The Horror Thread - Part 5

[Astro13Zombie]

I don't try to fault a film for being something that's not within our own personal expectations, but when you have a film called The Mummy and the actual mummy is only there in one scene... I'm gonna be let down in some way. You watch these for the monsters. You can have a great story around it... but it's like naming a movie called Godzilla and he's only in the opening and for the rest of the film he is morphed back into a lizard.

I actually much prefer the 1999 remake. That had a nice middle ground to it in terms of having The Mummy there.

lol gross

 

[Kane52630]

The 1999 remake is much more entertaining.

 

[StarLord]

I still haven't seen the last one with Jet Li. Any good?

 

[Broseph44]

The 1999 remake is much more entertaining.

Love the 99 film

 

[Kane52630]

I tried watching Mummy 3 but I couldn't get past the first 30 minutes. I like Maria Bello but she's no Rachel Weisz.

 

[C. Lee]

I don't try to fault a film for being something that's not within our own personal expectations, but when you have a film called The Mummy and the actual mummy is only there in one scene... I'm gonna be let down in some way. You watch these for the monsters. You can have a great story around it... but it's like naming a movie called Godzilla and he's only in the opening and for the rest of the film he is morphed back into a lizard.

I actually much prefer the 1999 remake. That had a nice middle ground to it in terms of having The Mummy there.

If you make a movie today and call it "The Mummy"....then yeah, I would pretty much expect most of it to be taken up with a guy in bandages running around killing people. But the Karloff film was made in 1932 and was I believe the first movie that featured a killer mummy. The times were different, the rules of movie making were different, monster/horror movies were different. I find it hard to complain about it not being like modern movies when it was the first one made and was basically starting the genre.

 

[C. Lee]

I still haven't seen the last one with Jet Li. Any good?

The best way I can put it personally is....my wife and I watch the first 2 when ever we can, we've seen both dozens of times.....we saw the 3rd one once.

 

[StarLord]

Doesn't sound too promising then.

I kind of enjoyed the first two, but by the time the third was out I didn't care anymore.

 

[Loki882]

Well, it has Michelle Yeoh in it, and she's always cool. As is Jet Li (for what little that he's actually on-set). And one of the villains is a hot female Chinese soldier with a cool facial scar, and......

That's all that I got. Just stick with the first two (the second is flawed but ok imo). I actually liked the idea of taking the third film out of Egypt (because there are other places in the world with mummies after all). It's just HOW they did it that was the problem.

 

[Loki882]

I noticed a few nods to parts 2 and 3 as well like the pillow case mask from 2, and the final showdown being in a barn like in 3.

The remake isn't even really a "remake" per se. It's more like they took bits and pieces from the first four and then built their own story around it. And surprisingly, I didn't hate most of the characters. Well, the one guy yeah, but we're kind of suppose to not like him. The always adorable Danielle Panabaker in particular was quite likeable.

 

[Blitzkrieg Bop]

The 1932 The Mummy is essentially Egyptian Dracula. I like it despite this. Both makeup jobs by Jack Pierce are phenomenal. It is a little bit of a let down that the great mummified design is only used so brief, but the absence of it allowed Karloff to have a more expressive role.

This reminds me of when last year, TCM showed The Mummy's Hand and cut off the last few minutes of the film. Granted, the movie was over at that point and it wasn't even a good movie, but I was really angered by this and I found it disrespectful to the crew who made the movie and the viewers who were watching it. Play the whole movie.


This is the scene that made me a Universal Monsters fan.

 

[Johnny-Oh]

Just watched The Green Inferno, it was underwhelming, not enough gore.

 

[Kane52630]

Goodnight Mommy was such a waste of time.

31 Days of Horror Marathon
Day 1: Cooties - 7.5/10
Day 2: A Girl Walks Home Alone at Night - 9/10
Day 3: The Invisible Man - 9/10
Day 4: Children of the Corn - 8/10
Day 5: The Den - 8.5/10
Day 6: We Are Still Here - 7/10
Day 7: The Midnight Meat Train - 8.5/10
Day 8: Preservation - 8.5/10
Day 9: Late Phases - 7.5/10
Day 10: Dracula (1958) - 8/10
Day 11: Pay The Ghost - 6/10
Day 12: Cube - 8.5/10
Day 13: The Monster Squad - 9/10
Day 14: The Guest - 10/10 | It Follows - 9/10 (Rewatch)
Day 15: Goodnight Mommy - 3/10
​

 

[chamber-music]

The 1999 Mummy film is a fun Indiana Jones style romp. The sequels are bad. The annoying kid ruins the second film and the third movie is just 'meh'. CGi Yeti's and Terracotta Jet Li couldn't save that film.

 

[The Joker]

The remake isn't even really a "remake" per se. It's more like they took bits and pieces from the first four and then built their own story around it. And surprisingly, I didn't hate most of the characters. Well, the one guy yeah, but we're kind of suppose to not like him. The always adorable Danielle Panabaker in particular was quite likeable.

Yeah I agree. I quite liked the remake, too. It took Jason back to basics, and was loaded with the DNA from the first four movies. Jason was a fast moving predator type again, as opposed to that slow lumbering zombie from part 6 on wards.

 

[Loki882]

That's because Jason was just a man in Parts 2-4. He was maybe unusually physically strong, but he was human (which is why Tommy could kill him DEAD at the end of Part 4). From Part 6 onward, he's a literal zombie who's risen from the grave.

I've found that many in the GP are unaware of this distinction. The Jason that's seeped his way into pop culture is "Zombie Jason."

 

[PyroChamber]

Wasn't Cooties suppose to come out in theaters?

 

[Broseph44]

I like both forms of Jason. It's nice to have the two different ones.

 

[Urich Leeds]

I still haven't seen the last one with Jet Li. Any good?

Lacks the spirit and feel of the other two. And Weisz being replaced didn't help at all. The first and second are the only ones worth watching, and watching again. Though, the first more than the second.

I consider the first to be one of the better horror remakes. Not that many hold up that well, or are good to begin with.

 

[C. Lee]

Today I have watched -

10/16/2015*Lady Frankenstein (1971) Joseph Cotton
10/16/2015*Frankenstein's Castle of Freaks (1974) Rossano Brazzi

 

[Kane52630]

Wasn't Cooties suppose to come out in theaters?

I think it had a limited release but it's out on itunes.

 

[Doctor Jones]

If you make a movie today and call it "The Mummy"....then yeah, I would pretty much expect most of it to be taken up with a guy in bandages running around killing people. But the Karloff film was made in 1932 and was I believe the first movie that featured a killer mummy. The times were different, the rules of movie making were different, monster/horror movies were different. I find it hard to complain about it not being like modern movies when it was the first one made and was basically starting the genre.

That is true, it's unfair to compare it to something like modern expectations. I shouldn't fault it for what it is, I just prefer more Mummy. It's not a detriment to the quality of the filmmaking, it's just a personal preference and doesn't gel with me. Though around that time, you had The Wolf Man, a film the title character himself is hardly in it. He might have five minutes of screen time yet I like it a lot more. There was atmosphere and that sense of actual horror and darkness to it that made it feel like more of a monster film. The Mummy not so much. It's just you have a movie called The Wolf Man and The Mummy with their monsters on the posters, you'd think there'd be a bit more of both. I imagine budget came into it for The Wolf Man, but bandages are cheaper than Jack Pierce's Wolf Man makeup.

 

[Thundarr]

That's because Jason was just a man in Parts 2-4. He was maybe unusually physically strong, but he was human (which is why Tommy could kill him DEAD at the end of Part 4). From Part 6 onward, he's a literal zombie who's risen from the grave.

I've found that many in the GP are unaware of this distinction. The Jason that's seeped his way into pop culture is "Zombie Jason."

True. Personally I always preferred "Human Jason" to "Zombie Jason". I think Jason was probably at his best in Parts 3 & 4. But I find Parts 1 & 2 are the most suspenseful.

 

[Matt Mortem]

Just watched The Green Inferno, it was underwhelming, not enough gore.

I felt the same. It was almost boring.

 

[Loki882]

Not enough gore? In an "killer cannibal film," directed by Eli "MOAR GORE MOAR" Roth? WOW, I was NOT expecting to ever hear that, huh.