Homework: Re-Animator (1985)

[HoldenMartinson 221]

 

"The film that was name-dropped in American Beauty". I think we've just found the definite tagline for Re-Animator. Good job, guys!

Those were the two things Devin liked about American Beauty: Conrad L. Hall's cinematography is great, and Re-Animator gets a shout-out.

[AlexChristianLovendahl 34]

 

Considering that you're the only dissenting comment so far, I think you're the one that needs to make an argument. :P/>/>

It's unfunny, not scary. ugly, culminates in a sleazy rape scene, and is amateurishly made. Combs is the only light in this piece of darkness, but I'm reading the rest of the thread now.

[ZZZ 63]

It's unfunny, not scary. ugly, culminates in a sleazy rape scene, and is amateurishly made. Combs is the only light in this piece of darkness, but I'm reading the rest of the thread now.

 

Valid points and normally something that I wouldn't feel comfortable being on the side of. I feel kind of like Devin in the Temple of Doom episode where the thing I am defending is ugly and morally murky but I don't know. I think its okay to like movies that are trashy and occasionally offensive as long as you can be aware of that and contextualize it.

[NathanGordon 1096]

It's unfunny, not scary. ugly, culminates in a sleazy rape scene, and is amateurishly made. Combs is the only light in this piece of darkness, but I'm reading the rest of the thread now.

It's funny, but I suppose it's a brand of comedy that is an acquired taste.

 

It's not "scary", but it's disturbing and horrifying at times.

 

I don't think the film is advocating rape or misogyny, but it's certainly in line with the exploitation/VHS horror aesthetic of the era. This isn't to excuse that at all, and it could offend sensitive viewers -- in which case, the entire genre would probably disagree with you. Gordon didn't include some more gruesome elements from the original story, including multiple children being killed and eaten. I'd argue that the film establishes a very dark, funny tone from the beginning, when Herbert West reanimates a cat. I don't think Re-Animator is ever mean-spirited.

 

Amatuerishly made -- it was Stuart Gordon's first feature film, made for $800,000. So yes, there's a charming low budget feel to it, but the film is also wildly inventive and has some very creative special effects. This is by far the part of the film I enjoy the most, and one aspect I think most viewers should be able to appreciate.

 

I'm curious what you think about Raimi's The Evil Dead, which is a very close parallel, not only for creative independent horror but also because it contains a scene of sexual assault -- a scene Raimi chose not to include in Evil Dead 2 (essentially a remake).

[laugurinn 1]

I don't usually do this, but...

 

Listened to Re-Animator episode. My first Canon episode.

 

First 25 minutes got me angry.

 

Astounded by host Amy.

 

Compares Re-Animator to They Live, Ed Wood and Evil Dead and Peter Jackson???

 

She's tired of "Really, really fun shit that doesn't have to be in the Canon"

 

Says "That it's fun and everybody likes it does not mean it belongs in the Canon"

 

Now tell me this. Why should I listen to more of this podcast, if too much fun stuff that everybody loves, is not her thing?

 

Implies the movie is bad because the director used free source material.

 

I could go on, I won't.

 

Amy. You sound like you have no idea what you are talking about most of the time. You sound like someone who just didn't like the movie - and that's o.k. - but ALL your points about WHY it's bad, are just awful.

 

Amy. You are the reason I probably won't listen to more episodes. Sorry.

 

Deep ignorance indeed.

[ZZZ 63]

I don't usually do this, but...

 

Listened to Re-Animator episode. My first Canon episode.

 

First 25 minutes got me angry.

 

Astounded by host Amy.

 

Compares Re-Animator to They Live, Ed Wood and Evil Dead and Peter Jackson???

 

She's tired of "Really, really fun shit that doesn't have to be in the Canon"

 

Says "That it's fun and everybody likes it does not mean it belongs in the Canon"

 

Now tell me this. Why should I listen to more of this podcast, if too much fun stuff that everybody loves, is not her thing?

 

Implies the movie is bad because the director used free source material.

 

I could go on, I won't.

 

Amy. You sound like you have no idea what you are talking about most of the time. You sound like someone who just didn't like the movie - and that's o.k. - but ALL your points about WHY it's bad, are just awful.

 

Amy. You are the reason I probably won't listen to more episodes. Sorry.

 

Deep ignorance indeed.

 

I strongly recommend you listen to more episodes and read her writing because she happens to be a very intelligent and interesting critic with opinions that she expresses regardless of their popularity. I disagree with her at least once on almost every episode but I am fascinated by how she watches movies and 100% respect her critiques.