Current Events > Nightbreed 1990 horror movie

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gKXnT8FVleY

I was only a child when this movie came out, and I only saw a short scene of it when I went over to a friend's house and it was playing on their TV on like HBO or one of the other paid service channels. I remember my friend's mom giving us a disapproving look and asking if it wasn't too scary for us.

Has anyone here ever watched it? Or have you not watched it but want to watch it based on the preview?

I loved that movie, it is an exultantly cheesy counterpoint to Hellraiser

Yeah, it's pretty good. Barker re-released a Director's Cut a few years back.

pfh1001 posted...

Yeah, it's pretty good. Barker re-released a Director's Cut a few years back.

He did? Must check that out

Haven't seen the movie but I've read Cabal, the novel that the movie is based on.

Big fan of Clive Barker's work.

I had to look up this movie on IMDB and lol the main character's name is Aaron Boone.

nightbreed was the movie that always scared the shit out of me when i was a kid walking through blockbuster
the boxart was horrifying but the creature designs were so cool i always had to look at it
i built it up in my little head that it had to be like the scariest fuckin movie ever, and was incredibly surprised when i finally saw it that it wasnt scary at all and the horrifying things on the cover were the good guys

Shame that Clive Barker really fell off the radar. I get the impression that he was everywhere in the late 80s and early 90s. Granted, the quality of his later work is much lower than his earlier stuff.

Nope never saw it but the trailer was pretty dope as hell especially because it reminded me how almost every action thriller in those days would have the climax track from Aliens packaged in there lmao.

Gotta check it out because I dig the demon twist like post 2 is saying.

Shadowplay posted...

Shame that Clive Barker really fell off the radar. I get the impression that he was everywhere in the late 80s and early 90s. Granted, the quality of his later work is much lower than his earlier stuff.

I've been waiting years for the final book in the Books of the Art series (The Great and Secret Show and Everville)

It was supposed to be a trilogy but I'm doubtful that it's going to happen.

Looking through Clive Barker's filmography, I realize that I haven't fully seen a single one of his movies. I've only either seen bits and pieces of a couple movies, or heavily censored versions of the first couple Hellraisers.

a-c-a-b posted...

I've been waiting years for the final book in the Books of the Art series (The Great and Secret Show and Everville)

It was supposed to be a trilogy but I'm doubtful that it's going to happen.

Yeah last I heard he was doing some writing for television and trying to get a short story compilation together.

It's pretty good. I prefer the Director's Cut, myself...

Great movie. Shame they put all that work into the monsters just for most of them to get 3 seconds of air time. That movie had so much promise for future entries with that world they created. It's a movie I could see getting remade as a TV show.

That trailer had my interest... until they mentioned the humans were the bad guys.

Granted, it wasn't as clich in 1990 as it is today. But it's like... why should I care about some cool special effects monster going up against some random-ass dude with a gun? You're better to have a bland hero and a memorable villain than the inverse. Do you think Mario would work if you were playing as a dragon battling an evil plumber? What about if someone did Wizard of Oz where a bigot from Kansas tries to kill the green witch who's just minding her own business?

Sorry, that approach is not for me.

It's a really fun idea that doesn't quite live up to the premise in the end and as a result there are quite a few boring stretches. They released an extended directors cut but honestly it already feels too long so I'm not sure what that will fix

FortuneCookie posted... That trailer had my interest... until they mentioned the humans were the bad guys.

Granted, it wasn't as clich in 1990 as it is today. But it's like... why should I care about some cool special effects monster going up against some random-ass dude with a gun? You're better to have a bland hero and a memorable villain than the inverse. Do you think Mario would work if you were playing as a dragon battling an evil plumber? What about if someone did Wizard of Oz where a bigot from Kansas tries to kill the green witch who's just minding her own business?

Sorry, that approach is not for me.

The human villain is the best part of the movie and genuinely pretty creepy. It's not just a random guy with a gun

MTRodaba2468 posted...

It's pretty good. I prefer the Director's Cut, myself...

Haven't watched this since I was a kid--what's added or different?

ultimate_reaver posted...

The human villain is the best part of the movie and genuinely pretty creepy. It's not just a random guy with a gun

Okay, maybe I'll watch it tomorrow. If I don't catch it in the next few days, I'll watch it sometime this weekend.

Never seen the movie, but I've started the book once. Never did finish it, I need to get around to it one of these days.

On another Clive Barker note, I'd love to see a movie adaptation of The Thief of Always.

Used to rent that and watch it all the time.

--Zero- posted...

Great movie. Shame they put all that work into the monsters just for most of them to get 3 seconds of air time. That movie had so much promise for future entries with that world they created. It's a movie I could see getting remade as a TV show.

Yes. If I remember the lore the "monster den" wasnt the only one out there. It one of those thing you know theres more story out there. I get the same thing with B5. Theres more stories to be told

The freakiest vampire movie i remember is Night Flier.

What one giant tooth was pretty disturbing.

I sometimes confuse Dan Simmons with Clive Barker. I thought hold on a sec didn't CB write Carrion Comfort. Nope Dan Simmons. Lol

Funcoot posted...

Never seen the movie, but I've started the book once. Never did finish it, I need to get around to it one of these days.

On another Clive Barker note, I'd love to see a movie adaptation of The Thief of Always.

The Thief of Always is fan-fucking-tastic. Right up there with The Damnation Game and the Books of Blood as his best books.

Funcoot posted...

Never seen the movie, but I've started the book once. Never did finish it, I need to get around to it one of these days.

On another Clive Barker note, I'd love to see a movie adaptation of The Thief of Always.

So would I. I love that book.

on the subject of clive barker's writing, if you want to read something quick and genuinely scary and disturbing, try In The Hills, the Cities. It's something you cant really make a film out of I don't think but its scarier than anything else ive ever seen him do

ultimate_reaver posted...

on the subject of clive barker's writing, if you want to read something quick and genuinely scary and disturbing, try In The Hills, the Cities. It's something you cant really make a film out of I don't think but its scarier than anything else ive ever seen him do

That was definitely one of my favourite stories from Books of Blood. It was more on the bizarre side than scary for me personally though.

Okay, I'm starting the film now. I'll give my thoughts in a couple of hours.

ultimate_reaver posted...

It's a really fun idea that doesn't quite live up to the premise in the end and as a result there are quite a few boring stretches. They released an extended directors cut but honestly it already feels too long so I'm not sure what that will fix

Having now seen the film, I pretty much agree with this post.

It feels like they stretched a simple story out to two hours so that it would be valid as a movie. It's ultimately a subversion of a standard horror plot and they could have easily told their story in an hour and forty minutes.

The villain was fun. I couldn't tell if he was meant to be a deconstruction of horror movie slashers. He's a "normal" human, yet he's surviving falls that should be injurious if not fatal and he's able to go toe to toe with a monster that has superhuman healing abilities. Was it a commentary on how putting a mask on a normal guy turns them invincible in horror movies or was it just plot convenience because they needed an opponent for the hero?

FortuneCookie posted...

Having now seen the film, I pretty much agree with this post.

It feels like they stretched a simple story out to two hours so that it would be valid as a movie. It's ultimately a subversion of a standard horror plot and they could have easily told their story in an hour and forty minutes.

The villain was fun. I couldn't tell if he was meant to be a deconstruction of horror movie slashers. He's a "normal" human, yet he's surviving falls that should be injurious if not fatal and he's able to go toe to toe with a monster that has superhuman healing abilities. Was it a commentary on how putting a mask on a normal guy turns them invincible in horror movies or was it just plot convenience because they needed an opponent for the hero?

Which version did you watch? The regular or director's cut?

GeminiDeus posted...

Which version did you watch? The regular or director's cut?

The one that is on Peacock. I'm assuming it's the theatrical cut. It clocks in at exactly two hours with the last seven minutes being the credits.