If you haven’t haven’t seen it, I highly recommend watching it without reading into what it’s about.
The most I’ll say is that two teenagers in the 90s get stuck inside a 50s TV show.
It starts out feeling quite a lot like a reverse Truman Show, many similarities also with Eps1-3 of WandaVision, but it continually becomes more and more interesting. I couldn’t stop laughing at how brilliant some of the situations were and the commentary at play.
After watching I’ve instantly added it to my top 20 favourite films of all time. Which if you need a reference for, you can see the list here.
Now go watch it!
And if you’ve already seen it? What do you think about it?
I just finished season 5 and watched th film for the first time. I liked it and it progresses the overall story of the how but it ultimately felt a bit lacklustre just in the sense that it felt more like... A two part episode of the show filmed as a movie? Like I was curious what the reception was, I was wondering how well it would have worked as an actual cinema release, on the one hand taken a film on its own it seems to treat the characters in a way that are accessible to general audiences but following the story I can't imagine anyone unfamiliar with the show not being confused? But yeah overall I liked it don't get me wrong. I guess I just got the feeling of an extended episode special more than anything else though.
The Faculty has so many parts and details that make it a classic. The performances are insanely inhuman from the antagonists and insanely relateable and charismatic from the protagonists. The Characters are all so unique and well written, starting out as average stereotypes but slowly changing and swapping the archetypes of each character. The Jock becomes the scholar, the nerd becomes the cool guy, etc. The filmmaking is absolutely on point, the lighting and cinematography are extremely underrated and should be looked at my up and coming filmmakers for suspense and unique framing techniques. The pacing and editing are also absolutely on point, really keeping you interested in just about every single frame of the film. I honestly can't sing the praises of this film enough, even the soundtrack absolutely wails. I'd say Scream, Candyman, and The Faculty are BY FAR the best horror films of the 90s and each hold high spots in my all time ranking as well.
Only episode I barely remeber is she investigates a horse that should have been a prized racehorse, but the brand on its lip doesn't match the racehorse. Girl detective had a long brown hair, definitely looked to be a teenage. It looked like it was filmed really cheap with really obvious sets.
Might not be Nickolodean, but only kids channel I remeber watching and would have programming on at odd hours.
Did anyone read this? Does anyone have the link to this?
The first Psycho is widely regarded as one of the best horror films ever made, as well as one of the best films made by one of the greatest directors ever: Sir Alfred Hitchcock. When I first saw it, I absolutely agreed with that.
But it wasn’t until after that initial viewing that I learned about the three sequels that existed in addition to the 1998 remake that I was already aware of. I became interested in watching them, but I never got around to it until today, when I watched Psycho II on Peacock. Unfortunately, Peacock isn’t available on my smart TV, so I was forced to watch it on my phone. Not ideal to be sure, but a pair of headphones made for a decent surround sound experience, anyway. What also made it more enjoyable is that I found this to be a very enjoyable and worthy successor to that 1960 classic.
My favorite thing about this film is how closely connected it felt to the original. Not only does the story feel like a logical progression of the first movie but, despite being made almost a quarter of a century later in color as opposed to black and white, it also looks a lot like the first one.
Several shots are designed as direct homages to the original and the whole thing uses angles and camera placement that just look so strikingly similar to that one. It really feels like the crew took a close look at Psycho and set out not to rehash it but to tell a compelling story that remains faithful to it tonally, narratively, and visually.
Another thing that helps with this is the score. There are some blasts of 80s synth that sound quite good and blend in well, but for the most part it sticks to sharp horns and full strings that harken back to the first film’s iconic music. All of this makes it feel like you’re watching something 20 years older than it is. It’s very old-fashioned in the things I’ve mentioned.
I also really enjoyed the performances. Anthony Perkins slips right back into the titular character without missing a beat and, just as in the original, succeeds in portraying a genuinely creepy and disturbed individual that you also feel sympathy for.
In fact, this is one area that I think the sequel improves upon the original in since Norman is most assuredly the protagonist in this, so you get more time with him. This gives Perkins the opportunity to more fully develop and expand upon his initial performance.
I’m also so glad they were able to get Vera Miles back. It shows good faith on the part of the production that they want to do
... keep reading on reddit ➡was it a helicopter?
Hi all,
I'd like to do a screening of both Psycho's side by side. Has anyone ever recut them so they match perfectly?
Or, do you know of any other pairs of films that match?
New to Brave New World and I always try to watch one screen adaptation before reading the original book. So which version would be better to watch in that it would want me wanting more and to have a motivation to read the book? I'm not necessarily asking which version is most different from the book but the one that would convince me to check out the book immediately afterwards.
As an aside question is the 1980 version cheap in production values since it was a TV program while the 1998 version far superior because its not just newer but written as a movie (even if it was specifically a TV film)? If I watch the 1998 version and then read the book later, would I have a hard time with the 80s BBC program because its production budget is so low?
So which do you recommend not only on the basis of being superior but which would leave me thirsty for more to read the novel? Try to describe differences that don't put any spoilers at all (for example not discuss the story at all but describe which has better acting or differences in writing pace, etc)!
The first Psycho is widely regarded as one of the best horror films ever made, as well as one of the best films made by one of the greatest directors ever: Sir Alfred Hitchcock. When I first saw it, I absolutely agreed with that.
But it wasn’t until after that initial viewing that I learned about the three sequels that existed in addition to the 1998 remake that I was already aware of. I became interested in watching them, but I never got around to it until today, when I watched Psycho II on Peacock. Unfortunately, Peacock isn’t available on my smart TV, so I was forced to watch it on my phone. Not ideal to be sure, but a pair of headphones made for a decent surround sound experience, anyway. What also made it more enjoyable is that I found this to be a very enjoyable and worthy successor to that 1960 classic.
My favorite thing about this film is how closely connected it felt to the original. Not only does the story feel like a logical progression of the first movie but, despite being made almost a quarter of a century later in color as opposed to black and white, it also looks a lot like the first one.
Several shots are designed as direct homages to the original and the whole thing uses angles and camera placement that just look so strikingly similar to that one. It really feels like the crew took a close look at Psycho and set out not to rehash it but to tell a compelling story that remains faithful to it tonally, narratively, and visually.
Another thing that helps with this is the score. There are some blasts of 80s synth that sound quite good and blend in well, but for the most part it sticks to sharp horns and full strings that harken back to the first film’s iconic music. All of this makes it feel like you’re watching something 20 years older than it is. It’s very old-fashioned in the things I’ve mentioned.
I also really enjoyed the performances. Anthony Perkins slips right back into the titular character without missing a beat and, just as in the original, succeeds in portraying a genuinely creepy and disturbed individual that you also feel sympathy for.
In fact, this is one area that I think the sequel improves upon the original in since Norman is most assuredly the protagonist in this, so you get more time with him. This gives Perkins the opportunity to more fully develop and expand upon his initial performance.
I’m also so glad they were able to get Vera Miles back. It shows good faith on the part of the production that they want to do
... keep reading on reddit ➡)