RIDDUM_N_STYLE Posted March 4, 2019 Share Posted March 4, 2019 Watched a couple of films over the weekend I’d bought Student Bodies as a blind buy off Amazon which came Friday so stuck it on Saturday, really cheesy fun movie that pokes fun at what was then a fledgling slasher genre (it came out 3 years after Halloween and a year after Friday the 13th) Then last night after the Derby I watched Goodfellas on Netflix for the first time in a long time, still a top quality film with Pesci and Liotta stealing the show Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Carbomb Posted March 4, 2019 Paid Members Share Posted March 4, 2019 40 minutes ago, chokeout said: They couldn't. Universal were militant about their copyright of their version of the character by that point. I'm surprised Hammer managed to get away with the Christopher Lee look as the Monster because of a couple of the similarities. From what I understand Hammer actually had to rewrite a couple of the earlier Frankenstein films to remove elements that were in the Universal movies. One of the interesting things about the portrayal of the monster in movies is that, in the original book, he wasn't meant to look that grotesque and piecemeal; he was supposed to have been expertly constructed by Frankenstein from parts that would have made him a paragon of human physical beauty, but the re-animation process made him ugly by subtly subverting his features, with watery eyes and sallow features. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Chest Rockwell Posted March 4, 2019 Moderators Share Posted March 4, 2019 1 hour ago, Accident Prone said: Finally sat down and watched Get Out on the weekend. Really enjoyed it! Hit all the right marks for intensity and executing a concept with equal amounts style and substance. It was restrained too, and that really surprised me considering that it's a modern horror. Some stuff felt a bit off (why would the family willingly invite a professional photographer? Who made noise in the cubbby hole?) but not enough to bring the film down as a whole. I finally got around to watching this at the weekend also. Loved it. The whole style and tone of it was great. (Also it's a rare treat for me to get to watch any scary movies because my wife can't hack them but that's another matter). The reason the professional photographer was there is because he was selected to be Stephen Root's vessel specifically . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Accident Prone Posted March 4, 2019 Paid Members Share Posted March 4, 2019 Just now, Chest Rockwell said: I finally got around to watching this at the weekend also. Loved it. The whole style and tone of it was great. (Also it's a rare treat for me to get to watch any scary movies because my wife can't hack them but that's another matter). The reason the professional photographer was there is because Hide contents he was selected to be Stephen Root's vessel specifically . Oh, I must've missed that bit of info then. I knew Stephen wanted Chris during his reveal later on, but it never occurred to me that Chris was selected for him specifically considering that they still had to have an auction. I still think that having a photographer would be too big of risk to the operation, unless there is some cutting room floor footage of Stephen convincing the Armitage's that Chris is worth the hassle and him promising big money for the vessel to make it all worth it. Even then, a scene of Chris's camera being tampered with (maybe his the camera flash is 'accidentally' disabled somehow by Rose or the maid?) would've been enough to cover it. And the scene where Chris finds the box of photos is confusing too. He hears a noise and investigates the cubby hole, and that's where he finds the box of photos. It seemed like they were going to have someone on the inside helping Chris out, like Jeremy or Walter. So who made the noise and, seemingly, left those photos in plain site? Is it all part of the Armitage's process to help Chris come to the grisly conclusion naturally? I felt that some explanation was needed there, but again, wasn't enough to negatively impact the movie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Chest Rockwell Posted March 4, 2019 Moderators Share Posted March 4, 2019 Oh. That was an auction? I didn't get that at the time. I forgot about that scene afterwards and at the time I thought it was some hypnosis thing. Maybe I have it wrong. But I thought that whole scene where he has the conversation with Stephen about his photography etc sufficiently explained it for me. I didn't think anything of the cubby hole bit at the time so it didn't bother me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members BomberPat Posted March 4, 2019 Paid Members Share Posted March 4, 2019 38 minutes ago, Carbomb said: One of the interesting things about the portrayal of the monster in movies is that, in the original book, he wasn't meant to look that grotesque and piecemeal; he was supposed to have been expertly constructed by Frankenstein from parts that would have made him a paragon of human physical beauty, but the re-animation process made him ugly by subtly subverting his features, with watery eyes and sallow features. I may not be remembering correctly - I haven't read the book in a long time - but it's never made explicit in the book that he was made from exhumed human body parts, was it? He was just a monster constructed and given life, with the actual process being left (intentionally?) vague, and the incorporation of grave robbing and him being pieced together from body parts began with the movie - in Edison's 1910 movie, the monster emerges fully formed from a vat of liquid. I must have known that Universal didn't permit them to use the more recognisable look, but had forgotten. I like it, though, and feel that not being able to use that monster design likely lead to them making other creative choices that moved them further away from a simple rehash of the Universal movie formula, and it makes the Hammer films stronger for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Carbomb Posted March 4, 2019 Paid Members Share Posted March 4, 2019 (edited) 6 minutes ago, BomberPat said: I may not be remembering correctly - I haven't read the book in a long time - but it's never made explicit in the book that he was made from exhumed human body parts, was it? He was just a monster constructed and given life, with the actual process being left (intentionally?) vague, and the incorporation of grave robbing and him being pieced together from body parts began with the movie - in Edison's 1910 movie, the monster emerges fully formed from a vat of liquid. I must have known that Universal didn't permit them to use the more recognisable look, but had forgotten. I like it, though, and feel that not being able to use that monster design likely lead to them making other creative choices that moved them further away from a simple rehash of the Universal movie formula, and it makes the Hammer films stronger for it. That's absolutely true, they made it more about Frankenstein's replication of parts, his calculations, and proportioning of the creature's body. Edited March 4, 2019 by Carbomb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Accident Prone Posted March 4, 2019 Paid Members Share Posted March 4, 2019 (edited) 44 minutes ago, Chest Rockwell said: Hide contents Oh. That was an auction? I didn't get that at the time. I forgot about that scene afterwards and at the time I thought it was some hypnosis thing. Maybe I have it wrong. But I thought that whole scene where he has the conversation with Stephen about his photography etc sufficiently explained it for me. I didn't think anything of the cubby hole bit at the time so it didn't bother me. That auction/party scene, and the way they built around it and weave together all the themes, is probably my favorite part of the movie. Chris is what people will be bidding on, so they're asking questions about him like you would if you were examining an item for auction. Stuff like the old man asking about Chris' golf swing and the woman inquiring about his sexual ability, and Rose dragging Chris away in supposed anger before it all began. I was thinking about all the hidden clues yesterday, and it's astounding; Rose not having empathy for the deer, Georgina spilling the tea because Missy accidentally clinked her spoon, Walter sprinting at night due to his Olympic failures and the massive symbolism of the auction and Chris plugging his ears with cotton. Any movie that has me thinking back to hints and foreshadowing to that degree, that propels a film upwards regardless of any small plotholes. Edited March 4, 2019 by Accident Prone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Chest Rockwell Posted March 4, 2019 Moderators Share Posted March 4, 2019 Yeah I was stoned for the first time in fucking ages; you picked up on way more than I did! 😁 You're making me want to watch it again.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Accident Prone Posted March 4, 2019 Paid Members Share Posted March 4, 2019 Haha, most of this stuff I thought of when driving to work this morning! Proper "Oh fuck!" moments. I'm really itching to re-watch too, so I can seek out more of these details. I told a chap at work about this, and he mentioned that his favourite clue is Rose almost calling the groundskeeper her grandfather when she's driving into the property at the start. Apparently, she says "Grands-Keeper", like she is quickly correcting herself in the process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members waters44 Posted March 4, 2019 Paid Members Share Posted March 4, 2019 Get Out is an amazing film! Literally from the start of the movie it is telling you exactly what’s going on. A couple of other clues off the top of my head that haven’t been mentioned - The Dad telling Chris that the Grandad was a talented runner which then leads to the gardener running towards Chris, and the Dad saying something like “The kitchen will always have a bit of Grandma in it” as they walk in to see the maid stood there. Also the first time you see Chris the words “STAY WOKE” are blaring out. I could go on! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loki Posted March 4, 2019 Share Posted March 4, 2019 Get Out is one of those very rare films that have horror scenes that take place in full sunlight during the day. I'm pretty sure it's deliberate as it's really fucking hard to do. See also Blair Witch, Blood on Satan's Claw, The Wicker Man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Hannibal Scorch Posted March 4, 2019 Paid Members Share Posted March 4, 2019 I think the most amazing think about Get Out was the fact it was from Jordan Peele who was best known at the time for his skegch show and Keanu. Now with Us and The Twilight Zone he’s completely reinventing himself. cracking cast in Get Out as well. Everyone in it is great. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Devon Malcolm Posted March 4, 2019 Author Paid Members Share Posted March 4, 2019 (edited) 10 minutes ago, Loki said: Get Out is one of those very rare films that have horror scenes that take place in full sunlight during the day. I'm pretty sure it's deliberate as it's really fucking hard to do. See also Blair Witch, Blood on Satan's Claw, The Wicker Man. Good subject, this. You could also throw in The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, The Hills Have Eyes and Long Weekend off the top of my head. Edited March 4, 2019 by Devon Malcolm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Scott Malbranque Posted March 4, 2019 Paid Members Share Posted March 4, 2019 I'm seemingly still the only cunt who thought Get Out wasn't as clever and amazing as it - and everyone else - thought it to be. I've given it two shots and I still think it's barely alright, so I'll chalk this one alongside the likes of Goodfellas, Forrest Gump, The Pianist and BlacKkKlansman in the Shrug section of my celluloid memories. I watched 15 Minutes with DeNiro and Edward Burns and I actually really wish I didn't. What in the bollocks was that?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts