|
Slasherfan posted:I don't know how many here have seen the original, I have, many, many times, it's one of my favorite 80s slasher movies, yet I'm cool with the remake. Even if it sucks, we at least are finally getting an uncut SE DVD release of the original movie I didn't even know it was getting remade, but this part is great news. One of my favorite underrated '80s slasher flicks.
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2008 05:07
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 2, 2024 19:58 |
|
|
Darko posted:But it wasn't terrible, though. It just wasn't as good as the original. And this is directed by the same guy. I disagree with you that the Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake wasn't terrible (It was. So, so terrible.), but I agree that since Friday the 13th wasn't exactly Shakespeare to begin with, I'm okay with those guys helming the remake. Not to say I didn't enjoy the original Friday the 13th. I've seen every single one at least twice, most of them more, and parts 1, 2, and 4 are some of my favorite slasher movies ever. I'm cool with the My Bloody Valentine remake, too, if only because the original, while very stylish, was also fairly generic, and the miner suit/gas mask/pickaxe combo was just a fantastic visual begging to be reused. If you're a slasher fan, and haven't seen the original, definitely check it out.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2008 02:40
|
|
|
tuwhitt posted:I'll agree that they do show a poo poo load though, including that shot near the end where jason explodes through the wall. That'd be wicked to have seen without knowing anything was coming. To be fair, that's like a shot-for-shot copy of a scene from Friday the 13th Part II. I wouldn't be surprised if it was thrown in the trailer for the fanboys like myself.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2008 19:31
|
|
|
UncleMonkey posted:I love the hell out of Jason X. There's an article about the Friday remake in the current issue of Fangoria, and throughout it, the cast and crew talk about how they respect the series so much, but they consistently all poo poo all over Jason X. It was a little thing, but it really annoyed me. It came off as them trying to make themselves appear hipper by trashing that flick. I can understand why someone would enjoy Jason X, but speaking as a devoted slasher movie fan, it's probably second or third to last of the Friday films for me in terms of enjoyment (jockeying for position with Jason Goes to Hell and Part V). I know it was a self-deprecating parody, but ever since Scream and its rash of imitators, I can only take so many self-deprecating horror parodies.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2008 04:00
|
|
|
I guess I'll chime in and say that my favorite is probably part II, followed closely by part I, part IV, and part VI. Part two had the awesome 'Potato-Sack Jason' look, a great opening, a great ending, a competent final girl, and some totally hardcore murder scenes (wheelchair kid getting macheted in the face might be my favorite death scene in the entire series). Correct me if I'm wrong, but did I spot potato-sack jason in one of the new remake trailers?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2008 01:31
|
|
|
Slasherfan posted:Does anyone even get killed with a meat cleaver in The New Blood, or for that matter, an axe in Takes Manhattan? I'm pretty sure the rest are accurate edit: actually, I think the pickaxe on part II is wrong too. I can't remember anyone getting it with a pickaxe in any of the Friday movies.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2008 01:52
|
|
|
Awesome Andy posted:What does everyone think of Nightmare on Elm-Street: the new Nightmare, the one where Freddy crosses over into the real world to try and kill the actress that plays Nancy? I loving loved it, personally. I mean, it wasn't perfect, but it was a hell of a concept, and "Miss me?" is one of my favorite moments in the whole series. I pretty much rank the Nightmare movies from best to worst as Part One, Part Three, New Nightmare, and then all the rest.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2009 19:39
|
|
|
Darko posted:You rank 4 with 5,6, and 2? 4 was extremely fun and had some of the best kills and effects. If anything, I actually rank 2 slightly higher than 4, 5, and 6, because at least the overwhelming homoerotic subtext was interesting, and the pool massacre/"Coming Out" scenes were fantastic. I wasn't that into part four comparitavely, but all of the Nightmare flicks are decent timewasters. Edit: Was it part four that had the "Time Loop" scene? Because if so, I will concede that that's one of my favorite scenes in the whole series as well.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2009 19:59
|
|
|
weekly font posted:Uhhh. It's not comedy it's slapstick? He does have a point. Just because all slasher movies are horror movies does not make all horror movies slasher movies. I agree that we should have a seperate horror thread, though.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2009 19:36
|
|
|
Super Dan posted:Rorschach is the new Freddy Krueger. Wow. If that's true, that's just about perfect casting. I mean, Freddy will always be Robert Englund for me, but after seeing Haley do a great, scary job playing a morally ambiguous Travis Bickle style vigilante, I'd love to see what he does with a character set firmly in "serial killer" territory.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2009 02:26
|
|
|
Polegrinder posted:I'm so excited for this because I love Rick Baker's effects so much and the fact that they did not go with CGI for the Wolfman is so awesome. Um...you might wanna watch the trailer.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 24, 2009 16:47
|
|
|
bad movie knight posted:For my money, though, Halloween II is one of the best horror films of the summer. Sounds good to me. I just recently saw Rob Zombie's first Halloween (my review here), and while it wasn't perfect, it was still better than all the crappy Halloween sequels. So I'll definitely be watching this one since... well, since I even watched all the crappy Halloween sequels.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 28, 2009 19:39
|
|
|
Honest Thief posted:for my money Halloween III was the better sequel and a pretty cool movie overall Really? I dunno, man. Even if that movie didn't have "Halloween" in the title, I'd still think it was pretty terrible. Between the idea that one Halloween mask company could take over the world offering exactly three generic types of mask and playing the same atrocious commercial (which plays in the movie like fifteen goddamn times) is a bit much for me. Halloween II was a moderately enjoyable low-rent slasher movie, and Halloween 4 had a pretty cool ending, but other than that I found the sequels pretty worthless.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 28, 2009 20:55
|
|
|
The "Apocalypse Trilogy," if I remember correctly, is made up of The Thing, Prince of Darkness, and In the Mouth of Madness. But I could be wrong. Edit: Yup, here it is. Uncle Boogeyman fucked around with this message at 00:31 on Aug 29, 2009 |
|
#
¿
Aug 29, 2009 00:28
|
|
|
Darko posted:4 and 7 were legitimately better movies than Rob Zombie's. And His Halloween 2 is legitimately worse than any of the sequels, including 5, and 8. It made no sense, was insultingly bad, purposelessly mean, pointless, and had several characters teleport aroudn to get to where they needed to be at the time with no rhyme or reason. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, then. I found Halloween 4 to be basically a low-rent ripoff of Friday the 13th: The Final Chapter, and I thought the only cool part of H20 (ugh, that title) was a scene it copied shot-for-shot from Halloween II.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 29, 2009 02:34
|
|
|
w00bi posted:Which shot are you referring to? I know they redid a few shots from the original, with a scene in the town and the scene from the classroom looking out to Michael standing outside. He comes down a long hallway and stabs a dude in the back with such force that he lifts him off the ground, which mimics a scene in Halloween II where he does the same to a female nurse.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 29, 2009 02:44
|
|
|
w00bi posted:Ah. I should really rewatch H1, H2, and H2O. Been a while. Yeah. Like I said, I'm not a fan of H20, but Halloween II had a couple pretty cool set-pieces, and my favorite ever use of the song 'Mister Sandman' (which Rob Zombie used in his remake).
|
|
#
¿
Aug 29, 2009 02:48
|
|
|
PsychoGoatee posted:This question is pretty vague. It'd be like if I went into the fighting games thread and asked 'why fighting games?' As a slasher fan, if I had to explain what I liked about them, I'd have to paraphrase Scream and say it's a very simple formula: the setup, often featuring an opening murder, introduce the killer, introduce the victims, slowly pick 'em off, and then the 'final girl' sequence; and somehow, you've gotta pad that out to feature length. The enjoyment I get out of watching slasher films is seeing how the writer and director approach this formula, where they deviate from it and where they stick to the basics. Also, since slasher movies are so cheap and easy to make, you get a lot of first-time or otherwise inexperienced writers and directors. At times the results are terrible, and at other times these factors push them to do something really creative (Nightmare on Elm Street is still one of the most interesting variations on the slasher movie to me, not the least of which is the fact that, after that movie, every slasher started cramming supernatural elements into the plot).
|
|
#
¿
Aug 29, 2009 18:46
|
|
|
I should probably add that a large part of my love for slasher films specifically is nostalgia. I grew up on the Friday the 13th and Nightmare on Elm Street movies, and as a kid I was always seeking out new slasher movies I'd never seen before. Watching a slasher movie I've never seen, especially one from the '80s, always takes me back. Here's a few good random slashers that are less well-known but do something cool with the formula: Terror Train My Bloody Valentine (original) A Bay of Blood (also known as Twitch of the Death Nerve) Black Christmas April Fool's Day The Prowler The Burning Sleepaway Camp II: Unhappy Campers (not scary at all, but funny as hell) Maniac Also, if you're looking for a recent slasher flick that's genuinely scary, I thought Wolf Creek was criminally underrated.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 30, 2009 15:48
|
|
|
Deadpool posted:And there's strong word right now that the next installment won't follow from Zombie's films, effectively leaving his take as a contained story. I haven't seen Halloween II yet, but if there's one thing I like about Rob Zombie, it's that he does duologies instead of trilogies. gently caress trilogies.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 4, 2009 20:00
|
|
|
Ape Agitator posted:That comes out next weekend, right? I actually think the trailer is really pretty good until the silly stinger after the title is revealed. I'll catch it I figure, but my expectations aren't particularly high. I think it looks kinda crappy, but I hope it does well enough that we can get a reissue of the original, which is fantastic.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2009 19:57
|
|
|
The first Scream was really the only one that was any good, but I do find it somewhat satisfying on a 'meta' level that a movie deconstructing '80s slasher movies would have a bunch of terrible sequels, much like an actual '80s slasher movie.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2009 14:43
|
|
|
Blast Fantasto posted:This title gives me a headache. How can something be the Final Destination but also a New Beginning?!? I just like that part five is "A New Beginning," as it was exactly the same with the Friday the 13th franchise. By the by, Friday the 13th: A New Beginning sucked rear end.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2010 06:01
|
|
|
toxick posted:It wasn't as over-the-top disgusting as I was hoping, but it had some decent atmosphere in spots and Dieter Laser's performance made it worth watching for sure. See, I haven't seen The Human Centipede, but I have a hard time getting interested in a movie thats primary concept of horror seems to be "Wouldn't it be gross if someone poo poo in your mouth?" I could watch Salo for that. Or hell, two girls one cup even.
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2010 22:14
|
|
|
InfiniteZero posted:File this under "one of the worst ideas ever": poo poo, that's depressing. Argento and Romero have made quite a few of the best horror movies ever, but it's getting harder and harder to be an apologizer for their later work.
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2010 19:49
|
|
|
Salsa McManus posted:Goons I hope you can help me. When I was a child I was watching a movie on Cinemax, it has stuck with me for a very, very long time, and all what I remember is one scene. I would love to know what movie it is so I could sit down and watch it as an adult. It sounds kinda like Mausoleum, except in that case it was a woman and not a young man doing the levitating.
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2010 17:59
|
|
|
JammyLammy posted:I think I'm the only person who couldn't get into "Let the right one in". A pet peeve about children in movies for me. Are kids dicks? Yeah, totally. But are they as cruel as they are depicted in these movies? Not really =/ I didn't really like it all that much either, but for different reasons. It just felt to me like a sub-par version of the same wistful, childlike fairy-tale horror that Guillermo Del Toro had already perfected with The Devil's Backbone, Cronos, and Pan's Labyrinth. Same reason I couldn't really get into The Orphanage.
|
|
#
¿
May 26, 2010 17:34
|
|
|
Volume posted:Warlock you say? I'm gonna have to check this out. You should. It's one of the few of that weird breed of post-Nightmare On Elm Street-late-80s/early-90s-supernatural-slasher(but not really)-films that actually holds up. It's cheesy as poo poo, but fairly well acted and with some remarkably disturbing moments/implications.
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2010 04:22
|
|
|
Criminal Minded posted:Obviously you've never seen Blade. Or The Lost Boys, or From Dusk 'Til Dawn, or Near Dark. Really, vampires that don't explode feel like more of a novelty to me.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 1, 2010 14:54
|
|
|
RichterIX posted:I want to go back in time and beat up whoever told George Romero that his movies have political/social subtext because then he started doing it on purpose and it sucked The whole race issue in Night of the Living Dead may have been accidental, but if you seriously think that movie had no social or political subtext to it, you're being willfully ignorant. StickySweater posted:I should note though that I haven't seen Diary or Survival of the Dead yet though. Were they really that bad? They really were, and that's comin' from a die-hard Romero fanboy. I mean, I enjoyed them, but I can't possibly defend them as actually being good movies like I do with the rest of the series (yes, even Land of the Dead).
|
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2010 21:42
|
|
|
RichterIX posted:I didn't say it wasn't there, I just don't think it was intentional. I have a hard time believing that he knowingly made "Night" as good as it is and then somehow lost any sense of subtlety or style by the time "Dawn" rolled around. I don't think any director who's most well known for a series of movies where the dead come to life and messily devour people, periodically getting their heads blown off, could ever be referred to as 'subtle.' His political commentary was never the kind that allows you to lean back in your armchair stroking your chin and musing on what it all means, his is the kind that steps right up and hits you over the loving head and makes you pay attention. Romero's satire is less like a Herman Melville story and more like a Sex Pistols song. As for Dawn of the Dead not having any sense of style, I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on that one. I'd rate it as the second most stylish horror film of the 1970s, just behind Suspiria. Uncle Boogeyman fucked around with this message at 22:10 on Oct 5, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2010 22:06
|
|
|
RichterIX posted:but we can certainly agree that Suspiria owns. I wish I would ever get to see a theatrical release of it. I know! The Brattle Theater in Cambridge (like, five minutes from my house) had it last november and I totally missed it. Hopefully it comes around again. At any rate, they show Evil Dead II every Halloween there, which, despite Halloween being my favorite day of the year and Evil Dead II being my favorite movie, I've never gone to (I've seen the first Evil Dead twice on the big screen, though). Maybe this year.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2010 23:44
|
|
|
Gammatron 64 posted:The second Evil Dead is so much better than the first, in my opinion. Oh, no question. I enjoy all three quite a bit, though. The first was a blast to see in a theater packed with drunk folks dressed as zombies a couple halloweens ago.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2010 00:19
|
|
|
jeremy oval office posted:I finally watched both The Strangers and Ils based on the discussion in this thread and found them both to be ...okay. Not great, but certainly competent, to-the-point low budget shockers. And they definitely make for a fun double-feature. In regards to the Strangers though, that one scene is one of the most perfectly executed scares I've ever seen in a horror movie. I had seen it in the trailers, on the TV commercials, poo poo, even on the poster for the goddamn movie, and yet it still scared me. That's how effective it is. That being said, I didn't find the rest of the movie to be particularly scary at all. It's really just a competent thriller built around one great big scare scene in the middle. edit: Is there a word for when two really similarly premised movies come out at the same time like that? Like how 1998 had two giant-asteroid-hits-the-earth movies and 2006 had two period-mysteries-featuring-stage-magicians?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2011 01:55
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:If you only get to see another of his films, watch The Woods. The Woods is honestly the least-"Lucky Mckee" of all of Lucky Mckee's movies (also, the only one where he didn't have a hand in the screenplay). Roman and the Masters of Horror episode "Sick Girl" are much closer in tone and, to my mind, much better.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 26, 2011 22:23
|
|
|
Hedenius posted:How is Roman? I've been told it's quite similar to May. Which sounds very interesting since it's directed by Angela Bettis and Lucky McKee plays the title role (in May it was the other way around for those who don't know). Roman's really cool. It's ultra low-budget and not quite as well-acted or visually impressive as May, but it's pretty well-executed for a first-time director and McKee's screenplay is really strong.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 26, 2011 23:56
|
|
|
It takes a special kind of wrongheaded thinking to look at an image of a guy in leather flesh-tearing bondage gear with a bunch of pins stuck in his face and say "Hm... do you think it might be too subtle? Let's dial it up a bit."
|
|
#
¿
Aug 24, 2011 00:22
|
|
|
Defleshed posted:Going to go see Don't be Afraid of the Dark tonight. (alone Defleshed posted:The audience at my screening was full of black people which made it one of the most entertaining movies I have ever seen in the theater. The movie was pretty drat good, but the crowd was just cracking me up. Wow, I wonder why nobody wants to go to the movies with you.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 28, 2011 14:04
|
|
)
|
Darko posted:I don't really see what's wrong with what he said. When I was younger, I would go to theatres closer to the city (Detroit) sometimes, when I wanted to see a movie with a ton of crowd reaction/funny comments, because for whatever reason, culturally, a lot of inner city black people talk to the screen. And it's actually funny unlike the sad MST3King people try to do, perhaps because it's earnest and not done strictly for attention. This has been lampooned in quite a few movies, too, so it's wide ranging enough that a lot of other people all around have picked it up as well. Just because you believe some stereotypes to be true doesn't make it cool to just drop "I went to a theater filled with black people, it was hilarious!"
|
|
#
¿
Aug 28, 2011 14:28
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 2, 2024 19:58 |
|
|
You weren't being that descriptive. Not once in your post did you mention that the crowd was yelling or laughing. You just said "the audience was black, and that is funny" and expected everyone to be as big a piece of poo poo as you are and connect the dots.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 28, 2011 22:35
|
|