Horror movies discussion - Guts And Gory: Rented Argento's PHENOMENA - Horror movies discussion - Guts And Gory

Jump to content

  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Rented Argento's PHENOMENA Starring a young Jennifer Connelly!

#21 User is offline   Atrium Pool 

  • Cenobite
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 218
  • Joined: 20-January 12

Posted 28 January 2012 - 11:33 AM

I have the Uncut version and I don't remember that much nudity being in it. Skin sure. But not much boob or ass until maybe the end.

I completely disagree with your first point. Argento is one of the greatest cinematic artists I've ever seen. Silly? SILLY? I don't think so. And again, you know I can be pretty hard to impress. Prince of Darkness was silly. And contextless. The Beyond was practically a laugh riot. Argento's films? Maybe a couple characters in a given movie, especially in Tenebre. But never the imagery, the atmosphere, music, cinematography, camerawork, etc. This guy was THE master from 1975 to 1987, in terms of art-horror films. Nobody could touch him. And still, much of that potency and beauty and darkness and careful attention to detail is still present in Trauma and The Stendhal Syndrome.
0

#22 User is offline   Jack Frost 

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • View blog
  • Group: Veteran
  • Posts: 1,332
  • Joined: 29-March 11
  • LocationPirate Land

Posted 28 January 2012 - 06:47 PM

You do realize that I am talking about his recent year movies as being silly? :blink:

I agree there with you, up till late '80 he was terrific, but '90 were so-so, and 2000+ rarely had anything appealing for my taste. I mean, some of them were JUST ok, but they are simple shadow of what Argento was back in a day. That pisses me of actually, much like with Wes Craven. Both of them are very talented and there's no doubt they can make a great movie, but they fail time after time. Wes Craven? Cursed? Seriously? What was that all about?

however, I liked Jennifer from MoH, but I wouldn't count that as a movie (much like JC;s "Cigarette Burns" which was great). I didn't watch Pelts yet for some reason. (I rarely watched MoH S2)

Ps. The Beyond was made to be funny (but not obvious humor), but with strong amount of gore. Anyone that knows thing or two about Fulci realizes that he had strong sense of humor (sarcasm actually). It's not coincidence he made Cat in the Brain, a movie where he plays himself and appears to be worst critic to himself (he calls his movies sick, twisted, perverted and so on... )
You know you are a true horror fan when someone sees your DVD collection and accuse you of being a Satanist. :wub:
0

#23 User is offline   Atrium Pool 

  • Cenobite
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 218
  • Joined: 20-January 12

Posted 29 January 2012 - 05:26 AM

View PostJack Frost, on 28 January 2012 - 06:47 PM, said:

You do realize that I am talking about his recent year movies as being silly? :blink:

I agree there with you, up till late '80 he was terrific, but '90 were so-so, and 2000+ rarely had anything appealing for my taste. I mean, some of them were JUST ok, but they are simple shadow of what Argento was back in a day. That pisses me of actually, much like with Wes Craven. Both of them are very talented and there's no doubt they can make a great movie, but they fail time after time. Wes Craven? Cursed? Seriously? What was that all about?

however, I liked Jennifer from MoH, but I wouldn't count that as a movie (much like JC;s "Cigarette Burns" which was great). I didn't watch Pelts yet for some reason. (I rarely watched MoH S2)

Well, Stendhal Syndrome was most definitely not silly. Wait a second, I think I see it now (though if you ask a gay guy, the "so you wanna screw?" scene was a brilliant gender role reversal scenario). I was mostly surprised that it never lingered on the rape aspect. You've GOT to love Argento for that- he never used to go for the cheap shock (until Phantom, again). His horror was internal. The atmosphere and the insanity in the film were stifling. In fact, it's a hard movie to breathe through if you're lucky enough to get caught up in it. Especially the last 20 or so minutes when it almost goes Repulsion on us.

Oh, and you do realize that every time I invoke the 1998 Phantom reference, I'm saying Argento lost it by that time. I would never argue that his later movies were anywhere near his earlier ones. As for Jenifer, it looked great and had some interesting humor. But it never won me over in full. Pelts was just embarrassing. Bad gore. Bad acting. Bad storytelling. Little to no visual flair. And you'd be hard-pressed, even if you had seen it, to remember anything about the music score.



View PostJack Frost, on 28 January 2012 - 06:47 PM, said:

Ps. The Beyond was made to be funny (but not obvious humor), but with strong amount of gore. Anyone that knows thing or two about Fulci realizes that he had strong sense of humor (sarcasm actually). It's not coincidence he made Cat in the Brain, a movie where he plays himself and appears to be worst critic to himself (he calls his movies sick, twisted, perverted and so on... )

Well, I like to think I've studied his noteworthy films close enough (Cat in the Brain is only of interest to apologists). And I'm not a fan. I would say Fulci was a skilled filmmaker but not an intelligent or intuitive one. He certainly could never aspire to even TOUCH Argento, even on his best day. Though, on Fulci's best day he could surpass Argento's worst. That has to be some kind of victory, right?

I refuse to get swept up in the hype. Again, as I mentioned in the proper thread, because Fulci LIVED to fuck up his own movies. Every last one of them. Zombie, even though it's probably his best and easily my favorite, might even be the most depressing example. Because it was working for so long and then he just had to crash that jeep. For NO reason other than it was time to add another body to the count. Good filmmaking doesn't work that way. Cheap exploitation works that way. Bang-for-your-buck works that way. Art doesn't work that way. If Fulci wanted to be treated like an artist, which he was only by people who didn't get-it, he would have understood that you have to have a sound logical reason to do something as stupid as that. Or at least a better visual than "don't hit that zombie in the road." Um... WHY NOT?! It's not nice? I cannot stand when a director does something like this. If he thought it was ironic, he was an imbecile.

Anyway, the crashing jeep RUINED the movie. After that, the movie was literally a disaster. Failed imagery (more often than not), bad dialogue, cheesiness, campiness, "kill everyone at once" syndrome, moldy end-of-the-world cliches. In fact, the last 35 minutes of Zombie might even be the director's biggest trainwreck. (Okay- 2nd to Don't Torture a Duckling, that one was worse.) There wasn't a single thing within them to redeem it, which can't be said for somewhat inferior films City of the Living Dead, House by the Cemetery, and yes, The Beyond. And Manhattan Baby at least had the courtesy to be fascinating in its' bad choices. It only felt long. As for The Beyond being funny... it sure as heck didn't add anything to the movie. Troll 2 was more clever and as the world now knows, the humor in that film wasn't intentional.

Of course... it's also completely possible that someone in the editing room could add substance and intelligence through carefully selected Italian subtitles. If they're absolutely nothing in the least like the words put in the actor's mouths through the English dubs. But, I fear the only hope these movies really have of becoming truly funny or mindfully sarcastic is by laying MST3K type commentary over the rest of the audio (any language).
0

#24 User is offline   Jack Frost 

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • View blog
  • Group: Veteran
  • Posts: 1,332
  • Joined: 29-March 11
  • LocationPirate Land

Posted 29 January 2012 - 08:03 PM

Oh man, it seems that you convinced me to see Stendhal Syndrome one more time. :lol2: I saw it few years ago along with few other Argento movies (including Trauma) so those two maybe seemed even worse then they are... I don't have a lot of free time daily, so I can't watch one movie 15 times. :wacko:

Oh, and seems that I have mistaken "Stendhal Syndrome" for "Sleepless" (my bad. Going now through DVDs I realized that). I saw those two at the same time along with "Card Player" and "Cat-o-nine-tails" (it was all in one week). He might make crappier movies in recent years, but some of them are still better then lot of movies put out daily by ScyFy channel and others. :rofl:

on Fulci. Agree there on first part. On overall work, Argento is much much better director and had more quality movies then Fulci. Between two of them, I would pick Argento any day... even between Argento and Bava, the choice is obvious for me. I think even Fulci was aware that Argento was better, since he publicly said few "rude" comments about him. (Those weren't serious rude comments, since they were good friends, but he said few times he is jealous and hates Argento for his success)

as for the Zombie... Dunno, I don't mind when things get that crazy in a movie. I watch horror movies for fun, not for brain surgery (it would explain why I can watch generic slasher flicks. Random scenes like that can be amusing if you watch them in a specific mindset. Those awkward moments can be found in almost all Fulci movies. Remember that death scene in Beyond when guy gets scared by blind woman and get himself killed for no obvious reason? :rofl: C'mon dude, she wasn't that scary!

I generally have lower critic dropline when watching horror movies, since in general, horror movies tend to suck more often then other movies. I don't say they are worse then other genres in general, but they are usually lot cheaper and badly acted, and on one good horror movie you'll find ten crappy ones.
Eg. you can hardly ever do good drama movie if you don't have good actors, high budget, expensive score and good production, while in horror, you can have low budget, crappy actors and most idiotic plot, but it can still be fun to watch... Bad actors can be fun just because they are bad actors in horror (speaking of Jeffrey Combs here), while bad acting in drama is just annoying.


Ps. Don't touch Troll 2! it's best of the worst out there. It's pure gold of Z cinema.
You know you are a true horror fan when someone sees your DVD collection and accuse you of being a Satanist. :wub:
0

#25 User is offline   Atrium Pool 

  • Cenobite
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 218
  • Joined: 20-January 12

Posted 04 February 2012 - 10:33 PM

Aw, well. Now you understand me perfectly. The difference between us is that you believe horror is worse than other genres even though you like it. I view it as an artfrom and therefore, well, superior to all other genres.

AS a genre, that is. No other genre is anything like it. I think even the best thrillers are laughable. The best comedies are often sad. The best romances are hard to take seriously. Every other genre at its' best twists. Because no other genre can be pure. But the best horror films are always exactly what they intend to be. The only catch is that, thanks to modern horror, people scoff at certain movies because they're "dated." Which in a way is funny because nearly any other genre became dated first. Horror took the longest to date because of things like reputation. And obscurity.

As for things getting crazy in a movie... I hate to say it but I'm starting to think it's true: I have a very wide range of judging and processing things that are crazy. There are several different levels of crazy for me. Troll 2 is good crazy. Shocker is bad crazy.
0

#26 User is offline   Jack Frost 

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • View blog
  • Group: Veteran
  • Posts: 1,332
  • Joined: 29-March 11
  • LocationPirate Land

Posted 05 February 2012 - 01:13 AM

View PostAtrium Pool, on 04 February 2012 - 10:33 PM, said:

The difference between us is that you believe horror is worse than other genres even though you like it. I view it as an artfrom and therefore, well, superior to all other genres.


hmm, not exactly. I don't believe horror is worse then other genres, but since horror movies are usually cheap, there's just plenty of bad movies made, which gives horror a bad name (in general). You know, ask about horror some people who don't watch horror movies often and you'll get same response: "Oh I don't like them, they are all the same... they drive to middle of nowhere and their car breaks... "

my personal opinion on horror is that it can be more dramatic then actual drama movie (hmm, Bride of Frankenstein, eg, especially book) or more comedic then comedy (compare Bad Taste to any Adam Sandler movie :lol2: I laughed my ass off watching Bad Taste for the first time as kid) ... and of course, pure horror are just pure horror... or they can have "hidden" political\social message (Night of the Living Dead, I am Legend eg) ... and that's my main problem with majority of the modern horrors - they just tend to shock you with insane amount of gore or some nasty scenes of torture, with exceptions of course. There was a ok number of good modern horrors I liked, but it's still minority compared to number of movies I like from "old school era". ('50-'80) .

as for artform, gotta agree there with you. F.W. Murnau was nuts for example. What he did in '20, other could just dream off at that time. You watch his Faust and think "This guy was... nuts".


Ps. Troll 2 - not every movie has goblin vegetarians who hunt human to turn them into wood for food, even if they are surrounded by forest, but they are starving anyway. And don't forget about friendly grandpa ghost that has molotovs. (he could easily have AK-47, but we would never know)
You know you are a true horror fan when someone sees your DVD collection and accuse you of being a Satanist. :wub:
0

Share this topic:


  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users