RE: Claudette Colbert: Have you ever seen De Mille's pre-code The Sign of the Cross or Lubitsch's The Smiling Lieutenant? In the first, she plays Poppaea, (Nero's wife), wearing nothing but a milk bath and inviting ladies of her court to disrobe and join her. In the second she plays a cabaret singer who ends up advising her rival in song to Jazz Up Your Lingerie. I must admit to finding CC rather appealing. It probably has something to do with seeing her toes curl in The Palm Beach Story.
I noticed that as well. Even though she may have been young I caught the last half of that movie where she and John Wayne were on a road trip together... Fluff and drivel but she seemed to me "too old" for the role. Her youthful exuberance a little too forced. So it ain't just you...It's Claudette Colbert Day on TCM. Had it on in the background on mute for several of her movies. No matter how young she is, she still looks like a mother. Maybe it's the ringlets or something, but she reads mother all the time.
As a self-proclaimed slasher aficionado, I've never cared for Part V of the Friday franchise, and in fact find it wholey skippable. In fact, I find pretty much every Jason movie past IV to be disjointed from the other, seemingly having no interest in even the loosest coherence. At least parts II - IV can claim to have some semblance of an overarching story. Part VI connects back into it, but the franchise quickly became a lower and lower quality parody of itself after that. I find "New Blood" and "Takes Manhattan" enjoyable only when under the influence.The Paramount Network is airing a mini-marathon of the Friday the 13th movies today, and they're currently on "Part V, A New Beginning". None of these movies are particularly praise-worthy, but even as low-budget rubbish some are better than others. This movie isn't one of those. In fact, this movie is part of the franchise in name only because the hockey-masked serial killer in this one isn't Jason Voorhees. Yeah, that's a spoiler, but I don't care because this movie is like a big middle finger from Paramount to the fans of the franchise. "Oh, look, aren't we clever? We've wasted your time with an unimportant movie, and got your money in the process. Yay us!" I'm just pleased that I never wasted my money and time to see this in a theater.
My personal history with "slasher" movies is dodgy at best because I just don't care for them for the most part. I grew up watching Universal's "classic" horror movies on television and, unlike almost every "horror" movie I've seen since the early 70s, even the worst of those has some form of plot. The term "torture porn" that's used to describe modern horror movies is very appropriate because modern "horror" movies have become very much like low-budget porn movies with murder replacing sex--10-20 minutes of weak plot to establish the premise, then scenario after scenario of the most imaginative ways to kill people.As a self-proclaimed slasher aficionado, I've never cared for Part V of the Friday franchise, and in fact find it wholey skippable. In fact, I find pretty much every Jason movie past IV to be disjointed from the other, seemingly having no interest in even the loosest coherence. At least parts II - IV can claim to have some semblance of an overarching story. Part VI connects back into it, but the franchise quickly became a lower and lower quality parody of itself after that. I find "New Blood" and "Takes Manhattan" enjoyable only when under the influence.
Of all the films, I've truly only appreciated the original. Give me Halloween 4 - 6 over the Friday movies any day. At least the Thorn Trilogy, as it's come to be called, contains enough atmospheric tone and '80s and '90s nostalgia to keep me entertained.
I grew up on a lot of Alfred Hitchcock. I think my first real scary movie for me was "The Birds" at age 5 or 6, so the slower, more natural suspense of the Halloween movies always appealed to me. Plus, Halloween was always my favorite holiday as a kid, so I think that's what attracted me to slashers in the first place: they're scary, and they wear a "costume" of sorts. I can't stand the "Saw" movies, or any of the other torture porn gorefests they come out with nowadays. There's a few gems hidden in among them, like "Hell Fest," but I otherwise stick to my Universal Horror Classics, Hammer Horror, and '80s horror.My personal history with "slasher" movies is dodgy at best because I just don't care for them for the most part. I grew up watching Universal's "classic" horror movies on television and, unlike almost every "horror" movie I've seen since the early 70s, even the worst of those has some form of plot. The term "torture porn" that's used to describe modern horror movies is very appropriate because modern "horror" movies have become very much like low-budget porn movies with murder replacing sex--10-20 minutes of weak plot to establish the premise, then scenario after scenario of the most imaginative ways to kill people.
I never cared for "Jason X", or the Friday remake, though I did think the costuming was pretty cool. What I loved best about it was how naturally it could fit within the confines of being "just another Jason movie". I have a love/hate with the Rob Zombie movies. I really enjoyed what he did with the first remake, though I hate the characterizations within it. The costume design was really enjoyable, though, as was Tyler Bates' scoring. I hated the 2009 sequel. The costuming makes it barely salvageable for me.That said, I immediately acknowledge they're all rubbish, but some are just more fun than the others. And I've seen only four "horror" movies that were made in the last 20 years: Jason X (2001), the 2009 Friday the 13th remake/reboot, Rob Zombie's Halloween remake/reboot (2007), and it's sequel Halloween II (2009). Meh.