Bamfurlong's Replies


The woman losing her child at the beginning sets us up for thinking this is a real child. Also, there are scenes where the two characters physically come in contact each other which again fools the audience for a time that the child is real. The green peas being flicked at each other and pinging off Clooney's hand and Clooney's character shoving the child through the broken window comes across as a bit of a lazy cheat. A better director in a better movie like The Sixth Sense trying the same twist would or could have handled these interactions better or at least in a way that wouldn't leave some movie goers with sour feelings at being tricked by the director. I'm sure many noticed something was up when the child disappeared in the blizzard scene then miraculously reappeared but I'll bet a large percentage of the audience was flabbergasted at the twist. I had started to hope a rescue attempt would be made to save the child before realizing that was something was up. I think it would have made for a better and more exciting movie to some how rescue the lone survivors from the planet before being overcome by the expanding radiation zones. Maybe I wasn't paying attention but I really don't know about the fates of the evacuated survivors at the beginning of the film and I only recall that people tried to live underground temporarily. It was another flaw in the film that repopulated the human race wasn't the biggest concern to all the characters. It should have been but I digress. If you go with the director's vision and have the character just imagine the dreadful creature and instead gets killed by the train, as an example, you end up with just another movie where the fantastical creatures can be plausibly denied by the viewer to actually exist. It usually cheapens a movie's re-watch value in my opinion. Examples being I kill Giants or Mark of the Vampire which could have been a real classic if that twist ending didn't exist. I also recognize that I Kill Giants is a good movie but it won't be thought of as warmly as Never-ending Story years later for example. Birdman is a great movie but I'm not sure how often I'll re-watch it or if I will. If the director had fully gone with the fantastical I'm sure I'd feel like watching it more. I find it disappointing when a director takes the fantasy element out of the story by blaming it on hysterical visions or mental illness. I think the only scenes where I'd appreciate a Blu Ray update were from the insides of Nora's mansion. Just to appreciate the the nice oriental themed furniture from the upstairs and to take a closer look at her tapestries on the staircase. Other then that, I'm pretty happy with the 2009 DVD. Cheryl Pollak made up for it by starting off as the hot chick in Pump Up The Volume then she cuts her hair (I think) to "uglify" herself. She only sucked his finger. Regular PG was fine. Comparing Gremlins, Critters and Ghoulies...Gremlins was extremely original and had great advertising with a focus on the one cutesy character. Parents brought the kids and it made a killing at the box office bringing it into the mainstream. Ghoulies, on the other hand, ran out of money mid production and came out after Gremlins but was able to ride the Gremlins wave and its movie poster depicting the ghoulie coming out of a toilet was a lucky move by the marketing department. It had buzz just from that poster. Two years later there was no Gremlins wave for Critters to ride and frankly the movie posters were poor. With no internet back then posters were way more important. I simply don't remember seeing any commercials for Critters pre-theater or remember any articles in the movie magazines so I wonder if the marketing campaign was lack luster. It made the least amount of money of the three and has never made it to the main stream. How do they hold up? I did a test and asked my co-workers some of whom weren't alive in 1986 and they have only heard of Gremlins. Gremlins is still sort of in the mainstream with kids still watching it and parents watching it with their kids. I recently watched Ghoulies and it doesn't hold up, its still a mess. Critters, however, is still really fun to watch and I know I'll be re-watching it again and again which I can't really say the same for Gremlins. Critters remains a hidden gem just waiting for someone to stumble over it on a steaming site or see it touted in a YouTube top ten video. This was a cult classic in the 80's that surprisingly didn't go mainstream. It had the big boost of Siskel and Ebert giving it two thumbs up but I don't recall seeing it until it went to the video stores and at 13 years old I was a prime candidate to see this in the theatres. Now-a-days this is a forgotten gem waiting to be rediscovered. I wonder which came out first, Critters or Ghoulies. Both had toilet scenes but Ghoulies made a lot of money from it's marketing even though it was a crappy movie. Many of the greatest horror movies ever are exactly like this because they build tension and allow the director to be artistic. If I were you I'd avoid movies like Nosferatu The Vampyre or The Shining and maybe even Jaws and stick with more action oriented jump scare types. Before watching a movie check out the director on IMDB and see if they have filmed any music videos and if so you should be good. Ok I'm trolling a bit. This movie has a half dozen scenes that need to be edited as they were yes, too pretentious, but this movie is far closer to masterpiece then bore fest. Kinski's attacks on Bruno Ganz were by far the two scariest moments in all of vampire filmdom. I thought the music was off for the first section of the film but the depressing chant was perfect for his ascent to the castle but unfortunately it was overused later. There were moments later in the film that it fit well like the original rat scene where it highlighted the vampires power but I thought the soundtrack was hit or miss and not varied enough. Having said that I think it's the 3rd best vampire movie ever, I'd love to hear your reasons why you think that. I personally think that Friday the 13th Part 1 is very similar in quality to part's 2 and 4 and that none in the series comes close to Halloween 1. I cared more for the characters in Halloween, even the more annoying characters and I thought the stalking scenes were a slower burn with real suspense being built. John Carpenter is the biggest difference but the Friday the 13th series also missed a wise, learned Loomis character who believed in the bogeyman far earlier then the rest of the characters ala Van Helsing in the original Dracula Movie. Late 50's early 60's maybe. No way she's in her 40's. Is it just me or did anyone else think she had dentures. I don't get the hate personally. I thought it was the best sequel. Just think if we had to live forever with Busta Rhymes ending the franchise in Resurrection. I was quite curious too. I really liked the older Michael look before he put on the mask. I have to give props to the director/cinematographer for how Michael was shot in that bathroom scene with the reporters. Busta was nails on a chalk board for me. I can't believe his character just got compared favorably to Dr. Loomis :( My feeling was that Michael thought his work was done and handing off the knife was a passing of the baton. My work is done, now you can go to town. It was a long wait for 2018 but I'm so glad the franchise doesn't end with the Busta Rhymes abomination. I just finished a marathon and I watched the opening scene of Resurrection then skipped to movie 9. It's the way to go. I just did a 2 day marathon of all 9 films and I stopped watching Resurrection after the opening scene. It feels good to skip Busta Rhymes and go directly to the much superior 2018 film. I've got this movie at #7 overall in my top 15 best vampire movies ever made.