/horror/ general megathread - Let's talk about movies and shit.

Guillermo Del Toro is doing Frankenstein:
Apparently its one of his dream projects so I hope its good.

After the Shape of Water and the boring shitfest that was that cabinet anthology show, my hopes are not exactly high for El Medico Victorio Frankenstillo. It already looks pretty traditional, so it doesn't even seem like he's even putting an interesting spin on it or anything. At least there's no niggers at the forefront, so I guess that's something. And it's good to see Charles Dance getting some work.

Also jesus christ, look at the soyface faggot twig they got to play the monster. I know it's all going to be cgi and/or prosthetics, but couldn't you at least get a man to play him.
 
Also jesus christ, look at the soyface faggot twig they got to play the monster. I know it's all going to be cgi and/or prosthetics, but couldn't you at least get a man to play him.
I can see Jacob Elordi fiting the role, especially if they are going for a more book-accurate monster. Elordi is 6'5". The monster is described with a contrast of beautiful and hideous features, so they are probably going to make him somewhat sympathetic rather than completely monstrous.
1748784640934.webp
 
I can see Jacob Elordi fiting the role, especially if they are going for a more book-accurate monster. Elordi is 6'5". The monster is described with a contrast of beautiful and hideous features, so they are probably going to make him somewhat sympathetic rather than completely monstrous.

Hunh, fair enough, I had no idea he was that tall (had just seen the pictures of him by himself). Yeah I figure Del Toro's take on him would be closer to Shelley's (where he can talk and is tragic), but he still needs some menace or it won't make sense. Guess they'll have to depend a lot on FX.
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: frozen_runner
Guillermo Del Toro is doing Frankenstein:
Apparently its one of his dream projects so I hope its good.
This movie has the most stereotypical modern cast with people like Oscar Issac and Mia Goth which gives me no hope for the film tbh, the only stereotypical modern actor missing from the cast is Pedro Pascal.

I'm honestly not sure what this guy thinks he's going to do with Frankenstein that hasn't been done already a million times, his previous Pinocchio movie was ass. The Netflix cameras they use to film are horrible and make this movie look extremely cheap.
 
Guillermo Del Toro is doing Frankenstein:
Apparently its one of his dream projects so I hope its good.
So, this is a thing now. We're officially back to 1992 with Dracula and then Frankenstein getting auteur "more accurate to the book" adaptations. Again.

I didn't like Nosferatu even though it wasn't bad. I like Del Toro but I haven't enjoyed a single film he's made in English.
 
Last edited:
After the Shape of Water and the boring shitfest that was that cabinet anthology show, my hopes are not exactly high for El Medico Victorio Frankenstillo.
The episode with F. Murray Abraham, the one with Andrew Lincoln, and the one directed by Panos Cosmatos were great.

Lol @ the first episode, though. "You don't like illegal immigrants?! Well now the illegal immigrant won't save your life, how do you like that, BIGOT?!" Makes me want to call my beloved del Toro a spic.
 
Has there been a book-accurate Frankenstein film? I am interested to see Del Toro's take although I'm cautious. I did not like Nosferatu but I think I'm in the minority there.

I liked The Shape of Water until the main character started boning the fish man. Idk it just felt exploitative on multiple levels and I felt like it cheapened their bond by just making it sexual.
 
Has there been a book-accurate Frankenstein film? I am interested to see Del Toro's take although I'm cautious. I did not like Nosferatu but I think I'm in the minority there.

I liked The Shape of Water until the main character started boning the fish man. Idk it just felt exploitative on multiple levels and I felt like it cheapened their bond by just making it sexual.
The Shape of Water felt like babby's first CONSERVATIVEMANBAD film. The stuff with the poor, abused gay diner guy who never hurt nobody and how hilariously evil and perverted the Republican-coded villain was makes you wonder how Guillermo was ever nominated for anything that wasn't a visual award.
 
Can anyone tell me if Dr. Sleep is worth watching?
I've heard it's good but just "Shining sequel but with vampires" sounds too fucking retarded for me.
I recall my wife found it to be nice enough.
Like, you don't go "I had no idea I needed this Shining sequel' but you don't hate that exists.
 
Lol @ the first episode, though. "You don't like illegal immigrants?! Well now the illegal immigrant won't save your life, how do you like that, BIGOT?!" Makes me want to call my beloved del Toro a spic.
I wonder when he started going that route. Was it when he started dating Guy Maddin's ex-wife? He added a scene like that in his Scary Stories to tell in the Dark adaptation.
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: frozen_runner
Can anyone tell me if Dr. Sleep is worth watching?
I've heard it's good but just "Shining sequel but with vampires" sounds too fucking retarded for me.
It is remarkably inoffensive for a "sequel" to the Kubrick film and the book, and it uses a lighter touch than it could have given that pedigree. (Because Mike Flanagan knows what he's doing.)

It's not a perfect movie. (The "psychic vampires" are a cool idea, but hot-ass Rebecca Ferguson isn't intimidating at all as the leader with the stupid name.) But the Director's Cut is very much worth watching. It has good ideas and contains great scenes even if it's not all as great as it should have been.
I wonder when he started going that route. Was it when he started dating Guy Maddin's ex-wife? He added a scene like that in his Scary Stories to tell in the Dark adaptation.
I don't have a problem with (legal) age gap relationships. But a lot of the time, yeah, the guy seems to bend over backwards to accommodate his younger girlfriend. I mean, look at him.
Just found out that the creator and director of Jeepers Creepers is a pedo. Explains a lot.
Bro, everyone knew that like 2 decades ago. Anyone who saw Powder knew he was at least a fag.
 
Last edited:
The Shape of Water felt like babby's first CONSERVATIVEMANBAD film. The stuff with the poor, abused gay diner guy who never hurt nobody and how hilariously evil and perverted the Republican-coded villain was makes you wonder how Guillermo was ever nominated for anything that wasn't a visual award.
You know what I actually forgot about the comical bullying of the gay friend, which lessens my enjoyment of the movie in retrospect. I liked the over the top villain but that's mostly because I love Michael Shannon.

I got around to watching Jeepers Creepers for the first time and I really enjoyed it. I went in knowing basically nothing about the actual plot of the film and I was pleasantly surprised when it's the brother who gets stalked, captured, and torn apart and not the hot sister. I'm sure it was quite the twist at the time.
 
I'm sure it was quite the twist at the time
The other twist is that the director is a convicted pedophile.

That could be considered a meta twist.

Edit:

Has there been a book-accurate Frankenstein film? I am interested to see Del Toro's take although I'm cautious. I did not like Nosferatu but I think I'm in the minority there.

There's a made-for-TV movie on TNT that came out around the same time as the theatrical version with Robert DeNiro as the monster (a hugely wasted role).


This version has Randy Quaid play the monster and I thought it was overall the closest to the book and a very good adaptation.

I also enjoy as a guilty pleasure Frankenstein Unbound which is a batshit insane adaptation that does something radically different and makes next to no sense whatsoever.

 
Last edited:
The other twist is that the director is a convicted pedophile.
I did actually know that tidbit going in. I want to watch the sequels, but do his pedo proclivities become more apparent? I think I would find that kind of upsetting, knowing he's victimized actual kids.

There's a made-for-TV movie on TNT that came out around the same time as the theatrical version with Robert DeNiro as the monster (a hugely wasted role).

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0106959/
This version has Randy Quaid play the monster and I thought it was overall the closest to the book and a very good adaptation.

I also enjoy as a guilty pleasure Frankenstein Unbound which is a batshit insane adaptation that does something radically different and makes next to no sense whatsoever.
Thanks for the recs, I'll check these out too.

EDIT:

I brought up Jeepers Creepers without having read William's comment. Spooky.
 
  • Islamic Content
Reactions: BullfrogBill
Maybe it has been said before but idk what is the fuzz about Final Destination Bloodlines because ultimately...

Its literally another F.D movie, for better and worst (except for Tony Todd's final appearance, which is indeed pretty sad to see him in that state)

You'd think after the franchise went on ice after more than a decade, that if they are going to bother bringing back this series, they'll give it a new twist or direction since we already had 5 movies where the formula remains mostly unchanged.

1- The characters survive the disaster
2- Death comes for them
3- One of them dies and the one that had the premonition begins to put pieces together that Death is coming for them (may or may not have Tony Todd appearing to warn them further/add a new rule)
4- Skepticism among the group
5- More of them dies, skepticism goes out the window
6- Cue the characters working either to prevent themselves from getting killed or to exploit a new rule if the movie added it
7- Big Climax
8- Final scene shows the survivors happy that its all over...
9- Or is it? Turns out they didnt cheat death and its still coming for them! OH NO!
10- They die
11- The End

I watched all these movies while growing up and I can say that altho I did like some of them, the formula is really predictable and it really doesnt make sense on the grand scheme. So you'd think FD 6 would add new stuff, right?

So to recap, among all 5 movies, these rules have been established

1- Death will come at the order people were supposed to get killed (with some exceptions). It was initially believed that it would skip you if its attempt on your life failed but the ending of FD1 established that once its cycle is complete, it will just redo it with the survivors until they all die
2- "Only new Life can defeat Death" - Now, it was believed this rule was about bringing a new life into this world, thus forcing Death to leave you be or something but not only FD2 implies that may not be the case, FD6 seems to confirm its a bogus rules
3- "A life for a life" - aka, if you kill someone, they will take your place in Death's list as now you have the time the person would have left. The drawback is, outside of the legal rammifications of it, that once the life you just took is up, Death will just resume trying to kill you so its only a temporary solution at best.
4- "Resurrection" - At least in the medical sense. If you flat line, be clinically dead for a couple of moments and then be brought back, death will supposedly leave you be (tho you really need to make sure you were indeed clinically dead and not just passed out). This really is the only known way to get out of death's list for good as only a single survivor had been able to officially escape it without any sort of cruel twist.


Well, outside of the unique twist of this happening in the 60's now, the formula of deaths is still the same and Im surprised to see that no new rule is added (if anything, they sort of confirm the "new life" rule is nonsense as death will not only come for you but your progeny now).

And spoilers to those that care


The movie ends exactly like the other 5 end (with maybe the exception being FD2), with the final steps of the formula being reached and death coming out ontop. And they literally bring the logs because they reaaaally want for you to remember the iconic log death scene from FD2 except it doesnt work as well because the FD2 version was grounded enough so that you could buy this happening in real life, FD6's version is very out there so it loses that realistic aspect that made people paranoid of driving behind log trucks. The former can happen in real life (in theory, they had to CG the logs to "bounce" like that but I digess) but the latter is so overly complicated and out there that everyone knows it will never happen.

And its just disappointing because you'd think there would be some progress with this one or some new twists but there just wasnt and the only reason death took so long to reach Iris's and her family was because it was too busy killing other people and their families before it could reach them.

Im also surprised at the lack of references to the previous entries. Seems like every entry minus FD5 referenced at least the events of FD1/Flight 180 as a research base of this whole "premonition leading to deaths" thing and to show that this did happen before in universe. Closest we got was a FD2's survivor being mentioned to still being alive (tho we never see her so what was the point? Sequel hook?) and maybe Iris's book having some drawings that cooould be visual references like a log truck and a plane. It just makes you wonder how many times this has happened and how no one has caught on on the recurrency of "premonition leading to deaths".

Besides, FD4 (or rather "THE Final Destination", as if it was going to be the final and bestest one evah...which it wasnt) implied that Death is the one giving out these visions, which just destroys any ambiguity that it is just doing its job at maintaining some sort of cosmic balance, Death is just doing this because it is a colossal dick. But I also wont discard the possibility that this will (if it hadnt been already) silently retconned given how FD4 is objectively considered the "worst one" in the series.

There is also the fact that its never explained why the "Resurrection" rule even works as Death seems to just do whatever it wants so it begs the question what "forces" Death to obey this particular rule with any cheats of any kind (like giving a heart attack or terminal cancer to the survivor).

But Im just rambling at this point. I know I shouldnt have expected much but, at the same time, what was the point of bringing this series back if we were in for the same ride we had 5 times already? I guess it all comes down to just watching folks get horribly killed by rube goldberg styled traps which, yeah, FD6 does deliver on that so if you are after that, you will be satisfied.

Time will tell if we are getting more after this or if this was just a twitch brought by gases or something
 
Back