I was trying to work a way to do something new here, then it finally hit me that there was absolutely nothing new about it.
So let's bring back the Horror Film Club.
Myself, or another Staff Member, will post a thread once a month (or possibly more often, but never more than weekly) with a horror movie. If you choose to participate, post a paragraph (more is welcome) and your score of the movie out of 10. At the end of the month, I'll count up the scores and add the average score to my first post. You're welcome to post afterward, but I might not be as diligent in keeping up with older threads, so it's always best to get in during the midst of the conversation rather than months later.
Film: Re-Animator (1985)
Availability: Netflix Instant (http://dvd.netflix.com/Movie/Re-Animator/893348?strkid=124395499_0_0&strackid=2d087a30682a0243_0_srl&trkid=222336), Amazon (http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_1?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=re-animator&sprefix=re-an%2Caps&rh=i%3Aaps%2Ck%3Are-animator&sepatfbtf=true&tc=1367563901296)$3.99 to rent, $4.15 DVD, $7.99 Blu-Ray
Final Score so far: 7.33/10 (6 votes)
I'm going to start with a film I've been meaning to watch for a while, Re-Animator (1985). This is based on the 1922 short story series by HP Lovecraft. I honestly found the Lovecraft story to be more interesting, closer to scientific, and scarier- but I found the Stuart Gordon film to be more entertaining and to have excellent practical effects. It's a bit pop horror in the way that it adds a clear villain and a more obvious conflict to the otherwise darker and more ambiguous story. I'm trying not to punish the film for the simple fact that they chose a different tack than the original stories, though, and what does follow the story is surprisingly faithful for the manner in which it's portrayed. End result: I'm going to give this film 8/10, pending change of mind as it sinks in and we discuss it.
are we supposed to do these based on memory or rewatch them again? like the old thread was?
Also like how you added the places that one could find the movie and at what cost, nice touch.
Whichever works best for you. If you feel up to talking about the movie without rewatching it, then by all means, go for it.
Been a while since I've seen this one. But from what I remember, I liked it. Great practical effects and super cheesy/fun acting (wouldn't be a Jeffery Combs movie if it didn't have that.) It's kind of a shame that one moment tends to outshine the rest of a fun film (the decapitated head giving head scene. But yeah, solid flick.
7.5/10
I actually like the beginning where he keeps breaking the pencils rather than the cunnilingus scene. It's somewhere close to an 8/10 for me... maybe 7.5 like L-Face gave it.
I said my score was pending, and that's largely because I feel it's not quite good enough for the score that I gave it. I wasn't sure if I was being unfair about the changes from the story, but I think I was overcompensating for that. I'm going to edit my score to 7.5.
It's also been a while for me since I've seen this one. I liked it, cause I was pretty young and into the horror thing bad. Whoever watched Beyond Re-Animator hopefully agrees with me that that one was a complete waist of time...
I give the original one a 7/10.
7.5
I would comment on it but it's been a while since I've seen it, but I know that's what I scored it last time (because I'm sad and keep a list of movie/game/book scores).
Updated.
Anybody else here familiar with both versions? If so, what do you think of the introduction of an antagonist?
I give the longer edited version a 8/10 for being the better film and the original edit a 7/10 for being what was pretty extreme in 1985...i find i keep mixing up the two edits of the film in my head though and it has been a long time since i saw the edited version due to no one wanting to see the one with the gore cut out.
I didn't even know there were two cuts of this film. I also have no idea what to count that as in the final tally.
we only got the other edit where i am from, it's 10 minutes longer than the normal version but has almost all the gore cut out, it's more like a thriller than a horror, probably just count the normal version as the other edit is pretty rare i think....Chucky has probably seen the longer edit too.
Got you. So the gore-free version is better, you're saying? Why's that?
There is a couple of scenes cut out of the normal unrated version that they reinstated (95 minutes for R rated version, 86 minutes for unrated version), i mix both versions in my head because i have seen both so often but as a film i recall it flows better. I think one of the scenes involves Dr Hill trying to hypnotise the daughter and him just generally being more lecherous towards the deans daughter.
So the kidnapping thing doesn't come out of nowhere in that version. Sounds like an improvement.
Quote from: Boobar Scanhound on May 15, 2013, 10:06:23 AM
I give the longer edited version a 8/10 for being the better film and the original edit a 7/10 for being what was pretty extreme in 1985...i find i keep mixing up the two edits of the film in my head though and it has been a long time since i saw the edited version due to no one wanting to see the one with the gore cut out.
I used to have two copies of this on VHS... one was R-Rated and the other was M-rated. I'm assuming the M-rated was the edited version but I really don't recall them.
from video ezy!
yeah the m rated one was the longer queenslander edition...
The black cat, the squished guy undenearth the door, mmmm, and the juggernaut science zombie, had to unearth this one, too damn good of a movie...