Zombie Flesh Eaters Uncut At Last

Yep, absolutely. I think anybody who laughs at that is not quite appreciating what's going on and what makes Leatherface tick (or not tick, in the movie's case).

Leatherface is an imbecile. He does what he does not out of aggression or evil, he's just doing what he thinks the rest of his 'family' expect him to do. And that makes him ten times scarier than someone acting out of malice. With Leatherface, it's impossible to reason with him. And that's the scariest type of monster.
 
People often say crap movies "aren't meant to be taken seriously" but it doesn't convince me.
Movies and tv do seem to have definite shelf life and so-called "classic" Dr Who is just plain old and to be honest not that good. It looked ropey when it was new and most of the stories are formulaic and repetitive. Not to say that they aren't sometimes entertaining but their stone-age production values make them hard going, as with most period VT productions.
There are some great British gangster movies but the recent crop is a bit feeble to say the least.
People can watch whatever they like (apart from Jennifer Aniston movies, viewers of which should be rounded up and put in camps) but treating third rate Italian horror dross like it's Citizen Kane just makes me rise to the bait.
I don't claim to be particularly discerning (how could I when I've just this minute finished watching the unfortunate Bulgarian remake of It's Alive!?) but some sacred cows are just ready for the abattoir: Terence Fisher, Spaghetti Westerns, George Clooney, torture porn (apart from Martyrs, about which I'm still trying to make up my mind) and Shane Meadows.:)
NB: I also thought the brilliant District 9 was supposed to be a comedy (like Robocop) which puts me in something of a minority.:confused:
 
From what I remember, what made my Brother laugh (and bear in mind this was YEARS agao!) was the truck driver who stopped to offer assistance to the person running in circles trying to avoid leatherface.
He pointed out "if YOU were driving along and saw THIS happening, would you pull over to see what was going on??!!"
Fair question really, with an OBVIOUS answer NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
 
Anyone who claims that Terence Fisher and original Dr Who are no good is clearly someone who likes the flash bang wallop of modern material and is a typical example of the Big Brother age of the short attention span.

If you are incapable of seeing beyond a VT image or the out of date effects then I should stick with High School Musical and leave classics like The Curse of Frankenstein/ Terror of The Autons to those of us who can appreciate excellent films that are more than 10 years old and don't come with surround sound
 
What I meant was that we can view The long Good Friday and the Krays as serious work and Lock Stock as a jokey, fun type of gangster flick. I hope you don't mind me saying, but I enjoyed reading that especially the part in bold and I don't mean that in a bad way, and yes, I completely agree with you although I do love my Clint Eastwood westerns.

I have yet to see District 9 but I have heard great things.
 
Calm down dear, it's just an opinion from someone (to quote Charlie Brooker) whose brain cells have been reduced by time to a manageable number.
I'm old enough to have seen Dr. Who when it was new and time has not been kind to it.
Sadly the VT is all we have and it's grim compared to material of similar vintage shot on film.
I've just finished The Power Game (1969ish) and am currently in the middle of Ghost Squad (1961) which switched to VT after series one and graphically demonstrates how picture quality/production values affect one's perception of a show: with VT the pace slows, the performances are all over the place and the incidental music becomes ridiculously intrusive.

I appreciate the reviving effect Hammer had on horror movies but there's no escaping the fact that Terence Fisher, although by all accounts a thoroughly nice chap, was a pedestrian director at best; Piers Haggard, Peter Sasdy and Freddie Francis were in a different league.
 
But Dr Who was always a VT show so no reason to see it any differently.

The show was never about effects or glossy scenery - it was the stories that carried it- which is why most stuff after 1977 is cack

Did Piers Haggard ever direct for Hammer?
 
Bit too much for Hammer I think at the time.

Great film though.

Shame that the Linda Hayden interview that was included on the dvd release was removed when the film appeared in the Tigon boxset and the extras were changed around
 
Back
Top