|
@robthehermit I'll have to watch it. Looks good to me. |
Films based on Clive Barker and Stephen King stories. • Page 2
-
-
simpleexplodingmaybe 19,992 posts
Seen 4 hours ago
Registered 6 years agoanephric wrote:
"Thanks for the ride laydee"
The rest of Creepshow 2 is a bit wank, but The Raft segment is brilliant. -
matrim83 5,713 posts
Seen 20 minutes ago
Registered 17 years agoAddy_B wrote:
Its not an all time great or anything but its a really fun watch. I really liked it.
robthehermit wrote:
Is this any good? I've never heard of it.
-
mal 29,326 posts
Seen 3 years ago
Registered 20 years agoDecks wrote:
Yeah, I watched it again when it was on the other weekend, I think. Really quite a clever horror as they go, and I loved the noire eye-lights as women came under his spell - super stylish.
I think Clive Barker wrote Candyman which still holds up pretty well.
Sadly, the black kid is a terrible actor. It was his first role, but looking him up on imdb it seems the best other thing he can claim is being little better than an extra on an episode of Fresh Prince once. He's still working, but mainly as Thug 3 in shitty made-for-DVD productions. -
onestepfromlost 2,721 posts
Seen 1 week ago
Registered 14 years agoforget barkers films usually he adaptations are nothing compared to the books even though hes involved in them (usually i find when the author is involved they come out better). However. go and read all his books. All of them. -
simpleexplodingmaybe 19,992 posts
Seen 4 hours ago
Registered 6 years agoThere are Clive Barker games but are there any good Stephen King ones? -
Shit, I can't believe I've never seen Hellraiser. It's Halloween, must rectify. -
simpleexplodingmaybe 19,992 posts
Seen 4 hours ago
Registered 6 years agoHellraiser is best, then two, then three, then the one in space.
Given how dated everything looks the first one is probably the only one which really holds up today. -
simpleexplodingmaybe wrote:
What about 5 through 9?
Hellraiser is best, then two, then three, then the one in space.
Given how dated everything looks the first one is probably the only one which really holds up today. -
Trowel 24,512 posts
Seen 2 days ago
Registered 18 years agosimpleexplodingmaybe wrote:
http://game.itthemovie.com/
There are Clive Barker games but are there any good Stephen King ones? -
Decks 31,013 posts
Seen 5 hours ago
Registered 6 years agoThey're all a bit shit in all honesty. The Cenobites are cool but as films none of them are particularly great. -
simpleexplodingmaybe 19,992 posts
Seen 4 hours ago
Registered 6 years agoThey had some real menace and character in the first film but got reduced to being another franchise monster as things went.
There is probably a cool film someone could make exploring their lore and how the Cenobites are beyond good and evil but I get the feeling people just want a goth freddy kreuger to whip chains at people which is a shame -
Nothing to see here.
Edited by robthehermit at 12:28:28 31-10-2017 -
Decks wrote:
I'd disagree. I think the first hellraiser is excellent and it holds up really well. I watched it again a few weeks back and like 80's action films....they just don't make em like they used to these days. I'm a big horror fan though so I may be a bit biased.
They're all a bit shit in all honesty. The Cenobites are cool but as films none of them are particularly great. -
YenRug 4,553 posts
Seen 1 year ago
Registered 14 years ago -
Cappy 14,393 posts
Seen 11 minutes ago
Registered 16 years agoIt really depends on whether you're approaching things with the mindset that it must be a adaptation that includes all the elements you think are essential, as can be seen on the previous page where somebody didn't like Kubrick's take on The Shining.
Just watch the Stephen King approved version of The Shining, that puts lots of 'missing' stuff back into to the story, it's worse for it. Hedge monsters, it could only be true horror with CGI hedge monsters, right?
Kubrick sliced away all the cheese and Stephen King's padding and cliche. Contrast the guy in the wolf mask jumping out going ooga booga at Danny in the King version versus the Kubrick version where a man is briefly glimpsed in a wolf/bear? costume kneeling and leaning over another man sitting on a hotel bed. Is he blowing him? What's going on? They acknowledge the observer and laugh, it's a disturbing vignette in a sequence that communicates the growing malevolance of the hotel.
Horror is ambiguity and the unknown, not guys in Halloween masks jumping out and going ooga booga.
With no expectation of faithfulness to books that are often not that good anyway:
Salem's Lot - Ponderous, but it has a charm.
1408 - Adapted from the short story, I'd love to see another take on this but this is worth a watch.
Thinner - Once again, not a classic but worth a watch.
The Night Flier - Another short story adaptation that's not too bad. Since the source is so short it has plenty of room to expand and build a story around that core.
Edited by Cappy at 12:13:17 05-11-2017 -
The Stand (TV mini series version on two DVDs) is decent and stay close to the book without going ott. That said, it's still about 8 hours long. -
Scimarad 9,964 posts
Seen 21 hours ago
Registered 18 years ago@Cappy
Stephen King has pretty dubious taste about adaptations of his work but that doesn't make the Kubrick version a better adaptation (again, not claiming it's not a good film) and I never claimed that mini-series was any thing more than shit. There is a lot to like in the Kubrick version of the Shining but it certainly lost more than jus 'slicing away the cheese' as you put it. That scene you mentioned in the Kubrick version of the Shining fits perfectly with how the Overlook was in the book. My main issue is that Jack seems a total nut job from the beginning, Wendy is utterly fucking useless and Hallorann is totally wasted. -
Cappy 14,393 posts
Seen 11 minutes ago
Registered 16 years ago@Scimarad
I suppose I don't mind those things because Kubrick's version does such an outstanding job of imbuing a hotel with the sense of being inhabited by a hostile supernatural intelligence.
Wendy is rage inducing, I think that's the point. If we're annoyed just watching her it gives us some insight into Jack, living with her and trying to keep a lid on his anger. Isolated at the Overlook he no longer has to worry about other people, tipping Jack over the edge is easy because some part of him already wants to harm his family. -
Scimarad 9,964 posts
Seen 21 hours ago
Registered 18 years ago@Cappy
I suppose if you already know and like the characters it's very annoying to see them portrayed in the 'wrong' way. I totally understand why people like it and don't understand the objection, though. -
anephric 5,274 posts
Seen 6 days ago
Registered 14 years agoThere are a lot of odd choices in Kubrick's The Shining, mostly because Kubrick went out of his way to make an anti-horror horror film. Kubrick also made no secret of his distaste for a lot of the novel, which is an odd thing when you're adapting it. Unless you're doing it ironically.
Like the blood coming out of the lift doors - he uses that so much, so early, that's it's not scary when it finally happens, it's been pre-saged so much.
And yet so much of The Shining is brilliantly atmospheric, even with Jack Nicholson beaming in a performance from the planet 11. He says he gave Kubrick endless different variations of each scene in the 179 takes they did, and Kubrick always went with the looney tunes version. -
Got a lot of love for Candyman. The premise of an urban legend made flesh by belief is about the only thing it has in common with Barker's short story - in the original it's a skinny white guy on a Liverpool housing estate, if I recall correctly! - but the film creates a really interesting atmosphere of its own. Half the time you feel like you're watching Koyaanisqatsi rather than a horror film - no doubt due to the Philip Glass score and awesome photography of the city. Liked the director's earlier film "Paperhouse" too. Bit of a forgotten film, that one.
As for Nightbreed, I was always a bit meh about the film back in the day. But it turns out to have been one of those unfortunate films that was too weird for the studio, so the studio did what studios tend to do with such films, i.e, edited about half an hour out of it on the principle that if you can't make it good then at least make it short. Given that fate, it's maybe not surprising that Nightbreed ended up feeling like an amateurish misfire; occasional moments of power, but mostly an incoherent mess.
I guess doing an Alan Smithee and taking his name off it wasn't really an option, but he must've been tempted. On the bright side, Clive Barker was finally given the chance to reconstruct his original version of the film a few years ago. I guess the supposedly lost footage must've turned up.gif)
I've only watched it the once, but the Director's Cut certainly made a lot more sense and felt better-paced than the theatrical edit. It's probably best to judge the film based on the 2014 Director's Cut, because that's the film Barker made before the studio mauled it. I guess Barker got his "final cut" in the end, but it probably would've been better for his reputation as a film-maker if he'd had it written into his contract back in 1990 -
Dirtbox 92,595 posts
Seen 20 hours ago
Registered 19 years agoAll a bit plop. Hellraiser had a few moments, but otherwise was slow and dull, Candyman was just okay, but I like Todd Terry so it has that as a saving grace. -
mal 29,326 posts
Seen 3 years ago
Registered 20 years agoBy that metric, Candyman 2 would be okay too, when in fact it's absolute plop as far as I can recall. -
nickthegun 87,711 posts
Seen 3 hours ago
Registered 16 years agoIts the epitome of 90s straight-to-video. Its alright but it's one of those sequels that's just a worse remake of the first one.
Hellraiser is pretty good especially considering Barker was a noob director. I also really like all the concepts and imagery from the second one, even though it's a bit more of a straightforward horror.
And I've always thought imajica would make a really good TV series of someone threw some money at it.
And that's what I think about that. -
Shame Lord of Illusions was mostly undercooked, because Harry D’Amour is a great character. That was a good example of Barker not being enough of a director and he should’ve passed the material to someone else. The concept is great (LA noir and magic).
I absolutely love Candyman and the whole urban myth/victim meeting-him-halfway bit. It does fizzle out a bit towards the end but you can’t have everything. Bernard Rose was absolutely the perfect director for that. It’s a shame he didn’t do much else interesting, although I remember Ivans XTC being good.
.gif)
Sometimes posts may contain links to online retail stores. If you click on one and make a purchase we may receive a small commission. For more information, go here.
