52:08 PM
Body: I fricken loved this movie. This week I got my full share of shamelessly heartfelt, hysterical belly laughs, since I saw Step Brothers earlier in the week and then this. But to be honest, I haven't had this much fun watching a movie since Zombie Strippers. The movie starts in the middle of the action with little to no explanation as to what's going on--I suppose the first two Evil Dead films sort of serve as the exposition, or maybe this movie really needs no introduction. The basic gist is that Bruce Cambell gets sent back in time by malevolent forces and is deemed as a hero of prophecy after defeating several undead foes with a chainsaw and then a miraculously appearing shotgun. Never have the people of the middle ages seen such heroics--or such raw, quotable attitude--in one man, heightened by his "boom-stick" and perpetually bloody chainsaw. He is soon commisioned to retrieve the Necronomicon, the book of the dead, so that he may save the kingdom from the evil forces. But he insists that he only wants to get back to his own time, and that's the only reason he's going to get it. Impressed by his bravery, he finds a marvelously sanitary medieval squeeze, who is swept off her feet when he grabs her violently and says: "Gimme some sugar, baby." The best part of the film is undeniably Bruce Cambell. He is an undeniable hard-ass, and some of his one liner's are DROP DEAD HILARIOUS (heh). However, my ceaselessly analytical mind did pick up on some distinct visual properties of the film. It's campy set decoration brings to mind some of Burton's work, which seemingly all came later than this, such as Nightmare Before Christmas and Edward Scissorhands. Even the stop-motion effects of the living dead seem almost taken right out of Nightmare. This is one of those B-Movie gems that is hilarious in its insistence to not be taken seriously. Even the scenes that at first seem legitimately meant to scare, some classic camp or gag is thrown in to make it completely hysterical. It is at once a tribute to the genre, and even moreso a parody, all the while remaining faithful to its origins and throwing in an inventiveness that is difficult to find anymore.
]]>Sun, 03 Aug 2008 20:52:08 GMTSmooth_JSmooth_J Blog8/3/2008 4:52:08 PMI fricken loved this movie. This week I got my full share of shamelessly heartfelt, hysterical belly laughs, since I saw Step Brothers earlier in the week and then this. But to be honest, I haven't had this much fun watching a movie since Zombie Strippers. The movie starts in the middle of the action with little to no explanation as to what's going on--I suppose the first two Evil Dead films sort of serve as the exposition, or maybe this movie really needs no introduction. The basic gist is that Bruce Cambell gets sent back in time by malevolent forces and is deemed as a hero of prophecy after defeating several undead foes with a chainsaw and then a miraculously appearing shotgun. Never have the people of the middle ages seen such heroics--or such raw, quotable attitude--in one man, heightened by his "boom-stick" and perpetually bloody chainsaw. He is soon commisioned to retrieve the Necronomicon, the book of the dead, so that he may save the kingdom from the evil forces. But he insists that he only wants to get back to his own time, and that's the only reason he's going to get it. Impressed by his bravery, he finds a marvelously sanitary medieval squeeze, who is swept off her feet when he grabs her violently and says: "Gimme some sugar, baby." The best part of the film is undeniably Bruce Cambell. He is an undeniable hard-ass, and some of his one liner's are DROP DEAD HILARIOUS (heh). However, my ceaselessly analytical mind did pick up on some distinct visual properties of the film. It's campy set decoration brings to mind some of Burton's work, which seemingly all came later than this, such as Nightmare Before Christmas and Edward Scissorhands. Even the stop-motion effects of the living dead seem almost taken right out of Nightmare. This is one of those B-Movie gems that is hilarious in its insistence to not be taken seriously. Even the scenes that at first seem legitimately meant to scare, some classic camp or gag is thrown in to make it completely hysterical. It is at once a tribute to the genre, and even moreso a parody, all the while remaining faithful to its origins and throwing in an inventiveness that is difficult to find anymore. http://www.spout.com/groups/Top_5/Re_Top_5_Completely_Over_the_Top_Films/190/31785/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: unclefestering
Post To: Top 5
Post Date: 6/27/2008 12:08:20 PM
Body: [quote user="Risselada"] Has anyone seen Riki-Oh? I've heard about it and seen a few clips, and it sounds like it might fit in here if it lives up to it's reputation. [/quote] This is the my leader for the over the top Kung Fu movies. And it takes a lot for that. In the early days of the Daily Show when Craig Kilborn hosted, they used the exploding head as their intro to their Five Questions segment. Rounding out my top five in no particular order: Over the top evolution: Idiocracy Over the top literacy: Evil Dead Over the top coincidence: Women on the Verge of a Nervous Breakdown Over the top revenge: Oldboy
]]>Fri, 27 Jun 2008 16:08:20 GMTunclefesteringTop 56/27/2008 12:08:20 PM[quote user="Risselada"] Has anyone seen Riki-Oh? I've heard about it and seen a few clips, and it sounds like it might fit in here if it lives up to it's reputation. [/quote] This is the my leader for the over the top Kung Fu movies. And it takes a lot for that. In the early days of the Daily Show when Craig Kilborn hosted, they used the exploding head as their intro to their Five Questions segment. Rounding out my top five in no particular order: Over the top evolution: Idiocracy Over the top literacy: Evil Dead Over the top coincidence: Women on the Verge of a Nervous Breakdown Over the top revenge: Oldboy http://www.spout.com/groups/HORROR_MOVIES_101/Recommendation_2_Cthulhu/222/22676/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: TheWorkingDead
Post To: HORROR MOVIES 101
Post Date: 12/9/2007 8:48:42 PM
Body: This is another blog post, not really a discussion idea, but since Dr. Gor has stated that we can post whatever we want, and in fact he will fight to the death any of you who don't like it, I decided what the hell. If no one has any problem, I think I might do this anytime I come across a movie that I think will be of particular interest to this group(I'm also posting it in my group The Film Library). I promise not to do this unless I really think it pertains to this group. This film may not be for everyone here, but I think it's worth a look and I'm sure some of you will be interested in what someone has to say about it. This last few weeks have marked the passage of the seventh annual Anchorage International Film Festival, an event for which I was lucky enough to be a judge(in one of the short film categories). This presented me with a golden opportunity to attend every screening for free. I was in heaven. Unfortunately, this happened to coincide with my increasingly stupid looking decision to take on a second job for extra holiday money. Coupled with normal familial duties, I was unable to attend all but two films. The first of the two, Once, was extraordinarily enjoyable, and I'll be writing about that one at a later date. The second film, and subject of this post, was Cthulhu, a low budget, DVE-shot horror film loosely based on HP Lovecraft's Shadow Over Innsmouth.In this filmed version, the main character, Russ, is a gay history professor in Seattle who is called back to his home town of Rivermouth when his mother passes away. Back in Rivermouth, Russ can't wait to return to Seattle, finding nothing but antagonism from his father(who leads the church of the Esoteric Order of Dagon) and the townsfolk who view his sexuality as the height of mental degeneration. His father, and indeed a few of the townspeople, take a very aggressive interest in wanting to see Russ have children(for reasons I'll explain later, but will probably make a bit of sense to people familiar with the story). The only friendly face he sees is that of his childhood friend Mike, a divorced father with whom he had a... sexually ambiguous relationship growing up. I suppose at this point something should be said about the homosexual themes in this film, since the protagonist's homosexuality is a large part of the plot both literally and metaphorically. Russ' father is upset at his son not for being gay, it seems, but for not having children, and metaphorically Russ' homosexuality heightens the tension and fear of returning to a small town, let alone one as bizarre as Rivermouth.The plot(and I'm going to give spoilers here, so if you haven't read the story, or want to see this fresh, I'd suggest you skip ahead a paragraph) revolves around Russ' heredity, and the Esoteric Order of Dagon that his father leads. Dagon, as Lovecraft readers know, is one of the Deep Ones, a fish-god that grants wealth to those who offer up human sacrifices. There's also a lot of inter-species breeding going on, as the fish-men mate with humans and produce immortal offspring, and the people themselves begin to become more fish-like. Russ' family is so intent on him having children because his family has long been the emissaries of Cthulhu(although the church names Dagon, he is never specifically mentioned in the movie, instead they use the more popularly known Cthulhu), and they need him to father the next generation of fish-people and pave the way for the return of the Deep Ones. This is a little ill-defined in the movie, as much of the film is. A lot of it still works, however, to heighten the confusion and fear, but at times is the ambiguity is a bit off-putting. It works well when the characters are confused and unsure of things, but when they seem completely aware of everything and the audience is in the dark, it's a bit frustrating.Now, I'll be honest here and admit that my initial reaction as the film went to black was 'god, what a mess!' The film is so jumbled and switches scenes and tones at such a jarring rate that it seemed to me a horribly confused mess. But, as the credits rolled, and that final image stuck with me, and I thought back over the film, I realized that the film had some very good ideas, but was slightly off the mark. The film feels one or two drafts, and several days in the editing bay away from being a really good film. The director, Dan Gildark, was at the screening I attended, and said that his distributor was imposing 8 minutes of edits on him, and I really do think that with those trimmings the film could be something special. Particularly, the flashbacks seem largely unnecessary and confusing. There's a brief flashback of Russ entering a room where a woman is crying, you see him with a shocked face as the woman screams 'What did you do to me?' Later in the film Russ is seen attempting suicide in flashback. Who was this woman? Was it his sister(the only prominent female from his childhood we see)? What was done to her? Did Russ attempt suicide because of this or some other reason? It's not clear at all, although when I asked him the director said there was a whole side story there that he cut out, choosing instead to make that vague and mysterious. I think this was a mistake, because without any context the flashbacks only serve to distract from an already convoluted plot, and it seems like these scenes should be important but there's absolutely no connection to the rest of the film.But let's focus on what does work. As I said, the idea of an ostracized gay man returning home to face malevolent cosmic forces AND unfriendly townspeople is well realized, and more literally turns the hero into 'the outsider', something the film is tactful enough not to hammer you over the head about. The more mundane family and relationship moments work very well, which is something that doesn't happen often in horror movies. There's frequent, albeit brief, suggestions that place this movie in the near future; radio programs talk about increasing violence and ecological decay, one reports that the last surviving wild polar bear had died in Siberia, and every television station seen in the background has a 'breaking news' banner and blurry images of violent events. This all serves to heighten the 'Lovecraftian' horror of the story, with the madness being an ever present threat around the edges of the characters lives until it forces it's way into the center stage. The ever-present threat of rising ocean waters brings with it the implication that the world of the Deep Ones will be coming to overtake the world of man, which is a pretty clever twist.Cthulhu was shot on DVE, which gave the theatre image a slightly blurry, out of focus look(I don't know if this will be the same for the image on a smaller television set), but made the colors incredibly bright and pure. This is a fairly low budget horror film, so anyone expecting a horror-fest like the Stuart Gordon/Brian Yuzna Lovecraft adaptations is going to be very disappointed. The effects, what little there are, are only briefly glimpsed and, at one point, slightly cheesy. Instead this film is more of a character driven drama with horror elements in it. Some of the horror elements, unfortunately, rely a little too much on the trappings of the genre, such as a scene where a little boy in front of a staticy television screen says "we're waiting... for Cthulhu" and the camera jump cuts a bit closer as he says Cthulhu. Or the crazy old aunt in a mental ward who turns away from the character, towards the camera as she starts over-emoting her forebodings of doom. Or a scene with a weird glowing tentacle thing that would look cheap no matter what, but is made slightly silly by the jump-cut and ominous, piercing string music that accompanies it. All of these scenes are played with such straight-faced seriousness that they stumble over the line and into camp, and are at odds with the tone of the rest of the film.Speaking of things at odds with the film; Tori Spelling. The director had nothing bad to say about Tori Spelling, but I wanted to comfort him and give him my condolences that she was in this film, because her completely over the top performance suggests an alien trying to emulate femininity after watching hours of Marilyn Monroe, Betty Boop and really bad porno dialogue. I might be a bit harsh on her, but she was really, really unconvincing, and while her plotline was funny and integral, a better actor would have focused the laughs on the humor in the script, not the horrible line readings and unattractive come-ons. Aside from her, I have nothing but good things to say about most of the cast. Although some of the supporting characters ham it up a bit, the two male leads are generally well suited to the parts they play.So in the end my rating for this film would put it around 3 out of 5 stars, which may be a bit misleading. I don't dislike this film, in fact I quite enjoyed it and plan on seeing it again when it gets an official distribution. But, due to some jarring tonal shifts and jumbled plotting it didn't fully engage me. I have high hopes that a slightly edited version, released in the spring, will improve my rating for this film. The director mentioned as his influences the films of Japanese directors Takashi Miike and Kyoshi Kurosawa. Miike I didn't spot, but anyone who enjoys the glacial pace and subtle horror of Kurosawa's films(particularly Charisma, a film I should admit I understand not a goddamn bit) will probably find a lot here to enjoy.One last thing should be said about the sexual themes in this movie; I've been lurking around in the wastelands of the IMDB comment board, seeing what people had to say about this film. Many are purists upset at the liberties taken with the source material, and angered by the lack of tentacled monsters and outright scares(there are a few in Cthulhu, but that isn't the main focus), but a surprising amount of them are angered by the fact that the film has a publicly gay main character. This is upsetting, and surprising to me because I assumed that anyone open-minded enough to read Lovecraft, with his mind-bending mythology that isn't exactly Judea-christian friendly, should be open-minded enough to deal with a movie where two men kiss(yes, there is a love scene, and although it will gross many people out, it is filmed with more class, tenderness and romanticism than most heterosexual love scenes, and has 100% less testicles than Borat did). Some have argued that Lovecraft didn't write about sex at all, and so it should be left out of any filmed adaptations. And while that's true to a point, it should be mentioned that many of his stories dealt indirectly with bestiality. What is The Shadow Over Innsmouth about, if not a bunch of fishermen having sex with fish?
]]>Mon, 10 Dec 2007 01:48:42 GMTTheWorkingDeadHORROR MOVIES 10112/9/2007 8:48:42 PMThis is another blog post, not really a discussion idea, but since Dr. Gor has stated that we can post whatever we want, and in fact he will fight to the death any of you who don&#39;t like it, I decided what the hell. If no one has any problem, I think I might do this anytime I come across a movie that I think will be of particular interest to this group(I&#39;m also posting it in my group The Film Library). I promise not to do this unless I really think it pertains to this group. This film may not be for everyone here, but I think it&#39;s worth a look and I&#39;m sure some of you will be interested in what someone has to say about it. This last few weeks have marked the passage of the seventh annual Anchorage International Film Festival, an event for which I was lucky enough to be a judge(in one of the short film categories). This presented me with a golden opportunity to attend every screening for free. I was in heaven. Unfortunately, this happened to coincide with my increasingly stupid looking decision to take on a second job for extra holiday money. Coupled with normal familial duties, I was unable to attend all but two films. The first of the two, Once, was extraordinarily enjoyable, and I&#39;ll be writing about that one at a later date. The second film, and subject of this post, was Cthulhu, a low budget, DVE-shot horror film loosely based on HP Lovecraft&#39;s Shadow Over Innsmouth.In this filmed version, the main character, Russ, is a gay history professor in Seattle who is called back to his home town of Rivermouth when his mother passes away. Back in Rivermouth, Russ can&#39;t wait to return to Seattle, finding nothing but antagonism from his father(who leads the church of the Esoteric Order of Dagon) and the townsfolk who view his sexuality as the height of mental degeneration. His father, and indeed a few of the townspeople, take a very aggressive interest in wanting to see Russ have children(for reasons I&#39;ll explain later, but will probably make a bit of sense to people familiar with the story). The only friendly face he sees is that of his childhood friend Mike, a divorced father with whom he had a... sexually ambiguous relationship growing up. I suppose at this point something should be said about the homosexual themes in this film, since the protagonist&#39;s homosexuality is a large part of the plot both literally and metaphorically. Russ&#39; father is upset at his son not for being gay, it seems, but for not having children, and metaphorically Russ&#39; homosexuality heightens the tension and fear of returning to a small town, let alone one as bizarre as Rivermouth.The plot(and I&#39;m going to give spoilers here, so if you haven&#39;t read the story, or want to see this fresh, I&#39;d suggest you skip ahead a paragraph) revolves around Russ&#39; heredity, and the Esoteric Order of Dagon that his father leads. Dagon, as Lovecraft readers know, is one of the Deep Ones, a fish-god that grants wealth to those who offer up human sacrifices. There&#39;s also a lot of inter-species breeding going on, as the fish-men mate with humans and produce immortal offspring, and the people themselves begin to become more fish-like. Russ&#39; family is so intent on him having children because his family has long been the emissaries of Cthulhu(although the church names Dagon, he is never specifically mentioned in the movie, instead they use the more popularly known Cthulhu), and they need him to father the next generation of fish-people and pave the way for the return of the Deep Ones. This is a little ill-defined in the movie, as much of the film is. A lot of it still works, however, to heighten the confusion and fear, but at times is the ambiguity is a bit off-putting. It works well when the characters are confused and unsure of things, but when they seem completely aware of everything and the audience is in the dark, it&#39;s a bit frustrating.Now, I&#39;ll be honest here and admit that my initial reaction as the film went to black was &#39;god, what a mess!&#39; The film is so jumbled and switches scenes and tones at such a jarring rate that it seemed to me a horribly confused mess. But, as the credits rolled, and that final image stuck with me, and I thought back over the film, I realized that the film had some very good ideas, but was slightly off the mark. The film feels one or two drafts, and several days in the editing bay away from being a really good film. The director, Dan Gildark, was at the screening I attended, and said that his distributor was imposing 8 minutes of edits on him, and I really do think that with those trimmings the film could be something special. Particularly, the flashbacks seem largely unnecessary and confusing. There&#39;s a brief flashback of Russ entering a room where a woman is crying, you see him with a shocked face as the woman screams &#39;What did you do to me?&#39; Later in the film Russ is seen attempting suicide in flashback. Who was this woman? Was it his sister(the only prominent female from his childhood we see)? What was done to her? Did Russ attempt suicide because of this or some other reason? It&#39;s not clear at all, although when I asked him the director said there was a whole side story there that he cut out, choosing instead to make that vague and mysterious. I think this was a mistake, because without any context the flashbacks only serve to distract from an already convoluted plot, and it seems like these scenes should be important but there&#39;s absolutely no connection to the rest of the film.But let&#39;s focus on what does work. As I said, the idea of an ostracized gay man returning home to face malevolent cosmic forces AND unfriendly townspeople is well realized, and more literally turns the hero into &#39;the outsider&#39;, something the film is tactful enough not to hammer you over the head about. The more mundane family and relationship moments work very well, which is something that doesn&#39;t happen often in horror movies. There&#39;s frequent, albeit brief, suggestions that place this movie in the near future; radio programs talk about increasing violence and ecological decay, one reports that the last surviving wild polar bear had died in Siberia, and every television station seen in the background has a &#39;breaking news&#39; banner and blurry images of violent events. This all serves to heighten the &#39;Lovecraftian&#39; horror of the story, with the madness being an ever present threat around the edges of the characters lives until it forces it&#39;s way into the center stage. The ever-present threat of rising ocean waters brings with it the implication that the world of the Deep Ones will be coming to overtake the world of man, which is a pretty clever twist.Cthulhu was shot on DVE, which gave the theatre image a slightly blurry, out of focus look(I don&#39;t know if this will be the same for the image on a smaller television set), but made the colors incredibly bright and pure. This is a fairly low budget horror film, so anyone expecting a horror-fest like the Stuart Gordon/Brian Yuzna Lovecraft adaptations is going to be very disappointed. The effects, what little there are, are only briefly glimpsed and, at one point, slightly cheesy. Instead this film is more of a character driven drama with horror elements in it. Some of the horror elements, unfortunately, rely a little too much on the trappings of the genre, such as a scene where a little boy in front of a staticy television screen says &quot;we&#39;re waiting... for Cthulhu&quot; and the camera jump cuts a bit closer as he says Cthulhu. Or the crazy old aunt in a mental ward who turns away from the character, towards the camera as she starts over-emoting her forebodings of doom. Or a scene with a weird glowing tentacle thing that would look cheap no matter what, but is made slightly silly by the jump-cut and ominous, piercing string music that accompanies it. All of these scenes are played with such straight-faced seriousness that they stumble over the line and into camp, and are at odds with the tone of the rest of the film.Speaking of things at odds with the film; Tori Spelling. The director had nothing bad to say about Tori Spelling, but I wanted to comfort him and give him my condolences that she was in this film, because her completely over the top performance suggests an alien trying to emulate femininity after watching hours of Marilyn Monroe, Betty Boop and really bad porno dialogue. I might be a bit harsh on her, but she was really, really unconvincing, and while her plotline was funny and integral, a better actor would have focused the laughs on the humor in the script, not the horrible line readings and unattractive come-ons. Aside from her, I have nothing but good things to say about most of the cast. Although some of the supporting characters ham it up a bit, the two male leads are generally well suited to the parts they play.So in the end my rating for this film would put it around 3 out of 5 stars, which may be a bit misleading. I don&#39;t dislike this film, in fact I quite enjoyed it and plan on seeing it again when it gets an official distribution. But, due to some jarring tonal shifts and jumbled plotting it didn&#39;t fully engage me. I have high hopes that a slightly edited version, released in the spring, will improve my rating for this film. The director mentioned as his influences the films of Japanese directors Takashi Miike and Kyoshi Kurosawa. Miike I didn&#39;t spot, but anyone who enjoys the glacial pace and subtle horror of Kurosawa&#39;s films(particularly Charisma, a film I should admit I understand not a goddamn bit) will probably find a lot here to enjoy.One last thing should be said about the sexual themes in this movie; I&#39;ve been lurking around in the wastelands of the IMDB comment board, seeing what people had to say about this film. Many are purists upset at the liberties taken with the source material, and angered by the lack of tentacled monsters and outright scares(there are a few in Cthulhu, but that isn&#39;t the main focus), but a surprising amount of them are angered by the fact that the film has a publicly gay main character. This is upsetting, and surprising to me because I assumed that anyone open-minded enough to read Lovecraft, with his mind-bending mythology that isn&#39;t exactly Judea-christian friendly, should be open-minded enough to deal with a movie where two men kiss(yes, there is a love scene, and although it will gross many people out, it is filmed with more class, tenderness and romanticism than most heterosexual love scenes, and has 100% less testicles than Borat did). Some have argued that Lovecraft didn&#39;t write about sex at all, and so it should be left out of any filmed adaptations. And while that&#39;s true to a point, it should be mentioned that many of his stories dealt indirectly with bestiality. What is The Shadow Over Innsmouth about, if not a bunch of fishermen having sex with fish? http://www.spout.com/groups/Violence_on_film/Re_Re_Re_Re_Re_Re_Re_Re_Re_Re_Behaviour_Censorsh/494/21352/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: Dr_Gor
Post To: Violence on film
Post Date: 11/1/2007 7:47:40 PM
Body: P.S. I could not find this movie listed on SPOUT by any of the titles that I know but you CAN find it on IMDB... The 'uncut' version that I have is on VHS and I bought it from a 'VHS-bootlegger' in the early 1990's. WARNING: There are SEVERAL versions which claim to be 'uncut' but aren't! It took me three tries to finally get the COMPLETELY 'uncut' version! Perhaps I can persuade Froggy to put in her two cents worth on this movie...
]]>Thu, 01 Nov 2007 23:47:40 GMTDr_GorViolence on film11/1/2007 7:47:40 PM P.S. I could not find this movie listed on SPOUT by any of the titles that I know but you CAN find it on IMDB... The &#39;uncut&#39; version that I have is on VHS and I bought it from a &#39;VHS-bootlegger&#39; in the early 1990&#39;s. WARNING: There are SEVERAL versions which claim to be &#39;uncut&#39; but aren&#39;t! It took me three tries to finally get the COMPLETELY &#39;uncut&#39; version! Perhaps I can persuade Froggy to put in her two cents worth on this movie... http://www.spout.com/blogs/indieabby88/archive/2007/10/19/20964.aspx Post By: indieabby88
Post To: Bloggish review blog
Post Date: 10/19/2007 1:01:56 AM
Body: Well, I just got back from the sparsely-attended screening of the low-budget indie zombie flick "Dead in the Water," and I have to say: I had a good time, but I'm not sure why. I know cheesy B-movie horror is kind of an art, as displayed by classics like the "Evil Dead" trilogy, but "Dead in the Water" treads a fine line between crappy horror at its schlocky, cliched best and convoluted storytelling at its absolute worst. At times it teeters dangerously into "Mystery Science Theater 3,000" territory.As with "Evil Dead," "Dead in the Water" is a story about a group of kids headed up to a picturesque cabin in the woods for a weekend of boyfriend-girlfriend canoodling and general good times. The girls, Jennica (seriously, what kind of name is that?) and Tiffany are sisters whose parents bought the cabin and are supposed to meet the kids there. Of course, nothing goes according to plan, and when it's discovered that there's an army of undead living in the not-so-serene lake, Mom and Dad's grisly fate comes as no surprise. Now it's up to the girls and their boyfriends to get the hell out of "Bumblefuck, Wisconsin" as one character so eloquently puts it, and back to civilization without anyone turning into zombie fodder or, God forbid, bruising relationships, egos and feelings along the way. Riiiggghhht.Unlike that ultimate Cabin In The Woods movie, "Dead in the Water" suffers from some serious issues other than a kite-string budget (I know, it's a weird metaphor, but it was the only thing I could think of that was smaller than shoestring. Throw me a bone, here). Bad writing is the major cause of the issues here. There's a complicated and poorly-explained backstory told in ways that don't quite mesh with the characters or the rest of the plot, and director Marc Buhmann might have done well to cut some of the stuff out altogether.However, the script does have its moments, and Mike Parrish, playing Joseph in the film, does his darndest to assume Bruce Campbell's throne as a B-movie badass. But this is no "Evil Dead," and try as the filmmakers might, it doesn't even really come close. The difference is creativity. When Sam Raimi made "Evil Dead," it was something that had never been done on that scale before. The way he did the effects in that film were ingenious. All that stop-motion stuff, the tons and tons of karo syrup, the vaseline-and-duct-tape coated camera track that provided those brilliant, lightning-speed shots, that's what made "Evil Dead" what it is. While it's admirable that Buhmann and crew gave it a shot, the result is a movie that's worth watching for pure cheese value. "Dead in the Water" is definitely entertaining, but in what way still remains to be seen and (I think) greatly depends on the person watching it.
]]>Fri, 19 Oct 2007 05:01:56 GMTindieabby88Bloggish review blog10/19/2007 1:01:56 AMWell, I just got back from the sparsely-attended screening of the low-budget indie zombie flick &quot;Dead in the Water,&quot; and I have to say: I had a good time, but I&#39;m not sure why. I know cheesy B-movie horror is kind of an art, as displayed by classics like the &quot;Evil Dead&quot; trilogy, but &quot;Dead in the Water&quot; treads a fine line between crappy horror at its schlocky, cliched best and convoluted storytelling at its absolute worst. At times it teeters dangerously into &quot;Mystery Science Theater 3,000&quot; territory.As with &quot;Evil Dead,&quot; &quot;Dead in the Water&quot; is a story about a group of kids headed up to a picturesque cabin in the woods for a weekend of boyfriend-girlfriend canoodling and general good times. The girls, Jennica (seriously, what kind of name is that?) and Tiffany are sisters whose parents bought the cabin and are supposed to meet the kids there. Of course, nothing goes according to plan, and when it&#39;s discovered that there&#39;s an army of undead living in the not-so-serene lake, Mom and Dad&#39;s grisly fate comes as no surprise. Now it&#39;s up to the girls and their boyfriends to get the hell out of &quot;Bumblefuck, Wisconsin&quot; as one character so eloquently puts it, and back to civilization without anyone turning into zombie fodder or, God forbid, bruising relationships, egos and feelings along the way. Riiiggghhht.Unlike that ultimate Cabin In The Woods movie, &quot;Dead in the Water&quot; suffers from some serious issues other than a kite-string budget (I know, it&#39;s a weird metaphor, but it was the only thing I could think of that was smaller than shoestring. Throw me a bone, here). Bad writing is the major cause of the issues here. There&#39;s a complicated and poorly-explained backstory told in ways that don&#39;t quite mesh with the characters or the rest of the plot, and director Marc Buhmann might have done well to cut some of the stuff out altogether.However, the script does have its moments, and Mike Parrish, playing Joseph in the film, does his darndest to assume Bruce Campbell&#39;s throne as a B-movie badass. But this is no &quot;Evil Dead,&quot; and try as the filmmakers might, it doesn&#39;t even really come close. The difference is creativity. When Sam Raimi made &quot;Evil Dead,&quot; it was something that had never been done on that scale before. The way he did the effects in that film were ingenious. All that stop-motion stuff, the tons and tons of karo syrup, the vaseline-and-duct-tape coated camera track that provided those brilliant, lightning-speed shots, that&#39;s what made &quot;Evil Dead&quot; what it is. While it&#39;s admirable that Buhmann and crew gave it a shot, the result is a movie that&#39;s worth watching for pure cheese value. &quot;Dead in the Water&quot; is definitely entertaining, but in what way still remains to be seen and (I think) greatly depends on the person watching it. http://www.spout.com/blogs/risselada/archive/2007/9/27/20186.aspx Post By: Risselada
Post To: Risselada Blog
Post Date: 9/27/2007 4:53:13 PM
Body: This blog entry is part of my “movie year countdown”. To read more about that check out my first Spout filmblog entry.Evil Dead IIProbably one of the greatest if you are a total slasher/horror/horror/comedy nut. I actually preferred the original The Evil Dead. It seemed more pure to me I guess. And I've heard all the debates about whether this was supposed to be a remake in a way, and why, and that original rights were lost. Whatever. It's a fun movie no doubt, but just not my favorite genre.For horror comedy my favorite is still Ravenous. Even though it's apparently not even listed as a comedy on IMDB.I feel like there's not much else to say here. Maybe there's not that much to talk about, and I've already discussed it enough elsewhere around Spout.Rating: 7/10
]]>Thu, 27 Sep 2007 20:53:13 GMTRisseladaRisselada Blog9/27/2007 4:53:13 PMThis blog entry is part of my &ldquo;movie year countdown&rdquo;. To read more about that check out my first Spout filmblog entry.Evil Dead IIProbably one of the greatest if you are a total slasher/horror/horror/comedy nut. I actually preferred the original The Evil Dead. It seemed more pure to me I guess. And I&#39;ve heard all the debates about whether this was supposed to be a remake in a way, and why, and that original rights were lost. Whatever. It&#39;s a fun movie no doubt, but just not my favorite genre.For horror comedy my favorite is still Ravenous. Even though it&#39;s apparently not even listed as a comedy on IMDB.I feel like there&#39;s not much else to say here. Maybe there&#39;s not that much to talk about, and I&#39;ve already discussed it enough elsewhere around Spout.Rating: 7/10 http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/funny/MemberTagFilms.aspxfunny
Number of films tagged: 608

Number of people who tagged: 316

Number of times used: 941

]]>Fri, 11 Dec 2009 01:28:29 GMT608316941Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/Classic/MemberTagFilms.aspxClassic
Number of films tagged: 816

Number of people who tagged: 312

Number of times used: 1453

]]>Sun, 23 Aug 2009 22:54:36 GMT8163121453Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/comedy/MemberTagFilms.aspxcomedy
Number of films tagged: 1086

Number of people who tagged: 253

Number of times used: 1340

]]>Tue, 08 Dec 2009 21:38:24 GMT10862531340Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/horror/MemberTagFilms.aspxhorror
Number of films tagged: 260

Number of people who tagged: 110

Number of times used: 344

]]>Wed, 09 Dec 2009 20:48:03 GMT260110344Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/scary/MemberTagFilms.aspxscary
Number of films tagged: 155

Number of people who tagged: 104

Number of times used: 197

]]>Thu, 19 Nov 2009 00:30:07 GMT155104197Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/cult/MemberTagFilms.aspxcult
Number of films tagged: 449

Number of people who tagged: 71

Number of times used: 162

]]>Wed, 04 Nov 2009 18:20:54 GMT44971162Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/violent/MemberTagFilms.aspxviolent
Number of films tagged: 97

Number of people who tagged: 57

Number of times used: 153

]]>Mon, 27 Jul 2009 04:28:06 GMT9757153Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/rape/MemberTagFilms.aspxrape
Number of films tagged: 1050

Number of people who tagged: 54

Number of times used: 124

]]>Fri, 04 Dec 2009 01:36:01 GMT105054124Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/book/MemberTagFilms.aspxbook
Number of films tagged: 683

Number of people who tagged: 45

Number of times used: 114

]]>Tue, 03 Nov 2009 17:55:43 GMT68345114Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/monster/MemberTagFilms.aspxmonster
Number of films tagged: 1143

Number of people who tagged: 41

Number of times used: 95

]]>Thu, 24 Sep 2009 00:22:02 GMT11434195Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/slasher/MemberTagFilms.aspxslasher
Number of films tagged: 330

Number of people who tagged: 34

Number of times used: 91

]]>Sun, 05 Jul 2009 21:55:52 GMT3303491Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/Indie/MemberTagFilms.aspxIndie
Number of films tagged: 49

Number of people who tagged: 28

Number of times used: 59

]]>Tue, 20 Jan 2009 22:22:28 GMT492859Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/michigan/MemberTagFilms.aspxmichigan
Number of films tagged: 84

Number of people who tagged: 24

Number of times used: 115

]]>Mon, 02 Feb 2009 22:41:26 GMT8424115Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/chainsaw/MemberTagFilms.aspxchainsaw
Number of films tagged: 41

Number of people who tagged: 23

Number of times used: 30

]]>Mon, 22 Jun 2009 23:10:27 GMT412330Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/demon/MemberTagFilms.aspxdemon
Number of films tagged: 532

Number of people who tagged: 21

Number of times used: 30

]]>Thu, 19 Nov 2009 00:30:28 GMT5322130Tag