|
Post by naterdawg on Jun 13, 2017 14:37:08 GMT
If you weren't 5 or 6 and "gasped" at this poor excuse for a horror film, I can only assume stuff like The Haunting remake left you comatose with fear. Why exactly do you gotta start an argument in every goddamn thread? It's like everytime someone says something you disagree with you have to reply to them in a condescending manner and start a stupid argument. Oh, relax.
|
|
|
Post by naterdawg on Jun 13, 2017 14:38:20 GMT
I can't believe I'm even discussing horror films with you if you've never seen the original Halloween. But you saw Blair Witch. That says everything. BUT you are not "discussing" horror films with me. You are merely bouncing around tossing out what appear to be challenges to a fight. That said : I had heard enough to know that I didn't want to see Halloween (or Elm Street). Blood and gore slashers not my "genre". I had heard so much about the wonders of Blair Witch that I finally gave it a try . Murky, shaky, lame story, no actors, no dialogue, continual exposure to foul mouthed characters who I would avoid like the plague in real life. Hmmmm .... reminds me of someone. Well, I'll think of who that is later. Meanwhile. Have a nice day. At least now we agree on something--meaning Blair Witch. It was a piece of garbage and a triumph of hype over substance.
|
|
|
Post by movielover on Jun 13, 2017 14:53:48 GMT
The fact that you're actually pushing a "Zelda blog" tells me you're a "fan." Ugh. Zelda BIOG = BIOGRAPHY not BLOG . Useful for finding out what the heck one is talking about so that someone is not referred to as that "midget lady". Reading and writing are not his strong points.
|
|
|
Post by BATouttaheck on Jun 13, 2017 16:07:16 GMT
Zelda BIOG = BIOGRAPHY not BLOG . Useful for finding out what the heck one is talking about so that someone is not referred to as that "midget lady". Reading and writing are not his strong points. I have noticed that. Polite conversation not so much either it seems. Did not get around to re-watching Poltergeist and it's rather on the back burner for right now. A tree (possibly an evil one) fell and just missed the porch last night. Good thing is that I am positive that the house is not built on anyone's burial ground. Any idea what the secret and hidden meaning of "pushing a blog" is ... actually, perhaps I'd be better off not knowing !
|
|
|
Post by BATouttaheck on Jun 13, 2017 16:08:46 GMT
"Pushing a blog." Yes, it is an interesting choice of words, isn't it? Not very interesting, naterdawg. Nope! Not interesting at all.
|
|
|
Post by BATouttaheck on Jun 13, 2017 22:46:30 GMT
Sadly, "they" never do. Well, I just wandered in here because I saw a post about Poltergeist in the "recently posted" area. As I said, not my genre usually so I have little to say on the films here. Have fun and good luck with "you know who". Cheery bye and all that !
|
|
Flynn
Sophomore
@flynn
Posts: 515
Likes: 270
|
Post by Flynn on Jun 13, 2017 23:30:11 GMT
I don't see how you can find Poltergeist boring, but I suppose it's for the same reasons you view Insidious, a far more superficial film, better. We're looking for different things, I guess. I like the atmosphere of Poltergeist, I like the family dynamic, and I like the themes it explores, like the fear of conformity, of selling out--former hippies turned yuppies, and concerns of urban sprawl and what it's doing to the environment (it's not a coincidence that the bird's death and subsequent excavation when putting in a backyard pool seems to cause the potergeist's appearance).
In many respects, Poltergeist is the template for modern horror films. It took the traditional ghost story, which was usually set in a dark, old house, and put it in a new, brightly lit, suburban home. It made horror real for people living in "safe" communities. Horror wasn't just something that could happen if you broke down on a road outside of town. YOUR house, the one built three years ago, could be haunted.
This was radical in 1982, and if you aren't getting that message, then you should watch more films from the era (and before). You don't have to like it, but surely you can see the reasons it's not a "load of crap."
In many ways, I still find the film terrifying, and I don't think it's due to nostalgia. It's just a good horror film that makes you think, and it shows that a film can be scary without knives, blood, or murder.
|
|
|
Post by BATouttaheck on Jun 13, 2017 23:33:24 GMT
Yeah ... what Flynn said ! ^^^^^^^^
|
|
schizkebab
Sophomore
@schizkebab
Posts: 736
Likes: 422
|
Post by schizkebab on Jun 14, 2017 16:36:34 GMT
I freakin' love 'Poltergeist' (one of Spielberg's best films ) . I saw it with my mom back when it first hit theaters. The Clown scene is a good jump scare, but it's the face-peeling bit that really creeped me out. Jerry Goldsmith's score was also ace.
|
|
|
Post by meandmybigmouth on Jun 14, 2017 16:57:13 GMT
I agree. I prefer Ghost movies with no special effects.
|
|
detour
Sophomore
@detour
Posts: 374
Likes: 236
|
Post by detour on Jun 14, 2017 19:26:41 GMT
I don't see how you can find Poltergeist boring, but I suppose it's for the same reasons you view Insidious, a far more superficial film, better. We're looking for different things, I guess. I like the atmosphere of Poltergeist, I like the family dynamic, and I like the themes it explores, like the fear of conformity, of selling out--former hippies turned yuppies, and concerns of urban sprawl and what it's doing to the environment (it's not a coincidence that the bird's death and subsequent excavation when putting in a backyard pool seems to cause the potergeist's appearance). In many respects, Poltergeist is the template for modern horror films. It took the traditional ghost story, which was usually set in a dark, old house, and put it in a new, brightly lit, suburban home. It made horror real for people living in "safe" communities. Horror wasn't just something that could happen if you broke down on a road outside of town. YOUR house, the one built three years ago, could be haunted. This was radical in 1982, and if you aren't getting that message, then you should watch more films from the era (and before). You don't have to like it, but surely you can see the reasons it's not a "load of crap." In many ways, I still find the film terrifying, and I don't think it's due to nostalgia. It's just a good horror film that makes you think, and it shows that a film can be scary without knives, blood, or murder. Well said.
|
|
|
Post by naterdawg on Jun 16, 2017 0:48:40 GMT
Poltergeist is over-produced garbage with a ridiculous situation played out in an even more ridiculous manner. At least Insidious had some jump scares in it. Poltergeist has a "clown doll" and a "scary tree" and a dummy head looking in a mirror while fake skin is being pulled off. Wooooo! Scawy!
|
|
sagenesse
Sophomore
@sagenesse
Posts: 306
Likes: 116
|
Post by sagenesse on Jun 17, 2017 4:40:34 GMT
Toasted CheeseTruth be told, I was tempted to add a or a along with the "Have a NIce Day" just to be truly annoying but re-thought it (for the moment). If I could find a high five emoji I'd post one. We are all welcome to our views on movies and I've never understood why people seem to call people names if you disagree with them.
|
|
sagenesse
Sophomore
@sagenesse
Posts: 306
Likes: 116
|
Post by sagenesse on Jun 17, 2017 4:45:22 GMT
I don't see how you can find Poltergeist boring, but I suppose it's for the same reasons you view Insidious, a far more superficial film, better. We're looking for different things, I guess. I like the atmosphere of Poltergeist, I like the family dynamic, and I like the themes it explores, like the fear of conformity, of selling out--former hippies turned yuppies, and concerns of urban sprawl and what it's doing to the environment (it's not a coincidence that the bird's death and subsequent excavation when putting in a backyard pool seems to cause the potergeist's appearance). In many respects, Poltergeist is the template for modern horror films. It took the traditional ghost story, which was usually set in a dark, old house, and put it in a new, brightly lit, suburban home. It made horror real for people living in "safe" communities. Horror wasn't just something that could happen if you broke down on a road outside of town. YOUR house, the one built three years ago, could be haunted. This was radical in 1982, and if you aren't getting that message, then you should watch more films from the era (and before). You don't have to like it, but surely you can see the reasons it's not a "load of crap." In many ways, I still find the film terrifying, and I don't think it's due to nostalgia. It's just a good horror film that makes you think, and it shows that a film can be scary without knives, blood, or murder. I agree with you. I saw the movie as a kid and it scared me to death!
|
|
|
Post by BATouttaheck on Jun 17, 2017 4:52:19 GMT
|
|
|
Post by darkreviewer2013 on Jun 21, 2017 1:55:21 GMT
I saw it when I was 24 (in 2008, not 1982!) and felt a bit let-down. Truth be told, I think it's more of a horror movie for young teens than an 'adult' horror movie, if that makes any sense. I'd likely have enjoyed it more had I seen it at, say, 14 or 15 years of age.
The film suffers the additional drawback of feeling far too 'Spielbergian'. Stephen Spielberg clearly played a huge role in the creation of this film and his style of film-making just doesn't sit well with standard horror movie fare.
|
|