|
Post by CT on Nov 4, 2009 13:49:41 GMT -5
Saw this for the first time Halloween and liked it quite a bit. I liked the unorthodox take on vampirism. Of course this is nothing new today, it's been done expelling the myths and whatnot but as far as I can tell Martin was the first. Good story with some crazy kills mixed in liberally. I thought the second half was better than the first which made him seem like a skeevy rapist lol. The only thing I didn't like was the 70s haircuts but I guess that was unavoidable. 4/5
|
|
|
Post by Jen on Nov 4, 2009 14:55:40 GMT -5
I love this film, and except for maybe Night of the Living Dead, this is my favorite Romero film.
I like how you never REALLY know. Its a bit slow and maybe less about a movie monster than it is about a deeply confused and damaged young man destroyed by his own mental illness and a fanatical, superstitious family. A deliberate film that examines (and rips apart) not only the vampire myth, but the way some people allow their religious beliefs to poison the way they view the world, sometimes even the people they are responsible for caring for. Is Martin a creation of his family's delusion, or is he a true vampire allowed to move freely because most no longer believe in such nonsense?
Not a perfect film maybe, but it still gets a 5 from me.
|
|
HNT
Grizzled HMaM Vet
Horror in General & Everything Else Moderator[/i]
Kiss my tuchis
Posts: 6,296
|
Post by HNT on Nov 4, 2009 15:06:57 GMT -5
Excellent review, Jen. For my money, this film succeeds primarily because it is not clear whether the radical christianity of Tata Cuda is more or less repugnant than the actions of Martin the "vampire." As for the beginning, I think that the scene in the traincar is one of the all time great opening sequences for any horror film. IT is so tense, bleak, and disturbing. You watch it unfold, are almost duped into wishing for Martin to get away with it, and are then shocked to learn taht your rapist/murderer is somewhat sympathetic and as much a victim as a predator.
This is a film with balls and a real social conscience. In short, the kind of horror film that could never be made today. If anything, we'd get some kind of bullshit remake that celebrated vampire mythology ala Twilight or True Blood but shared the name of this film
|
|
|
Post by CT on Nov 4, 2009 15:53:58 GMT -5
Nice insight into the film, both of you. I think this one would actually be worth remaking IF done right and true to the original. But as HNT said it'd probably be done crappily so best to just leave it alone.
|
|
|
Post by GP on Nov 4, 2009 16:25:09 GMT -5
Agree with all the points above except the downer on 70's haircuts. That's always a bonus for me. Probably because I actually remember having one!
Martin is out there with Near Dark as the pinnacle of vampire movies for me.
A big fat 5.
|
|
HNT
Grizzled HMaM Vet
Horror in General & Everything Else Moderator[/i]
Kiss my tuchis
Posts: 6,296
|
Post by HNT on Nov 4, 2009 17:50:44 GMT -5
Exactly, GP. You young whippersnappers don't even know how good you have it. (Shakes cane furiously). They never had to suffer the indignity of bell bottoms or paiseley patterned shirts. I'm glad you enjoy mocking our having been victims of a bad fashion era.
|
|
|
Post by The Walking Dude on Nov 5, 2009 1:40:02 GMT -5
My last attempt to watch it was an ill-fated trip to the cinema during the much vaunted Be afraid festival.I lasted about five minutes before starting to nod off. Suffice to say I was not happy, as it's a film i've only seen once before, am yet to attain a copy , but find it one of those rare occasions that almost everyone is united in their praise of it.
|
|
|
Post by GL on Nov 5, 2009 10:49:20 GMT -5
You'll not see me praise this, I fucking hate it. I was left pissed at the end of my viewing this film, and it shares that dishonor with only two other films, so it's in a very selective part of me that just utterly hates this film.
|
|
|
Post by CT on Nov 5, 2009 12:27:51 GMT -5
You didn't even enjoy the wrist slashing scenes GL?
|
|
HNT
Grizzled HMaM Vet
Horror in General & Everything Else Moderator[/i]
Kiss my tuchis
Posts: 6,296
|
Post by HNT on Nov 5, 2009 12:59:58 GMT -5
You'll not see me praise this, I f ucking hate it. I was left pissed at the end of my viewing this film, and it shares that dishonor with only two other films, so it's in a very selective part of me that just utterly hates this film. Why did you hate it?
|
|
|
Post by GL on Nov 6, 2009 10:57:31 GMT -5
The problems I have with this are three-fold:
1. As Jen so expertly put it earlier in the thread, the amount of time devoted to the examination of the mental issues put forth surrounding the relationship between him and his family are just topics I care next to nothing for. It's not interesting to me to watch films explore these areas at all, and so the entire film leaves me just dull and bored. That's also not to take in the extremely slow-burning pace it has before we even get to this section of the film, and the languid pace it has, mixed with the extensive devotion to topics I couldn't care about, are massive problems for me to get over.
2. One of the main criteria I have for watching these films is that I have to find the general premise of what's going on terrifying, even if the events that play out aren't so (which lowers the rating significantly, but aren't so much deal-breakers). Here, this one fails for me, and CT, this answers you're inquiry. How am I supposed to be frightened, or scared, of a creature that reluctantly opposes the one aspect of it's design that makes it scary and frightening to begin with? Vampires, by and large, are the least intimidating of the classic movie monsters because they're so easily defeated, and they're powers aren't so strong compared to others, but then there's the ravenous blood-drinking, and suddenly they're back up at the top. Here, the refusal to partake in that doesn't make me scared of the guy, it just makes me laugh at him for not being that frightening. He's not a frightening persona, therefore I have no reason to fear him.
3. To me, there's three things that make for good vampire films. They need to either live in a Gothic castle, know kung-fu, or are lesbians. There's minor exceptions, but those are the best of the genre, and usually the inclusion of at least one is enough to guarantee a good time, no matter what other flaws are present within. As this one fails to fall in line with that criteria, it failed to work for me.
Numbers 1 and 2 are the most important areas for my derision with this one, though 3 does have a small part to it. I think I would still hate it even if it managed to include one of the three sections from there.
|
|
HNT
Grizzled HMaM Vet
Horror in General & Everything Else Moderator[/i]
Kiss my tuchis
Posts: 6,296
|
Post by HNT on Nov 6, 2009 12:34:49 GMT -5
Interesting. So you find a completely fictitious monster that could never actually exist more frightening than a crazy person who is conflicted about what he does, as is virtually every real serial killer or mass murderer? I guess I just have to disagree. As Romero himself pointed out, the myths of vampires were really based upon people being unable to explain away or understand mental illness and the drive of some insane people to commit murder. Instead, they explained it away by suggesting that these people were monsters rather than that they were ill. Today we know that there are no vampires. There are, however, a damn lot of folks who are crazy enough to kill people and think they are spmehow justified or othewise unable to keep from doing so .
|
|
|
Post by CT on Nov 6, 2009 13:21:52 GMT -5
Yes, I see him as a serial killer who could be hiding in the next train car I enter. Ok, so I don't ride trains...
|
|
HNT
Grizzled HMaM Vet
Horror in General & Everything Else Moderator[/i]
Kiss my tuchis
Posts: 6,296
|
Post by HNT on Nov 6, 2009 16:27:24 GMT -5
Yeah, I haven't ridden a train overnight that way in the United States. Did it in Europe though. It is actually kind of a nice way to travel
|
|
|
Post by CT on Nov 6, 2009 19:49:44 GMT -5
Bigshot
|
|