|
How can I find out what theaters are offering MBV in 3D? Are they using the red-blue lenses or (hopefully) something newer?
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2008 23:14
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 23, 2024 12:32 |
|
|
Slasherfan posted:Oh my God, Paramount are re releasing Friday The 13th Parts 2-8 on DVD in the UK (They don't own part 1 here, Warner do) and they game them all new artworks and by god they are terrible. The US DVDs have terrible re-done covers as well. I was trying to find pictures of them on Amazon and found this instead: http://www.amazon.com/Friday-13th-Uncut-Kevin-Bacon/dp/B001K9OXDU/ref=pd_bbs_sr_4?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1230725991&sr=8-4 They're releasing an uncut version of part 1 on DVD! Personally I'm pretty happy about H2. I went in expecting the Halloween remake to be a trainwreck because of all the reshoots but I was pleasantly surprised.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2008 13:22
|
|
|
Darko posted: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. 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.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2008 15:50
|
|
|
Super Dan posted:In the remake, all of that was thrown out the window. Myers came from a broken home, his mom was a stripper, his (step?)dad was an abusive alcoholic, he got bullied at school, he enjoyed killing small animals (a common sign of a serial killer in the making.) The entire mystery of why Myers was a killer was gone. It didn't bother me that much because it's a reboot, and I have a hard time thinking about the original as if it existed in a vacuum and not as part of a long franchise that made equally egregious missteps.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2008 17:48
|
|
|
Slasherfan posted:I just read online that lionsgate are very close to bankrupsy with recent bombs like The Spirit, Disaster Movie, Bangkok Dangrous and are pretty much relying on My Bloody Valentine to be a hit to stay a float. gently caress, first New Line and now Lion's Gate.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2009 01:11
|
|
|
If they were going to do a 3D horror film, they should have picked a different one. Why not the Friday remake or the upcoming Nighmare On Elm St remake since those both had 3D entries in the past?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2009 20:18
|
|
|
I'm not entirely sure I *want* it to succeed except for the fact that it may prolong the life of Lion's Gate. Not only is it not a good film, it's not even a good slasher.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2009 02:10
|
|
|
Ape Agitator posted:What was wrong with it, slasher-film-wise? Lack of charm, and not much variety in kills. 3D and being a remake were really the only things differentiating it from any straight-to-DVD slasher movie at Blockbuster. Slashers are one of my favorite genres because I watched a ton of them as a kid and this one just didn't do it for me.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2009 02:08
|
|
|
For some reason I had the strongest feeling it was Axel, though I ended up being wrong. It turns out, in the original movie, it WAS Axel. I was probably just over thinking the movie though, assuming there's no way the obvious choice would end up being the killer.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2009 23:48
|
|
|
cool kids inc. posted:Also the dwarf kill sent me into a ridiculous fit of giggles. When did this happen? I don't remember such a character being in the movie.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2009 01:54
|
|
|
djf posted:The owner of the motel? Whilst the naked chick is hiding under the bed. She gets stuck through the roof via propulsion of pick-axe I missed the entire opening sequence.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2009 02:01
|
|
|
lizardman posted:EDIT: Did anyone else notice a flash/spotlight or something sweep over the audience whenever the on-screen killer's helment-mounted light appeared? Maybe it was someone else in the audience trying to be funny but it'd be pretty cool if this was an intentional part of the experience. I don't know about that, but when the light was shining at the fourth wall it was definitely doing something to my eyes.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2009 00:00
|
|
|
Pillowpants posted:For what its worth, I know someone who has already seen most of it. He absolutely hated it and compared it to the Halloween/TCM remakes in terms of quality. However, those are two of the low number of horror movies I've enjoyed in the past 10 years, and probably the only slasher films besides Behind the Mask that I've enjoyed. FWIW, I liked both of those remakes, and I have as much slasher fan cred as anyone. (I had a Texas Chainsaw Massacre movie poster on my wall as a kid) Were they as good as the originals? Probably not, but they had a HELL of a lot to live up to, and they were pretty good on their own merits. I never would have imagined R. Lee Ermey would be so perfect for a TCM movie.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2009 03:14
|
|
|
PsychoGoatee posted:
The only thing about that movie that stood out to me in a good way was how brutal some of the violence was. There were scenes that looked like they probably put bruises on the actors.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2009 02:26
|
|
|
timeandtide posted:Don't forget the whole family angle they took from Halloween, the demonic dagger from Evil Dead 2 being the method to killing Jason, the Brian DePalma dinner shootout, and the John Woo moves. Basically, the directors/writers said "That looks cool" to a lot of things and threw them, especially since Sam Raimi agreed to loan them the Necronomicon. Pretty much all of the major slasher franchises have a family angle at some point, except for Child's Play.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2009 01:17
|
|
|
I think Johnny Depp would make a great Freddy Krueger. Kidding.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2009 01:36
|
|
|
PsychoGoatee posted:I just hope they don't lose Freddy's charm, I can see them making him way too humorless, and maybe just angry. Freddy is supposed to be pretty sardonic and patronizing, like he's playing with his victims. Even in the classic original film. You're reading Freddy from the later movies into the first one. He didn't even have many lines in the first one.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2009 01:51
|
|
|
PsychoGoatee posted:Not true, plus I didn't even mention one liners. In the first film he's a slick bastard, and somewhat playful, while still terrifying. Like he's just toying with his victims. Very different from the regular slasher mold. I wouldn't call Freddy in the original sardonic and patronizing anymore than I'd call a cat playing with a mouse sardonic and patronizing. ITT: Serious posts about Freddy Krueger.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2009 20:48
|
|
|
For the record, Jason doesn't stay out of the water in the originals. He attacked Tommy Jarvis in the canoe in 6 and think there were a few water kills in others. Anyway, loved the reboot. It had pretty much everything a F13 film needs...the only element from the first 4 I really missed was the lack of a crazy old bum telling everyone they were going to die. Tons of fanservice in this one. I spotted a number of things that were direct throwbacks to scenes from 1-4. Clay is a throwback to the bounty hunter character from 4 whose sister was killed by Jason. And young Jason WAS in the movie...in the first five minutes.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2009 22:55
|
|
|
The scene with the baby oil bordered on porn, and not torture porn. I also appreciated the fact that my prime candidate for final girl got killed unexpectedly.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2009 19:35
|
|
|
I'm a still a little upset about the bugzapper tease in F13.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2009 22:16
|
|
|
What the hell is this? http://www.gobstoppermovie.com/ It looks like a parody trailer...but on the other hand, that does look like Christopher Lloyd.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2009 00:54
|
|
|
Oh God, kill me. I'm watching 'His Name Is Jason' and Kane Hodder has the Insane Clown Posse hatchetman around his neck.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2009 23:49
|
|
|
I thought the trailer looked interesting. It's not immediately clear whether Michael Myers is actually in the movie as anything except a hallucination.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2009 22:32
|
|
|
I always wondered why the gently caress they did fake Jason, Jason in NYC, Jason without Jason, Jason in space, and Jason versus Freddy before doing one in the loving winter. I know Crystal Lake is a summer camp and all, but drat.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2009 20:33
|
|
|
I wonder if TCM has any relation to this scottish legend: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sawney_Bean Sawney, Sawyer...kinda similar.
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2009 23:23
|
|
|
Freddy wasn't actually a child molester in the original series, just a child killer. They thought it was too controversial to address directly in a horror film at the time.
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2009 17:03
|
|
|
Slasherfan posted:Doesn't really look like a slasher but to be honest it really looks like it could go either way. I don't think it looks terribly poo poo but it doesn't look good either. I hate the fact it gives away that there is a twist because now I'll be looking for it. The twist is the 'orphan' is actually a psycho adult woman with dwarfism pretending to be a child
|
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2009 15:09
|
|
|
I rented Feast and it was actually pretty decent for a B-movie. Plays with audience expectations a lot.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2009 01:00
|
|
|
Did anyone see Monsters at SXSW? If this image doesn't intrigue you I don't know what to tell you: http://www.protagonistpictures.com/films.php?film=monsters quote:
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2010 23:23
|
|
|
Waterhaul posted:I was looking forward to Monsters a lot until the reviews I read said the film is more a romance film with monsters in some spots rather than a Cloverfield type film of people being chased by monsters through an infected area. It could still be great but my enthusiasm has waned a bit. Technically Let The Right One In is a coming-of-age drama and not a horror movie but it's still amazing.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2010 18:34
|
|
|
spixxor posted:Yeah, I read that spoiler a few days ago and it's what decided I wasn't gonna watch this. I've seen more horror movies than I care to count, many of which had disturbing scenes, but that's just going too far. Whatever point they were trying to make, if there was one, will be lost on me because I refuse to see it. (It kind of pains me to condemn a film I've not seen, but I just have a hard time believing there's some kind of redeeming quality that makes up for the content of that spoiler.)
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2010 22:04
|
|
|
bad movie knight posted:I'm going to step in and wager that scene is supposed to distill the shock of living in Serbia and seeing all sorts of horrific poo poo on a casual basis. Is it fair to assault the audience for the purpose of proving a point, though? Saving Private Ryan showed the horror of war without resorting to showing that.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2010 22:23
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 23, 2024 12:32 |
|
|
bad movie knight posted:World War II, or the portions with which Saving Private Ryan was concerned, was a relatively clean war, absent of torture and sexual assault. There was plenty of rape and torture in WWII, but like you said, Private Ryan wasn't covering that aspect of the war. quote:I haven't seen the film -- I don't think I want to, since my understanding of horrific poo poo was somewhat solidified when I covered a gang-rape trial -- but I sort of admire the filmmakers for making something so supposedly depraved it can convey such a nihilistic truth, that awful, horrible things are happening right now while we can afford to be blissfully unaware, that humans are capable of the cruelest actions imaginable. I guess I just question whether some things should be portrayed at all in film, which I suppose is a strange thing to say in the horror thread of all places. I'm willing to draw the line pretty liberally (Though I likewise refuse to see them, I think I Spit On Your Grave and Last House On The Left have a right to exist), but there really is such a thing as going too far IMO.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2010 22:42
|
|