|
It's funny because their making a remake of The Thing, which is a remake of a remake based on a book.
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2008 01:40
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 3, 2024 04:50 |
|
|
They should get Ben Kingsley or Jeremy Irons; both great actors that would be perfect and also will play in anything whatso ever. To play the part of Freddy.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2009 03:34
|
|
|
Saw it yesterday and loving loved it. My favorite is part six. For all those complaining about certain things. Friday the 13th is not the pinnacle of cinema. Here are a lot of spoilers so.. For those saying Jason doesn't torture people , um... In Jason Takes Manhattan he uses a heated rock to burn a guy to death I believe. Let's see there are a lot of instances of jason torturing. I loved his just Menace. If anything this seemed more menacing. I liked that they someone explained teleportation, but by the way he doesn't have tunnels all over Crystal lake. Jason being semi intelligent. He flips the lights on at Crystal Lake ; thought that was great. Archery.. pretty sure Jason has used Archery before but can't remember which scene. Keeping the Jason Stays out of the water theme. Is speed and just physical presence. Whoever they got was perfect he really felt "alive" and showed annoyance etc.. with just body language very well. Speed, I always hated the lumbering. I liked that he can move pretty fast; not superfast but quick enough. The beginning; including the mother and the decapitation. Going with the Bag over the head then moving to the Hockey Mask. The fake out beginning. TITTTTTIES; titties are the most important part of the Jason Franchise. Titties, Beer, Dope. You need those three. Overall I thought it was pretty great. I wonder if they are going to keep him as a unstoppable menace or if he will become zombified eventually.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2009 00:07
|
|
|
I really don't see how they can hate on it; I mean its a reboot it does everything it is suppose to. I mena as a whole its just better ; better acting generally, better characters, the acting was absolutely horrible in any of the films at least this was half way decent.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2009 02:53
|
|
|
I literally could not stop laughing through out this movie any time Sheryl Moon showed up. It was just so loving ridiculous. Also, Rob Zombie likes it dark DARKER THAN DARK. Seriously its a dark muted color film and looks like poo poo. The only acting I enjoyed was Malcom McDowell and the Sheriff. What's weird is the movie started off great sort of ; then just goes in to I want to put my wife in a movie Hmmm lets do this dream sequence. The first movie I didn't really have a problem with as it was actually pretty decent although I kind of didn't like the serial killer beginnings.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 31, 2009 23:51
|
|
|
Rob Zombie is a mediocre film maker who's films just wear outlandish outfits. None of what he has done has been particularly shockingly original , or even that great. The Halloween movies after the first one were not particularly original or even that great. It's appropriate that Zombie remade them.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 6, 2009 05:08
|
|
|
Someone just showed me the movie The Poughkeepsie tapes which I had not seen, thats a pretty interesting film. Not amazing but definitely good with what they had. The talking heads get annoying but other than that I liked it as a whole Mockumentary / Slasher film. Any word or screenshots from the new Nightmare on Elmstreet? I read they were toning down the Child molester angle on it.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 10, 2009 04:27
|
|
|
Deadgirl was good because what the two teenagers do is completely and utterly realistic. I didn't particularly care for it but felt it was a strong horror movie. Feminist will have fun with it.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2009 11:19
|
|
|
So I watched Human Centipede finally and was just underwhelmed, the movie really didn't have anything gross about it, was actually kind of tame and the story really was not even a throw back. I don't see why people are saying its a great film it just doesn't seem to have any cohesiveness to it at all.
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2010 15:14
|
|
|
I'm really getting tired of the played out "found footage" genre. I mean it has merits and is generally a good solid subgenre I just haven't seen anything other than [REC] that was a solid film. Sure, Blair Witch did it but overall I think that was just a testament to a small group of filmmakers creating something that went viral before viral became a word. [REC] I will say is my top one so far. Although the Poughkeepsie tapes is a disturbing one, either you love it or hate it. So what we have like 1 major one and probably another of the Paranormal series coming out.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2011 17:02
|
|
|
Let's call it Point of View Horror? I mean that pretty much encompasses documentary, mockumentary, found footage, etc... It's all from a POV. I retract my previous statement though the last solid one I saw was Trollhunter. The genre does have interesting and solid entries into horror, but for instance something like Paranormal Activity etc.. just to me don't really get a visceral feeling while you're watching it.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2011 17:45
|
|
|
flashy_mcflash posted:Well PA is a pretty bad metric for anything horror in general, haha. Blair Witch, even, is a better POV horror, and of course the [REC] flicks. I think the Apollo 18 has a 5 million dollar budget. Paranormal Activity 2 has a 3 million dollar budget grossed 174 million. I mean they want to have a hit you know. Something that makes them a gently caress ton of money and is interesting to watch and sort of captures that Zeitgeist. I mean the studios want to get a "Blair Witch" and they did that to a degree with Paranormal Activity 1. So that's why I think we will see more and more of those styles of specific films , cheap production etc.. their cheap and if you finance 8 of those and one of those is a hit then you've made your money. It's the betting game, I make 5 , 5 million dollar movies. 1 of them becomes a hit and makes me 200 million dollars. or even 60 million and you've justified the expense. It's also why horror is kind of popular to fund. Hollismason fucked around with this message at 19:31 on Aug 9, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2011 19:27
|
|
|
I think it does actually. Looking at Blair Witch Project it says it cost 500 to 700 thousand dollars to make. That's got to include marketing. Although Paranormal says 15,000 dollars, but Paranormal had a huge marketing budget from what I've been reading up on it. I mean trailers etc.. etc.. it was very well marketed and marketed as the next Blair Witch.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2011 19:36
|
|
|
flashy_mcflash posted:Point taken. I just can't think of any other reason why more films like that aren't made. I mean, you could do a 'Blair Witch' with minimal crew and cast. Something like Paranormal might require a little more. This is just the wikipedia entry for it but here is the found footage films http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Found_footage_%28genre%29 That's probably not even a accurate count. Basically they get produced, I think a lot of film companies are just okay what can we market well? I'm sorry but I didn't think that Paranormal was very good at all.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2011 21:54
|
|
|
I think as a genre if you're going to make a low budget you might as well write it as a "found footage" film. Not only for niche purposes but because you don't have to deal with a lot of issues "normal" films have. You can kind of chop things together and abuse the poo poo out of night vision. Aesthetically speaking I don't think they are bad and can be fantastically wonderful, ex. [REC] , Trollhunter. I am interested in the Apollo 18 film, as its supposedly based on "found footage" of the Apollo 18s supposed moon landing.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2011 00:13
|
|
|
I had completely forgotten about Man Bites Dog. Cannibal Holocaust is kind of a Found footage, It uses the Story within a story as the initial set up is them showing the video to execs. I can't remember it's been a while. I really liked this one which came out before The Blair Witch project and shares a very similar story. Also, look at the budget. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_Broadcast_%28film%29 900 bucks The video is also in its entirety on Google videos, it's actually decent. Not Amazing, but pretty drat good. edit: Oh I'd like to remember the documentary about the slasher villain as well, that was really good. I can't remember the name though. Hollismason fucked around with this message at 19:17 on Aug 11, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2011 19:08
|
|
|
Hockles posted:Behind the Mask: The Rise of Leslie Vernon, I believe. Yeah I remember it was really good, I thought they were going to do a sequel but aparently not. My favorite thing about the movie is just how non chalant he is. Yep, I figure Ill be a masked serial killer.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2011 19:34
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:Yeah, it's basically poo poo. I wouldn't call it poo poo but , it did have some low points. I still really liked it.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2011 02:17
|
|
|
Yeah I hated Pontypool with a fiery passion ; on the other hand I liked the Poughkeepsie tapes, well I didn't enjoy the movie but it elicited a strong emotional response (revulsion, which I think was what they were going for ). This movie looks interesting: http://www.bloody-disgusting.com/film/2448 The Pack While driving through a northern rural wasteland, Charlotte picks up Max, a hitchhiker. They stop in a truck-stop restaurant run by a woman named Spack. When Max disappears in the bar, Charlotte decides to investigate and things take a turn for the worse. Charlotte finds herself in Spack's gruesome human farm, with other prisoners, semi-alive or dead, reared for their blood to feed Spack's "kids"- a pack of blood thirsty ghouls, who come out of the earth each night to be fed fresh human blood. French horror based around ghouls. Anyone seen it? Hollismason fucked around with this message at 03:09 on Aug 12, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2011 03:07
|
|
|
I wax and wane on the Poughkeepsie tapes it's just really disturbing sometimes and at other times eye roll inducing. Rise of Leslie Vernon is really good for the first 70 minutes and then they just turn it into a stereotypical film. Rise could have been so much better but they slacked off on it.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 9, 2011 19:44
|
|
|
Okay I watch Kill List last night and over all I liked it, I must have somehow dozed off and missed the 20 minutes where they explained exactly what was going on, I went back but uh, still didn't really understand any of it. Anyway it was pretty good, I liked the ending.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2011 19:12
|
|
|
I actually really liked Kill List because of the way it treated this as a "normal" movie. I mean there was that undercurrent of something is not right at all and then "Holy poo poo". I kind of liked that it completely came out of left field to a degree with the ending. I'd say it's one of the better made low budget horror movies of last year.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 9, 2012 00:58
|
|
|
Someone please link to a spoiler of cabin in the woods that is actually truthful, if it's what I think its all a bullshit April Fools Day haunted house, I am going to be pissed
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2012 22:41
|
|
|
weekly font posted:No it's not this at all. Okay just tell me because if it's what i suspect from the little that I read on it and trailer I've seen some guys build a haunted house and they have been doing this for years or whatever; and the big reveal is its some weird reality tv show that people sign their friends up for.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2012 00:46
|
|
|
weekly font posted:Hoo boy. Not even close.  Here's strange I watched Mary Marcy Martha MArlene <-- I think that's the title, because it was on bloodydisgusting, Goddamn you bloodydisgusting this was not a horror movie. Although it was a really good movie. Just not horror. Thanks , yeah. I'm probably not going to see it then. Go ahead and spoiler the end I don't care. I kind of thought that was exactly what it was that that it was a movie or some television show being made for someone, and it was all fake. Which pisses me off because it is literally saying All horror movies ever including evil dead etc.. are bullshit. This is what has really been happening. So basically its a big gently caress you to all of those producers in its smugness at a explanation. It's like writing a movie with Zombies and then throwing Jason Vorheeves name in there for no reason.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2012 15:11
|
|
SPOILING THE TWIST OF THE CABIN IN THE WOODS FOR THIS DUDE SERIOUSLY DONT MOUSE OVER THIS IF YOU GIVE A poo poo
|
Ugh, pass. Also, in regards to spoilers for horror movies, I don't mind poo poo spoilered if its going to prevent me from seeing another Devil Inside. This is the only film where I looked up who made it so I would know what they look like in case I ever ran into them. So that I could specifically tell them to gently caress off. edit: Well to start some kind of discussion. Ill go ahead and argue that the Devil Inside is literally the worst horror movie ever made. Hollismason fucked around with this message at 15:45 on Mar 30, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2012 15:43
|
|
|
There's original horror out there it's just difficult to find. I can't think of the last really even sort of original horror movie I've seen, although I watch a lot of them. Ntohing that's made a impression on me though. I think the last one was May actually and Inside which I found just absolutely disturbing.
Hollismason fucked around with this message at 16:28 on Mar 30, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2012 16:25
|
|
|
weekly font posted:Devil Inside is probably not the worst horror film ever made but it is probably the most insulting to the audience. No it's the worst. It literally has no ending. Poorly shot, nonsensical plot, bad acting, makes you angry not because of what occurs to the movie but because the way it was decided to be made. It's like if they ended the first Star Wars half way through the film and a note came up and said." Luke then blew up the deathstar ; turns out vader is his father, visit the Charleton Library and check out a periodical I put there it will tell you more ". Hollismason fucked around with this message at 17:25 on Mar 31, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2012 17:20
|
|
|
Then I can make the argument that War of the Worlds is horror, hell I could argue that the Sixth Day with Arnold is about loss of gender identity. I mean you can apply horror to any genre. We apply that to Scifi as it has definitive sci fi elements, aliens etc... just because something is suspenseful or has suspense elements doesn't make it horror. Just because you can justify a statement doesn't make it correct. It's just an opinion. It took the special effects over the acting elements of the movie because really the people who made it didn't give a poo poo, they wanted to make something that looked like a huge summer blockbuster with little money. So the money was spent where they felt it was most important on special effects. I think the special effects are good btw. I mean I was impressed and really enjoyed parts of the film. It also has the true love overcomes, triumph of the human spirit aspect of most alien invasion stories as well. edit: You seem to apply the Heisenburg uncertainty principle something normally associated with physics to your film critiques which are well written but you seem to be obsessed with seeing Jungian archetypes, sexuality, feminism, etc.. to the point of ad nauseum. Maybe take a step back and just review the the film on whether you enjoyed it or not and why instead of letting your personal political beliefs creep into your analysis. Your viewing of those films doesn't inherently change the essence of a film. You just sound like a crazy person who's intelligent and verbose. Hollismason fucked around with this message at 21:03 on Apr 1, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2012 20:57
|
|
|
Its science Fiction, again having elements of suspense does not automatically place something into a horror genre. I mean it literally is one of the first science fiction novels, it's classified as science fiction, you can share categories but the predominant motif of the film is science fiction. Most movies have to some degree an amount of suspense, that doesn't make them horror.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2012 22:04
|
|
|
Yeah, I have no idea.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2012 22:26
|
|
|
There's a difference between suspense and horror you under stand that right?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2012 23:52
|
|
|
A easy test out is the "supernatural" element of horror, generally if it's science fiction it doesn't have this at all. A good example is Event Horizon, it's supernatural element is what pushes it into the horror genre. Science fiction doesn't have a supernatural element. It's why Triangle is horror and Timecrimes is science fiction. Both deal with time travel, but triangle is being driven by a outside unexplainable force and the woman is in hell . Science Fiction can use suspense, graphic disgusting things and still not be considered horror. It's why you have a sub category of Science Fiction Horror.Hell, most of the old 1950s B movies that were "science fiction films" had a horror film template The Fly etc.. The definitive story of science fiction is Aliens and invasion, thats why when you tell a person that the film is going to be about aliens and their invading their going to say Science Fiction. Also, generally Aliens are stand ins for other issues and Science fiction generally has a overwhelming moral motiff, Man shouldn't play god, Love conquers technology etc.. that is what makes a science fiction film. Saying the aliens represent terrorist or the fear of terrorism, doesn't mean it's horror. Science fiction commonly has a representation of fear of something. It uses a science and technology background to represent this fear and not a supernatural one. Hollismason fucked around with this message at 15:53 on Apr 2, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2012 15:48
|
|
|
Fighting against Aliens invading the earth though there's no supernatural element, if you use that as a rule then all of these other films fall into it's classification. You can actually argue that all movies are horror if you use that logic. Here you go: Cape Fear - faced against a almost unstoppable outside force that is going to cause you to lose your family. Loss of the family is a huge motivation in WOTW and other alien invasion films. It's the science fiction and technological element that pushes WOTW and movies like it into the science fiction category. Yes, it contains suspenseful and grotesque imagery, that doesn't mean it's horror. There are sub categories to Science Fiction like horror it doesn't match the classification of horror, it has elements of suspense that's it. It's not Event Horizon that is pretty much Science Fiction Horror or The Thing Science Fiction Horror or The Fly (cronenberg or the original) Science Fiction Horror. Hollismason fucked around with this message at 16:07 on Apr 2, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2012 16:01
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:Or indeed, an example of supernatural horror that doesn't have considerable ambiguity or an "out" that allows the supernatural event to be subjective. Changling , The Ring, The Omen, every single ghost story ever. Wolfman, Dracula, uh there are a lot. There's a ton of focus on science in War of the Worlds, I mean isn't one of the main plot points is electricity stops working. Their TERRAFORMING using SCIENCE to change the earth. Also, I just like capitalazing SCIENCE. Their using advanced technology to take over the earth. How is that not science.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2012 17:44
|
|
|
Man's natural right does not inherently make something divine or divine providence, the whole film is based around hubris. It's a moral lesson in conquering of others and how ones own hubris for those that we think beneath us can overcome us. They weren't undone by man but by their hubris. The hubris being that we couldn't defeat them. Genres and sub genres are why we have sub classifications of genres. There is no supernatural element to the defeat of the Aliens. It's just a morality play on Hubris. I mean we're discussing literally a movie about aliens written originally in the 1890s and was the template for science fiction for nearly 60 years. It's literally where the classification started, no one knew what to call it. It was not horror, it wasn't drama. So what do you call it Science Fiction. It's not a a way to articulate its a way to classify something for ease of explaining, in this case Science Fiction because it's main element and theme is science and aliens. Science Fiction can contain elements of horror , grotesque , imagery etc.. We use the term science fiction because it doesn't fall into a category of the outright supernatural. God is usually present in most science fiction stories, one of the main aspects of the story is that man shouldn't play god and that science should have a moral aspect to it because with out morals it can become an abomination. These are basic common themes through out the science fiction Genre. How would you classify Sunshine? Science Fiction? Horror? Science Fiction Suspense? Hollismason fucked around with this message at 18:02 on Apr 2, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2012 18:00
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:By now it's been established that we're talking about describing things and not merely categorizing them. You miss the point when you merely categorize things, especially in this case since we're talking about the 2005 film, War of the Worlds, and not (necessarily) H.G. Wells' book. I'd describe it as a science fiction film, as saying this is a horror film inaccurately builds expectations in the viewer if they have never heard of it before. Because when you say horror, something completely different comes to mind for most people. Yes, it has scary moments that doesn't make it horror and that doesn't place it in the category of horror. Just because you found something scary doesn't make it horror. Alien invasions , futuristic weapons, man facing an alien threat are all parts of the science fiction genre. It's inappropriate to label it as such. Yes, there are suspenseful and tense moments of the film, yes some of it is grotesque, this doesn't mean its horror. You can't just take a big brush of horror and paint it over everything. If so then you can apply that to a multitude of films. The intensity of the film comes from a outside source that is science fiction in nature not supernatural.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2012 19:09
|
|
|
My point is that it's a science fiction that has horror or suspenseful elements but when you refer to it as Horror film your misleading who you are speaking to. Lot's of films fall into that subcategory of Science Fiction Horror, usually because the latter for horror means horrific meaning there are scenes of a horrifying nature. There's really not in WOTW, the violence while suspenseful is not overtly grotesque such as John Carpenters The Thing or Event Horizon. I have no problem with people calling those Horror movies because there are scenes in that are actually horrific. edit: Why do we not have a science fiction thread? I just noticed that , did we ever?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2012 19:19
|
|
|
It probably devolved int Back to the Future chat or something. In other news, What was the name of that Austin / sort of horror movie that was set during the daytime with bright bright lighting, stark back drop. The name just completely escapes me now and it's driving me crazy. Something about a woman meeting a guy and it's a slow build up to violence. Argh. It was set in austin and I remember the reviews stating that it was kind of ominous because the scenes were well lit and it was always really bright blue skys, but for the life of me cannot remember what it was called.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2012 20:18
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 3, 2024 04:50 |
|
|
MrGreenShirt posted:I've never seen it, but could it be Paris, Texas? No this is more recent. What horror review and news site do most people here use now. I've been using bloody disgusting but man it has gotten really lovely. I'm just looking for some place to find good horror indy films etc.. edit: Apparently it's Red White and Blue. Hollismason fucked around with this message at 21:25 on Apr 2, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2012 21:19
|
|