Movies you have seen recently

[fakespyder]

On 12/30/2021 at 6:15 PM, Vicefan7777 said:

Watched a classic tonight.  A film that starred an actress who knew how to scream and had beautiful eyes, Fay Wray. The film King Kong (1933). I can just imagine being in the audience when the film originally premiered in theaters.  Oh the wonders of stop motion animation.  It must have been terrifying to watch. This movie was made in pre-code Hollywood.  There are some very graphic scenes of death.  Plus Kong slowly strips the clothing off the leading lady.  The story is very enjoyable.  I am a classic film fan and this film IS a classic!!

I saw this last year during lockdown and it really touched me

 

Edited January 5, 2022 by fakespyder

[Augusta]

Okay, I'll see your Kongs and raise the pot, here.

I can't explain the facts behind this one.  I can't describe the show without laughing--and I can't even explain why I laugh at this because I am not a fan of this genre.  Somewhere around the MTV age, tv lampooning started, with claymation, and then Simpsons, then flushed down into a period before South Park and Futurama aimed things toward a standard of acceptability.
During the toilet flush, you received Beavis and Butthead, Tales of the Brothers Grunt, Aqua Teen Hunger Force, Cow and Chicken, Assy McGee (...stop laughing, it's not funny).  Dear Lord, I hated that time period.  If any of these typical animation experiments from this period turned out to be non-entertaining they lasted 2-seasons or more.  Ironically, if any of these experiments WERE unique and intelligent lampoons, they barely lasted half a season before they were cancelled.

This one experiment called Korgoth never made it beyond its pilot episode.  I still have not learned the reason why, when titles like Archer and American Dad are still infesting the..... whatever.  Anyway, they don't televise it anywhere, as best as I can tell, so if you want to watch this (you should watch this one), you will have to google a copy of it that someone uploaded from home-recording.
I shouldn't like anything that lampoons Conan the Barbarian, because Arnold's and John Milius' film happens to be superb in its every accomplishment.  But Korgoth of Barbaria has such intelligence in its sarcasm that it clearly needed to be given a few seasons for us to decide if we want to see it more than seeing Aqua Teen Hunger Force.

Search around theyoutube until you get a good clean audio and video copy of it.
Korgoth of Barbaria. 

Only less than 90 minutes.  You can deny to yourself afterward that you ever saw it.  But while you watch it, you'll likely laugh all the way through.

Edited January 10, 2022 by Augusta

[Vincent Hanna]

Not sure I understand CGI-heavy movies. They seem to be popular so it's just a preference not liking them. But part of the charm of photography is capturing fleeting moments for real.  It feels like cheating if you can just paint anything afterwards digitally.

In cinematography, there are images that are interesting in and of themselves even if you take them out of the context of the film. A CGI photorealistic "painted" landscape isn't interesting on it's own, no matter how beautiful it is.

The helicopter attack in Apocalypse Now or Fitzcarrado moving a steamship over a mountain are only interesting because of the sheer spectacle. If they had used CGI helicopters/boats, or models or something, those films would be almost worthless as Art.

Edited January 15, 2022 by Vincent Hanna

[Augusta]

I can halfway agree with you there.

You can never offend a Sci-Fi fan, no matter how (groan...) obviously made-up their movies are at times.  I'm not a sci-fi fan.  I LOVE a well-made film even if it's sci-fi (or even superhero once in a while).  So I love Lucas' Star Wars IV, Ridley Scott's Alien, Cameron's The Terminator, Milius's Conan, Spielberg's Close Encounters, Favreau's Iron Man, Donner's Superman, Wise's The Day the Earth Stood Still.
...Yet, I frown on Sci-Fi movies in general, and cannot STAND superhero movie franchises. 
I feel that CGI is a tool.  Tools are supposed to help the filmmaker get his task across, WITHOUT the tool being recognized blatantly by the audience.  Like good editing is a tool--as long as the audience doesn't notice where the story's being glaringly snjpped and pasted, or good music is a tool as long as the darn trombone that starts when the well-endowed gal in the snazzy bikini appears, doesn't get so loud that it's pulling you away from the well-endowed girl in the snazzy bikini.  We've seen glass-matte painting in movies when we honestly didn't know the background was a matte painting.  That's EXCELLENT.  That's how all these "tools" should be used.  CGI too.

One of the best CGI handled sequences I've ever seen in my life was the Battle of Geonosis from Attack of the Clones.  We KNOW it has to be CGI we're watching, but Lucas' team went through extra levels of hell to "duplicate" the pan and telephoto-zoom and blur-out anomalies that real-life glass camera lenses always had.  That was something they didn't at all need to do, but it was ingenious to "imitate a camera" with your CG just to give the audience that classic film experience of 50 guys out there with panaflex rigs filming on a physical countryside. Freeze any single frame from that battle sequence can be blown up big as a poster and tacked to your wall---nearly every edit is an epic use of tried and true camera angles to tell a battle.
Lucas was light years ahead of his time in his thinking that CGI needs to "crafted" and controlled so it never feels standard and obvious in storytelling.  

One of the other "best I've ever seen" CGI sequences is the Battle for the Dock in Matrix Revolutions--long sequence thoughtfully pieced together like lego blocks, efficiently-edited and beautifully depicted fight sequence... but they don't use any of the imitate-a-camera attitudes that Lucas opted to follow.  No particularly stunning camera angles anywhere in this fight that you can frame on a wall.  

CGI in Matrix was just purely telling the story, with no nostalgia or art attached to it.  

Today...ugh, CGI has gotten to its end-form, we just accept nearly the entire story in CGI, and you're right---the movies feel cartoonish and un-artistic.

[Augusta]

Point Blank, directed by John Boorman.

There are only a tiny few actors (mostly it's actors) who actually were known for being so raw passionate rough masculine,...that other actors knew not to even piss this man off with the wrong  joke at a party---or he'll bust your REAL mouth open with his REAL fist, and you'll leave REAL teeth on the floor.  Donald Sutherland, Oliver Reed, Robert Shaw, apparently all had this reputation,.. and Lee Marvin.  
A favorite director of mine, John Boorman, wanted to employ that "thing" about Marvin that only the inside Hollywood circles could verify, and let it scare the bejeezuss out of an audience.  Point Blank is NOTHING like the 2010 French film which uses the same title but is a completely unrelated story to tell.  And it's nothing like the 2019 remake of the 2010 film.  The Mel Gibson remake of Marvin's movie done in 2009 entitled Payback, tries to tell the same story as Marvin's movie, but you just can't beat the combo of Boorman filming San Francisco in the post-hippie '60s, the great cast of performers, and the way they must all play off against Marvin's scary Marvin.  Scary is the WORD.  In every other movie he's been in, you are used to seeing Lee Marvin as Tough, as Hard, as fist-fight and drink HARD.  
But you're not afraid of him until John Boorman films him here, and it's just so expertly collaborated, that from here on you'd be nervous about spending even five minutes mingling at a luxury party with Lee Marvin sitting at one of the tables.  Every sentence you try, you'd be making sure to say "Mister Marvin, MISTER Marvin",.. and then you'd scared of the chance he'd get pissed by you calling him Mister too much.  

He's a cardiac arrest without words.
Without a word, he explodes into this woman's apartment, spinning her out the way without harming a hair on her head, and pumps six bullets into an empty bed with his revolver!!!  He murders the damn bed because his rage made him assume her lover would naturally still be lying there in the sack all smiles, so he just FILLED the sheets with every bullet he had in the gun--he MURDERS a BED!!  His anger didn't even let him see first that the bed was empty.   Any other movie can film some guy angrily shooting holes in a bed hoping an adulterer is there to get killed.  But the way Boorman films Marvin doing it makes you say Holy Christ!   

And it won't spoil it for you at all if I mention there's a moment at which Angie Dickinson's character gets just fed up with Lee Marvin and starts to just slap the hell out of him.  DON'T google the scene up on youtube!  You must watch it in the natural course of the movie, so you feel the full weight of stress that has built up on the two characters.  It takes a while just to shake off the delirious shock of what you've just witnessed her do,..and there's no way you could have seen it coming.
 
All of you who have seen the film know what scene I mean.  It was as though Angie beat herself against a cliff wall the way your grandmother used to beat laundry against a rock to slap all the water out of it.  She should have gotten an award just for that scene, and you know you're NEVER going to see that moment done again in another movie.  It was just done so perfectly, the scene cannot be touched.

The movie is filmed SO danged smart.  There are classic French-noir attitudes dripping between the scenes, the thin neckties, the insane lock of Marvin's hair as he's arrived walking down the airport terminal.  Watch the movie twice and you'll  capture homosexual/bisexual suggestions whispered under the angry motives of the characters.  It's John Boorman, and Boorman is a "no-hesitations" director.  He can drive his film straight through the "eros-zone" if ever and whenever the story seriously requires him to go that way, and no complaints from me.  

I was not fully satisfied with the conclusion---the ending was,..."spooky".  I wanted to feel more of a secure knowledge that everyone got their due reward at the end of this movie, and although the movie didn't leave me "open ended" or confused or anything unfair like that, it did make me feel as if there was still a little bit of due punishment left to be served before we all go home.
Intelligently unfolded story, break a tooth in anger, Passionate GOOOOOD film.  

Edited January 14, 2022 by Augusta

[Dadrian]

1 minute ago, Augusta said:

Point Blank, directed by John Boorman.

This is a great film. Very stylish—-beautifully done. 
 

 

[ViceFanMan]

5 hours ago, Augusta said:

Point Blank, directed by John Boorman.

 

4 hours ago, Dadrian said:

This is a great film. Very stylish—-beautifully done. 

Although I’ve heard & read about this film, I’ve actually not seen it before...so, just ordered the Blu-ray off eBay. Sounds wild & entertaining!  

[Augusta]

42 minutes ago, ViceFanMan said:

 

Although I’ve heard & read about this film, I’ve actually not seen it before...so, just ordered the Blu-ray off eBay. Sounds wild & entertaining!  

With the exception of that one scene where Angie Dickinson could possibly make you laugh a bit out of sympathy for her,... the movie has ZERO humor.  It's just wall to wall breathlessly angry.  I keep a home-recording of it myself on (don't laugh) digital video tape.  

Enjoy, ViceFanMan---but you have to come back to us and post what you thought about Angie's fantastic rage scene!

Edited January 14, 2022 by Augusta

[ViceFanMan]

1 hour ago, Augusta said:

With the exception of that one scene where Angie Dickinson could possibly make you laugh a bit out of sympathy for her,... the movie has ZERO humor.  It's just wall to wall breathlessly angry.  I keep a home-recording of it myself on (don't laugh) digital video tape.  

Enjoy, ViceFanMan---but you have to come back to us and post what you thought about Angie's fantastic rage scene!

No laughs...I still have lots of things on VHS, recorded years ago—including MV. The tapes are all boxed up, and I don’t watch them much anymore...but I can’t get rid of them. Sentimental to me, I guess. 

Im looking forward to watching it, and I’ll definitely let you know what I think! 

[Augusta]

On 1/11/2022 at 4:17 PM, Vincent Hanna said:

Not sure I understand CGI-heavy movies. They seem to be popular so it's just a preference not liking them. But part of the charm of photography is capturing fleeting moments for real.  It feels like cheating if you can just paint anything afterwards digitally.

In cinematography, there are images that are interesting in and of themselves even if you take them out of the context of the film. A CGI photorealistic "painted" landscape isn't interesting on it's own, no matter how beautiful it is.

 

Speaking of CGi in films, who has seen the fourth Matrix movie, and what did you think of it?  Worth seeing story-wise, or much poorer than the original trio of movies?
I won't be going to see it myself, but that doesn't mean I won't catch when it comes around to tv if I hear the story is very good...

[ViceFanMan]

On 1/14/2022 at 12:50 PM, Augusta said:

With the exception of that one scene where Angie Dickinson could possibly make you laugh a bit out of sympathy for her,... the movie has ZERO humor.  It's just wall to wall breathlessly angry.  I keep a home-recording of it myself on (don't laugh) digital video tape.  

Enjoy, ViceFanMan---but you have to come back to us and post what you thought about Angie's fantastic rage scene!

I finally received & watched Point Blank the other night. Very raw & gritty film! There were no real good-guys & bad-guys...just some guys were more bad than others, lol! It was pure revenge & rage, but very pulse-pounding till the end. Definitely a prime example of ‘no honor among thieves’...or killers, for that matter! Angie Dickinson gave a very superb & heartfelt performance! 

[Ferrariman]

"Nobody"  starring Bob Odenkirk  ("Better Call Saul")  Kind of reminds me of Michael Douglas' movie "Falling Down" crossed with "John Wick"  Lots of action, very violent!

[Augusta]

7 hours ago, Ferrariman said:

"Nobody"  starring Bob Odenkirk  ("Better Call Saul")  Kind of reminds me of Michael Douglas' movie "Falling Down" crossed with "John Wick"  Lots of action, very violent!

I've heard only a little about this movie, but it's on of the new-age subscribe-to tv media that I'm not ready to commit to yet.  
I'm not happy with graphic violence or graphic sex in a film UNLESS I first am confident that it's NEEDED to tell this story effectively.  Examples, Keanu's FIRST John Wick movie, JF Lawton's The Hunted, Ridley Scott's The Duelists, Dustin Hoffman's Straw Dogs.  No joke, those films needed to make you SEE the shock of the body count, the painfulness of a Samurai sword or pistol-round penetration, the shamefulness of a wife who gets raped in sequence by a group of men she once grew up with--while her husband takes so damn long to finally become a volcano and purge them all.  When you see a violent scene in a movie, each of us is free to interpret the violence in his own personal way---but in some stories the filmmakers decide they they can't afford to let you use your own interpretation, it's important that they drag you into this very a specific narrow interpretation---and using well thought-out heavily GRAPHIC violence is th tool for that. 

But, man, that's HARD to do successfully!  For anyone who just loves fantasy bloodletting and ultra-violence art, that's a fun film.  But me, I just usually want to leave that movie in the middle.  Heavy Graphic Violence films are difficult for me to rate, or to watch.   I'll never forget how I had to step out in the middle of Jaws, to go throw up in the restroom, from the graphic scenes making an anxious scared knot in my stomach.  But hey, that's an example of GRAPHIC perfectly working to tell the story effectively.  Gareth Evan's The Raid (I thought about recommending) needed its relentless brutality in order to make you suffocate through the ordeal this squad of cops went through in the movie.  On the other hand, his sequel Raid-2 use superb camera work on the violence, but the violence itself is MOSTLY just to showcase amazing stuntwork.  John Wick-2 is like that also.   

Did anyone see Spike Lee's Old Boy?  The Fight in the Corridor was a masterpiece,... but the nasty violence that happens in the rest of the movie just didn't seem fully needed to me.  I appreciated Josh Brolin's story even without the extra brutality.  
  
LOL, I wish there was some way I could know, before investing my money in some movies.  Uugh.
I wonder... If Bruce Lee was doing films today, would they add CGI-driven blood and gore to what would be a beautifully choreographed martial arts thriller?  Would it NEED that?

Is Nobody gratuitous graphic violence, or completely necessary graphic violence?   

[Ferrariman]

I would call it necessary to tell the story.  It is a violent movie but I guess it's up to every individual to decide just how "necessary" the violence  is.   If you put "John Wick" into that category then "Nobody" definitely fits

[ViceFanMan]

I recently heard about and acquired a somewhat bizarre, but amazingly captivating 1961 crime-noir called Blast of Silence. This was a very low budget, personal-independent film written by, produced by, directed by, and even starring writer/director Allen Baron. Baron originally tried to have actor friend Peter Falk (later known to us as Columbo) star in his film...but Falk ended up doing something else, and Baron himself ended up taking on the star role of Frankie Bono...assassin.

After viewing the movie, I can’t imagine anyone else doing a better job! Although Baron had not had a lot of acting experience at that time & didn’t want to take on the role (he wanted to stick to just directing it), you wouldn’t know it at all after you find yourself being immediately but enjoyably sucked into the warped & mentally deranged mind of a professional killer.

All of the filming locations were done on location in downtown New York & Harlem in the early 60s...many done without permission or permits from the city or police! At one point Baron & the camera crew were suddenly stopped & rousted by the NYPD, as they thought Baron & his crew were spying on & trying to film the cops—as the police had been patrolling an area right around where Baron was filming!  But, after the police commissioner was contacted & he realized they actually had broken no laws, he let them go. The stark-realism, & “dark” cinematography of gritty downtown NY from that time are a masterpiece of their own! 

This is a very interesting take on a film, which is seen, played-out, and even “thought” out through the mind & eyes of a hired killer—hunting down, pursuing, and eventually going after his target...all during the Christmas holiday in NYC! A good portion of the movie is us “hearing” the killer thinking out his every step & even ways to calm himself, in his mind. His “subconscious” was narrated for us by veteran actor Lionel Stander (better known to many of us as the love-able, gravely-voiced butler Max on the 80s detective show Hart to Hart). 

Blast of Silence is very brutal, raw, rough, but fascinatingly “real” & stylish...especially for the time period it was made! It’s only 77mins long, but it’s an hour & 17mins of sensational, realistic tragedy in the life of a killer...that ultimately has to face his own “demons”. In my opinion it’s truly amazing! 

However, I’m not gonna lie...this film is somewhat hard to find now! The Criterion Collection put out a special edition DVD around 2008...but I don’t believe a Blu-ray has ever been made. The Criterion DVDs are now out of print & rare...so when you find them for sale, they’re usually insanely expensive! I happened to find a used one, but in very good condition for around $70...which is a bargain compared to what I’ve seen others go for...$150-$300!  

I probably shouldn’t have splurged...but I’m a collector, and have not regretted my decision, lol! The special features & documentaries on the Criterion DVD are superb—including ones on the making of the film, a 30 year anniversary re-visit in 1990 by Allen Baron himself to all the film’s original locations & what they looked like 30 years later, more recent interviews with Baron in 2006, and much more amazing trivia info. Baron is still alive at 94, by the way! If you are able to get a hold of, or find a way to see this film, I highly recommend it!  

Edited January 30, 2022 by ViceFanMan

[RedDragon86]

First time I watched Amityville Horror (1979) last night, not impressed at all.

The main problem I think with the film is it doesn't involve the supporting cast of Rod Steiger, Val Avery and Murray Hamilton etc, neither use nor ornament.

James Brolin looks stoned throughout and all he seem to do is chop wood.

[ViceFanMan]

41 minutes ago, RedDragon86 said:

First time I watched Amityville Horror (1979) last night, not impressed at all.

The main problem I think with the film is it doesn't involve the supporting cast of Rod Steiger, Val Avery and Murray Hamilton etc, neither use nor ornament.

James Brolin looks stoned throughout and all he seem to do is chop wood.

This was a more low budget film back then...compared to horror films today (that mainly focus on blood-n-guts) it could be considered boring. However, I actually find several instances very freaky & scary!  I also thought that the lady who found the hidden red room in the basement (can’t remember her name at the moment??) gave a very amazing performance. 

I think James Brolin was supposed to be kind of out-of-it because supposedly he was slowly being possessed or taken over by the evil in the house. So his bizarre behavior I think was on purpose. 

Granted this is “based” on a supposed true story...but there’s a lot added to the movie compared to what supposedly really happened, and there’s a lot of controversy about if anything ever happened at all. 

Edited January 31, 2022 by ViceFanMan

[Tom]

Just watched "Sisters in Arms" this weekend which is based on a true story. Women from different countries volunteering as soldiers to fight ISIS extremists and defend Kurdish minorities in their home territory. Just happened in real life a few years ago. Very touching, directed by a female director, two great songs composed for this movie, highly recommended. The courage of these women is unbelievable.

 

Edited January 31, 2022 by Tom

[RedDragon86]

9 hours ago, ViceFanMan said:

This was a more low budget film back then...compared to horror films today (that mainly focus on blood-n-guts) it could be considered boring. However, I actually find several instances very freaky & scary!  I also thought that the lady who found the hidden red room in the basement (can’t remember her name at the moment??) gave a very amazing performance. 

I think James Brolin was supposed to be kind of out-of-it because supposedly he was slowly being possessed or taken over by the evil in the house. So his bizarre behavior I think was on purpose. 

Granted this is “based” on a supposed true story...but there’s a lot added to the movie compared to what supposedly really happened, and there’s a lot of controversy about if anything ever happened at all. 

Almost 5 million budget was a chunk at 79' There have been numerous low budget films that have became classics though, this was just poorly written and made.

I found the "Burnt Offerings" which was at a low budget much more intriguing, starring Karen Black ("VOC") and of course Oliver Reed.

Edited February 1, 2022 by RedDragon86

[ViceFanMan]

5 minutes ago, RedDragon86 said:

Almost 5 million budget was a chunk at 79' There have been numerous low budget films that have became classics though, this was just poorly written and made.

I found the "Burnt Offerings" which was at a low budget much more intriguing, starring Karen Black ("VOC") and of course Oliver Reed.

I actually have seen Burnt Offerings, too and didn’t care for it at all, lol!  I thought that it was boring & poorly acted. I’m also not a Karen Black fan. But, that’s just me. 

There were lower-budget films than “Amityville” at the time, but it was still not considered big budget by any means, nor was it a major studio project. I think it was American International Pictures that produced it (however, I may be thinking of another film?), but it went out of business a few years later. 

But, I actually found/find the original Amityville Horror to be pretty frightening & freaky, and the acting pretty good! I have it, and a few of the sequels and/or spinoffs. To each his or her own! 

[RedDragon86]

My girlfriend and me had a fit of laughter when James Brolin saw that piglet with red eyes at the window lol.

By the way almost $5 million was not a low budget film at 1979.

Especially when it was confined to a house where a guy was chopping wood all day.

 

 

Edited February 1, 2022 by RedDragon86

[ViceFanMan]

1 hour ago, RedDragon86 said:

My girlfriend and me had a fit of laughter when James Brolin saw that piglet with red eyes at the window lol.

By the way almost $5 million was not a low budget film at 1979.

Especially when it was confined to a house where a guy was chopping wood all day.

 

 

It was popular at the time, based on the true story & novel...so it probably wasn’t low-low budget, but it wasn’t a big budget project like Star Wars, or Superman, or other mega-studio movies of the late 70s. It was just a popular scary movie that gained more popularity & even cult-status over the years.

I think the pig eyes were seen by Margot Kidder out the window ...but again, this didn’t have the budget to include the newest special effects at the time...so it used what it could. The pig eyes are still pretty freaky, unexpected, and make you jump the first time you see the film. 

James Brolin constantly chopping wood was supposed to be strange & weird...Margot Kidder even tells him in the film to stop, as they have more than enough. She knows something isn’t right! He’s supposed to be bizarre and do bizarre things, because the evil in the house was trying to possess him & take him over. 

The evil was in & revolved around the house...so a good portion of the movie will be about & take place in it. You could even say the house was the main star & character...everyone else were just co-stars.  

 I thought the scenes with the priest towards the beginning, and Helen Shaver in the basement finding the hidden red room were superbly acted & very frightening! 

It’s probably my favorite haunted-house film...it focuses more on the scares, jumps, & unknown (which I like), rather than blood-n-guts & corny one-liners, while slicing-n-dicing everyone up like a lot of horror movies do. 

Edited February 1, 2022 by ViceFanMan

[Vicefan7777]

12 hours ago, RedDragon86 said:

First time I watched Amityville Horror (1979) last night, not impressed at all.

The main problem I think with the film is it doesn't involve the supporting cast of Rod Steiger, Val Avery and Murray Hamilton etc, neither use nor ornament.

James Brolin looks stoned throughout and all he seem to do is chop wood.

Well, I am coming to the defence of this film.  I saw it with my teenage gang in my hometown theater during its original run.  I found it to be very enjoyable.  James Brolin's character was slowly falling apart.  That's why he looks stoned.  I understand your frustration that the supporting cast did not have enough screen time.  Point well taken. There are a number of jump scares that got me.  My wife and I watch this every October.  I read the book it is based on and even I wonder did these events in those few weeks really happen?  

[Vicefan7777]

10 minutes ago, ViceFanMan said:

 

 I thought the scenes with the priest towards the beginning, and Helen Shaver in the basement finding the hidden red room were superbly acted & very frightening! 

It’s probably my favorite haunted-house film...it focuses more on the scares, jumps, & unknown (which I like), rather than blood-n-guts & corny one-liners, while slicing-n-dicing everyone up like a lot of horror movies do. 

Absolutely agree about the jump scares.  I would like to add the part where James Brolin's character fall through the stairs into the oily mess and his dog rescues him.  Gave me super chills!!

[ViceFanMan]

1 minute ago, Vicefan7777 said:

Well, I am coming to the defence of this film.  I saw it with my teenage gang in my hometown theater during its original run.  I found it to be very enjoyable.  James Brolin's character was slowly falling apart.  That's why he looks stoned.  I understand your frustration that the supporting cast did not have enough screen time.  Point well taken. There are a number of jump scares that got me.  My wife and I watch this every October.  I read the book it is based on and even I wonder did these events in those few weeks really happen?  

I first saw it as a kid on TV...and that was back when cable edited things, and it still scared me—but I liked it! I saw it unedited the first time in high school. I think I rented it. I now own the special edition DVD & have for years. I’ve always really liked it & think for the time it was very well done! It, along with Halloween are ones I usually watch every October!