|
|
Post by darkwolfavenged on Aug 4, 2007 10:57:15 GMT -5
Silent Hill is a nicely atmospheric film. I loved the scenes of walking along the road with the ash falling. Yeah, good stuff. I saw it at the cinema and always remember the bit where the siren first goes off and she goes down the stairs and it gets darker and darker and then those creepy burnt children turn up. Brrrrrrrrr Oh, and the huge bloke with a pyramid for a head and knife the size of a small car was waaay cool! |
|
|
|
Post by Werewolf on Aug 4, 2007 14:39:42 GMT -5
It's been ages since i last saw it but i seem to remember something really creepy happening in a toilet!
|
|
|
|
Post by Noel on Aug 6, 2007 15:32:50 GMT -5
It just occured to me that nobody's mentioned any "Frankenstein" movies on this thread. Do they count as zombie movies? Is Frankenstein's monster a zombie? What's the official verdict?
|
|
|
|
Post by darkwolfavenged on Aug 6, 2007 17:11:33 GMT -5
It just occured to me that nobody's mentioned any "Frankenstein" movies on this thread. Do they count as zombie movies? Is Frankenstein's monster a zombie? What's the official verdict? Frankenstein's monster is something unique and deserves his own thread. He's not a zombie, at least not in the modern Romero sense or the classic voodoo movie style. To quote Colin Clive "HE'S ALIVE...HE'S ALIVE......HE'S ALIVE!!"  |
|
|
|
Post by weredog on Aug 6, 2007 19:50:26 GMT -5
He is the undead. But so is vampires.
|
|
|
|
Post by Werewolf on Aug 7, 2007 2:00:27 GMT -5
He is the undead. But so is vampires. I agree. He should have his own thread like Vampires, he's had enough movies made about him. |
|
|
|
Post by keywolf on Aug 7, 2007 2:44:15 GMT -5
I've never really thought of Frankenstein's monster as a zombie, possibly as he can engage in a philosophical discussion!
|
|
|
|
Post by Marcus on Aug 7, 2007 3:18:24 GMT -5
I've never thought of Frankenstein's monster as undead. He's a living being rather then animated dead fleash.
One of the underlying pins of the monster is the fact he was given life not by god, but by man.
Yes, he's bits of dead people stitched together, but than he was brought to life.
It's possible to argue that he's a zombie, or even some kind of Fleash Golem. But for me the Monster is a living creature, not an undead.
|
|
|
|
Post by darkwolfavenged on Aug 8, 2007 9:55:54 GMT -5
I've never thought of Frankenstein's monster as undead. He's a living being rather then animated dead fleash. One of the underlying pins of the monster is the fact he was given life not by god, but by man. Yes, he's bits of dead people stitched together, but than he was brought to life. It's possible to argue that he's a zombie, or even some kind of Fleash Golem. But for me the Monster is a living creature, not an undead. Yep - I agree. He's a unique and classic creation who rightly deserves his own separate part in monster/horror history and lore. Actually, Frankenstein is more of a sci fi story (probably the first one ever) as the original 'monster' is a living, breathing, intelligent individual created by science from bits of dead people in order to create new life. The story is basically about mans increasing knowledge and use of science to challenge the power of god. |
|
|
|
Post by Noel on Aug 8, 2007 10:04:35 GMT -5
Yeah, it's quite scary how well "Frankenstein" captured and explored the important philosophical issues of the time. That Mary Shelley was a sharp cookie.
|
|
|
|
Post by weredog on Aug 8, 2007 12:27:31 GMT -5
Wasnt he created by magic instead of science in the original book?
|
|
|
|
Post by Noel on Aug 8, 2007 13:33:13 GMT -5
From what I remember it was a mixture of modern science and 'folk' science from the middle ages. But definitely science.
|
|
|
|
Post by Werewolf on Aug 9, 2007 2:05:57 GMT -5
Ironic that she never managed to capture quite the same "magic" in any of her other books, but then neither did Bram Stoker.
|
|
