Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 6, 2019 1:25:43 GMT
It's hard to put into words. I'm not a guy that pretends to be a film critic or anything so I'm not looking at things like score or direction. I'm just an average joe movie watcher. That said, this type of horror film just wasn't my cup of tea. I found parts of it to just be gross. Not to the extent of a film like Hostel that takes shit like that to a whole other level via cutting out an eye and such. I wasn't interested in the story at all and I wasn't scared by it. Just kind of grossed out by it. Some movies I enjoy despite nothing for a story like Friday the 13ths and some of the Halloween's because they're kind of to me anyways, turn your brain off and enjoy. Hellraiser wasn't like that for me. I’m a horror fan and not scared of most horror films, so it isn’t much of a concern for a film to be scary to me. I was very interested in what was going on in the story and the characters are pretty well done by horror movie standards. The effects are also top-notch. I just thought it was a well-crafted film, but that’s just me. I respect your opinion. I like those too if they’re done well and don’t feel repetitive. The difference between them and slashers is that I can have more fun with a slasher no matter what, but a paranormal movie requires some quality since most of them are quite serious. The effects were pretty good. I was mostly grossed out by Frank's reconstructing body and how slimy it was. Which I imagine was the intent. I agree on slashers. Even bad ones can be pretty entertaining cuz they can try and do creative deaths. With the paranormal (that was the word I was thinking of but couldn't pull it so thank you) movies they're ones that tend to get me more on the edge of my seat and nervous/scared. I like horror movies that make me feel that way. Unless it goes too far and becomes a movie that I'll never watch again because it scared the living fuck outta me and gave me nightmares for weeks. I do agree with you though, there are so many of them that the genre is kind of watered down and it wasn't imo until The Conjuring films that brought them back to being good. When they're bad they're just flat out bad.
|
|
|
Post by Nicko's Nose on Oct 6, 2019 1:27:44 GMT
Just watched this: Haunt (2019)
Surprisingly good. Never gets boring, has a pretty lead that kinda looks like Karen Gillan and has some nice gore. I’d give it a 7. Recommended for those who have Shudder.
|
|
|
Post by Captain Spencer on Oct 6, 2019 2:22:59 GMT
Just a heads up that TCM will be running old horror movies throughout October, so that will be a good source for those who may want to take a break from watching newer horror movies. I've already watched a goodie from there, a British shocker called Horror Hotel from 1960.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 6, 2019 2:44:36 GMT
Just a heads up that TCM will be running old horror movies throughout October, so that will be a good source for those who may want to take a break from watching newer horror movies. I've already watched a goodie from there, a British shocker called Horror Hotel from 1960. Thanks for that. I've mostly been watching what I can on Hulu or HBO. Buzzing through cable channels and I've managed to hold off on watching Hocus Pocus for the 500th time somehow.
|
|
|
Post by MooseNugget on Oct 6, 2019 6:46:42 GMT
The Brain That Wouldn't Die (1962) (First time viewing) Terror Level: Low Again I went with the free movies on YouTube. This movie has a cool idea. I sort of wanted Jan in the Pan to end up getting another girl's body but I knew that wasn't going to happen. Some of the scenes were gruesome for an early '60s film. The monster was ugly. This movie is goofy and isn't too long. Not any kind of classic and I can't see myself revisiting this. 4/10. 3 Flies in a Widow's Web (2016) (First time viewing) Terror Level: Low Damn this was so boring! I don't know why most trilogy movies suck. The only decent ones off the top of my head was V/H/S. This really did put me to sleep. I'd give this movie a 1 if it wasn't for some cool costumes. 2/10. The Astro-Zombies (1968) (First time viewing) Terror Level: None This movie was so damn boring and stupid! I've never sat through anything so dull in my life! Why did The Misfits make a song inspired by this film? I'd like to forgot this thing tomorrow. Ted V. Mikels should have felt ashamed of this instead of making a squeal to it. And I watched the squeal for a minute and it looks worse! This might be the worst movie I ever watched. After the last two movies I gotta quit going to YouTube for horror films. If I don't find something on tV tomorrow I'm digging into my disc collection. 1/10.
|
|
|
Post by sostie on Oct 6, 2019 9:40:38 GMT
Dont see how Hellraiser is held to as high regards as Friday the 13th, Halloween, Nightmare on Elm St etc. It isn’t really. The other 3 you mentioned are far more popular and loved, and Hellraiser went straight to video. Unless you mean how many movies it got then yeah it’s pretty crazy. Hellraiser didn't go straight to video. It certainly was released in the UK where it received some great reviews. In the US it made nearly $15m...not bad for a $1m budget film. Part of me wished it never had a North American release...the awful US dubbing would not have been imposed on the film had it not.
|
|
|
Post by James on Oct 6, 2019 13:21:05 GMT
It isn’t really. The other 3 you mentioned are far more popular and loved, and Hellraiser went straight to video. Unless you mean how many movies it got then yeah it’s pretty crazy. Hellraiser didn't go straight to video. It certainly was released in the UK where it received some great reviews. In the US it made nearly $15m...not bad for a $1m budget film. Part of me wished it never had a North American release...the awful US dubbing would not have been imposed on the film had it not. I was talking about the sequels from Parts 5-10. Definitely not the first one.
|
|
|
Post by sostie on Oct 6, 2019 13:27:26 GMT
Hellraiser didn't go straight to video. It certainly was released in the UK where it received some great reviews. In the US it made nearly $15m...not bad for a $1m budget film. Part of me wished it never had a North American release...the awful US dubbing would not have been imposed on the film had it not. I was talking about the sequels from Parts 5-10. Definitely not the first one. My bad. Sorry
|
|
|
Post by James on Oct 6, 2019 13:58:08 GMT
I was talking about the sequels from Parts 5-10. Definitely not the first one. My bad. Sorry It’s all good.
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Oct 6, 2019 17:41:31 GMT
Can Darkman be considered horror?
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Oct 6, 2019 17:50:51 GMT
I’m a horror fan and not scared of most horror films, so it isn’t much of a concern for a film to be scary to me. I was very interested in what was going on in the story and the characters are pretty well done by horror movie standards. The effects are also top-notch. I just thought it was a well-crafted film, but that’s just me. I respect your opinion. I like those too if they’re done well and don’t feel repetitive. The difference between them and slashers is that I can have more fun with a slasher no matter what, but a paranormal movie requires some quality since most of them are quite serious. The effects were pretty good. I was mostly grossed out by Frank's reconstructing body and how slimy it was. Which I imagine was the intent. I agree on slashers. Even bad ones can be pretty entertaining cuz they can try and do creative deaths. With the paranormal (that was the word I was thinking of but couldn't pull it so thank you) movies they're ones that tend to get me more on the edge of my seat and nervous/scared. I like horror movies that make me feel that way. Unless it goes too far and becomes a movie that I'll never watch again because it scared the living fuck outta me and gave me nightmares for weeks. I do agree with you though, there are so many of them that the genre is kind of watered down and it wasn't imo until The Conjuring films that brought them back to being good. When they're bad they're just flat out bad. The Hellraiser series is crap. The first movie is okay (It's interesting and probably as well made as a movie like it can be but it just isn't my cup of tea). The second is similar to the first but has a worse story and one of the silliest and most unpleasant final acts of any movie I have ever seen. After that they range from mediocre to awful and the movies made after Part 4 are actually shelved screenplays that the studio or whoever just shoehorn Pinhead into and call them Hellraiser movies.
|
|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on Oct 7, 2019 1:05:19 GMT
The effects were pretty good. I was mostly grossed out by Frank's reconstructing body and how slimy it was. Which I imagine was the intent. I agree on slashers. Even bad ones can be pretty entertaining cuz they can try and do creative deaths. With the paranormal (that was the word I was thinking of but couldn't pull it so thank you) movies they're ones that tend to get me more on the edge of my seat and nervous/scared. I like horror movies that make me feel that way. Unless it goes too far and becomes a movie that I'll never watch again because it scared the living fuck outta me and gave me nightmares for weeks. I do agree with you though, there are so many of them that the genre is kind of watered down and it wasn't imo until The Conjuring films that brought them back to being good. When they're bad they're just flat out bad. The Hellraiser series is crap. The first movie is okay (It's interesting and probably as well made as a movie like it can be but it just isn't my cup of tea). The second is similar to the first but has a worse story and one of the silliest and most unpleasant final acts of any movie I have ever seen. Damn, son. I think the second is better than the first and a lot of fun, and the final act in Hell is pretty imaginative and visually creative. Reminded me of a NOES movie. --- Darkman rides the line. I wouldn't make a fuss if you included it.
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Oct 7, 2019 1:11:38 GMT
The Hellraiser series is crap. The first movie is okay (It's interesting and probably as well made as a movie like it can be but it just isn't my cup of tea). The second is similar to the first but has a worse story and one of the silliest and most unpleasant final acts of any movie I have ever seen. Damn, son. I think the second is better than the first and a lot of fun, and the final act in Hell is pretty imaginative and visually creative. Reminded me of a NOES movie. --- Darkman rides the line. I wouldn't make a fuss if you included it. The final act in Hell is okay visually, but it is tonally laughable and cringe-inducing. I'd be like wow, Hell is more boring than scary. As I said, the Hellraiser movies just aren't my style. I am able to understand why people might like Hellbound, but I think it is awful.
|
|
|
Post by darkreviewer2013 on Oct 7, 2019 3:18:23 GMT
Can Darkman be considered horror? I'd describe it as a superhero/revenge flick with horror elements.
|
|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on Oct 7, 2019 4:16:10 GMT
Just saw the original Evil Dead in the theater. It was supposed to be a 4K restoration, which didn't do much but highlight the number of out of focus shots and continuity errors. It also had a new score which was decent. But yeah, love this movie. By the way, if you're one of those people that hates the sequels for going comedic...I don't know what to tell you. This movie is laugh riot, it just doesn't know it.
Also, last night I *witnessed* Inland Empire. Didn't understand a second of it. That's generally par the course for Lynch, but this movie took confusing to a whole new level. Apparently he made it up as he went along, loosely connecting unrelated scenes. Makes sense.
|
|
|
Post by cybajedi on Oct 7, 2019 4:40:27 GMT
Just finished Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2. After the creepy/scary tone of the original I was amazed and disappointed that the tone of the sequel was ridiculously comedic. Absolute chore and bore to get through. Are any of the remakes worth a watch?
|
|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on Oct 7, 2019 5:43:46 GMT
Just finished Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2. After the creepy/scary tone of the original I was amazed and disappointed that the tone of the sequel was ridiculously comedic. Absolute chore and bore to get through. Are any of the remakes worth a watch? I hated the second one too at first but it grew on me on repeats knowing what to expect. I like the 2003 remake. It's pretty intense in its own right, just glossier and not as gritty as the original.
|
|
|
Post by MooseNugget on Oct 7, 2019 5:54:02 GMT
Mark of the Astro-Zombies (2004) (First time viewing) Terror Level: None I'm in awe of how Ted V. Mikels was able to make the second Astro-Zombies movie worse than the first! While both movies are talkative what happened in the first movie sort of moved the plot forward. This movie is even more nonsensical. At least when I watched the first movie it felt like a film. Mark of the Astro-Zombies feels like a long YouTube video someone made. And the computer animation is the dirt worst. And at the very least the first film had John Carradine. I don't know why we get Liz Renay describing how the zombies look (incorrectly) when we get to see them running around killing people. There's little logic to this film. If like like dudes running around in alien masks and jeans macheting people in the neck over and over and over and over and over again this is the film for you. Mikels was able to spew out two more of these movies before he died. I don't know how I'm going to retain my sanity. 1/10.
|
|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on Oct 7, 2019 6:25:55 GMT
Mark of the Astro-Zombies (2004) (First time viewing) Terror Level: None I'm in awe of how Ted V. Mikels was able to make the second Astro-Zombies movie worse than the first! While both movies are talkative what happened in the first movie sort of moved the plot forward. This movie is even more nonsensical. At least when I watched the first movie it felt like a film. Mark of the Astro-Zombies feels like a long YouTube video someone made. And the computer animation is the dirt worst. And at the very least the first film had John Carradine. I don't know why we get Liz Renay describing how the zombies look (incorrectly) when we get to see them running around killing people. There's little logic to this film. If like like dudes running around in alien masks and jeans macheting people in the neck over and over and over and over and over again this is the film for you. Mikels was able to spew out two more of these movies before he died. I don't know how I'm going to retain my sanity. 1/10. Oh wow. I worked with the guy who played the lead. Didn't expect to see one of his movies on here.
|
|
|
Post by lostinlimbo on Oct 7, 2019 11:07:34 GMT
moviemouth - pretty much second moviebuffbrad’s comments regarding ‘Darkman’. In some ways the transformation of Neeson’s character fighting his own sanity reminds me of Claude Rains‘ in ‘The Invisible Man’. So I got no issue with it. FridayOnElmStreet I noticed you watched ‘Doom: Annihilation’, and I’m sort of curious. How did you find it? Your rating is a little higher than what I’ve seen from most others.
|
|