[Hutnicks]

As of my one move rating here.

1 on a scale of 1 to 10.

 
I should have warned you off that one.

 

[Redcarmoose]

I should have warned you off that one.

I'm a sucker for Sci-Fi, like most Sci-Fi buffs are. So we get to see a lot of B-movies. Thing is it reminded me of so many movies in the past.

Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!

The funny part was how cheap his space-suit was at the end. It's the end of the movie for gosh sakes, get the actor a suit. That space suit looked like it had a production cost of $5.99. Please spray paint a fire suit next time, oh?, those cost money, I forgot.

 

[Hutnicks]

I'm a sucker for Sci-Fi, like most Sci-Fi buffs are. So we get to see a lot of B-movies. Thing is it reminded me of so many movies in the past.

Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!

The funny part was how cheap his space-suit was at the end. It's the end of the movie for gosh sakes, get the actor a suit. That space suit looked like it had a production cost of $5.99. Please spray paint a fire suit next time, oh?, those cost money, I forgot.

Thats what sucked me in. What had me watching until the end I still cannot figure out

 

[keepitsimple]

 
Funny. I have had HariKir sitting here for a few months and haven't got to it yet. Perhaps now is the time.

i am very critical and imho this is an amazing film

 

[vwinter]

Even Lambs Have Teeth. (2016)   7.5/10

We could have a budding Sam Rami Jr in this director

Interest piqued.

Is there anywhere one can currently catch this that doesn't involve one time fees? I just have too many other things queued and currently available to go out of my way spending.

Hellraiser is maybe more fondly remembered from the folks who saw it in the day? It was very advanced effect art, bringing a cutting edge to the genre for it's day. The plots of the series seem to run together in my mind. I have a nice remastered DVD of the original and two, which I watch maybe every two years or so. It seemed to bring in a coolness for it's day, as how many interdimensional-gothic creatures even exist in any movie, except The Matrix? Pinhead was a great character for a whole generation of movie goers and maybe does not carry the weight he once did. Pre heavy CGI technology, folks were amazed at the cube. At times I long for that prior innocent wonder everyone held for that cube, which was actually a very simple prop in the end.

You know, it's funny because I am actually more impressed with effects from these types of things than CGI laden films. It's "how did they do that? Computers." Vs "How did they do that?... I have no idea."

The marketing issue is that they make it out to be about Pinhead, but he's not much more than a cameo of the box art in the film.

TCM is a very hard movie to rate. I never saw it as a feature drive-in film in the 1970's but found it as a movie people would play in their home when the first VCRs came out in 1980. It was a great movie to see people's reactions to. Kind of a new thing for the middle-class to have movies at home. TCM is almost another place which just continues to exist and is revisited again and again by other movies. In many ways it was an advancement from David Friedman and HGLewis's Blood Feast (1963) adding a manic tension and really 10/10 characters. Most were really afraid to experience the chase scene near the end. It's gift to cinema is a quality of photography as well as the imagination of plot and characters. Even now when you watch it, it reminds you how much can be done with a small budget and imagination. 1963 Blood Feast had a budget of 60K and TCM was 300K though done 11 years later.

Shock is really a term for the style. As it seems to have taken the term horror to another level. The movie only gets better as it ages. I rate it way higher, but I'm a weirdo.

It's more an issue with my ratings scale. The trip from 0-5 is a gimme, like writing your name correctly on a test. If you have a camera and a mic and a script, and the concept was interesting enough to have me watch it, you'll likely get a 5. Then 6-7 is a matter of not screwing it up too badly and it just being reasonably enjoyable. 8 is a good movie, you did things pretty much right. The trip from 8-9 is where there's an exponential increase in what I expect. This needs to be closing in on what I consider flawless to special in some way. I don't really give out 10's so over a 9 is pretty much a 10.

Unfortunately, most horror films aren't designed to fit this scale and I have issue with giving TCM a 9 just on the basis of the other films I've given a 9. If the first 3/4 of the movie were as good as the last quarter, it would have a 9 or close to it. I just can't give a film a 9 solely because it changed things. It needs to be a spectacular movie as a whole. TCM to me was just very good with an amazing ending, which is more than I can say for a lot of movies.

 

[Hutnicks]

Interest piqued.

Is there anywhere one can currently catch this that doesn't involve one time fees? I just have too many other things queued and currently available to go out of my way spending.
You know, it's funny because I am actually more impressed with effects from these types of things than CGI laden films. It's "how did they do that? Computers." Vs "How did they do that?... I have no idea."

 

Netflix via Putlocker had it as a freebie teaser.

 

[vwinter]

  Netflix via Putlocker had it as a freebie teaser.

Haha, much obliged. To repay the favor, the Hutnicks duo:
 
 
Below [7.6/10]
 
Like most movies set on a submarine, it has the key aspects:
 
Motley crew? check.
Internal conflict for chain of command? Check.
Boat develops some issue or begins to buckle under pressure? Check.
External hunter? Check.
Humor for the sake of sanity under confinement? Check.
Kelsey Grammer? Nope, but it gets a pass.
 
So now that we have that out of the way, the key here really is atmosphere. The tension is well developed and can be found around any given corner. It’s timed really well as to not overstay its welcome. It has a few classic scares, but most of the time, it’s the looming lack of surety that really creates the unease. Is something what it seems or is it all in their heads, or just concidence? Nothing is given away early and that really helps this sort of scenario. The cast of characters is diverse and this helps sell the atmosphere of the various reactions to the goings on. And the actors do a good job of selling it.
 
The pacing was a bit difficult to manage because while the setup felt a bit long and the core felt a bit rushed at points, it was almost required to carefully set this scenario up and give the ball the needed momentum.
 
 
Even Lambs Have Teeth [6.6/10]
 
Once this one gets going, its like a game of revenge hot potato. Everything is short and sweet. There’s no time spent explaining crazy questions like “how” or “why” because let’s face it, that’s not the point. Its both easy to ding and applaud this choice. I applaud them being consistent with applying it at the least. Where I had to ding it was the setup. It was a moment of, I know you guys just need to get this going, but come on, you cannot let them come off as this stupid. But the two leads played off each other well throughout.
 
The transition for our anti-heros (of sort) was brisk and the gratuitousness came out in full force. I don’t have enough fingers and toes to count the amount of shots that could easily be a poster on a teen's wall. I particularly like the shopping scene. A girl's gotta shop.
 
What really worked well for me here was the humor. It put a certain sheen of humanity on the whole thing, which was held strong till the end.
 
 
 
And a bonus film for the fun side of submarines:

Down Periscope [7.1/10]
 
What can I say, I have a soft spot for this one. A submarine “action” comedy. It’s just fun to watch. Its outlandish with what was likely a reasonably small budget, but it makes very much due with what it has. Kelsey Grammer is a good fit here and with the supporting cast. See above for key submarine movie criteria. All Check.
 
Let’s face it, on a submarine, the “action” consists of seeing torpedoes leave tubes, silent slow motion “drive”-bys, and pings on a sonar screen. Given that this is a comedy, it doesn’t let the “action” down and you can’t help but root for the boys, and girl. Har Har!
 
The pacing is actually pretty good, the film never feels bloated, and the pass-offs between “action” and lighter fare are pretty smooth. The jokes are wholesome fun and the supporting cast is surprisingly decent and a lot of fun, including Rob Schneider, Bruce Dern, William H. Macy, Ken Campbell, and Harry Dean Stanton. Edit: how did i forget Rip Torn?
 
This one is great medicine for slow day blues and holds up surprisingly well on rewatch.

 

[Redcarmoose]

Interest piqued.

Is there anywhere one can currently catch this that doesn't involve one time fees? I just have too many other things queued and currently available to go out of my way spending.
You know, it's funny because I am actually more impressed with effects from these types of things than CGI laden films. It's "how did they do that? Computers." Vs "How did they do that?... I have no idea."

The marketing issue is that they make it out to be about Pinhead, but he's not much more than a cameo of the box art in the film.
It's more an issue with my ratings scale. The trip from 0-5 is a gimme, like writing your name correctly on a test. If you have a camera and a mic and a script, and the concept was interesting enough to have me watch it, you'll likely get a 5. Then 6-7 is a matter of not screwing it up too badly and it just being reasonably enjoyable. 8 is a good movie, you did things pretty much right. The trip from 8-9 is where there's an exponential increase in what I expect. This needs to be closing in on what I consider flawless to special in some way. I don't really give out 10's so over a 9 is pretty much a 10.

Unfortunately, most horror films aren't designed to fit this scale and I have issue with giving TCM a 9 just on the basis of the other films I've given a 9. If the first 3/4 of the movie were as good as the last quarter, it would have a 9 or close to it. I just can't give a film a 9 solely because it changed things. It needs to be a spectacular movie as a whole. TCM to me was just very good with an amazing ending, which is more than I can say for a lot of movies.

I think Texas Chansaw is a movie people may come back to in their life. For me anyway it was a different movie after I was older. Saw it first when I was 19, at that time it was just a scary movie. Later after I spent a lifetime watching all kinds of movies, I started to look closer at the photography and the story of characters. I also maybe started to become aware of mood and how it was created in the horror genre. And times change partly I think, besides using music and subjects people get affected now maybe different than they were in 74? In Browning's Dracula we only needed to see some bugs crawl out of a coffin and folks were flipping out. But it has seemed to age well as the subjects and moods seem to work as well now as they did when I first saw it. When I first saw it the whole thing was just too much. Not much scares me anymore.

I guess I have started to rate it higher also due to so much homage payed to it with the likes of Rob Zombie's directorial efforts. In many ways horror is like classical music in that themes get reused and built upon. The other praise came after rewatching it again and finding it still so over the top, even in relation to modern day shockers?

The other reason it gets a high score in my book, is the sequels never topped the original. None ever came close.

Coming out in 1987 Hellraiser had a production cost of 1 million and for most of us set a new standard for effects. It was the crazy effects which kept the series interesting and cutting edge. Looking back the effects ARE still really cool. There is a quality that CGI can not get close to. Though I think we are kind-of in an anti-CGI mode now as far as movie goers go. You can just hope that they try and get an improvement where it does not look computer rendered? Some stuff still does not look right to me in CGI and you don't realize how bad stuff looks till you go back and look at movies from the mid-nineties which used all real explosions and stuff.

This was an effect somewhat dated now, but in it's day, very memorable from the series.

Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!

I agree in that Pinhead was always much a cameo character. They may have been worried too, that to investigate him farther would have ruined his power. Much of classic monsters where not shown much as Val Lewton showed us with his RKO releases, it's what you don't see is what is truly scary. That single concept is now completely lost at times in the genre.

 

[WraithApe]

TCM is a very hard movie to rate. I never saw it as a feature drive-in film in the 1970's but found it as a movie people would play in their home when the first VCRs came out in 1980. It was a great movie to see people's reactions to. Kind of a new thing for the middle-class to have movies at home. TCM is almost another place which just continues to exist and is revisited again and again by other movies. In many ways it was an advancement from David Friedman and HGLewis's Blood Feast (1963) adding a manic tension and really 10/10 characters. Most were really afraid to experience the chase scene near the end. It's gift to cinema is a quality of photography as well as the imagination of plot and characters. Even now when you watch it, it reminds you how much can be done with a small budget and imagination. 1963 Blood Feast had a budget of 60K and TCM was 300K though done 11 years later.

Shock is really a term for the style. As it seems to have taken the term horror to another level. The movie only gets better as it ages. I rate it way higher, but I'm a weirdo.

 
Texas is much the better film though - a true genre classic IMO. Blood Feast is notable in the annals of horror as being arguably the first splatter film, but it's fairly inept on all levels; plotting, acting, effects - even considering the low budget. As a fan of the genre, I'm glad I saw it but it's not one I'd want to watch again.

 

[Redcarmoose]

Texas is much the better film though - a true genre classic IMO. Blood Feast is notable in the annals of horror as being arguably the first splatter film, but it's fairly inept on all levels; plotting, acting, effects - even considering the low budget. As a fan of the genre, I'm glad I saw it but it's not one I'd want to watch again.

Of HG Lewis, I actually find his flicks to be transporting. Much like The Brick Dollhouse, they were obviously cash generators finding a methodology like a circus sideshow attraction. I'm not sure I even know of another Friedman/Lewis collaboration? They both came from making nudist movies but invented gore as their "nudist sub-genre" became obsolete due to hardcore being invented. Edit: Actually it wasn't that hardcore was invented but rather legalized and could be played in regular theatres.

Still I find a wild escapist thrill when my mind starts to believe the world of " Wizard Of Gore" is actually a real place, or 2K Maniacs is somehow a documentary film? On a good DVD Blood Feast is so very clear and technically perfect bringing in the cheap 1963 hotel-room sets as an alternative world to visit. They become art films to me, with the tongue scene being surrealist art?








I can watch them over and over, just feeling the texture of the stark lighting on the tacky furniture?


I just found something in David F Freidman's cheap Americana? She-Freak, The Defilers and She-Wolf/ Ilsa? Don't know why?




Edit:
Actually I had forgot, as there was a series of movies where Freidman was the producer and Lewis the director.

 

[Redcarmoose]

HG Lewis is 87 years old now!

I watch these on DVD from time to time.
"Bad taste all over the place!"

 

[Hutnicks]

I am still waiting for your review of "Faster *****cat Kill Kill" 

 

[mutabor]

 Though I think we are kind-of in an anti-CGI mode now as far as movie goers go. 

 
I think that the trend is clearly pro-CGI ( including desires of movie goers). Virtual reality is getting more powerful.The next step is better quality 3D immersion and higher resolution images.

 

[WraithApe]

   
I think that the trend is clearly pro-CGI ( including desires of movie goers). Virtual reality is getting more powerful.The next step is better quality 3D immersion and higher resolution images.

 
The CGI fest continues apace in Hollywood blockbusters (witness the upcoming Independence Day monstrosity) but I guess he meant the trend among critics and movie fans like ourselves on this thread is anti-CGI. VR I see as being more influential in the gaming sector than in movies. The idea of the viewer having that kind of immersion is tantalising, but directors are called directors for a reason: they're directing your attention to plot strands and the nuances of actors' performances. If you're free to look at what you want and essentially create your own narrative, the role of director is diminished. My two cents.

 

[vwinter]

Pretty relevant for our current topic:

[video]https://youtu.be/bL6hp8BKB24[/video]

While I don't agree with every example, the point they make is a good one and it's really good to see some concrete examples. The best in the video is where you wouldn't even expect it. I was especially surprised by the car chase they showed.