[WraithApe]

Salem's Lot - 7/10

As with It, another latter-day TV miniseries turned into a 3-hour film. Apparently there was a lot of difficulty in getting this one off the ground, with numerous submitted screenplays for a feature being rejected before Paul Monash hit on the idea that King's rather lengthy and complex book would be better served as a miniseries. The plot is pretty simple - the arrival of the mysterious pair of Straker & Barlow to the small town of Salem's Lot coincides with a growing number of disappearances and increasingly odd behaviour among the town's population, leading them to realize they have a vampire problem...

Of course it's showing its age a bit now, feeling a bit hokey at times, but it's given more credibility due to accomplished direction by Tobe Hooper (RIP) and the acting chops of James Mason, in the role of Straker. It is just a spin on the Dracula mythology really, with the addition of an infestation element (a nest of vampires) but it's well done and fleshes out the many characters in enough detail that you start to feel you know the town; its residents, and their stories. Being a made for TV movie, the effects aren't always top notch but I think scenes like the floating vampire outside the window, scratching on the pane, are still spookily effective. It's also nice to go back to a time when Vampires weren't all pale faced emo kids mooning around sadly, and were more interested in sucking blood than in getting to know you and having a vespertine romance. The vampires here are properly savage, Barlow in particular, being more monster than man.

 

[Hutnicks]

Sounds like a bit of a rip off of the V/H/S franchise to me. Agree with you that found footage is all but spent. I would say the genre was probably invented with Cannibal Holocaust rather than Blair Witch, though Witch was definitely the film that propelled it into the public imagination - a shot in the arm for an existing genre, a bit like Ringu was for J-Horror.

Quite possibly it is as I never saw the V/H/S stuff.

 

[WraithApe]

Night of the Demon - 8/10

This is the second Jacques Tourneur film I've watched (the other being I Walked With a Zombie) and I'm starting to think I must be a fan - really need to seek out Cat People at some point. As with I Walked..., atmosphere is everything here - the fog effects, the lighting, the locations, all contribute to an otherworldly atmosphere that many films strive for but few achieve.

The story pits scepticism against the occult, with American professor John Holden coming to London to host a conference on parapsychology and the debunking of belief in the supernatural, only to be drawn into the cult of enigmatic demon-worshipper Julian Kerswall (a show-stealing performance by Niall MacGinnis.) There are a few hokey elements - demonic runes carved on Stonehenge, visible wires on a supernaturally moving parchment and the somewhat rubbery appearance of the actual demon, but at this distance of time they really only add to the film's charm. Also, the demon's screen time was apparently dictated by the studio - Tourneur favoured a more minimalist approach, only showing it in a few brief frames and leaving the audience to ponder whether they'd actually seen anything at all. In hindsight, they should probably have let him have his way, as he proved with I Walked With a Zombie that less is more can often make for a more credible and enduring film and consequently, it's probably had to fight to rise above its reputation as a B movie harder than it might otherwise have done.

Interesting bit of trivia - Kate Bush's Hounds of Love samples an excerpt from this film. I didn't know that beforehand but watching the seance scene and hearing the line "it's in the trees, it's coming!" instantly rang a bell. It shouldn't really be a surprise this would be up her alley though... Hammer Horror!

 

[Hutnicks]

Night of the Demon - 8/10

This is the second Jacques Tourneur film I've watched (the other being I Walked With a Zombie) and I'm starting to think I must be a fan - really need to seek out Cat People at some point. As with I Walked..., atmosphere is everything here - the fog effects, the lighting, the locations, all contribute to an otherworldly atmosphere that many films strive for but few achieve.

The story pits skepticism against the occult, with American professor John Holden coming to London to host a conference on parapsychology and the debunking of belief in the supernatural, only to be drawn into the cult of eningmatic demon-worshipper Julian Kerswall (a show-stealing performance by Niall MacGinnis.) There are a few hokey elements - demonic runes carved on Stonehenge, visible wires on a supernaturally moving parchment and the somewhat rubbery appearance of the actual demon, but at this distance of time they really only add to the film's charm. Also, the demon's screen time was apparently dictated by the studio - Tourneur favoured a more minimalist approach, only showing it in a few brief frames and leaving the audience to ponder whether they'd actually seen anything at all. In hindsight, they should probably have let him have his way, as he proved with I Walked With a Zombie that less is more can often make for a more credible and enduring film and consequently, it's probably had to fight to rise above its reputation as a B movie harder than it might otherwise have done.

Interesting bit of trivia - Kate Bush's Hounds of Love samples an excerpt from this film. I didn't know that beforehand but watching the seance scene and hearing the line "it's in the trees, it's coming!" instantly rang a bell. It shouldn't really be a surprise this would be up her alley though... Hammer Horror!

For sure the film had it's kitsch moments but overall a fairly well constructed example. Cat People is definitely worth a look as is most of Trouneur's better works. He directed a lot of films in his time and there are a few real gems amongst the lot.

 

[WraithApe]

For sure the film had it's kitsch moments but overall a fairly well constructed example. Cat People is definitely worth a look as is most of Trouneur's better works. He directed a lot of films in his time and there are a few real gems amongst the lot.

I think Out of the Past is probably his most fêted isn't it? As a film noir fan, I really should check that out too.

 

[Hutnicks]

I think Out of the Past is probably his most fêted isn't it? As a film noir fan, I really should check that out too.

That and Berlin Express are worth watching.

 

[WraithApe]

It - 5/10

Biggest disappointment of the year so far for me. I'd been led to expect something really out there with this adaptation of Stephen King's novel, but what we actually get is a thoroughly mainstream horror movie. It's technically competent, and that's about the best thing I can say about it. The realization of Pennywise, the shapeshifting emotional leech most frequently taking the form of a white-faced clown, is quite effective, especially in his opening scene where he is a sinister presence in an unexpected place. The biggest problem with the film though is it's just not very scary. Maybe I've just seen so many horror films at this point that I'm immune to their devices, but the score contains all the standard cues leading up to a jump scare and tonally... it's all over the place; points in the plot which should be really frightening always seem to be sabotaged by a comedic moment that totally alleviates any fear. It's kind of like an R-rated version of The Goonies. There's also way too much CG as well, which when it becomes too obvious, invariably takes me out of the moment as my subconscious mutters darkly 'yeah, that's just a load of computer wizardry'. Maybe if I were 20 years younger (or more) and hadn't seen hundreds of other, better, horror films, this one would do the trick but as it is... no. It needs to be far, far weirder than it is, tonally more coherent and about half an hour shorter.

Spoiler

Maybe the biggest downer of all though is the depressingly conventional resolution of the burgeoning love triangle between Beverly, Bill and Ben (not the Flower Pot Men); how the film pays lip service to the power of geek but ultimately welshes on it. Beverly is really taken by anonymous poem she receives and hopes it's from the boy she fancies (Bill). When she finds out it's actually from Ben, the most sensitive soul among them but with a few extra pounds to his frame, it changes nothing: the fat kid doesn't get the girl and she still only has eyes for the kid with the nice hair and model looks. Ugh.

 

[Hutnicks]

Should have gone for the original Cat People instead. The good news is now I can avoid It like the plague

 

[Fox2twenty]

If mini movies count - Teen Titans Go - "The Night Begins-to-shine" is a 9.5 /10.

 

[castleofargh]

It - 5/10

Biggest disappointment of the year so far for me. I'd been led to expect something really out there with this adaptation of Stephen King's novel, but what we actually get is a thoroughly mainstream horror movie. It's technically competent, and that's about the best thing I can say about it. The realization of Pennywise, the shapeshifting emotional leech most frequently taking the form of a white-faced clown, is quite effective, especially in his opening scene where he is a sinister presence in an unexpected place. The biggest problem with the film though is it's just not very scary. Maybe I've just seen so many horror films at this point that I'm immune to their devices, but the score contains all the standard cues leading up to a jump scare and tonally... it's all over the place; points in the plot which should be really frightening always seem to be sabotaged by a comedic moment that totally alleviates any fear. It's kind of like an R-rated version of The Goonies. There's also way too much CG as well, which when it becomes too obvious, invariably takes me out of the moment as my subconscious mutters darkly 'yeah, that's just a load of computer wizardry'. Maybe if I were 20 years younger (or more) and hadn't seen hundreds of other, better, horror films, this one would do the trick but as it is... no. It needs to be far, far weirder than it is, tonally more coherent and about half an hour shorter.

Spoiler

Maybe the biggest downer of all though is the depressingly conventional resolution of the burgeoning love triangle between Beverly, Bill and Ben (not the Flower Pot Men); how the film pays lip service to the power of geek but ultimately welshes on it. Beverly is really taken by anonymous poem she receives and hopes it's from the boy she fancies (Bill). When she finds out it's actually from Ben, the most sensitive soul among them but with a few extra pounds to his frame, it changes nothing: the fat kid doesn't get the girl and she still only has eyes for the kid with the nice hair and model looks. Ugh.

me: lol he should know better than to watch adaptations of King's books by now.
also me: I went to see The Dark Tower last week.
^_^
I have no idea how to rate the dark tower(except that the volume level was too loud). it's pretty much like death note. not knowing the story at all, it's a pretty good flick. it has the usual problem of placing a kid at the center of any action, super important, yet super weak, yet not so weak, make up your damn mind!!!! but I could blame the all Harry Potter franchise to be like that. except one is a kid story for kids, the other isn't. but still it's something cool to watch on many levels.
and now as a Stephen King fan raised by a Stephen king fan, I don't think the movie is worth the cover of the first book and was super disappointed. and I know it's unfair! there really is a "son of that famous guy" syndrome. I just can't judge the movie in fair way without comparing it to "his father".

 

[Hutnicks]

me: lol he should know better than to watch adaptations of King's books by now.
also me: I went to see The Dark Tower last week.
^_^
I have no idea how to rate the dark tower(except that the volume level was too loud). it's pretty much like death note. not knowing the story at all, it's a pretty good flick. it has the usual problem of placing a kid at the center of any action, super important, yet super weak, yet not so weak, make up your damn mind!!!! but I could blame the all Harry Potter franchise to be like that. except one is a kid story for kids, the other isn't. but still it's something cool to watch on many levels.
and now as a Stephen King fan raised by a Stephen king fan, I don't think the movie is worth the cover of the first book and was super disappointed. and I know it's unfair! there really is a "son of that famous guy" syndrome. I just can't judge the movie in fair way without comparing it to "his father".

Where I found Dark Tower to fail was in a typical King manner. When he is on his game he is quite good. When he is not there , notsomuch. Tower fails for me in that the scenario (Universe in current Marvelspeak) is poorly thought out and constructed. When transferred to film this leaves the filmaker way too much latitude and inevitably the interpretation while not necessarily worse than Kings vision is lacking in some very important substance. The kid as protagonist and I gather later on as some kind of rejuvenated hero lacks in credibility and when I hear that this is being pushed as a new TV series I can fully see why things were not fleshed out. As a film it comes of as more storyboards with actors than a coherent work. Take this one as a TV pilot and it may be easier to swallow.

I would advise watching the first season of American Gods over this if one simply wished to be entertained.

 

[WraithApe]

me: lol he should know better than to watch adaptations of King's books by now.

Ha! There's a lot more where that's coming from September is King season at the BFI and I've got tickets for quite a few screenings! I agree that a lot of adaptations fall short - Cell was particularly atrocious - but there are some good ones: Carrie, The Dead Zone, The Shining (although admittedly it's nothing like the novella by all accounts), Misery, The Mist (I like it a lot, I know others don't), Shawshank (good film but a tad overrated IMO)... it's just a case of sorting the wheat from the chaff.

Where I found Dark Tower to fail was in a typical King manner. When he is on his game he is quite good. When he is not there , notsomuch. Tower fails for me in that the scenario (Universe in current Marvelspeak) is poorly thought out and constructed. When transferred to film this leaves the filmaker way too much latitude and inevitably the interpretation while not necessarily worse than Kings vision is lacking in some very important substance. The kid as protagonist and I gather later on as some kind of rejuvenated hero lacks in credibility and when I hear that this is being pushed as a new TV series I can fully see why things were not fleshed out. As a film it comes of as more storyboards with actors than a coherent work. Take this one as a TV pilot and it may be easier to swallow.

I think a lot of his larger works might be better off adapted as TV shows, where there's more latitude to develop characters and story arcs. Both It and Salem's Lot were originally miniseries, made after numerous screenplays for single features were rejected.

 

[Death_Block]

Viggo's in Cronenberg's new movie Eastern Promises. Has anyone seen this yet?

Did you end up watching it? Huge fan of him. I also recommend 'a history of violence'

 

[WraithApe]

@Death_Block No offence, but you're replying to a post that is a decade old there - I doubt you'll get an answer; I haven't seen OP on this thread for years. Another big Cronenberg fan here though Probably my all time favourite director.

 

[Death_Block]

Oh haha, i keep forgetting to look at date's. Yeah big fan here too. Also of Lynch