|
Post by skarymoviez on Dec 5, 2011 10:03:31 GMT -6
I chose part 2 just because it seems to be a bit more fun. The original is scary for 1983 and it's good to see actual teens playing teens. Innovative deaths, too!
|
|
|
Post by texarkanaguido on Dec 5, 2011 17:22:27 GMT -6
I like the first 3! The second is really a trip! I would love to go camping there!
|
|
|
Post by bodyboy on Dec 5, 2011 17:24:08 GMT -6
Oh, see, I don't mind cheap looking effects, because I love it when a film is stylized. The more balance of beautiful and ghastly, the better. Probably why I don't care for modern horror too much. More often than not, it's all ghastly, which leaves me feeling like I've watched a film with no soul. And look at that, I'm usually right! Yeah, 5 Dolls is beautiful, but I think Bay of Blood and Lisa are his most gorgeous. Baron was dull, but some scenes just stick out in my mind, like the little girl in the woods. A true Bava stamp print on that one.
|
|
|
Post by Mista-Bones on Dec 9, 2011 0:27:50 GMT -6
my faves are 1 and Return i know most didnt like the new one but i did it brought back the Og angela And her cousin, and i couldnt really dig 2 n 3 with it being a completly diff chick and she was prettier then the og angela so how u posta believe its the same person character wise.
|
|
|
Post by I'm Blake on Dec 9, 2011 17:08:12 GMT -6
I love them all! 1 was the first one I saw as a child, I was totally obsessed! Then came two, and I became more obsessed. Those are my favs of the series. 2 is pretty good if you can clear the image of Felissa from your mind!
|
|
|
Post by No Personality on Dec 10, 2011 4:13:40 GMT -6
Oh, see, I don't mind cheap looking effects It depends on what the movie is trying to do. If it's a cheesy movie (not a horror movie, I know, but case in point: The Worst Witch), I won't care about effects' quality too much either. But if it's trying to be a seriously hard-hitting, dark, or disturbing movie, it hurts to be thrown out of the fantasy by really unrealistic blood (too thick and too bright red rather than dark) and rubbery, discolored wounds. I'd rather when it comes down to this that they just plain didn't try to do gore at all. If it you can't do it right, don't do it at all- that's my motto. At least with movies. Of course, if the movie's trying to be batshit crazy (probably The Evil Dead's saving grace- effects wise), I think lesser quality effects can work so long as they can make the scene scary. I love it when a film is stylized. The more balance of beautiful and ghastly, the better. Same here. But when I see something gruesome, I'm hoping it will be something in the story rather than recoiling from a bad effect. I'm not sure I just said that right. But I mean- I want to see a gruesome occurence in the form of a death scene but not if the effects crew can't get it right. Because then I'll be reacting to the ghastly sight of a bad effect rather than the ghastly sight of a convincing throat slitting or impalement or decapitation. Etc. I highly enjoy gore and gruesome deaths. But only if they're made with intelligence and at the very least covered up so I can't see the flaws. (Okay, I don't think I said that right either. What I'm talking about are the technically good gore effects in "horror" movies from the last decade- stuff like Hatchet or Mirrors or whatever. Those movies are just pointless and stupid and have no real horror soul. I mean the crop of movies that are nothing but gore and don't take time to build up a story or characters or a good mood.) A good example of this done right: Squirm, versus a movie that did it wrong: Fright Night. In Fright Night, there's a scene where you see the vampire Jerry Dandridge has extremely long fingers but the makeup only covers the extentions. So, it looks like he has clay stubs sticking on the ends of his real fingers. In Squirm, there's a scene where worms burrow into a man's face and you see them crawling under his skin. It looks amazing because the makeup artist knew that the part of the actor's face covered with fake appliances was going to be a different color than the rest of his face so he took the time to literally make up all the skin on the actor's neck and head with the same color as the appliance so it looks seamless. You can't tell where the fake ends and the real begins. Probably why I don't care for modern horror too much. More often than not, it's all ghastly, which leaves me feeling like I've watched a film with no soul. And look at that, I'm usually right! I'm actually reading your post as I'm replying to it, in pieces. I feel the exact same way. Yeah, 5 Dolls is beautiful, but I think Bay of Blood and Lisa are his most gorgeous. Baron was dull, but some scenes just stick out in my mind, like the little girl in the woods. A true Bava stamp print on that one. 5 Dolls is a little more than beautiful. I didn't study film or anything, so I can't tell every artistic influence he might have been going for but I feel that movie definitely has a deeper level to it. Even if it's just as a series of murders with trashy 'intrigue' tossed in, I think it's more effective than one would expect. I agree Bay is one of his best looking. But to me, Baron has something compellingly freaky his other movies can't claim (well- those I've seen) and Lisa is not just dull. It's agonizing. I wasn't understating when I said I deeply loathe that film. It feels like some bad made-for-TV movie or a color episode of Dark Shadows gone extremely wrong. Telly Savalas was obnoxious (I would literally like to do an impression of his "chocolate sprinkles" line for you that could even partially sum up how much that grates on my sharpest nerve- heavy, jagged nails on a chalkboard would be sublime in comparison), the husband and wife were just dispicable people, nothing about the mother was interesting or explained, the son was a damn attempted rapist, the deaths were ridiculous, and I think the movie was ugly and bordering on pretentious (which I'm forced to say again since I don't understand anything about the religious implications of all his cutaways to statues, etc). If it weren't for the music- the movie would be on my list of worst horror movies I've ever seen.
|
|
|
Post by bodyboy on Dec 10, 2011 20:22:49 GMT -6
I still think that Lisa's cinematography makes it one of the least dull films possible. Baron... meh.
As for blood, I prefer bright red to dark-dark blood. There's a misconception about blood's color. The old "omg, it's soo bright and unrealistic" is actually the correct way it's supposed to look. When Jigsaw gets his throat sawed in the Saw series, and the blood is practically black, THAT is unrealistic. When you blow someone's head off or stab someone in the chest, the blood that comes out isn't THAT dark. Not orange, but brighter than many people realise.
|
|
|
Post by No Personality on Dec 11, 2011 13:52:49 GMT -6
The blood in Bay of Blood was not realistic. I know, I've seen my own blood actually being shed. I've only seen the first 2 Saw flicks (calling them films is too good- they don't deserve that honor) and I'm not such a masochist that I could actually sit through them more than once ever in my entire life. So, was Bay closer than Saw? I couldn't tell you. I wouldn't remember. But - realistic or not, stylized or not - darker red blood looks better. If you're like me and you grew up with the 80's films as a resource. I don't mind red blood that looks red but there are different kinds of red. Bava liked fake red. Red that was too bright and too thick.
As for Lisa vs. Baron, I still think the people who prefer the former to the latter are nuts. Lisa feels like a stylish movie that didn't want to go all the way, visually. I'm telling you - and it would be nice to hear your theory on this - the movie is made to have meaning because of the architecture and all the religious artifacts, etc. What's so special about the cinematography? It seems practically irrelevant when you consider what Bava was trying to shoot and the music (easily the best aspect to the movie). I liked a few scenes. Like the one with Lisa looking at the small music box sorta thing that revolved the miniature figures. The moment where it hypnotized Lisa and she went off into her mind and reappeared in the field. And the beginning of the airplane scene. And the little funeral procession they had for the driver. Apart from that, everything looks dusty and old and ugly. Then the movie's pace is so damn slow and they're trying to play mysterious with a bunch of characters that no one could ever care about or enjoy watching. They all feel old because they're unlikable and they're annoying because they don't do anything. And, until they add the cheap rape garbage, the movie has no stakes to it.
|
|
|
Post by bodyboy on Dec 11, 2011 19:04:29 GMT -6
I know Bay of Blood's blood isn't realistic. But I do prefer it because it's trying to be stylized, and succeeds. Imo.
|
|
|
Post by No Personality on Dec 12, 2011 3:38:08 GMT -6
That's hardly the point anymore. What about the ability of the viewer to stay engrossed in the film's admittedly scary atmosphere? It's shot so well and has moments of beautiful suggestive tragedy and then... it turns to schlock because the effects are so bad. The point is: the movie isn't balanced very well. As a matter of fact, none of Bava's movies (those I've seen) have been except Hatchet for the Honeymoon.
|
|
|
Post by bodyboy on Dec 12, 2011 4:57:53 GMT -6
I don't get scared of horror films save for a few. I'm not under the impression that horror HAS to scare people. Its intent is to horrify, and I think that in an artistic approach, Bay of Blood does that for me. I get engrossed in the obvious SFX and still receive the punch because of the way the idea is presented. I know most people don't see films the way that I do, but for me, effects have a high tolerance level with me for artistic reasons that resonate with how I feel when I watch a movie. I was hoping to refrain from using 'art' so much since it feels very...uh, the "P" word, but I simply don't care about being grounded in reality with films about zombies, murderous madmen and ghosts.
|
|
|
Post by No Personality on Dec 12, 2011 17:38:07 GMT -6
I was just talking about Bay's atmosphere. It was quite unsettling and kinda scary. Whatever good a film's atmosphere is doing, it should keep it up. I completely agree with you here, a film's ability to scare is a luxury. And the same thing goes with reality. What I meant is that the film's sense of fantasy should be consistent and not break up due to fawlty effects, etc.
I meant: whatever a film is trying to be - fantasy or reality, it should remain consistent and as convincing as it is from the start. I was following the film until the effects set in- which pulled me out of the experience. That's a big problem with me.
|
|
|
Post by bodyboy on Dec 13, 2011 3:14:28 GMT -6
Guess we'll have to agree to disagree on Bay of Blood. I understand your point. I suppose for me, since I look at the atmosphere and direction as artsy, the shoddy effects fit like paintings in the movie and instead of taking me out, draw me in more because of their fake-ish quality, lending a sort of beauty to each of the murders, as opposed to disgust.
|
|
|
Post by pledgemistress on Apr 15, 2012 22:32:08 GMT -6
Part 2 because Pamela Springsteen was perfect as Angela! Part 1 comes in a very close second - loved Meg and Judy! Part 3 is OK but doesn't have the same feel as Part 2 even though Pamela returns. Return To Sleepaway Camp was just a big mess.
|
|
|
Post by horrorfan82 on Nov 13, 2012 23:23:09 GMT -6
I have to go with the first Sleepaway Camp Felissa has always been the best Angela in my opinion plus the fact Robert Hiltzik didn't spend most of his time focusing on tits like Michael Simpson did for the sequels I give it two thumbs up
|
|