>highly esteemed British actors chewing scenery for a paycheck >page3 tier milk trucks in corsets and bustiers >implying that’s not a formula for greatness
The actors and the sets is what these movies had going for them. The scripts were terrible. They made their Dracula movie feel even smaller than the 1931 one and they kept rebooting this and the Frankenstein series before giving it any conclusion.
>Best of the vampire Hammer movies from the 70s >Good
That is when they went to absolute shit. Dracula A.D. 1972 was one of the worst movies I ever saw, I couldn't get over it. I watched all of them too, up until that movie, then I gave up. Hippies ruin everything. Steven King is a homosexual
Hammer gets a pass from nostalgiagays (like Scorsese but he's ok) because they restored the gothic horror that died in the 1940s. Except most of them simply weren't any good. Monster movies were still better and what really was a worthy replacement were thrillers and occult films.
I like Blood From Mummy's Tomb because it's based on Bram Stoker's The israeliteel of Seven Stars. New Mummy movie also seems like action based take on same source. They just rushed it with Jekyll's world of gods and monsters.
I'm a zoomer so I can't be a nostalgiagay. Hammer's Frankenstein is great for example, Cushing's Doctor is good even in the bad movies, and despite them not being in continuity he handles his descent into madness excellently. The problem with Hammer is they'd make one solid movie and then milk it relentlessly for 6 sequels, burying their good movies in a mire of shlock.
They're far from the GOAT of horror but they're not shit propped up by nostalgia alone.
Their overall output is dire, but there are some actual gems in there. The Curse of Frankenstein and Revenge of Frankenstein are great. The Brides of Dracula--despite the bad title--is one of the best classic vampire movies. Hammer was responsible for a lot of absolute shit, but their best is good by most standards. I'd take them over the ass Coppola Dracula everyone here beats off over.
Cinemaphile. Not kidding, there have been regular shill threads about it for the past couple weeks. Strangely I haven't seen any marketing for it in the real world.
They've been shilling it non-stop. Every boxing match and I would assume ufc match the ring announcer gets paid to promote it before introducing the boxers. Every match. On every fricking card.
I don't understand Universal studio. Capeshit universes are slowly dying. Instead of fixing dark universe and hooking new audience bored of capeshit they prefer to release standalone films that flop one by one because nobody cares about them as there is no greater goal anymore. We have dozens of standalone horrors. I don't see any point for another Dracula or Frankenstein retelling. But Dracula joining Frankenstein to terrorize people is something fresh.
>But Dracula joining Frankenstein to terrorize people is something fresh.
But it's also a really really dumb idea. The idea of trying to tie a bunch of classic monster movies together is dumb. They aren't, or shouldn't be, the heroes in their stories so bringing them together doesn't add anything beyond being able to market many monsters, which Cabin In The Woods "did".
>what is House of Dracula >what is House of Frankenstein
If they are burning money make it at least fun. It's not like 100 mil Dracula on boat film is a safe bet either. Or that dogshit Renfield film with 65 mil budget for fricking nothing.
The actual cycle is not that long. It's rare when someone seriously considers Inner Sanctum movies as part of the Universal Classic Horror. It's almost like an IP on its own rather than just any horror made by Universal. And House of Frankenstein and House of Dracula was when they were running out of ideas and were kind of a laughingstock because they couldn't do anything interesting with the monsters. House of Dracula was a hit but it ended the second run of the cycle before it resumed with A&C because even though it made money it was also kind of an embarassment. Especially with people like Van Lewton from RKO who had his own cycle of movies and advertised it as something wholly original and artistic unlike Universal.
>But Dracula joining Frankenstein to terrorize people is something fresh.
But it's also a really really dumb idea. The idea of trying to tie a bunch of classic monster movies together is dumb. They aren't, or shouldn't be, the heroes in their stories so bringing them together doesn't add anything beyond being able to market many monsters, which Cabin In The Woods "did".
Jack Nicholson and Shelley Duvall gave us hilarious performances and who could forget about the cringy moronic kid and the crazy magic homie, a true masterpiece. "Redrum each other human folks", said the collective consciousness ghost, so spoopy.
It could be done to make it interesting, set it in an interesting fantasy world like Van Helsing except better but it won't be as popular as they want. Of all the monsters that people care about and love nowadays those aren't the one. Maybe they just went past their expiration date.
It would take some serious creative types to make a modern take on the old Universal monster movies and their interconnected universe work. It's popular to shit on the MCU but the writing, acting, casting, and promotion was all pretty spectacular during its "golden era." The decline in MCU quality is a microcosm of the decline of Hollywood's ability to realize these projects as a whole. These studios are in decline, they're full of too many people that simply aren't good at their jobs and they're super expensive to boot. Every now and then something good's going to squeak out as the few remaining talents in the studios come together or the stooges have a good day, but the reality is there isn't a studio with the human resources needed to pull off another MCU type event, let alone with a cast of characters that have been more often seen in comedy and parody than in anything serious
Ah yes because when I think of old naval stories I expect the lead character to be a black doctor who bangs a white women. Very accurate.
if they wanted a black guy they should have given us Blackula vs. Dracula, it would have brought the country together in unity to see the most important black monster and the most important white monster on screen together
Blacula canon is that Blacula was an African king who came to beg Count Dracula for help ending the slave trade, but Dracula felt disrespected by him so he turned him into a vampire underling and then banged Blacula's wife. I'd say going by that backstory Dracula is stronger.
First of all, a wet negress pussy with big chocolate milkers is amazing. Dont let /misc/ tell you otherwise.
Second, if you could cuck a black man just to show off your superiority, why wouldnt you?
You guys are aware that the script for this film has been around since the 90s? They dug through a vault, some big top guy found it, loved the script and let it move forward
Dracula in general is top horror that really doesn't get enough credit due to it's association with "silly" movies. Just the way the narrative is delivered to you is fantastic.
Same but one anon said he's is onboard doctor only because they rejected him from university because he is black. I expected revisionism crap but kicking him from uni makes sense in 19th England settings. I hope Dracula kills everyone like in the book and black guy doesn't have plot armor to survive.
>Worst Skarsgaard >Nosferatu, after two great Nosferatu movies
I don't see what this brings to the table. Even Herzog's was pushing it given how iconic the original already is. If it were an adaptation of Dracula I might be interested, but another Nosferatu specifically seems pointless.
we just cant stop losing
They took two pages from Dracula and turned it into a 2 hour movie. That's an hour per page.
Toei might copy their playbook once the One Piece manga ends.
It worked for the Hobbit.
filtered
>worked
B-BUT MY FAVORITE KINO WRITER SAID IT'S GOOD!
>It reminds me of Hammer films!
That's a backhanded compliment if I've ever heard one.
>Hammer films
>the ones full of big titted lesbian vampires in corsets
>’backhanded’
I fricking despise zoomers
>It got my tiny wiener hard so they were good movies
Only see one dopamine addicted zoomer here.
>highly esteemed British actors chewing scenery for a paycheck
>page3 tier milk trucks in corsets and bustiers
>implying that’s not a formula for greatness
Several Hammer films are genuinely great, though.
Same moron praised Flash or whatever capeshit garbage. Hammer movies were low budget campy shit with dreadful acting.
He praised Flash because it was directed by the guy who made him millions of dollars off the It movies.
The actors and the sets is what these movies had going for them. The scripts were terrible. They made their Dracula movie feel even smaller than the 1931 one and they kept rebooting this and the Frankenstein series before giving it any conclusion.
>best of Hammer movies
That's a faint praise.
>Best of the vampire Hammer movies from the 70s
>Good
That is when they went to absolute shit. Dracula A.D. 1972 was one of the worst movies I ever saw, I couldn't get over it. I watched all of them too, up until that movie, then I gave up. Hippies ruin everything. Steven King is a homosexual
Hammer gets a pass from nostalgiagays (like Scorsese but he's ok) because they restored the gothic horror that died in the 1940s. Except most of them simply weren't any good. Monster movies were still better and what really was a worthy replacement were thrillers and occult films.
I like Blood From Mummy's Tomb because it's based on Bram Stoker's The israeliteel of Seven Stars. New Mummy movie also seems like action based take on same source. They just rushed it with Jekyll's world of gods and monsters.
I'm a zoomer so I can't be a nostalgiagay. Hammer's Frankenstein is great for example, Cushing's Doctor is good even in the bad movies, and despite them not being in continuity he handles his descent into madness excellently. The problem with Hammer is they'd make one solid movie and then milk it relentlessly for 6 sequels, burying their good movies in a mire of shlock.
They're far from the GOAT of horror but they're not shit propped up by nostalgia alone.
Their overall output is dire, but there are some actual gems in there. The Curse of Frankenstein and Revenge of Frankenstein are great. The Brides of Dracula--despite the bad title--is one of the best classic vampire movies. Hammer was responsible for a lot of absolute shit, but their best is good by most standards. I'd take them over the ass Coppola Dracula everyone here beats off over.
copportunity dracula sucks
it looks nice but dracula is a tragic lover
absolutely not intimidating and the final act is just fricking joke
>Dracula A.D. 1972 was one of the worst movies I ever saw,
Filtered
The final battle's visuals with Cushing and Lee is the only good part in the whole movie. Everything else is insufferable
Kill all draculas, even the cute ones
I love Hammer, and that shitty trailer wasn't remotely similar to any of their movies. Stephen King is either moronic, insincere, or both.
I miss him back when he was drunk and high all the time
over produced garbage
Sounds like a pleb filter!
I didn't even know about this movie. Where the frick was the marketing for this?
Black man fricks a white woman: the movie
why I didn't watch, even if no romance I'm not watching a Black person on a boat for 2 hours
Cinemaphile. Not kidding, there have been regular shill threads about it for the past couple weeks. Strangely I haven't seen any marketing for it in the real world.
True I saw more ads for the Disney movie haunted house.
They've been shilling it non-stop. Every boxing match and I would assume ufc match the ring announcer gets paid to promote it before introducing the boxers. Every match. On every fricking card.
Frick, that's disappointing. I like supernatural horror and 19th century sailing is kino; I was really hoping this movie would be good.
you could tell from the trailer is was bad
I don't understand Universal studio. Capeshit universes are slowly dying. Instead of fixing dark universe and hooking new audience bored of capeshit they prefer to release standalone films that flop one by one because nobody cares about them as there is no greater goal anymore. We have dozens of standalone horrors. I don't see any point for another Dracula or Frankenstein retelling. But Dracula joining Frankenstein to terrorize people is something fresh.
>Dracula joining Frankenstein to terrorize people is something fresh
You're funny, anon.
>what is House of Dracula
>what is House of Frankenstein
B horror movies that would cost 250 million dollars if made today and would need 600 million to breakeven.
A dumb idea.
If they are burning money make it at least fun. It's not like 100 mil Dracula on boat film is a safe bet either. Or that dogshit Renfield film with 65 mil budget for fricking nothing.
Then make Freddy Vs Jason 2. Or Batman Vs Dracula. Frick it make Abraham Vampire Hunter 2.
But make them on a reasonable budget.
>>what is House of Dracula
>>what is House of Frankenstein
OK but many people here actually watched those? Or the Abbott and Costello movies?
The actual cycle is not that long. It's rare when someone seriously considers Inner Sanctum movies as part of the Universal Classic Horror. It's almost like an IP on its own rather than just any horror made by Universal. And House of Frankenstein and House of Dracula was when they were running out of ideas and were kind of a laughingstock because they couldn't do anything interesting with the monsters. House of Dracula was a hit but it ended the second run of the cycle before it resumed with A&C because even though it made money it was also kind of an embarassment. Especially with people like Van Lewton from RKO who had his own cycle of movies and advertised it as something wholly original and artistic unlike Universal.
>But Dracula joining Frankenstein to terrorize people is something fresh.
But it's also a really really dumb idea. The idea of trying to tie a bunch of classic monster movies together is dumb. They aren't, or shouldn't be, the heroes in their stories so bringing them together doesn't add anything beyond being able to market many monsters, which Cabin In The Woods "did".
Van Helsing (2004) did Dracula + Frankenstein + Wolfman and it was good.
Unless they're going to dig up abbot and costello I don't know what the plan for this "dark universe" shit is.
Stephen King's taste in cinema is pretty bad, he also claimed he loved the Dark Tower adaptation but he hated The Shining.
Jack Nicholson and Shelley Duvall gave us hilarious performances and who could forget about the cringy moronic kid and the crazy magic homie, a true masterpiece. "Redrum each other human folks", said the collective consciousness ghost, so spoopy.
It could be done to make it interesting, set it in an interesting fantasy world like Van Helsing except better but it won't be as popular as they want. Of all the monsters that people care about and love nowadays those aren't the one. Maybe they just went past their expiration date.
It would take some serious creative types to make a modern take on the old Universal monster movies and their interconnected universe work. It's popular to shit on the MCU but the writing, acting, casting, and promotion was all pretty spectacular during its "golden era." The decline in MCU quality is a microcosm of the decline of Hollywood's ability to realize these projects as a whole. These studios are in decline, they're full of too many people that simply aren't good at their jobs and they're super expensive to boot. Every now and then something good's going to squeak out as the few remaining talents in the studios come together or the stooges have a good day, but the reality is there isn't a studio with the human resources needed to pull off another MCU type event, let alone with a cast of characters that have been more often seen in comedy and parody than in anything serious
Forbes literally gave them a blueprint for Dark Universe revival step by step. They are stupid not to follow. Check it.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffewing/2018/10/31/how-to-fix-universals-dark-universe/amp/
That's the thing though, a group of writers/directors smart and capable enough to follow any kind of story outline or theme simply doesn't exist.
that's a good sign
Looks like pandering to Blackrock didn’t help.
FNAF will save horror genre
>trusting reviewers
the movie is based, deal with it
Chris stuckmann liked it
Chris Stuckmann likes all movies now and admitted that he will never ever criticize a modern movie because he doesn’t want to be blacklisted.
Don’t cast black people as your lead character
if they wanted a black guy they should have given us Blackula vs. Dracula, it would have brought the country together in unity to see the most important black monster and the most important white monster on screen together
Which one is stronger?
Blacula canon is that Blacula was an African king who came to beg Count Dracula for help ending the slave trade, but Dracula felt disrespected by him so he turned him into a vampire underling and then banged Blacula's wife. I'd say going by that backstory Dracula is stronger.
>and then banged Blacula's wife.
Why this?
First of all, a wet negress pussy with big chocolate milkers is amazing. Dont let /misc/ tell you otherwise.
Second, if you could cuck a black man just to show off your superiority, why wouldnt you?
Makes sense
Ah yes because when I think of old naval stories I expect the lead character to be a black doctor who bangs a white women. Very accurate.
the trailer shouldnt have shown dracula. it ruins thee build up or tension when you see the monster that early
So, that means it's good then, right?
You guys are aware that the script for this film has been around since the 90s? They dug through a vault, some big top guy found it, loved the script and let it move forward
>black person in trailer
not watching it.
Wasted potential. Boats + a horror where everyone has to die to a classic monster could have been 10/10 kino.
https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~rgs/drac-7.html
And guess what, it's 10/10 kino
Dracula in general is top horror that really doesn't get enough credit due to it's association with "silly" movies. Just the way the narrative is delivered to you is fantastic.
I saw a black in the trailer
Same but one anon said he's is onboard doctor only because they rejected him from university because he is black. I expected revisionism crap but kicking him from uni makes sense in 19th England settings. I hope Dracula kills everyone like in the book and black guy doesn't have plot armor to survive.
I've heard the coon lives and marries the white woman
I don't care. Other dark universal movies are also rotten. I'm just glad we are still getting these monster films.
What is Johnny Depp playing?
Depp was supposed to be The Invisible Man but then trial happened and they cast this dude.
I would like Depp to have another role in the monster universe.
Black person fatigue.
The only Dracula movie I have ang interest in
>Worst Skarsgaard
>Nosferatu, after two great Nosferatu movies
I don't see what this brings to the table. Even Herzog's was pushing it given how iconic the original already is. If it were an adaptation of Dracula I might be interested, but another Nosferatu specifically seems pointless.
Kino