Horror Digital Forum  

Go Back   Horror Digital Forum > All Things Horror > General

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-28-2014, 12:20 AM   #31
chrismac87
Zombie Eater
 
chrismac87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 611
Quote:
Originally Posted by Demoni View Post
The majority of 1:85 movies in the 80s were shot open matted and them matted for theatrical release.

I would assume that part 3 never had a theatrical screening and if it had it would a very limited one.
I do know there is in fact an HD version that is in widescreen, it aired on Monsters HD a few times. Not sure if we'll ever see a Blu Ray of it though, if anyone would do it - I'd imagine it'd be Olive.

The film itself was shot in two weeks, and so much was taken out of the script that Kevin Tenney said is what made it a great sequel. There of course were still some elements left in, but the director just had no clue about the original films, who the characters were, etc. His mindset was to not see or pay attention to those films as he felt it would impair the way he'd be making his film, so he wanted it to stand on its own.

It stood out all right; for all the wrong reasons. It's a film that was very quickly and cheaply made - which it blatantly shows off.
__________________
Creep Show Radio
chrismac87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-2014, 12:41 AM   #32
DVD-fanatic-9
Remaking My Soul
 
DVD-fanatic-9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Horror
Posts: 3,287
Quote:
Originally Posted by MisterTwister View Post
Are you really surprised he doesn't like it?
We can't all be "cool" I guess.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Zombie Dude View Post
I know I shouldn't be but somehow he always manages to surprise me.
I provided a host of examples of films that I thought were better than this movie. I think I've been more than fair and I liked several of the films I mentioned. What's the problem?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Zombie Dude View Post
there's definitely likable character here like the main girl and the black guy. Plus the fact the black guy survives which is nice to see in a horror movie.
Dawn of the Dead.

If a single one of the characters in this film had any sense, they wouldn't be at this "party" with a bunch of douchebags. Disqualified.
DVD-fanatic-9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-2014, 01:46 AM   #33
Zombie Dude
HackMaster
 
Zombie Dude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 3,371
Quote:
Originally Posted by DVD-fanatic-9 View Post

If a single one of the characters in this film had any sense, they wouldn't be at this "party" with a bunch of douchebags. Disqualified.
Yes but then you wouldn't have a movie.
__________________
The Horror Collection Corner: http://www.youtube.com/user/ZombieDude0001/videos
Zombie Dude is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-2014, 12:47 PM   #34
DVD-fanatic-9
Remaking My Soul
 
DVD-fanatic-9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Horror
Posts: 3,287
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zombie Dude View Post
Yes but then you wouldn't have a movie.
I can live with that.
DVD-fanatic-9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-2014, 01:22 PM   #35
Zombie Dude
HackMaster
 
Zombie Dude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 3,371
Quote:
Originally Posted by DVD-fanatic-9 View Post
I can live with that.
I can't because then we wouldn't have gotten the fantastically cheesy sequel.
__________________
The Horror Collection Corner: http://www.youtube.com/user/ZombieDude0001/videos
Zombie Dude is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-2014, 02:09 PM   #36
Franco
Weekender
 
Franco's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Peru
Posts: 2,354
When I returned this thread back from the dead, I never knew it was going to cause so much conversation about the movie
__________________
DO NOT RUN FOR SOMEONE WHO DOESN'T WALK FOR YOU.
Franco is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-2014, 08:24 PM   #37
DVD-fanatic-9
Remaking My Soul
 
DVD-fanatic-9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Horror
Posts: 3,287
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zombie Dude View Post
I can't because then we wouldn't have gotten the fantastically cheesy sequel.
You've got me there.
DVD-fanatic-9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2014, 12:03 AM   #38
X-human
I ate my keys
 
X-human's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Illinois
Posts: 6,887
I can get disliking the original, and don't really disagree with the reasons given. But to find the original unacceptable but the sequel acceptable? The sequel is about a bunch of douchebags dragging a girl to the place of sister's death for a Halloween prank; why would anyone want to hang out with a group doing that? Even the "good intention" characters act like they're mentally challenged for the plots sake. And the sequel still panders to the same lower instincts, more so I felt.

Basically it's the same shit; different pile.
__________________
The combined weight of the horrors I have authored wrought would crush your carbon hearts into perfect diamonds of terror!

A Few Ants Short. And what the hell, check out my DVD Collection won't you?
X-human is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2014, 03:21 AM   #39
DVD-fanatic-9
Remaking My Soul
 
DVD-fanatic-9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Horror
Posts: 3,287
Quote:
Originally Posted by X-human View Post
I can get disliking the original, and don't really disagree with the reasons given. But to find the original unacceptable but the sequel acceptable? The sequel is about a bunch of douchebags dragging a girl to the place of sister's death for a Halloween prank; why would anyone want to hang out with a group doing that? Even the "good intention" characters act like they're mentally challenged for the plots sake. And the sequel still panders to the same lower instincts, more so I felt.

Basically it's the same shit; different pile.
Actually, there was an important plot-reason for the sister to be there. And it wasn't a ploy to terrorize her. #1. #2, the "sexually-wild" college kids were set-up as either rebelling against or reacting to the extremely rigid, restrictive morals of the Demon-Fighting Sister. There was a point to the way they behaved, and it wasn't to make us cheer-on their impending deaths (those who did die, which were most if I remember correctly). At least, in the first half of the movie. Things change drastically when, suddenly, the plot decides it needs a Female Ash/Reggie ass-kicker and decided the best actress to do that would be the one playing Sister Mary All-Sex-is-Sin... the kind of hypocrisy that makes me bang my head in surprise (first) rather than frustration (rare, really rare). Context is the key. You can't judge anything here based on the surface, the character writing is too much of an honest upgrade from the original. Even I was shocked at how smart the movie was for cheesy trash ...Until the turnover. It's the attitudes of the filmmakers I'm calling into question and I believe the guys in charge of the sequel wanted to do something different. (Something with some kind of head on its' shoulders. Or, at least, some ambition.)
DVD-fanatic-9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2014, 01:54 PM   #40
X-human
I ate my keys
 
X-human's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Illinois
Posts: 6,887
Quote:
Originally Posted by DVD-fanatic-9 View Post
Actually, there was an important plot-reason for the sister to be there.
As I said, the plot made characters out to be total douchebags and retards, even the sister. That's lazy writing and by a certain logic of yours doesn't that still disqualify redeeming characters?
Quote:
Originally Posted by DVD-fanatic-9 View Post
If a single one of the characters in this film had any sense, they wouldn't be at this "party" with a bunch of douchebags. Disqualified.
What little plot reasons don't make up for that fact they are douchebags or hanging out with douchebags. Collectively dragging the sister to her sister's death site as a prank it 100x douchier than anything in the original.

In the original they were just going to a party, not knowing the full roaster ahead of time. And in fact the reason why the good characters do leave to the car and to their own private sections of the house is because the rest are douchebags. [Look at that, douchebags used as a plot point?] The house itself prevents them from leaving the location however, a scripted plot device.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DVD-fanatic-9 View Post
the "sexually-wild" college kids were set-up as either rebelling against or reacting to the extremely rigid, restrictive morals of the Demon-Fighting Sister. There was a point to the way they behaved
I seem to recall you saying
Quote:
Originally Posted by DVD-fanatic-9 View Post
I don't do well with films that parade shitty, detestable, hateful, irredeemably I.Q.-impaired characters around like it's a great act of anarchy
So parading shitty, detestable, hateful, irredeemably I.Q.-impaired characters around like it's a great act of anarchy against the church when it's just plain old hormones everyone else has still passes that litmus test? Seems rather arbitrary to me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DVD-fanatic-9 View Post
You can't judge anything here based on the surface, the character writing is too much of an honest upgrade from the original.
Uh... Like what? No character performs an action or demonstrates a character trait not originally established in the first act. The nun, seemingly your best and so far only example, does what any stereotypical nun does in a movie and therefore does it against demons.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DVD-fanatic-9 View Post
Context is the key. You can't judge anything here based on the surface, the character writing is too much of an honest upgrade from the original.
The script here is worst of all, you can't use that as a crutch.

Much like the 90's itself it misunderstood what was previously popular and took away its teeth while piling on the dumb in a hope to appeal to the same demographic.

There is more gratuitous nudity in the sequel. The original also used it more imaginatively and to reinforce the concept that demons enjoy having flesh but in a more objectifying but not sexual way. This carries over themes from The Evil Dead, "you have pretty flesh, GIVE IT TO ME!"

Also there is more of a degrading and demeaning attitude against women in the sequel with more of the "lipstick lesbian" touches which only appeals to straight males, offends real lesbians and straight women alike. The haunted lipstick itself takes on a phallic symbolism when possessing your anarchist lesbian character, as if symbolizing that penis can dominate and control unruly women through their vagina making them turn away from any true lesbian tendencies they might have [put still engage in lipstick lesbianism].

Hey you told me to looking below the surface and to consider the context on that.

I find the sequel to be a typical 90's knock off, trying to hold onto the Bush status quo after the anti-conservative rebelling of the 80's. The derelict streets of repression suburban Reagan America where public school kids have to find a way to blow off steam because they soon will have to join the working world gives away to a clean boarding school of privileged kids who are bored and have everything going for them so they collectively decide to pick on an underprivileged orphan girl who's had real trauma in her life; before going to college mind you.

There is also a collective effort to save these privileged kids, by adults reclaiming their territory at the school [white flight] when demons (which they believe in) were punishing sinners[people partying with sex, drugs and rock 'n roll (and traumatizing orphans)] (which they also believed in, but I guess those sins weren't "enough" for punishment. Reinforcing it's OK for privileged believers to sin and get out of Hell.) While in the original public school kids were left to defend themselves and die; later becoming a mocking point for the privileged kids. [It's worth noting God hardly intervene in the original, the black Baptist(?) had to do the right Christian thing without spiritual backup. White Catholics of the sequel had all the powers of heaven to combat the demons.] None of this is done in the sequel in an ironic way.

Typical bad 90's writing oblivious to the problems in society at the time which eventually lead to the crashes and clashes in 2000's. This is what you hold up as better than the original?

Mind you, I enjoyed the sequel for what it was. But let's call a spade a spade here.
__________________
The combined weight of the horrors I have authored wrought would crush your carbon hearts into perfect diamonds of terror!

A Few Ants Short. And what the hell, check out my DVD Collection won't you?

Last edited by X-human; 03-01-2014 at 01:59 PM.
X-human is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2014, 01:58 PM   #41
Zombie Dude
HackMaster
 
Zombie Dude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 3,371
Quote:
Originally Posted by DVD-fanatic-9 View Post
You've got me there.
Well at least we both enjoy the sequel. It's cheesy goodness I love to watch with friends and a few drinks
__________________
The Horror Collection Corner: http://www.youtube.com/user/ZombieDude0001/videos
Zombie Dude is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2014, 06:43 PM   #42
chrismac87
Zombie Eater
 
chrismac87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 611
Quote:
Originally Posted by X-human View Post
As I said, the plot made characters out to be total douchebags and retards, even the sister. That's lazy writing and by a certain logic of yours doesn't that still disqualify redeeming characters?

What little plot reasons don't make up for that fact they are douchebags or hanging out with douchebags. Collectively dragging the sister to her sister's death site as a prank it 100x douchier than anything in the original.

In the original they were just going to a party, not knowing the full roaster ahead of time. And in fact the reason why the good characters do leave to the car and to their own private sections of the house is because the rest are douchebags. [Look at that, douchebags used as a plot point?] The house itself prevents them from leaving the location however, a scripted plot device.



I seem to recall you saying

So parading shitty, detestable, hateful, irredeemably I.Q.-impaired characters around like it's a great act of anarchy against the church when it's just plain old hormones everyone else has still passes that litmus test? Seems rather arbitrary to me.



Uh... Like what? No character performs an action or demonstrates a character trait not originally established in the first act. The nun, seemingly your best and so far only example, does what any stereotypical nun does in a movie and therefore does it against demons.



The script here is worst of all, you can't use that as a crutch.

Much like the 90's itself it misunderstood what was previously popular and took away its teeth while piling on the dumb in a hope to appeal to the same demographic.

There is more gratuitous nudity in the sequel. The original also used it more imaginatively and to reinforce the concept that demons enjoy having flesh but in a more objectifying but not sexual way. This carries over themes from The Evil Dead, "you have pretty flesh, GIVE IT TO ME!"

Also there is more of a degrading and demeaning attitude against women in the sequel with more of the "lipstick lesbian" touches which only appeals to straight males, offends real lesbians and straight women alike. The haunted lipstick itself takes on a phallic symbolism when possessing your anarchist lesbian character, as if symbolizing that penis can dominate and control unruly women through their vagina making them turn away from any true lesbian tendencies they might have [put still engage in lipstick lesbianism].

Hey you told me to looking below the surface and to consider the context on that.

I find the sequel to be a typical 90's knock off, trying to hold onto the Bush status quo after the anti-conservative rebelling of the 80's. The derelict streets of repression suburban Reagan America where public school kids have to find a way to blow off steam because they soon will have to join the working world gives away to a clean boarding school of privileged kids who are bored and have everything going for them so they collectively decide to pick on an underprivileged orphan girl who's had real trauma in her life; before going to college mind you.

There is also a collective effort to save these privileged kids, by adults reclaiming their territory at the school [white flight] when demons (which they believe in) were punishing sinners[people partying with sex, drugs and rock 'n roll (and traumatizing orphans)] (which they also believed in, but I guess those sins weren't "enough" for punishment. Reinforcing it's OK for privileged believers to sin and get out of Hell.) While in the original public school kids were left to defend themselves and die; later becoming a mocking point for the privileged kids. [It's worth noting God hardly intervene in the original, the black Baptist(?) had to do the right Christian thing without spiritual backup. White Catholics of the sequel had all the powers of heaven to combat the demons.] None of this is done in the sequel in an ironic way.

Typical bad 90's writing oblivious to the problems in society at the time which eventually lead to the crashes and clashes in 2000's. This is what you hold up as better than the original?

Mind you, I enjoyed the sequel for what it was. But let's call a spade a spade here.
This ^^^

__________________
Creep Show Radio
chrismac87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2014, 06:32 PM   #43
DVD-fanatic-9
Remaking My Soul
 
DVD-fanatic-9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Horror
Posts: 3,287
Quote:
Originally Posted by X-human View Post
Hey you told me to looking below the surface and to consider the context on that.
The entire franchise is fairly shallow. I'm not claiming it isn't with any of the defenses of the sequel. (And, I'm only defending the first half at that. The energy level is high and the performances are extremely enigmatic. These "douchebags" actually Command my attention, they force me to pay attention. No matter how detestable you find them, this is not a lazy group of characters. The director actually imbues them with what I find to be a uniformly lively quality. Now... to relent, slightly: at best, what this all does is keep the film afloat as a piece of fluff. Hell, I recently went on a very long walk off a short peer to give Phantasm III some long overdue credit and even then I wasn't claiming the film was high on substance. Most horror films, including the good ones, aren't actually meaningful. Not very. It takes a real director with some talent or outstanding cred to make an ideology in the text work. Your reading of the first film's alleged high-minded ambitions, unless you're claiming they are unintentional, is embarrassingly off-the-mark. Especially since the film is an extremely bottom-barrel'd horror-"comedy" deriving humor from the same class stereotypes you're attempting to give credence to. To Night of the Demons, these "public school" kids are freaks in the freakshow, not one shred of integrity paid to them whatsoever; including - says I - anyone's examples of so-called "good" characters.

The very important distinction I am drawing between the original and the sequel is that I believe the group of teens in the sequel are not even close to being mean-spirited by nature. As a group, and thank you for painting them with such a broad brush because now I can tell you weren't paying attention. In context of the attitude of the filmmakers toward the characters, the first half of the sequel doesn't demonize the sexual behaviors of the teens. Only the uptight nun does. It also puts the men and women on an equal playing field, in how they express themselves. Are they simplistic? Sure. But they aren't douchebags. They're sheep. There is a very key fundamental difference, and surprisingly a very true-to-life one. If you remember the movie, they weren't all standing around, waiting for anything to happen to the sister. So, they were not going to the house to partake in torturing the girl or delight in it: they were just going where their friends were going. They were guilty of casual apathy, if anything. Or, herd-like behavior. The sort of thing that would, in fact, be well-covered by your reading of the film as "private school kids" being raised to spread the conservatism of their benefactors through the entire social system of their peers.

Also, so much for your "typical 90's" argument: the plot of NotD 2 has root in the 1980's. Terror Train has a set of "protagonists" going along with a cruel prank, one of them noneotherthan Jamie Lee Curtis. Is she a douchebag with no shot at redeeming herself? No, because she felt bad about what happened and made sure to slam anyone who laughed about it. The other friends didn't, at least not on the surface. Are they iredeemable? No. Because it wasn't in their nature to try and drive people crazy. They went along with it because they wanted to see what would happen. This is a very common thing with people, lots of people do it. Which is true to life, no pretension about it: people are sheep. They want to have fun, but they also want to fit in and stick with their friends. But at least these friends don't treat each other like shit. The sister (or, in TT, Kenny), sure: maybe. If they didn't see her as trying to fit in or a genuine member of their clique. The sister really was more of a plot turning-key. The sort of thing that was covered by my reading of the 2nd half of the film as abusive to the first. I already covered this, you can't claim I was being hypocritical.

You still don't understand the point I am making: objectively, people doing something wrong doesn't make them an irredeemable character. It's the way they act about it. It's if they counter criticism (which is one of the only credits I give the first movie: no shortage of someone to throw back some equivalent of "you pig!") with "FUCK YOU, GIMME SOMETHING" like an uncaring, unfeeling asshole, someone who can't even process what they're doing. The characters in the sequel do recklessly ignore what's going on, because that is The Mindset of The Group. See what I'm getting at here? That portrayal shows some sense of forethought on the part of the writing. Something that's bad in life. I am not defending what the characters did. But the way the film wrote them doing it. They could all redeem themselves. At any point in the film, even the bitchy girl (maybe not the blond guy). Well... maybe not, but they did kind of cast her in the mold of Chris from Carrie- we actually knew what her damage was. (We didn't have to accept her as a decent person, we just had to see the Nun was worse or encouraging her bad behavior by ruler-slapping instead of trying to teach a lesson.) As a group, they were not intentionally portrayed as beyond reproach- so desensitized that they would kick the sister when she was down. And, if I remember the film correctly, nobody cheered what happened on. In fact, some of them said it was wrong.

But again, even with the best of intentions, I respect a film more for showing a genuine human flaw than portraying a group of people as robots in a film with a sense of humor defined best by a scene where a mother gleefully offers a teenage guest SHIT LOGS on a goddamned silver tray. I almost dare you to try and articulate that one for me in lofty visual terms. That's not subversion, it's pandering. The original film is sloppy. The characters are RAMPAGING, systematically selfish, rotten to the core assholes who didn't care about anyone but themselves. They all went to that "party" to get off in some way. They are Extreme Users. AND the film glorified this. Exploited it for cheap "thrills," using Clear Sexism (I'm not dropping this "bitch" thing- that word is to Night of the Demons what "fuck" is to Blair Witch Project) for laughs, and its sense of humor was morbidly childish. If a roomful of babies or a pet store were set ablaze killing everything alive in it in one scene, the film would have made a joke about it. Because: it thought it was being anarchic. Because the film is pandering, not subversive.

I'll give you credit where it's due: you sure worded your interpretation of the sequel well. To a point, I can't disagree. With your take on what it means. But, in comparison to the original, I sure can. You have not presented a single legit hypocrisy in my view on the films. Those worthless wads in the original were nasty to everyone. These characters here are actual friends who generally give a damn about each other and I believed that. I didn't believe anyone did in the first film, even if it was intended- and, even if they did, I didn't care. The film alienated anyone who would be receptive to a true analogical reading by making the characters impossible to defend. I more than demonstrated that the girls generally couldn't stand the sight of each other and the guys treated them like shit too. Try, just try, to provide proof that this was the same in the sequel.

There are no "good" characters in the movie. They are all irredeemable shits. If a single one of them was portrayed as being irritated by another, it was for the same reason as the person irritating them = entitlement. The user feels entitled to use anyone they want to, and the person they're messing with has been programmed to roll their eyes when they hear anything they don't like. (Something that rubs me a lot like the kind of thing you were hoping I'd buy was true of the sequel.) And, still, the same motivation and mentality remains in their character as all the others: the main blonde female protagonist is portrayed as uptight by virtue of the film Intentionally and Actively Trying to Derive Laughs from the Douchebags. Your argument is invalidated by the entire tone of the film. It isn't trying to say that douchebags suck, they're trying to say "isn't this amusing?" No, it sure as hell isn't. Whether the sister is a plot point or not in the sequel, that film Intentionally and Actively shows that what Shirley (I just looked up her name) is doing to the sister is wrong.

I respect the sequel for showing us this because, even if the original had better intentions, it meant to grate on the viewer. And that is no case of a genre-necessity being filled. The film is at-heart a horror-comedy with a shitty sense of humor (literally, if you remember the poo sticks scene) and I don't consider a genre necessity stopping the train to scan non-characters for cheap exploits. And, if I did, Class of Nuke 'Em High did it much better. The film remained a silly, antagonistic horror-comedy while being a compellingly ugly, nasty, gritty, cheap thing as a realized effect (I consider the film a far greater stamp of Troma's than their calling card, Toxic Avenger) rather than a blueprint- the whole film made me feel dirty and creeped me out, which stuck with me, instead of merely pissing me off. Demons stuck with me too but watching the film was a waste of my time. That's not what I expect to be left with as a feeling after watching a film as hyped up as this one. Especially when you start examining it and find conclusively that it's nothing more than pandering.


Quote:
Originally Posted by X-human View Post
So parading shitty, detestable, hateful, irredeemably I.Q.-impaired characters around like it's a great act of anarchy against the church when it's just plain old hormones everyone else has still passes that litmus test? Seems rather arbitrary to me.
Against the church? If you actually watched the film, you remember that the Priest had beliefs Standing Directly-in-Contrast to the hate-your-body Demon Fighting Sister. So, it was demonstrating different points of view within the religion held by different people. And that clearly shows more thinking in the writing for the sequel than anything in the original.


Quote:
Originally Posted by X-human View Post
The nun, seemingly your best and so far only example, does what any stereotypical nun does in a movie and therefore does it against demons.
She has martial arts skills and uses weapons... that's only stereotypical if you think Girlfriend from Hell dictates popular trends.


Quote:
Originally Posted by X-human View Post
There is more gratuitous nudity in the sequel.
The film did not dog anyone for being turned on (again, I admitted it was fluff), nor did it show the teens as having an attitude of "Fuck You, I Need to Get Off NOW!" (except maybe the blond guy). The first film did. Throughout. This could have worked if anyone were convinced the film had any depth. But, even with the fans, people came for the exploitation and to enjoy the asshole characters. Which I find lazy in comparison to the sequel which didn't keep stopping all the time. The sequel's pacing is far superior.


Quote:
Originally Posted by X-human View Post
Also there is more of a degrading and demeaning attitude against women in the sequel with more of the "lipstick lesbian" touches which only appeals to straight males, offends real lesbians and straight women alike. The haunted lipstick itself takes on a phallic symbolism when possessing your anarchist lesbian character, as if symbolizing that penis can dominate and control unruly women through their vagina making them turn away from any true lesbian tendencies they might have [put still engage in lipstick lesbianism].
Sorry, but after seeing Witchboard, you'll have to go a lot further than that to convince me Kevin S. Tenney is a deep filmmaker.

No sale.


Quote:
Originally Posted by X-human View Post
The original also used it more imaginatively and to reinforce the concept that demons enjoy having flesh but in a more objectifying but not sexual way. This carries over themes from The Evil Dead, "you have pretty flesh, GIVE IT TO ME!"
The line is: "you have pretty skin, give it to us!" Just so you know who you're talking to.


Quote:
Originally Posted by X-human View Post
Much like the 90's itself it misunderstood what was previously popular and took away its teeth while piling on the dumb in a hope to appeal to the same demographic.
Don't give me this glory-of-the-80's bullshit. I love the 80's in the genre probably as much as you do (and I never pretended the 90's were better than the 80's, just they were vastly superior to 2003-now), but don't you dare preach to me about teeth. Because: the 1970's. The 80's could never compare to the 70's in terms of voracity, insight, and integrity in the actual text. Killer Party was Night of the Demons done right. Night of the Demons is a brainless, pointless, and cheap - therefore entirely impotent - ripoff of KP, Demons, The Evil Dead films, etc. If you want this kind of movie with a silly tone and unlikable characters but some fuckin' balls- watch Rabid Grannies. Also, Zombie Dude, so we're clear: that is the film for this whole franchise (all 3 movies) to beat. And it can't.

Last edited by DVD-fanatic-9; 03-02-2014 at 06:43 PM.
DVD-fanatic-9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2014, 06:56 PM   #44
vidjunkie
Stalker
 
vidjunkie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 220
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrismac87 View Post
I do know there is in fact an HD version that is in widescreen, it aired on Monsters HD a few times. Not sure if we'll ever see a Blu Ray of it though, if anyone would do it - I'd imagine it'd be Olive.
Now I wish we could get our hands on this.
vidjunkie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2014, 07:08 PM   #45
evildeadfan123
Sam & Dean Winchester
 
evildeadfan123's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Missouri
Posts: 2,154
I watched Night of The Demons 2 Blu-Ray from Olive, and it was fantastic. Sure beats my DVD copy. I'm not holding my breath for Part 3 to come out anytime soon. The DVD IMO was dark in some scenes, and the Blu-Ray was so much brighter and the picture quality was so much better on Blu-Ray for Part 2 than the DVD. I own the entire trilogy, and the 3rd was the weakest of the three.
__________________
Why have you disturbed our sleep? Awaken us from our ancient slumber? You will die! Like the others before you. One by one we will take you.

I know a good hangover remedy, a greasy pork sandwich served in a dirty ashtray.

RIP: John Winchester, all us Supernatural fans will miss you.

http://www.myspace.com/jaredjensenfan

I love Jared's flaring nostrils
evildeadfan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:38 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

Copyright 1999-2014 Horrordvds.com

No text or images from this site may be reprinted or used elsewhere without express consent from Horrordvds.com