Horror Movies Thread

[AustinT]

don't know if there's any context for this in the movie.

I don't quite make the connection in the religious sense, but in terms of the relationship, yeah that makes sense. But there's still an endless amount of more normal names that also have the same or similar meaning. This takes the crown from Bear in Obsession as this year's most out there name.

 

[Legacy]

there must have been a reason for the name, and I just Google the meaning

Spoiler

arabic origin: Translates to "comfort," "bliss," "peace," "tranquility," and "happiness". It is an eschatological term used in the Quran to describe one of the levels or Gardens of Paradise (Jannat al-Na'im, or "Gardens of Delight").
Derives from a root meaning "pleasantness" or "beauty." It is also the name of a village in ancient Galilee mentioned in the Bible (Luke 7:11) where Jesus performed a miracle.

don't know if there's any context for this in the movie.

The book of Leviticus is typically used as the religious basis for being against homosexuality (specifically, verse 18:22).

The title absolutely has a religious context.

 

[AustinT]

The title absolutely has a religious context.

Oh the title of the movie definitely. This was in regards to the main character's name, "Naim".

 

[belloq87]

Most anticipated movie of the rest of the year for me.

 

[AvoidTIMtation]

One thing I'll give Werwulf credit for is that it looks less boring than Nosferatu, which I thought was a well shot snooze fest that i could barely keep my eyes open for

 

[Lucky Planet]

Most anticipated movie of the rest of the year for me.

this will probably feature the full werewolf for 15 minutes max

 

[UNIrd]

Obsession was finally released on digital. Fell asleep watching it last night and finished it this morning.

Still so good but I still recommend a theater watch for the first time if you can.

 

[Myah1220]

this will probably feature the full werewolf for 15 minutes max

That would be a good thing! Think of the tension building when faced with the unknown? Less is more in that sense. It's why Jaws worked so well when the shark was used sparingly (maybe not the original plan because the animatronic kept breaking..but it paid off in the end that way.)

 

[Rideguy70]

That can be true; people often forget the Bride is only in the movie for literally less than 5 minutes, and look at her legacy.

 

[Myah1220]

That can be true; people often forget the Bride is only in the movie for literally less than 5 minutes, and look at her legacy.

Right. The Xenomorph in Alien is the same way...only on screen for about 4 minutes and we know how iconic and terrifying that creature is. When you reveal less, your brain gets to wander and fill in the gaps and create more dread and fear. Over-saturation of a monster starts to familiarize them and takes away the mystery and mystique making them less scary.

 

[Lucky Planet]

That would be a good thing! Think of the tension building when faced with the unknown? Less is more in that sense. It's why Jaws worked so well when the shark was used sparingly (maybe not the original plan because the animatronic kept breaking..but it paid off in the end that way.)

That can be true; people often forget the Bride is only in the movie for literally less than 5 minutes, and look at her legacy.

Right. The Xenomorph in Alien is the same way...only on screen for about 4 minutes and we know how iconic and terrifying that creature is. When you reveal less, your brain gets to wander and fill in the gaps and create more dread and fear. Over-saturation of a monster starts to familiarize them and takes away the mystery and mystique making them less scary.

nosferatu in the new movie from this director also only had like 15 minutes of screentime, the plague stuff was very important.
I only hope that this movie has very interesting side plot.

 

[Jerroddragon]

Original Horror is having a great year

1) Saw the Backrooms Everything Must go Edition in theaters: The extra 15 mins go into more detail of of the event that lead to the opening scene in the movie. Also for now its still my favorite film of the year, I just enjoy this film something about it just fun to me and very well done, I was a little more of a fan of the ending this time after a second viewing

2) Sorry if someone posted this but the second Ice Cream man Trailer is out and looks great....I might have to close my eyes at some of the gore but looks scary to me


3)Buddy the Unicorn just had a trailer drop....not much to go on but interested

 

[pumpkinbot343]

I’m confused why Brides of Dracula is Universal, but Horror of Dracula and 1959’s Mummy is Warner.

 

[belloq87]

I found EVIL DEAD BURN to be highly disappointing. Never felt like it ever found the right tone, and not even the gore had much of an impact.

I’m confused why Brides of Dracula is Universal, but Horror of Dracula and 1959’s Mummy is Warner.

Hammer Films, which produced the films in the U.K., had various distribution agreements in the U.S. with multiple studios. So the rights to those films are all over the place, scattered between WB, Universal, Sony, Paramount, Lionsgate, and Disney (via Fox). That's why all of the various Hammer box sets on home video have been fairly random assortments of titles.

 

[HHN Maddux]

Evil Dead Burn felt like it had something missing, but I can't quite put my finger on what exactly. That being said, the dinner scene is easily one of the best scenes of the franchise.

 

[belloq87]

Evil Dead Burn felt like it had something missing, but I can't quite put my finger on what exactly.

It's way too low on the goofy scale, which -- in tandem with its thematic focus on domestic violence and family trauma -- sucks all the fun out.

 

[Clive]

I’m confused why Brides of Dracula is Universal, but Horror of Dracula and 1959’s Mummy is Warner.

Dracula and Mummy are both public domain monsters, so Warner made their own adaptations.

 

[pumpkinbot343]

Hammer Films, which produced the films in the U.K., had various distribution agreements in the U.S. with multiple studios. So the rights to those films are all over the place, scattered between WB, Universal, Sony, Paramount, Lionsgate, and Disney (via Fox). That's why all of the various Hammer box sets on home video have been fairly random assortments of titles.

Dracula and Mummy are both public domain monsters, so Warner made their own adaptations.

I think Universal held some rights to some of their Monsters back then, which is why Curse of Frankenstein used a different makeup design (I think I remember they had to also change several things about the story so Uni wouldn’t sue), and why Dracula’s cape was different in the 1958 film. And 1959’s Mummy is a direct remake of all of Universal’s mummy movies including the “Kharis” name and Scroll of Thoth plot point, I believe Universal gave them permission that time.

My confusion stems from that looking through some of the posters for Horror of Dracula, Universal did have the rights to it at the time of 1958 (Universal-International logo), but apparently they lost that after, and yet they still have the rights to Brides of Dracula today. I don’t know about Curse of Frankenstein, but I think Universal had the rights to 1959’s Mummy back then.

 

[belloq87]

I think Universal held some rights to some of their Monsters back then, which is why Curse of Frankenstein used a different makeup design

Correct, Universal still controlled (and controls... for at least a few more years until 1931's FRANKENSTEIN enters public domain) specific design elements from their movies, even though the source material (Mary Shelley's novel) was able to be freely adapted.

My confusion stems from that looking through some of the posters for Horror of Dracula, Universal did have the rights to it at the time of 1958 (Universal-International logo), but apparently they lost that after, and yet they still have the rights to Brides of Dracula today.

I have no ironclad explanation for this, though I would assume it would have something to do with home video rights not being part of the original contract with Universal on that film, so when it came time for HORROR OF DRACULA to arrive on home media, Hammer wasn't under any obligation to choose Universal and instead went with WB, with whom it had a more recent business relationship (extending into the 1970s).

Many/most of the other Hammer horror films are still controlled by the studios (including Universal) that released them theatrically in the U.S., though, so I don't know why HORROR OF DRACULA is a unique case in that regard.