What Films Have You Seen Recently?

[SilverGunnar Hansen]

Originally Posted by Delirium

Compliance

Not a horror film, but a damn disturbing one. Based on true events, Compliance examines the blind lengths some people will go to when confronted with authority - in this case a true life incident in which a young, female employee of a fast food chain is detained and subjected to abuse after a crank caller, pretending to be a cop, phones the store manager and claims the girl is under investigation for theft.

It left me incredulous, but even more so when a google revealed the film's more unbelievable moments to be true. You'd think alarm bells would be ringing with these people way before it goes to the places it goes, but no. Utterly jaw dropping and infuriating in equal measure, but a fascinating watch all the same.

Probably my favourite film last year, truly disturbing and provocative - more so than Maniac for me in alot of ways. The Youtube video with the real interviews (which are just like the one at the end) is horribly compelling, even if the journalists are just horrible themselves.

Up there with The Woman and Snowtown among my favourite ****ed-up films of the last few years, rewards repeat viewing too.

Compliance (2012) Movie Review from Eye for Film

[SilverGunnar Hansen]

Originally Posted by Linbro

Bit of a mixed bag this week, quality wise.
Started with 'Maniac Cop'. Really didn't like this at all, had forgotten all about it five minutes after finishing. In a word - dull.

'Return of the Living Dead'. One of my favourites, when I was a teen and it was first released. Must have watched it 10 times! My taste has obviously changed, and I couldn't even finish it. Horror-comedy is just not my thing anymore.

'From Beyond'. Another of my old favourites, and I enjoyed this a lot more than ROTLD. Still found it a bit dissapointing though. For me, nostalgia value only.

'City of the Living Dead'. This is more like it! My first time, and I've now seen the Gates of Hell trilogy. I was super impressed by this. I've only seen four Fulci films, and they have all surprised me - in a positive way. I did think 'The Beyond' and 'House by...' were better, but this was still great. So many WTF moments!
What I don't understand is this - almost everything I've read about these films always mentions the 'lack of plot', or how 'incoherent' they are, how they only work when you apply 'dream logic'. To me, the plots are coherent, and easy enough to follow. Is it because not everything is spelt out? What do you guys make of the plots?

I still love From Beyond, it's almost as incoherent as Fulci in a way - I love Fulci flicks but usually on a first watch people just have to let the wonky logic wash over them, then it usually clicks more on subsequent watches. I don't think it's a problem since they're supernatural stories anyway, but I can see how it might turn some people off. But yeah, I think when you say they're coherent - they are in context of how anything can and should be able to happen when you have teleporting zombie priests gouging out brains.

The bits that make them seem most incoherent usually involve secondary characters who're dispatched pretty randomly - Giancarlo in City, the blind girl in The Beyond. The New York Ripper is another good example of Fulci seeming incoherent but actually deliberately misleading audiences - in retrospect and on repeat viewing it all makes some kind of sense. Still quite silly though!

[PaulD]

Dracula 3D - As has already been stated it's an absolutely terrible film. Cheap-looking, dire performances, plodding plot and with oddly bright cinematography (presumably an attempt to counter-balance the light loss of the 3D). Without a doubt the worst thing Argento has done.

The Bay - A surprisingly good found footage film. Who'd have thought it? Various inhabitants of the titular bay become hosts for a mutant parasite and the result is seen through various video sources like investigative reports, cameraphone footage etc. It works surprisingly well and I was pleasantly surprised by it. I suppose the issue with found footage films is that they're so accessible for people to make and so the bad inevitably outweigh the good but having an experienced director like Barry Levinson behind it really makes it stand out and the found footage delivery genuinely seems like the best way of doing the film, rather than a cost-cutting exercise.

[gag]

Nighthawks,
Got some good actors its entertaining well made good action it's got all the right ingrediance to make this a highly enjoyable recommended watch,
This is just one Film out off a line of many that proves they just don't quite make films as good as they use to and proves that old films are simply the best,

[Delirium]

Originally Posted by SilverGunnar Hansen

I watched it for a second time (having seen it at Frightfest), and it still left me really conflicted. It's brilliantly made, but the acting and dialogue are pretty iffy, and some of the situations are just dumb. I wish it could have been more psychologically convincing rather than succumbing to the usual slasher cliches. It leaves me cold but it's still a pretty powerful, provocative experience that I'd recommend - my (female) friend that I was with felt pretty much the same, although I was worried at points that she wasn't 'appreciating' the violence. Still can't believe House By The Edge Of The Park is cut and this wasn't . . .

I see it slightly differently. It's a remake of a 80's slasher film, so cliché is going to be somewhat inherent; but instead of making a bland, by numbers slasher, Khalfoun injected it with 80's chic and made for an absolutely intense, visceral viewing experience - a successful modern day exploitation film, rather than just a by numbers horror film. And I felt it handled the reasoning behind the killer's psychosis well - again, baring in mind it's an exploitation film not an in-depth character study. When I described the aesthetic to a friend the other day, I said it oddly reminded me of a grubbier, serial killer version of Nicolas Winding Refn's Drive regards what Khalfoun has done with it, which is high praise indeed, but deserved IMO. As for the acting, I saw no flaws there either. In fact I thought the cast were very good - human, charismatic - not the usual wafer thin fodder that peppers slasher films. It made the kills more extreme. Even the victims we don't get to know have a certain naturalism to them.

I attended a few films at the Frightfest (I pick and choose these days, rather than watch all the dreck), and skipped Maniac as I didn't expect much from it. I'm actually glad I did, as I despise the way the FF audience feel the need to cheer and applaud at kill scenes - it's inappropriate for a film like this (something like Hatchet, or Wrong Turn I get). Maniac is a harder film that needs to be seen in a quieter, more contemplative environment.

I agree about certain classics still being on the banned/cut list, and was surprised and impressed at the intensity of the violence. But although it's at the harder end of onscreen violence, it's actually not all that graphic - a few, clever CGI scalp removals and other bits (that ending!) aside. But again, it's the unflinching intensity to the scenes that works so.

That was a longer response than I intended it to be, but this film really resonated with me. And I'm usually quite cynical and hard to please when it comes to modern horror - usually looking to the French or British these days to inject the genre with some much needed lifeblood. So it's no surprise it took some French talent to not only successfully reboot an old American exploitation flick I have a soft spot for, but turn it into among one of the best horror films I've personally seen in years.

[Delirium]

Originally Posted by SilverGunnar Hansen

Probably my favourite film last year, truly disturbing and provocative - more so than Maniac for me in alot of ways. The Youtube video with the real interviews (which are just like the one at the end) is horribly compelling, even if the journalists are just horrible themselves.

Thanks for the youtube tip, didn't know the interviews were on there so will check them out. Don't think I could rewatch it though. Too fidgety. My girlfriend was practically screaming at the TV (a good sign that it was working).

[Paul@TheOverlook]

Had the TV to myself quite a bit recently, so took the chance to look at some stuff the wife wouldn't care for.

Saw SLAUGHTER HOUSE FIVE for the first time, really liked it. Caught BAFFLED! again for the first time since seeing it on telly as a kid. It's a seventies TV pilot starring Leonard Nimoy and Susan Hamshire - not a bad film but not great either.

Also watched SIGHTSEERS which I loved and finally watched ESCAPE FROM ALCATRAZ for the first time and loved that too.

[Frankie Teardrop]

MANIAC - The remake, which I saw last night at 'The Vue' in Leeds city centre of all places. I quite enjoyed it, although it didn't seem as harsh as I was anticipating it to be. This is because I'd allowed my expectations to build to an unrealistic degree, so a re-watch in a more neutral frame of mind is due at some point. There are plenty of points in its favour - a bleak atmosphere, well captured sense of urban grime, violence pretty full-on for a multiplexer, good synth score, nicely handled POV structure and well acted. The cardboard psychology was a let down, and I think this is where the remake disappointed, because, and this is where I let my expectations get the better of me, I couldn't shake Joe Spinell's utterly intense potrayal of psychotic desperation from my mind - this was the driving force behind the orginal, and I have to say that the latter day version lacks any such power. However, I always think that remakes should be taken on their own terms ultimately, and in this respect, 'Maniac' is a successful attempt to make a serious, uncompromising mainstream horror film.

[Delirium]

Originally Posted by Frankie Teardrop

MANIAC - The remake, which I saw last night at 'The Vue' in Leeds city centre of all places. I quite enjoyed it, although it didn't seem as harsh as I was anticipating it to be. This is because I'd allowed my expectations to build to an unrealistic degree, so a re-watch in a more neutral frame of mind is due at some point. There are plenty of points in its favour - a bleak atmosphere, well captured sense of urban grime, violence pretty full-on for a multiplexer, good synth score, nicely handled POV structure and well acted. The cardboard psychology was a let down, and I think this is where the remake disappointed, because, and this is where I let my expectations get the better of me, I couldn't shake Joe Spinell's utterly intense potrayal of psychotic desperation from my mind - this was the driving force behind the orginal, and I have to say that the latter day version lacks any such power. However, I always think that remakes should be taken on their own terms ultimately, and in this respect, 'Maniac' is a successful attempt to make a serious, uncompromising mainstream horror film.

I think the one thing I failed to mention, most importantly, was the difference between Spinell and Wood. While I thought Wood was terrific, no one could capture the delirium and madness of Spinell's performance. And he just has the look, doesn't he? Wood is a nice looking guy, but he has that mad elvish, slightly odd look that they worked wonders with, so I didn't have a problem buying him as a nutbag.

I think I was drawn into its aesthetic, and generally bought into it a lot more though.

[Justin101]

I watched Corman's Pit and the Pendulum last night, it was a giddy psychedelic colourful mess, but highly enjoyable - nobody makes movies like Corman did!