MovieChat Forums > artguylarry > Replies
artguylarry's Replies
I kinda agree, but the way he was revived was even more stupid. Doggy fire pee? LOL. This movie was entertaining, but the element of horror was long out the window on this one.
Then in Part 5, Freddy's demise was no better. What the hell was that? Alice's unborn dream baby vomits the souls of his victims who pull "baby Freddy out of big Freddy and back into the womb of his long dead mother? Yeah that's scary.
And how many times are they gonna re-use the whole "bring him out of the dream" attempt to defeat him? They tried it in the original (before Nancy just turned her back on him), then again in Freddy's Dead, again in New Nightmare, Freddy v Jason and in the 2010 reboot. Let's try something else. Or just stop altogether.
First of all, leave "baby boomers" out of this. Baby boomers didn't have phones to play on while the movie's showed. We didn't miss out on half the movie because we were texting bae. Baby boomers didn't buy movie tickets to sit for two hours while they tried to cop a feel from their dates. Baby boomers sat in darkened theaters with no distractions, in front of big screens and watched a movie go farther than any movie that came before it ever had in depicting demonic possession. For the record, please point out to me how the slow burn of watching a little girl's body become scarred, and twisted from demonic possession was laughable. There was nothing comedic about it. Nothing to be mistaken as humor. Nothing lame, badly written or poorly acted. Even the visual effects (for its time) were done very convincingly. You're just a little puss who couldn't handle it and would rather ridicule anyone who liked it and laugh it off so you'll have an excuse to never watch it again.
And if you're truly not scared by this movie, you still deserve no credit. Anyone unaffected by it must be more frightening than the movie itself. What must be inside you to leave you unafraid of it?
Cool creepy photo. And by today's standards, pretty tame. I guess times have changed. That would never have been cut today.
Yeah, but many of the similarities of the original are there. NOTICEABLY so. Way more than the early 2000s movie that was supposedly considered the remake. It had no similarity at all. Personally, I consider Bloodline closer to being the remake, and while I didn't like it as much as I did the original, I still liked it a lot.
Yeah I guess I did LOL. Still sucks though. I heard it got filmed, but the clip is not to be found anywhere. That sucks too. I would like to have known how her murder originally took place.
k
Nnnnope
Geez, dumb fuck? Retards? You really are a child aren't you?
First off, if it's being remade, then how is it not a remake?
Second of all, many movies are based on a source novel. Granted, it doesn't make the story itself original, but it's something that still hadn't been done in movies.
Thirdly, retards? What are you, nine? I hope so, because if you're not, you just discredited your own point. Grow up.
And yet you still haven't put up anything to validate your statement. Kendricks outlined his perfectly. Your not-so-clever quips don't say anything, other than how juvenile you are. Try making a real point.
Actually I guess I can see what you are saying about Dawn of the Dead. And I think maybe the humor in it didn't stand out as much for me because I think I was creeped out more by walking dead people than anything else at that age, so the uneasiness of watching it kind of took over. For me, it was a constant state of dread. But you're right, there was more humor in it than I would prefer. I don't recall it so much in Day of the Dead. That doesn't mean it wasn't there. It just means I don't remember it. It has been quite some time. Don't think of it as giving them a pass. I just remember it being what it meant to me then.
As for The Shining, I watch it more frequently even now, but don't really see in it parody or satire. I know it strays from the source material. But I don't define that as parody. Just a variation on a theme. To me it's still pretty gripping. I don't recall any real humor to speak of. I would love to hear the theories on it though.
TRUTH.
(tongue click)
Many horror movies that I [personally] consider to be true horror were mainly late 70s horror flicks
The Omen (first two)
The Exorcist (only the first)
The Amityville Horror (original only)
Burnt Offerings
Rosemary's Baby
The Shining
Romero's Dead movies (first three only, though the zombie subgenre has been gang raped in recent years)
Admittedly there are some movies - very few - in recent years that have made a comeback to what (for me) is considered true horror.
Hereditary
Sinister (first only)
Evil Dead (reboot only)
Dead Silence (though few agree)
The Conjuring (though I've only seen the first)
Don't get me wrong. Slashers, home invasions, Freddy, torture porn and inbred cannibals, they're all fun-to-watch movies. But in recent decades, suspense, gore and jump scares have all become confused with horror. And these subgenres have all that. But they're not scary. I love the Saw franchise, Wrong Turn franchise, Hostel, Nightmare, Chainsaw, Final Destination, F13, Halloween, they're all great entertaining movies/franchises. I love good suspense, and even well done gore, but I've never associated them [i][b]specifically[/i][/b] with horror. I know very well that I stand among a minority in wondering how movies like Scream or even Psycho, get classified as horror on the same lists as The Omen or Rosemary's Baby.
I suppose I have to admit to what I often say, but sometimes forget. Fear is subjective.
OK.
oh.......burn.
Something that scares you. Not something that startles you or grosses you out.
Correction: A Nightmare on Elm Street 3: Freddy Gets Kicked Once - and Zapped a Little With Fake Lightning By a Nerd.
This was more entertaining than the movie itself. What I mean by that is I love [i]Hereditary[/i] and this is STILL the best thing I've seen. Thanks for posting this.
And they basically pulled the same stunt in Halloween 2 when he stabbed the nurse in the back with a SCALPEL and lifted her up off the ground with it. In reality, it wouldn't have lifted her up, it would've just carved its way up her back.
As far as I've read in the reviews I've seen, she was just eccentric. Autism has never been mentioned as far as anything I've read, but some reviewers seem to think that Charlie was the unwilling host to Paimon all along. That theory makes sense for a couple of reasons. First it would explain Charlie decapitating the bird, and it also explains why Charlie's head was used on the wooden statue of Paimon in the tree house when Paimon possessed Peter and the crown was passed from Charlie to him. Also the tongue-click Charlie always made was associated with Paimon. Her behavior through the movie was as such that she was never really in control OF her behavior.