|
Crown Royal posted:I don't know about the new Jason film. The trailer played out almost exactly like the Texas Chainsaw remake, which Bay also produced and was terrible. But it wasn't terrible, though. It just wasn't as good as the original. And this is directed by the same guy. The Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake was actually a decent horror/stalker film, and probably the best of that immediate era. Unfortunately, it missed what made the original great and will always compare unfavorably against it. It's twice as good as any of the sequels to the original movie. The prequel-sequel, on the other hand, was not good at all. The advantage of the Friday the 13th remake is that the original (or the second or third, since it seems to be combining all three) wasn't really good at all, so there's nothing to compare it to. The trailer makes it look like the best Friday the 13th movie as-is.
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2008 17:13
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 3, 2024 04:32 |
|
|
Crown Royal posted:Well, I'm not crazy about the original, so it wasn't a case of comparing the two and being left disappointed that the new one didn't match up. I just found nothing entertaining about the remake. It's pretty boring for a horror film. Dawn of the Dead was legitimately a good movie with a few questionable scenes, though. I don't see how you would like the Hills Have Eyes remake and not the TCM remake, though. They're essentially the same basic thing and are uneven in pretty much the same way. They even have the exact same strengths (strong cinematography). In fact, if anything, I preferred TCM because it had a genuinely entertaining villain (R. Lee) unlike THHE's boring mutants, while not having anything quite as annoying as magical vengeful dogs and mutant rape.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2008 13:36
|
|
|
The original The Thing is rather goofy and flawed. it crepped me out as a little kid, though. Slasherfan posted:Isn't The Thing a remake? In name, but it really is a (better) adaptation of Who Goes There (novel). It takes almost nothing from the original The Thing and instead just adapts the book.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2008 22:30
|
|
|
I don't like Jason X because of that reason (and because the cinematography is horrible). Part 6 straddled the self aware area perfectly, I think - X was a little TOO stupid.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 27, 2008 21:25
|
|
|
Ugh, you like part 3? I'd say that was the worst of the early ones; every kill was slowly COMING AT THE SCREEN or badly paced, most of the kills were first person, which had gotten old after the first two, and pointless, and the climax was probably the worst of the first 4. The consensus is basically that 4 is the best of the "living" Jason ones, and 6 is the best of the "zombie" Jasons. 5 gets the "most tits" award and the stupidest/funniest whodunit in a horror movie. Hey, it's Roy, this random dude that appeared for two seconds!
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2008 16:03
|
|
|
PhonyMcRingRing posted:Do you think Jason killed wheelchair kid, not because he wasn't a virgin, but because he was probably doomed to be one forever? Could this be a sympathetic side to Jason? Wheelchair guy was about to be devirginated; Jason killed the girl and then the wheelchair guy.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2008 15:27
|
|
|
Mister Sinister posted:I'm surprised that you say that; I've never heard anybody say they like part 4 the most... I mean, the kills are pretty terrible other than Ted and Jimmy's. There's not much tension, either. Most people like 4 because Jason looked bigger than in 2 or 3, and it was the first one in which he felt like an unstoppable killing machine, mainly because they stopped that first person nonsense in it (but returned to it in 5, ugh). And it had Corey Feldman in it. And Crispin Glover doing that awful dancing. And while the kid thing wasn't so great, the final battle in general was directed better in general (as was the whole movie). Actually my favorite of the earlier movies is 2; I thought about it some more. I can't stand 3, though, for the reasons said, there is too much of that 3D nonsense and it's distracting. And the camerawork/direction is really bad.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2008 15:31
|
|
|
The Remote Viewer posted:That's weird, because 3 is by far my favorite. It might just be nostalgia though, since that's the first one I ever saw. 3 was the last numbered one I saw. I saw 1,6,4,8,2,9,7,X,5,3...FvJ 
|
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2008 16:01
|
|
|
That was my exact problem as well. What made Halloween scary was that any kid, no matter how well raised or from however good a family, could just be evil for no apparent reason. That bad things can happen to people for no apparent reason (Laurie just happened to go to the wrong house at the wrong time). And that pure evil was essentially unstoppable. I don't know what Zombie was thinking as he got neither part "right," taking away the core elements of Halloween defeats the purpose. If anything that should have been PLAYED UP in the remake; since the sequels diluted that (starting with the second and that idiot "sister" thing and getting progressively worse).
|
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2008 16:32
|
|
|
New Blood had a butcher knife (and a tree trimming saw!), but no meat cleaver. The rest look right, though. I forgive 2 because the original movie poster/box used a pickaxe on it. edit: There were three cleaver deaths in 5, though!
|
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2008 16:53
|
|
|
Butcher knife. Jason has the machete.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2009 21:51
|
|
|
InfiniteZero posted:Oh yeah, it's definitely a sure bet. With the guy who did "White Noise 2: The Light" behind the wheel, how can we go wrong? Final Destination 4 is in 3D and already coming out, so its more contingent on that than anything.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2009 22:00
|
|
|
Iron Crowned posted:Whelp, I think I'm going to see MBV3D tonight. Saws aren't really horror, they're more mystery/suspense that just happens to be gory.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2009 15:54
|
|
|
Oh god, reading this thread may have solved one of my lifelong mysteries. When I was a kid, I was scrolling through television channels and saw a brief part of a movie where a woman got stuffed in a dryer, and that disturbed me a whole lot when I saw it. I could never figure out what that movie was (the villain wasn't anything recognizable to my young eyes - I couldnt figure out what he was supposed to be, so I couldn't use that to figure out what movie it was) until now. Time to track down the original now.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2009 16:08
|
|
|
pud posted:If it's not the movie mentioned in this thread you might've seen a clip from the original Toxic Avenger, which also has a dryer kill. It wasn't that clip, so time to check out Toxic Avenger - thanks!
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2009 15:18
|
|
|
Halloween 1,7,2,3, remake.....8......5....(infinity)6 Ft13th FvJ,4,2,6,8-1-3-5-7,9,X NOES 3-4-2-1-7-FvJ (these are weird - they're tied into my nostalgia, so I like them equally, but for different reasons. For instance, 2 was the first I saw, and now I find it hilarious. I love how bright and cheery 4 comes off, but how dark and cheery 3 is equally. 1 I don't like so much now but give respect for what it is. FvJ was extremely fun at the movies),6,5 Child's Play 1,4,2,3,5 Hellraiser 1,2,4,The one with the guy that didn't know he was in hell till the end, 3, didn't see the rest TCM 1, remake, 2, remake sequel, 3................(infinity)4
|
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2009 04:06
|
|
|
Bloodlines was okay, it just suffered from feeling like a DTV movie, with DTV acting going along with it.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2009 14:45
|
|
|
evilontwolegs posted:- They were thinking of remaking Near Dark? That's just crazy talk. Why don't they just go remake Psycho while they're at it? The biggest problem with the TCM sequel was that you knew nobody would survive, so it kind of made most of the movie pointless. Instead of "how, or will this character get out of this," it was "how do all of these characters end up getting killed?" Yeah, I love that Final Destination 4 is a) directed by the team that did 2, and b) is in 3D. That's one of my most anticipated of the year.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2009 03:01
|
|
|
Nothing is as bad as TCM: TNGquote:Which seems a fair assessment in these PG-13 days. Horror has been as gory as it's ever been in the last 6 years or so, actually.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2009 15:01
|
|
|
Honest Thief posted:Am I the only one who really liked Jason X? The DVD commentary was especially funny with the writter and director talking about the plotholes and what not. X's cinematography is horrible, and the pacing is off and it's a little too goofy in my opinion. The cinematography looks like a video game cutscene at times, and the digital look is pretty bad in general. 6 is the one where jason is revived and Tommy puts him back in the lake, 7 is the one with the psychic girl whose dad pulls him into the lake, 8 is the one on a cruise ship and kind of in Manhattan, 9 is the one where he's body hopping.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2009 16:44
|
|
|
Aggro posted:How can people hate Jason X? It has the virtual reality scene at Camp Crystal lake with the fake stereotypical college kids, which takes place during the loving climax of all places. It's awesome -- I've never laughed so hard during a horror movie as I did during that scene. That's the only part of the entire movie I liked. It felt like a Sci-Fi channel movie, I think I explained this already. The other ones may have been stupid, but most of them, especially the first 2 and 4, had a definitive feel to them, that was completely lost in Jason X. And it wasn't JUST the move to space, as even Manhattan and teleporto-Jason had it to a degree, it was the cheapo digital and cinematography. And Uber Jason was dumb and pointless.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2009 19:50
|
|
|
Don't do it man. That movie makes no sense at all. The government men show up because it's some secret conspiracy to scare people for some stupid reason, except they also kill people too which kind of defeats the purpose, and, uh, I don't feel like thinking about that dumb movie anymore.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2009 15:32
|
|
|
Yeah, well this is Slasherfan, so he's an exception to the rule.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2009 20:41
|
|
|
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 liked it a lot until the last act where it got goofy. It was proto-Scream, like someone said.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2009 16:00
|
|
|
LtKenFrankenstein posted:I pretty much rank the Nightmare movies from best to worst as Part One, Part Three, New Nightmare, and then all the rest. You rank 4 with 5,6, and 2? 4 was extremely fun and had some of the best kills and effects.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2009 19:55
|
|
|
LtKenFrankenstein posted: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. Yep, Nightmare 4 was the one where Alice was trying to rescue her friend from being killed (the one that got turned into a roach and crushed), and she kept driving in a loop, and couldn't get out of it. The good thing about Nightmare 4 was, after seeing 3, we just wanted to see more creative dream sequences. Nightmare 4 gave the most out of any movie by far, while being "light" (with bright lighting as well) without being completely irritating. It was essentially pre-Deep Blue Sea in tone (also directed by Renny Harlin). 5 and 6 gave minimal deaths on top of being not interesting at all and having really stupid parts. 4 gave us: Freddy being resurrected by a dog peeing fire on his grave Drowning in bed Pizza with the faces being the toppings Girl turned into roach and smashed in roach motel "Suck face" kill in the middle of class. Time loop sequence Probably the best final showdown against Freddy with Alice having Megamanned all her friends' powers Good overall direction and camerawork and decent acting 5 was: Weird, annoying direction with weird tilted or close in camera angles One good, imaginative sequence (comic book guy vs. Super Freddy) An irritating plot about a baby and Freddy feeding off of souls 6 was: stupid "Now I'm playing with power!" stupid 3D sequence What made NOES4 entertaining was that at that point, there was nowhere to go except "more deaths and creative dream sequences," and 4 exceeded expectations, while every one after that fell far short of 3, much less 4. 3 was a notch better than 4 because it was still a bit dark in tone and had that whole role playing game feel to it.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2009 21:44
|
|
|
InfiniteZero posted:Part VI is played mostly as a comedy actually. 5 is too, actually. And even it has it's moments like the guy getting so mad at the guy at the beginning of the movie that he just goes and kills him, or Miguel A. Nunez singing to his girlfriend and getting attacked in the outhouse.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2009 21:47
|
|
|
Lasher posted:I really should watch The Dream Child again because I recall when I first saw it I was really pissed off there were only 3 deaths in the film. I think I had just seen Jason Lives where the death toll is stupidly high so Freddy was always tarnished after that. The chick coming out of the fridge looks cool too. But, no, The Dream Child is kind of hurt by its claustrophobic/weird cinematography and general lack of stuff going on and bores me every single time. Halloween 5 had the exact same problem (on top of Michael crying, which was one of the worst things I've seen in a slasher).
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2009 07:33
|
|
|
I just watched Ft13th 2 again (On Demand) and I had the exact same sentiment when he moved the kettle. That and laughing at how short Jason was in that movie, and listening to them trying to retrofit "but he was still alive and saw his mother get killed" in there. And somehow, I found the wheelchair death MORE brutal this time. That might be my all time favorite Jason kill. I agree with the "hottest babes" assessment too.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2009 15:46
|
|
|
I thought it was a pretty good Friday the 13th film, my only problem with it in general was that the look was a bit too "dark." As was mentioned earlier, it looked and felt a bit too much like the TCM remake, which doesn't fit the "mood" of Friday the 13th that much. The Friday the 13ths were always bright and clear and not really dark and moody - that was my only qualm. I always like how all this gory stuff was happening in the bright clear day or in full frame in the older movies, which is why I preferred it to the Halloween series in general (besides the first, of course).
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2009 15:55
|
|
|
max4me posted:arrow death not being Jason-ish Ummmmmmm, 40 seconds in dude... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fas5vEINCbY
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2009 18:24
|
|
|
pud posted:Manhattan is the worst of the series by far No way is it worse than 5, 9, or X. If someone was coming blind in the series, they'd DEFINITELY enjoy Manhattan more than 5, 9, or X, probably 3. It's probably the best shot, is paced well, and is legitimately funny in spots. The problems with 8 were Jason literally teleporting everywhere (which new people won't care about), it being advertised as him in New York as opposed to him on a ship, and that many of the kills aren't as gory as previous entries. Oh, and the weird ending. But without the prior history with the series, much of that wouldnt' really matter. it having a "plot" actually serves in its favor, it's just that by that time, people who were already fans didn't care about plot (and it was essentially a mix of the plots of 3 and 7). You may like it the least, but it's not the worst movie in the bunch. Darko fucked around with this message at 18:26 on Feb 16, 2009 |
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2009 18:22
|
|
|
Rageaholic Monkey posted:So I watched The New Blood, Jason Takes Manhattan and Jason X tonight. New Blood and X were both loving awful, and Manhattan was pretty stupid too, except for a few awesome parts. I've still gotta watch Jason Goes To Hell, but from what one of my friends told me, it sounds pretty loving ridiculous and enjoyable. No, it's stupid and ridiculous and Jason isn't even in the movie for most of it, which takes away from it.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2009 13:51
|
|
|
Professor Funk posted:I hated the setting, more specifically, the house. There is something much less frightening about Jason stalking around someone's property and hiding behind shower curtains. Granted, he stalked around a camp in the earlier movies, but those settings felt at least a little bit isolated; it basically felt like the characters had nowhere to go. The house just wasn't a threatening environment, and made Crystal Lake as a whole seem a lot less sinister. Why is there a home that probably cost millions upon millions of dollars just sitting on/near a cursed camp ground where dozens and dozens of people have been murdered? Real estate agents must have had a hell of a time selling that house. Either that, or the people that shelled out millions to have it built must have been completely oblivious (but this is a horror movie, so I guess that's believable). Friday the 13th 4.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2009 17:31
|
|
|
InfiniteZero posted:I thought it was OK, if not a bit disappointing. I had two main problems with the film: Wait, what? Okay, this is getting ridiculous, any handheld cam is now known as "shaky cam?" This movie didn't really use any quick cuts (Batman Begins) or purposely shaky shots (Bourne). The difference between this and the old ones was that it was shot more heavily in shadow, and the kills were "faster" (the older ones had lots of shots of Jason sloooooowwwwlly harpooning and the like). quote:More importantly, I was disappointed by the whole Texas Chainsaw Massacre elements thrown into the film, with the old houses filled with weird stuff (again, yeah -- I know that Jason builds a weirdo shrine in Part II, but it didn't look like a reused TCM set), Jason trapping somebody in the basement and tying her to a chain, and even the Leatherface head tilts when he confronts her. I agree with the set looking like TCM which I complained about. However, that's the Michael Meyers head tilt, which was stolen by Kane Hodder for Jason in 7. So you've got it all out of order. quote:I would have hoped that Nispel would have gotten it out of his system by now. Don't misunderstand me, I love the original TCM (and TCM2 -- and even Nispel's remake), but that doesn't mean that I want Jason Voorhees and Michael Myers to act like Leatherface and I don't go into every horror film hoping for a hideout that looks like Leatherface's hideout and weirdo hillbillies to be running around. I agree in execution. But to be fair, when you combine parts 1-4 of Friday the 13th, you -do- get a lot of those elements including hillbillies (you need Crazy Ralph, after all), shrines, etc. However, I didn't like them looking so much like TCM stuff, I agree.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2009 17:40
|
|
|
edit: ^^^ yeah, most people like 4 the best out of human killers, and 6 out of zombie/supernatural ones. Professor Funk posted:Yeah, but my point still stands, because it just so happens that Friday the 13th Part 4 was neither a good movie nor a scary one. You were comparing the movie to classic Jason, but 4 is normally known as THE classic (scary) Jason movie (6 is the classic silly one). I don't get it.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2009 17:48
|
|
|
Professor Funk posted:Well I guess I'll change my argument a bit. I'd say that the house in Friday the 13th 2009 is a far cry from the little house in Friday the 13th Part 4. I guess I'd say that the mansion in 2009 was a too lavish for the environment that the filmmakers were trying to create. They're actually pretty much the same size in practice The difference in the two is essentially the idea of a summer home 25 years ago, and one now. This one has a more modern design and is on the water and "nicer."Don't get me wrong, I totally get your point. Aesthetically, it feels a lot different, even if, conceptually, it's essentially the same thing.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2009 18:02
|
|
|
The Monocle posted:I might be wrong, but I'm pretty sure the "Mommy?" head-tilt has been a part of Jason's character since the second movie. I think he may have done it in two, but it disappeared until 7, and Kane Hodder is normally credited with that. Your point about him doing it in 2 may be right, though - I'll have to look on Youtube or something for that scene.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2009 18:04
|
|
|
I don't think Leatherface really "counts" - he was gesturing all over the place and screaming and dancing around, so one gesture doesn't stand out, whereas Myers and Jason only do "one thing" that shows any thinking or emotion on their part. Nitpicky, I know, but that's why it's typically credited to Mike.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2009 18:23
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 3, 2024 04:32 |
|
|
The Remote Viewer posted:The scene with the baby oil bordered on porn, and not torture porn. There was one too many there for where the movie was and one was in the back of the line. Ah well...
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2009 21:16
|
|