I think the concept of the V/H/S/ movies is awesome and I really wanted to like them, but there's something about the way they're executed that on the whole doesn't work for me. Overall they just don't tend to hold together particularly well. By my reckoning the best anthology series (The Twilight Zone and The Outer Limits in particular) held together so well because on the whole they took great stories and wrapped them in an appealing way - in the case of The Twilight Zone, with host Rod Serling and The Outer Limits, with the 'Control Voice.' Though the V/H/S/ movies - those I have seen at any rate - the 'wrapper' that contained the stories felt typically not well-conceived, while the stories themselves were very hit and miss. And I always wanted it to be better though at some point I realized that if wishes were horses fools would ride, and me wanting this series to click, to be more faithful to the core concept, to have tighter, better-written individual stories, doesn't at all mean that it was going to happen.

And you're entitled to think so.

Are there really? And apparently there are so many you listed one?

I'm don't want to make too many assumptions but what was there to comprehend? It's a Michael Bay movie not 'Citizen Kane.' That action was typically what you'd get from Bay, which is to say excessive, spectacular and kinda silly.

So many interesting opinions! Overall I think that there are some fine Steven King adaptation but there are certainly a few clunkers. That you think they're all boring is worth exploring though. My first question is which you have seen? He's such a prolific writer and there is so much material based on his books that it's fairly easy to catch a stinker and assume that everything based on his books is exactly the same. Beyond that? I'm sure that there's something out there that works for you. And that's not to say that I'm talking about an Academy Award winning movie, but something you'll find entertaining.

Thank you for your thoughtful comment! Definitely interested in what you think about the 2004 version so if/when you decide to give it a watch, definitely let me know what you think!

Early on (before they seemed to be appearing on Shudder; not that I'm necessarily saying that there's a connection) I was a huge advocate for the V/H/S/ movies though I began to notice that not only were there relatively few bangers per movie, but the overriding concept (in one instance if I recall the these people stumbled upon an apartment were someone had vanished or died and they started watching video tapes to figure out what happened (or something to that effect) didn't always click. The overarching idea behind each movie is really important for me, and when that doesn't work - which in the case of the V/H/S/ movies was more likely than not - it doesn't help the episodes based on it.

That's interesting. I'm not familiar with Jason Trost though so I'll have to look him up.

I just looked up Jason Trost on IMDB and there's a picture of him from some event and he's wearing an eyepatch, which he also wears in 'Waves of Madness.' Does he were that because there's something wrong with his eye or is it just something that's part of his process. Though you've got me curious about 'All Superheroes Must Die,' which I started watching at various points but it wears its budget on its sleeve (it looks fairly cheap).

@@screenPhiles He’s blind in his right eye and it’s easier to wear an eye patch. First movie of his I saw was “The FP” which he wrote with his brother. Thinks it’s a good barometer if he’s for you. All his movies are crowd sourced and his passion projects. Another reason I dig it. For the most part he the director, writer, and star of each movie. Less painful than a lifetime movie but more of a lateral move. Superheroes must die is a good one too.

ok.ru/video/80151972418. You're welcome😉

Consider a Like or Follow, if you so please. Thanks!

@@screenPhiles thanks alot really appreciate that bro 👊🏽😎

@@screenPhiles ofc just did wasn’t online a few days nevertheless thanks 🙏

@@shvneinsvnemusiq868 Definitely let me know what you think if/when you give the 2004 version a watch!

I'm confused. 'Old Boy' is a Korean (funny. I always thought it was Japanese) movie. There was an American remake though those are the only two versions I'm aware of. As far as I've heard it does not make very heavy use (if at all) of CGI, never mind things like virtual sets.

@@screenPhiles sorry I didn’t get my point across. There is a fight scene that is zoomed out and is shot in a side scrolling manner and I think it was great

Is it though? Though to be fair I do prefer David Lynch's version of 'Dune' over Denis Villenueve's.

How do you know what 'everyone' feels about anything? What's closer to the truth is you might love the trailer. The question is why you're not speaking for yourself, as opposed to throngs of people that exist only in your imagination.

Hi , I’m everyone and I love this trailer.

@@firstnamelastname9199 Of course you are. And don't forget to take those meds, Legion.

That's interesting. And by the way, did I say he couldn't direct horror? That's a trick question. I didn't.😀

I'm not familiar with him as an actor, though to be fair he's hardly the only one. As I said, the only person I recognized was Alfre Woodward. Which is another reason why I don't see the point of a remake. The cast of the 1979 version was strong. The cast of the 2004 version was stronger still.

That's the thing, it might have more in common with the novel, it might have less but it's going to be a different animal entirely. Characters will be either omitted or combined and the same will happen with dialog and entire scenes.

Okay? Not sure why that matters. He also directed 'Maximum Overdrive' and I suspect he thought pretty highly of it at the time.

How does one know they don't like something they haven't seen? What I've said that I don't see the point of it existing in the first place, since there are two good movies already based on the property NOT that I don't like it (which doesn't make sense for the reason already stated).

Do you mean as far as Leigh Whannell directing? I'm not sure what you're referring to.

Sure? I don't see what your point is.

I can see that though I find the reboot tighter and overall creepier.

And that's the second time someone has said that😀 What's really odd to me is that if you watch both movies I think it's fairly easy to figure out why the 2004 version is preferable. By my on the whole the performances are stronger and it's more atmospheric and harrowing (like when a Glick brother is killed at the frozen lake), Toby Hooper's version has more creepy vampire effects and a really strong performance by Lance Kerwin but overall the reboot was better acted. Now to be sure some of it is due to advances in FX but overall the 2004 version is just a better, more complete movie. And to be sure, I was as surprised as anyone that I preferred it more.

@@screenPhiles That’s cool and I respect your opinion. I just don’t see it. I’ve watched the 79 version countless times and the 2004 version once. I didn’t dislike it, I just think the 79 version is far superior.

@@brentcooper4345 Ditto, just in reverse. By my reckoning the 79 version just doesn't hold up as well. It's all good.

My mom had the brilliant idea of letting me and my brother watch this in 1979 needless to say we didn't sleep good for months

@@kevinlhendrix8624 I'm not sure if I love or hate what your mom did but that vampire looking through Mark Petrie's window was pure nightmare fuel. It's probably the strongest scene in the entire movie.

That's interesting. I just took it as if the call ended.

I left a message myself a few hours ago. Thanks for the suggestion!

How was the 2004 a 'parody' of the Tobe Hooper movie would be my first question, followed by you just might be using the word 'parody' wrong.

@@screenPhiles I'm using it correctly it's a comedy. It's a really ridiculously acted movie that seems like a spoof of Hoopers version. When I watch it I shake my head thinking how stupid it's directed.

@@richardr3511 Which implies that you not only don't understand parody, you also don't understand comedy. By way of comparison, did you think 'Schindler's List' was a comedy? You might have laughed at it but that doesn't make it a comedy.

@@screenPhiles you don't understand parady. And I'd never consider Schinders List something to laugh at that's offensive. Mikael Salomon's Salem's Lot is as I said like watching a parody. A parody of Kings novel, maybe nof the 1979 mini series.

@@richardr3511 I get parody. My issue is that apparently think you think you're adept enough to pull it off. And speaking of parody, you keep using that word in reference to the 2004 reboot yet never quite explain how that's the case. So let's hear it. Put your money where your mouth is, so to speak. How specifically is it a parody? And don't repeat 'it's a comedy' because you apparently don't know that is, either.

If you watch it let me know what you think. As I said I don't care enough to seek it - i.e. subscribe to Max - out but I am curious.

The 2004 Mikael Solomon-directed mini series is the (much) better of the two versions. And that's not to say that Tobe Hooper's version is bad, it's just that Solomon's is just better acted (Donald Sutherland as Richard Straker!? Every word out of his mouth is like honey laced with cyanide. Andre Braugher as Matt Burke? You BELIEVE everything he says. He acts in such a way that he brings context and weight to his character just by presence alone) and feels more vital. Though Hooper's version has more in the way of teffifying imagery. Particularly when that vampire visited Mark Petrie.

I truly loved the 2004 version ❤️ I thought I was the only one

@@AlexFlores-nj8cs You're the third person, including myself, who's expressed much love for the 2004 version, which makes me wonder if it's because most people just haven't seen it because it's AWESOME!

2004 version not scary at ALL

@@LanceyKersti Ever hear the word 'subjective?'

Ghost Island? That's a new one for me! Where can I find it? I'll do a trailer reaction first (to see what I might be in for)!

@@screenPhiles Link Trailer for Ghost Island 2024 is Already Eng Sub kzbin.info/www/bejne/nKfKeKmsitqNg9Usi=gsf1bjxvaYw86EDU

Look for a trailer reaction tomorrow!

I think you understand that likely every novel every filmed is not going to be entirely faithful (and that's because you can virtually do whatever your mind comes up with in a novel, while to do the same in live action can either cost millions or take viewers entirely out of the experience). The latter point is particularly relevant because Steven King can be REALLY verbose when it could be argued that it isn't necessary. This is why movies are virtually different animals than the novels they're sometimes based upon, though those differences are necessary. And since movies and the novelization of whatever aren't by necessity the same things, whether or not one has read the books isn't terribly relevant (I have read 'Salem's Lot' but it was so long ago that it barely matters). And sometimes it can work to the detriment of the adaptation. For instance, I loved the first book or two that was adapted by HBO as 'A Game of Thrones' but I was so unaccepting of the changes made to bring it to live action (all of which the makers would defend) that I couldn't watch it seeing that the Westeros in my head was significantly more interesting than the one on the screen. So to go into any novelization expecting it to be entirely faithful to the book is a fool's errand because it is literally NEVER the case.

@@screenPhiles I completely agree with you that the movie can't be entirely faithful to the novel. I'm emphasizing that a movie based on any novel should at least be accurate to the major scenes and major characters of the book. To give you a couple of examples of why I was disappointed in the two film versions: 1) In the novel, the death of Straker was very suspenseful. In the 1979 movie, the scene of his death was rather brief and simple minded with Straker coming at Ben Mears with a club and Mears shooting him. That wasn't even close to the book version. 2) In the 2004 version, the fate of Father Callahan was ridiculous and not even close to his fate in the novel. Again, I realize a movie version of a novel can't be entirely accurate, but the two film versions of Salem's Lot we're far too inaccurate with some of the most important scenes and characters of the book.

@@canadianfortrump4057 Sure? But the point being a book is more than just the major scenes and characters. You change a scene you might consider minor within the context of the book you change, for better or for worse, potentially the nature of that book. The point remains that the novel and the adaptations are two entirely different animals, which we apparently agree. That's exactly why having read the novel (or having done so recently) is for the most part irrelevant because that's not what the movie is. The novel is only a starting point, the basis of what you're going to see but it very quickly becomes its own thing (though omission of scenes, creating composite characters, rearranging the narrative, etc). As to your points... 1) Notice what you've done there. It's not that Straker's death was 'simple-minded' in Tobe Hooper's adaptation - which frankly is a bit insulting - it's that it was different from what you expected based upon reading the novel though as I said, they're not the same things so it was a weak ending for you it's because you had fixated on the novel. I didn't particular mind it because I didn't recall how he was killed in the novel. 2) And you did it again. You keep using value judgements (like 'stupid' and 'simple-minded') when movies alter the material in ways that you happen to disagree with, yet you seemingly never ask yourself why they might have done what they did (because I can assure you that they likely had a valid reason. You might not agree with it but you don't have to research particularly hard to learn than making a movie is extremely difficult and compromises have to be made). Once again, the novel is irrelevant to most people that have seen the movie because I can promise you that they either never read it or read it so long ago that it's a distant memory. If you can't accept the idea that the novel and the adaptation of whatever are not the same things (you say you understand it, but based upon what you say you really don't) you're never going to enjoy any movie based on a book because they're never going to be as faithful as you think they should be.

You might be right though that you come to that conclusion based upon flashlights (?} is a bit insane especially when you're talking about a movie revolving around vampires, an idea which is significantly more ludicrous than a too-bright flashlight.

@@screenPhiles Haha. Yes I get what you mean. But it just annoys me when a scene is supposed to be dark and creepy... yet isnt.

I don't know about Curtis feeling resentment about the role - he might have though he seemed to be having a really good time. And Interestingly it's not the only horror film he's done. According to IMDB he's been in at least three (and that number goes up to five or six if you count horror movies or anthologies where he goes uncredited). Apparently he was even in 'Rosemary's Baby!'

@@screenPhiles I didn't know that. Thank you for your reply. I usually like what I've seen him do.

@@DavidLee-bf2pe You're welcome! If you haven't seen 'The Manitou' you should check it it. Like I said isn't not by any means a great movie but Curtis seems to he having a really good time and it's a fascinating movie (more for its ambition than what it succeeds at).

@@screenPhiles I certainly will. And I look forward to seeing more content from you.

@@DavidLee-bf2pe That's kind of you and helps to counter a lot of the douchiness one finds on this platform (you'd be surprised at how some are quick to attack anything that conflicts with their pov). You're a gem💎.

I read the novel so long ago i had no memories of any of the characters so i watched each version for the most part independent of the novelization. That being said, I enjoyed both characterizations and while curious as to what's up with the new Mark Petrie (he appears more bookish, more tentative than either of the prior versions) it's not at all enough of a reason in and of itself for me to seek it out. I'll probably catch it at some point, but I'm not exactly in a hurry to do so.

Trying to figure out why you and way too many people hang on everything Martin Scorsese says because that analogy isn't, for the most part, true. And that's because filmmaking is a business and the only way it would be for the filmmakers themselves is if you removed entirely the notion of profit. In short, no matter how much a director may say they're making a movie for themselves NO ONE IS EVER giving them millions of dollars to do so because the rate of return would obviously be a little lacking.

@@screenPhiles A24 provide money where directors can share their vision. Artistic movies make money.

@@obsidianmountain2398 Do 'artistic' movies - whatever than means - really make money? Never mind you're generalizing, ever hear of 'Heaven's Gate' (1980)? Very artistic movie (in the sense that it's beautifully shot and was made by Michale Cimino, a director known for 'Deer Hunter,' 'Silent Running,' etc) which lost gobs of money and essentially killed his career. You also don't seem to understand how studios work because the last time I checked A24's movies are fairly profitable (particularly movies like 'Hereditary' (2018) and 'Talk to Me' (2022)) because I can promise you they wouldn't finance those that they didn't think would be profitable.

@@screenPhiles A24 provide money to movies that underperformed at the box office they believe in those movies knowing the couldn't make money

@@obsidianmountain2398 That is the way no studio ever works. In fact, the truth is the opposite. Movies that don't make profits literally, not figuratively, kill studios. Larger studios can afford more losses though that's fairly relative as well though the smaller the studio, the less the ability to absorb bombs. That's just common sense.

Not quite sure the context you're referring to because budget is obviously relative (and I've never once said that smaller-budgeted movies don't at times fail, so I have no idea where you're coming from with that). Listen to a review sometime with a director who hasn't received enough money to realize their project (or watch a movie like 'A Sound of Thunder' (2005) or 'Ultraviolet' (2006) where you can literally see it in a fairly obvious and indisputable way). And of course me finding Robert Eggers' movies for the most part annoying is my opinion, just as you feeling the opposite is yours. That being said, if his movies continue to underperform perform at the box office it won't matter what you feel about them because his budgets will get smaller and smaller, raising the possibility that 'they' (as in Hollywood) won't work with him at all in the feature film space.

Not quite sure how you're using the word 'relative' because while you may disagree, it fairly obviously is, unless you're saying that what a director can produce with $10 million is going to look, feel and sound exactly like someone else produced for $100 million. And that's not even to imply that the cheaper production would be not as enjoyable, but to state the obvious, namely the likelihood is EXTREMELY high that the more expensive picture is going to look better. And obviously my feelings about Robert Eggers is my opinion, just as your feelings about the director are yours (which makes me wonder what's the point of your statement) though I can guarantee you this: If Robert Eggers' movies continue to underwhelm at the box office the money he's likely to be given to produce them will dry up because, unlike what you seem to believe, no one that I'm aware of in Hollywood is making movies simply out of the joy of doing so (no matter what this director or that may say) because I can assure you no one is financing their flights of fancy out of the goodness of their hearts and if a producer suspects a movie is being made with no concern toward making a profit they aren't going to finance it.

@@screenPhiles I agree filmmakers should spend less. I think they can make great stories with a small budget. Robert Eggers learned that because the Northman under performer at the box office.

@@screenPhiles Paul Thomas Anderson underpeformed at the box office several times. Studios and producers still believe in him. Its a closed case maybe but some directors are considered good for studios money or not.

@@obsidianmountain2398 Which is exactly my point. 'The Northman (2022)' cost somewhere in the ballpark of $70-90 million - which it's worth mentioning isn't exactly a 'high' budget in terms of feature films these days - and tanked. His upcoming 'Nosferatu (2024)' is likely to be as expensive, if not more so. Now, I'd like someone to tell me where the audience is for ' Bram Stoker's Dracula' (1992) except more visually indistinct and dour? And it's coming out around Christmas!? And stars Bill Skarsård who it's worth mentioning isn't doing all that well at the box office ('Boy Kills World (2024), 'The Crow' (2024)) lately? By way of comparison Egger's 'The Lighthouse' (2019) was profitable, but - and it's a HUGE but - cost only $4 million to produce and earned just over $18 million (released via A24), which is profitable but hardly what anyone would call a massive rate of return. 'The Witch' (2016) - also via A24 - was the movie that put Eggers on the map though once again, this movie was virtually micro-budgeted at $3.5 million, and earned just over $40 million. And that's not to say that movies as art isn't a valid perspective, but the people who pretend that that money hasn't nothing to do with it are just being silly.

That's fair. That being said the first one made gobs of money so it goes without saying they're going to keep at it till the wheels fall off.

And you're way too kind. Thank you.

On the face of it, sure? That doesn't make it bad though, that just makes it similar to something else. Beyond that, who knows?

@@screenPhiles Exactly, birdbox's main aesthetic was a blindfold, that's not present here.

I wouldn't go that far because no matter what the producers have worked on they're not directing. Plenty of really good producers - and I'm not even sure what that means because what a producer does can vary greatly. You can have some that just raise money and are hands off as far as the movie is concerned, while you can also have producers that are very hands on and work closely with the director. But the point remains it's the director's movie, no matter the produce (though they could certainly make things difficult for the director if that's their goal).

@@screenPhilesProducers of Stranger Things and Alexandra Aja sounds more exciting for the finished product no doubt about that!

The point is, they rarely miss on their respective projects when it comes to critics, my expectation is positive because of what i know they have produced and how it was critically received.

Given the premise of Never Let Go where the plot is character focused and is confined to a remote house, Alexandra Aja directed psychological thriller Oxygen in 2021, which for the whole runtime, the screenplay was confined on a female character stuck in a oxygen pod in space, no support and the film was received well by critics, just to show i am positive He will make this a interesting watch because it's what he excels in.

@@sir.d.p3764 By my reckoning producers don't tend to rank as high as directors. If a producer isn't good at their job you're likely to not even notice - if that job is raising money there might not be a movie to notice - but if the director screws the pooch, it's fairly obvious. Besides, I recall Guillermo Del Toro talking about how he works as a producer, and it's essentially to leave the director alone, making himself available if needed. And that's not to say every director is like Del Toro, but he's one of the rare producers who tells you how he does things. It's such a hard job to quantity, which is why I don't pay the credit all that much credence.

I agree that the word 'bad' can be overused but 'good on its own terms?" I don't know what that means in the case of 'Satan's Children' because it's just not a good movie by most metrics. Does that mean you can't derive enjoyment from it? Of course not. I genuinely love some movies people might think as awful though my feelings don't make them good, no matter how much I enjoy them.

Interesting. Why do you say that? And I'm not even saying you're wrong, I'm just curious as to your reasoning.

@@screenPhiles lots of time movie makers want a sense or feel of public reaction in order to decide on the $budget to finish the film.

@@jessegonzalez8167 I could see that if were weren't talking about Steven Soderbergh, who's has a fairly eclectic career as far as what he chooses to direct. As far as I can see it just looks like a trailer. And why would they release a trailer for an unfinished movie? Particularly one that looks to be fairly low-budgeted? It doesn't add up.

Thank you! As much as I enjoy gory movies there's something to be said for a subtle, well-told ghost story. I don't think every movie should be like it - otherwise it wouldn't be so special - but we NEED movies like 'The Changling.'

I doubt it. Reason being no one owns the word 'Stinger.' It's the name of a car (Kia) but as I said in the video it's also the title of a book that came out decades prior and seemingly what the series is based upon. That's the thing, if it is based upon Robert McCammon's book they shouldn't have any sort of trademark or copyright problems. By way of comparison, that's like basing your movie on a Steven King story, then changing the title. No one does that sort of thing.

Thank you! I've done 'The Front Room' though 'Heretic' is new to me. I'll look into that for this week!

I did 'Heretic' as well! I forgot that one.

I've never heard of Coralie Fargaeat before this movie. You say that she's done a movie named 'Revenge.' What is that about?

@screenPhiles Just what it says. The ultimate 'hell hath no fury' movie. A woman is taken down by her no good boyfriend and his henchmen in a desert location. Let's just say that they underestimated her. But you're the reviewer, so go do your homework!!

@@nyneegardner6235 Have you seen the movie? Probably not because it hasn't been released. That being said, how are you pretending to know what you're talking about? There's no 'do you homework' for an unreleased movie.

@screenPhiles If you read carefully what I said, a reviewer who WAS AT CANNES and who saw it did a review already of it. By homework, what I meant was knowing the director's previous film, her influences and also familiarizing yourself with examples of the body horror subgenre. And additinally, the relevant directors who have made films of that genre (and helped influence this one). Capiche?

@@nyneegardner6235 If you understood how reviews work, never mind people, you'd get that just because someone says something is about whatever doesn't make it true. YOU haven't seen the movie, therefore YOU have not only have no idea what it's about, you have no idea if what they're saying is true. My question is why you're pretending you do.

I gotta admit it's looking kinda cool. I dig movies that are saying really interesting things though don't necessarily wear their messages on their sleeves. Instead they tell engaging stories first then add the social commentary where you might not even notice it on first watch but it sticks with you and you start understanding what the director was trying to do.

Thanks (though I'm not sure that I understand. Are you Swedish?)!

Speaking of not knowing what they're talking about, there are records of wolves attacking humans. And while it's is rare it does happen. You ought to consider doing the modicum of research before embarrassing yourself.

Thanks! Few things bother me more than dubbed movies. For some reason the voices chosen never quite match up and it takes me right out of the movie.