highly underrated, a lot better than it's false reputation
-
lukejbarnett — 4 years ago(November 01, 2021 08:14 AM)
fun film exactly. so then what makes it come up short of being a masterpiece bc i think it's a masterpiece, not on the level of halloween or halloween 2 but a masterpiece.
it's such an epic, grand, and great film.
also it's highly unique and very memorable.
so did you ever watch wolf creek? and experience the depravity and going too farness of that film that is too realistic?
or the poughkeepsie tapes? which also goes too far in realism it being a snuff film basically and grotesque violence?
lukejbarnett -
cryptoflovecraft — 4 years ago(November 01, 2021 11:29 PM)
it's such an epic, grand, and great film.
I like it but I think it's flawed in some ways (plot holes) and very dated looking. I was never convinced by Cochran's screwy explanation as to why he wanted to kill millions of people on Halloween.
so did you ever watch wolf creek? and experience the depravity and going too farness of that film that is too realistic?
Yes, I've seen it. I agree that the graphic torture scenes go too far; otherwise, it's a well-made thriller with a memorable villain. It would have been just as effective without the graphic scenes.
or the poughkeepsie tapes?
I've never seen that one. -
lukejbarnett — 4 years ago(November 02, 2021 02:21 AM)
what do you mean by very dated looking? it was made in 1983 so of course it's going to look old compared to nowadays movies but what problem do you have with this?
holy **** let me tell you about the poughkeepsie tapes well you can watch it on this website for free just type the name of it and it will bring up videos of it.
i found out about it on here a few days ago, it came up on the recent discussions section and it sounded like a forbidden movie you know like a movie where you shouldn't be watching it. first of all it's basically a real snuff film, so not a movie tying to be snuff film but a real snuff film.
where it looks very grainy where you can barely make out the people so it looks too real to be an appropriate movie which is why i say it's forbidden and too real. you know like i said before about wolf creek there is a point in a horror movie if it goes too far or is wrong where you think why am i putting myself through this pain and torture of watching this horrible movie. where it only hurts you and doesn't uplift you or give you any pleasure.
so, it's just this basic plot of police finding a house of a serial killer's vhs tapes. then they watch all these victims as they get tortured and killed in the most harrowing and disturbing ways. he even make one of the girls kill for him. i guess the part where she loses her will is so tragically sad and horribly disturbing to watch. also the part where the killer crawls like a spider on the ground in the background while the victim is tied up is very disturbing.
more than one reviewer online said that this movie stays with you, like it lingers in your memory for a week after you watch it. it haunts you. the review that said there should be warning for this movie bc it stays with you gives you fear quite a while after you watch it. after reading this it made me decide to not watch it bc it's not worth putting trauma in you.
what makes this movie wrong is it is shot in a very grainy, low fi way i'm talking it looks like an experimental, art film. and there is very odd masks he wears, that are very horrific and disturbing looking and he talks in a child like, innocent way which creeps you out bc it's the opposite of him killing people.
and making a movie that is stripped down and basic in the killing parts and is made to look like a real killing ala dateline or 48 hours videos, ted bundy evidence videos for example is inherently wrong bc it's too real and there are real people who torture and kill innocent people everyday in america.
and to film it in this real documentary way is too close to the real thing. movies should have a separation of reality otherwise it's too close to a real killing and it's too disturbing.
that's what i got from wolf creek. if you remember i complained and had real problem with it's too realistic depictions of violence. and it looks like you share my view on wolf creek's too realistic violence.
oh yeah i remember you have a problem with torture porn, you don't think it's valid film subgenre.
there is something insidious and evil and disquieting about wolf creek. it's like they are basking in their film's violence and inhumanity and enjoying the depravity of it making it's viewers who watch it less of a person you know what i mean?
the way they showed the poor girl crying and screaming in the most realistic and squirm causing cringe causing way was heartbreaking and too cruel and too real. then the way he cut off the other girl's spine so she was paralyzed was also too graphic and too sadistic.
the other part that was too sadistic and too depressing and too cruel was how the killer kills the girl by shooting her dead like she's just a piece of meat, an animal bc he's a soulless, heartless killer. that was so horrible and so depressing and then the movie is over.
wow, thanks movie for giving me the most dreadful, bleak and life is pointless ending in movie history. i thought horror movies are supposed to give you at least some kind of relief in the end? some kind of positive scene? so this movie broke a movie rule bc no, no one survived and the killer survives and then goes on to kill and torture more people. it's just so wrong in a movie rule way.
these things would have been fine or at least less horrible and wrong if it was a funny slasher movie where there was humor and so we don't take it seriously but the movie had a dead serious tone that makes all the violence not enjoyable at all and instead painful.
and it used the knife joke from crocodile dundee 2 times in 2 different scenes which is a mistake you can't use the same joke 2 times in a movie.
also the killer was so despicable and hatable and horrible bc what he does and who he is as a person hunter and torturer and killer that it's a going to take awhile for me to not be disturbed everytime a guy with an australian accent talks.
how do you think the graphic torture scenes go too far? what is too far?
lukejbarnett -
cryptoflovecraft — 4 years ago(November 02, 2021 02:51 AM)
what do you mean by very dated looking? it was made in 1983 so of course it's going to look old compared to nowadays movies but what problem do you have with this?
Some films fare better than others in that department.
For instance, the original Halloween doesn't scream "1978!!" when I watch it. The film may be "old" but it's not dated looking and it's a timeless masterpiece. It has managed to stand the test of time well. By comparison, Halloween III does scream "1982!!" (the hairstyles, clothes, music, etc) when I watch it; it looks extremely dated, somewhat cheesy and stuck in the era that it came out of. I first saw the film when it was in the theaters. At the time, I thought it looked modern and even ahead of its time. Time hasn't been kind to it but that doesn't mean it's not an entertaining film. -
lukejbarnett — 4 years ago(November 02, 2021 02:59 AM)
and what is interesting about that is the original halloween is considered an independent film made on a shoe string budget. it has to be one of the highest grossing independent low budget, basically b movies ever made. i'm talking even lower budgeted than friday the 13th.
i heard that night of the comet from 1984 is also so '80s. from the music, to the clothing, hairstyles and everything. it screams 1980s. but i don't know if this is a bad thing in its case like how you think halloween part 3 is.
lukejbarnett -
cryptoflovecraft — 4 years ago(November 14, 2021 09:03 PM)
there is something insidious and evil and disquieting about wolf creek. it's like they are basking in their film's violence and inhumanity and enjoying the depravity of it making it's viewers who watch it less of a person you know what i mean?
the way they showed the poor girl crying and screaming in the most realistic and squirm causing cringe causing way was heartbreaking and too cruel and too real. then the way he cut off the other girl's spine so she was paralyzed was also too graphic and too sadistic.
the other part that was too sadistic and too depressing and too cruel was how the killer kills the girl by shooting her dead like she's just a piece of meat, an animal bc he's a soulless, heartless killer. that was so horrible and so depressing and then the movie is over.
wow, thanks movie for giving me the most dreadful, bleak and life is pointless ending in movie history. i thought horror movies are supposed to give you at least some kind of relief in the end? some kind of positive scene? so this movie broke a movie rule bc no, no one survived and the killer survives and then goes on to kill and torture more people. it's just so wrong in a movie rule way.
these things would have been fine or at least less horrible and wrong if it was a funny slasher movie where there was humor and so we don't take it seriously but the movie had a dead serious tone that makes all the violence not enjoyable at all and instead painful.
and it used the knife joke from crocodile dundee 2 times in 2 different scenes which is a mistake you can't use the same joke 2 times in a movie.
also the killer was so despicable and hatable and horrible bc what he does and who he is as a person hunter and torturer and killer that it's a going to take awhile for me to not be disturbed everytime a guy with an australian accent talks.
how do you think the graphic torture scenes go too far? what is too far?
The two girls are killed but doesn't the young guy survive? It's been years since I watched Wolf Creek but I thought the guy stumbled out at the end. If so, at least one of them survived. I thought crippling the young woman was amazingly sadistic. We're never really told the killer's motive or why he did the things he did. It's obvious that he was psychotic and cruel but we're never really told anything about his background. He obviously didn't like outsiders - he's sort of an Australian outback version of the psychotic mountain men in Deliverance but he was oddly charming. I couldn't help but like him while still hoping for the girls to get away safely.
Yeah, the torture scenes went too far because they showed too much. The film would've been just as effective without the graphic scenes.
Aside from the scenes of torture, it was a well-made thriller with a great villain. I watched the sequel not too long ago and it was more of the same though probably not quite as effective as the first film. -
lukejbarnett — 4 years ago(November 17, 2021 01:59 AM)
yeah kind of like jeepers creepers and it's sequel. they just had no way of making the sequel anywhere near as great as the original which is a classic horror film. have you ever watched it?
yes he survives but is very physically damaged.
so can a villain cripple a character in a horror movie and it is ok to you?
why was it important to you that they give the killer's motive?
eli roth gave it a glowing recommendation that was on the video cover. do you usually agree with the filmmaker/horror movie reviewer on horror movies? it's funny how he serves as a movie reviewer as much as he is filmmaker. he's the only director like this.
lukejbarnett -
Woodyanders — 4 years ago(November 17, 2021 02:09 AM)
The Poughkeepsie Tapes isn't a snuff film by any stretch of the imagination. All the violence and killing in that movie was staged and hence not real in any way.
You've seen Guy Standeven in something because the man was in everything. -
Woodyanders — 4 years ago(November 18, 2021 02:07 PM)
The payphones and especially having the TV commercial playing on only three major networks both really date this as a film from the 1980's. Nowadays everybody uses cellphones instead of payphones and that Silver Shamrock commercial would be on a lot more TV networks plus all over the internet and various streaming services.
You've seen Guy Standeven in something because the man was in everything.