What Films Have You Seen Recently?

[Rik]

Originally Posted by bizarre_eye@Cult Labs

I can't stand The Running Man for the reason that it completely pisses all over the source material... I guess I'd be more inclined to enjoy it if it didn't try to tie into King's superb story.

It's still a better SK adaption than the Shining

[Frankie Teardrop]

Now that we're on the topic of adaptions -

FROM BEYOND - It just isn't possible to adapt H P Lovecraft for the big screen. You'd have thought people would have got that by now. The essence of his prose is IN the prose – a good deal of its weight is carried by his over-ripe but evocative style. And the rest of it is down to abstraction, the mind rending horror of the unnamable, the infinite et cetera et cetera. Two good arguments there for his work staying on the page and remaining indwelling inside the mind. Still, hopeful filmmakers haven't exactly been put off from trying over the years, and the list of unworthy Lovecraft adaptions is long enough to rival that of the other notoriously hard-done-to-by-film horror pro, Steven King, a writer who lends himself to a much more direct visual realisation than Lovecraft. It's no coincidence that the better Lovecraft translations have been based on his less typical works – 'Reanimator', for example. Many attempts on the cannon have failed. Don't tell me that that Cthulhu adaption was good just because it was in black and white and kind of looked 'thirties'. I don't buy it. Ultimately though, I'm of the opinion that adaptions, interpretations, remakes etc are all in their essence divorced from their ur-texts and should be just taken for what they are in themselves. This position helps me to enjoy even the likes of 'Dagon' (sorry, MTDS!) It also helps with 'From Beyond', which was of course Stewart Gordon's second stab at HPL after the heat of 'Reanimator'. It once again takes on a very lesser example of Lovecraft's work and gives it the souped up eighties horror treatment – lots of filters, heavy on effects, added salaciousness which would've had the old master leaping into an ice bath. 'From Beyond' works, but because of these latter aspects, not the Lovecraftian bits. It works as an efficient eighties B movie, well made and slick, with all the grue and over-the-topness genre fans had come to expect by then. It's the carnival in it that allures, not the prospect of pondering dark eternity. You want J Combs eating brains? You got it. Flesh melting transformations? You can have those, too. B Crampton in bondage gear? Yes, ma'am! On the other hand, do you want to get into something that makes you feel like a tiny, insignificant island of consciousness in a yawning abyss of uncertain and ambiguous dimension? Erm, can we get Barbara back in here, please? I recall that back in the day, or rather back in my uni days, 'From Beyond' had a bit of cachet as a come down tape. None of that 'deep' shit about it – if your head was mashed, you just wanted to see something with messed up monsters in it with a bit of something trippy going on in the background. In fact, with its disco light effects, talk of extending experience into the sensual beyond, warped transformations of self and deep recognition of universal consciousness and love (erm), 'From Beyond' strikes me now as nothing other than a refried Carpenterian 'The Thing' for the ecstasy generation. I'm lying, of course. It's nothing of the kind. It's just a cutely constructed, fast paced monster movie with latex and slime. And maybe Lovecraft wouldn't rent it for his late night Saturday jollies, but plenty would.

[Demoncrat]

Originally Posted by Frankie Teardrop

Now that we're on the topic of adaptions -

FROM BEYOND - It just isn't possible to adapt H P Lovecraft for the big screen. You'd have thought people would have got that by now. The essence of his prose is IN the prose – a good deal of its weight is carried by his over-ripe but evocative style. And the rest of it is down to abstraction, the mind rending horror of the unnamable, the infinite et cetera et cetera. Two good arguments there for his work staying on the page and remaining indwelling inside the mind. Still, hopeful filmmakers haven't exactly been put off from trying over the years, and the list of unworthy Lovecraft adaptions is long enough to rival that of the other notoriously hard-done-to-by-film horror pro, Steven King, a writer who lends himself to a much more direct visual realisation than Lovecraft. It's no coincidence that the better Lovecraft translations have been based on his less typical works – 'Reanimator', for example. Many attempts on the cannon have failed. Don't tell me that that Cthulhu adaption was good just because it was in black and white and kind of looked 'thirties'. I don't buy it. Ultimately though, I'm of the opinion that adaptions, interpretations, remakes etc are all in their essence divorced from their ur-texts and should be just taken for what they are in themselves. This position helps me to enjoy even the likes of 'Dagon' (sorry, MTDS!) It also helps with 'From Beyond', which was of course Stewart Gordon's second stab at HPL after the heat of 'Reanimator'. It once again takes on a very lesser example of Lovecraft's work and gives it the souped up eighties horror treatment – lots of filters, heavy on effects, added salaciousness which would've had the old master leaping into an ice bath. 'From Beyond' works, but because of these latter aspects, not the Lovecraftian bits. It works as an efficient eighties B movie, well made and slick, with all the grue and over-the-topness genre fans had come to expect by then. It's the carnival in it that allures, not the prospect of pondering dark eternity. You want J Combs eating brains? You got it. Flesh melting transformations? You can have those, too. B Crampton in bondage gear? Yes, ma'am! On the other hand, do you want to get into something that makes you feel like a tiny, insignificant island of consciousness in a yawning abyss of uncertain and ambiguous dimension? Erm, can we get Barbara back in here, please? I recall that back in the day, or rather back in my uni days, 'From Beyond' had a bit of cachet as a come down tape. None of that 'deep' shit about it – if your head was mashed, you just wanted to see something with messed up monsters in it with a bit of something trippy going on in the background. In fact, with its disco light effects, talk of extending experience into the sensual beyond, warped transformations of self and deep recognition of universal consciousness and love (erm), 'From Beyond' strikes me now as nothing other than a refried Carpenterian 'The Thing' for the ecstasy generation. I'm lying, of course. It's nothing of the kind. It's just a cutely constructed, fast paced monster movie with latex and slime. And maybe Lovecraft wouldn't rent it for his late night Saturday jollies, but plenty would.

Sterling stuff Mr T.

[Demdike@Cult Labs]

Fantastic review Frankie.

[Handyman Joe]

Originally Posted by Frankie Teardrop

THE FUNHOUSE - Have always had a soft spot for 'The Funhouse', which was, I think, Tobe Hooper's first theatrical release for a major studio? He did it before 'Poltergeist', anyway. I like how 'The Funhouse' just kind of meanders around for a bit without doing very much at all. We get standard issue set up – four teens, off to a carnival. A carnival with a bad rep - “not that one where those kids turned up dead two years ago, like?” Don't go there dudes! Especially, don't have this harebrained idea about sneakily spending the night there when all the sensible people have gone home! Surely this is all grist to some slasher's awful mill? Surely only that slightly virginal girl will survive? Yep, but 'The Funhouse' is a bit different. Back to that meandering. The kids wander around the carnival, taking in the two headed cows, the knackered foetuses in jars, the sinister barkers who all look descended from the same bad gene. They argue, smoke doobies, get freaked out by the odd mannequin. I can imagine some fans twiddling their thumbs for the first forty odd minutes. I didn't, though. I was hypnotised by the rancid atmosphere of the carnival, the garish colours, the messed up dummies which all seemed to have a life of their own. Yeah, 'hypnotised' is probably the word. Because even though the build up's very slow, it's never distracting, never a drag, more like a drift downriver in a boat on a summer's day, where you're lulled into a state of blissed out calm which however does become increasingly ominous because it's uhm, actually a slasher movie after all. By the time we get round to the twisted father / deformed son duo and a bit of killing, it all seems a bit secondary to the overwhelming presence of the fairground itself, which is surely the lead character in all of this. To go at it again – I love all those freaky dummies! I think Tobe must've at least checked out 'Tourist Trap'. No supernatural schtick implied in this one, but they're all very characterful. I especially dug that killer Kong head with the mouth which opened up onto a green lit scene of people running in terror. With all the coloured gel lighting on show, I'm guessing Bava / Argento must've been in the mix as well, somewhere (this possible influence goes back to 'Death Trap' as well, though). Anyway, 'The Funhouse' – I really like it, many others do not, but for me it has that early eighties horror magic and, yeah, lots of weird dummies.

Seconded Frankie - this and The Burning are the two early 80s slashers that stand the test of time for me - probably because the monster reveals take me back to those halcyon Fangoria days - also quality gratuitous nudity, humour and actual tension. Watched The Prowler AKA Rosemary's Killer yesterday and it felt flat, no atmosphere, no scares, just some decent Savini and a hero who looked like a photo on a barbershop wall. Also loses points for casting Lawrence Tierney and not even giving him a damn line! As for that final 'shock' scene - utter gash.

[Nosferatu@Cult Labs]

Excellent review, Frankie. Shamefully, I've only watched my From Beyond BD once, so that will be remedied over the weekend.

[keirarts]

Originally Posted by Frankie Teardrop

Now that we're on the topic of adaptions -

FROM BEYOND - It just isn't possible to adapt H P Lovecraft for the big screen. You'd have thought people would have got that by now. The essence of his prose is IN the prose – a good deal of its weight is carried by his over-ripe but evocative style. And the rest of it is down to abstraction, the mind rending horror of the unnamable, the infinite et cetera et cetera. Two good arguments there for his work staying on the page and remaining indwelling inside the mind. Still, hopeful filmmakers haven't exactly been put off from trying over the years, and the list of unworthy Lovecraft adaptions is long enough to rival that of the other notoriously hard-done-to-by-film horror pro, Steven King, a writer who lends himself to a much more direct visual realisation than Lovecraft. It's no coincidence that the better Lovecraft translations have been based on his less typical works – 'Reanimator', for example. Many attempts on the cannon have failed. Don't tell me that that Cthulhu adaption was good just because it was in black and white and kind of looked 'thirties'. I don't buy it. Ultimately though, I'm of the opinion that adaptions, interpretations, remakes etc are all in their essence divorced from their ur-texts and should be just taken for what they are in themselves. This position helps me to enjoy even the likes of 'Dagon' (sorry, MTDS!) It also helps with 'From Beyond', which was of course Stewart Gordon's second stab at HPL after the heat of 'Reanimator'. It once again takes on a very lesser example of Lovecraft's work and gives it the souped up eighties horror treatment – lots of filters, heavy on effects, added salaciousness which would've had the old master leaping into an ice bath. 'From Beyond' works, but because of these latter aspects, not the Lovecraftian bits. It works as an efficient eighties B movie, well made and slick, with all the grue and over-the-topness genre fans had come to expect by then. It's the carnival in it that allures, not the prospect of pondering dark eternity. You want J Combs eating brains? You got it. Flesh melting transformations? You can have those, too. B Crampton in bondage gear? Yes, ma'am! On the other hand, do you want to get into something that makes you feel like a tiny, insignificant island of consciousness in a yawning abyss of uncertain and ambiguous dimension? Erm, can we get Barbara back in here, please? I recall that back in the day, or rather back in my uni days, 'From Beyond' had a bit of cachet as a come down tape. None of that 'deep' shit about it – if your head was mashed, you just wanted to see something with messed up monsters in it with a bit of something trippy going on in the background. In fact, with its disco light effects, talk of extending experience into the sensual beyond, warped transformations of self and deep recognition of universal consciousness and love (erm), 'From Beyond' strikes me now as nothing other than a refried Carpenterian 'The Thing' for the ecstasy generation. I'm lying, of course. It's nothing of the kind. It's just a cutely constructed, fast paced monster movie with latex and slime. And maybe Lovecraft wouldn't rent it for his late night Saturday jollies, but plenty would.

Well said! Lovecraft is nigh on unadaptable on the screen. I really Enjoy Gordons cracks at the stuff because he focuses on making a good film first rather than slavishly following the text.

I also thing the HPL historical stuff is worth watching, both WHISPERER IN THE DARKNESS which plays like a classic era RKO picture and the silent CALL OF CTHULU are both worth watching.

[Frankie Teardrop]

Originally Posted by keirarts

Well said! Lovecraft is nigh on unadaptable on the screen. I really Enjoy Gordons cracks at the stuff because he focuses on making a good film first rather than slavishly following the text.

I also thing the HPL historical stuff is worth watching, both WHISPERER IN THE DARKNESS which plays like a classic era RKO picture and the silent CALL OF CTHULU are both worth watching.

Yeah, I'm probably being a bit harsh (and contradicting my own argument) when I diss 'Whisperer...' and 'Call...' SIMPLY by dint of them being more faithful attempts at 'authentic' Lovecraftiana... on lots of other levels, they're interesting, worthwhile and 'good' films, as you point out.
One weird thing I was thinking though - Sam Beckett has done loads of stage based AND film stuff, and he's at least as (anti-)metaphysical as Lovecraft. I know he's not a horror writer, but in one way it does make you wonder whether it's the restrictions of the medium or the confines of the genre which make Lovecraft adaptions so difficult to imagine. Ultimately though Lovecraft is defined by his literary style, which has no obvious cinematic equivalent.

[trebor8273]

ImageUploadedByTapatalk1438371423.609041.jpg

Silly but very enjoyable fantasy film with Ferrigno in the title role takes some liberties with the source material but found it a lot better than Hercules in New York and even Conan . 7.5/10


ImageUploadedByTapatalk1438371747.842297.jpg

Excellent, fantastic performances from a great cast in well made gothic thriller which is also very well directed with great period feel and uplifting twist ending. 9/10

Know watching this with I've not seen for years and later this weekend will watch the other two punisher movies which I've never seen.
ImageUploadedByTapatalk1438372124.366549.jpg

And will probably end the night with this, has anyone seen it?

ImageUploadedByTapatalk1438372162.868823.jpg

[J Harker]

Originally Posted by Frankie Teardrop

Yeah, I'm probably being a bit harsh (and contradicting my own argument) when I diss 'Whisperer...' and 'Call...' SIMPLY by dint of them being more faithful attempts at 'authentic' Lovecraftiana... on lots of other levels, they're interesting, worthwhile and 'good' films, as you point out.
One weird thing I was thinking though - Sam Beckett has done loads of stage based AND film stuff, and he's at least as (anti-)metaphysical as Lovecraft. I know he's not a horror writer, but in one way it does make you wonder whether it's the restrictions of the medium or the confines of the genre which make Lovecraft adaptions so difficult to imagine. Ultimately though Lovecraft is defined by his literary style, which has no obvious cinematic equivalent.

I think Guillermo Del Toro has some valid points when it comes to adapting Lovecraft. To put what Lovecraft is rambling on about on screen would cost more than any studio would be willing to throw at such un-Hollywood stories. No romance, very few happy endings...
To adapt his stories, more often than not requires removing what makes them Lovecraft.