MovieChat Forums > hurricane

hurricane (849)


Apprentice contestants with nut allergy dissed on a plane Tommy The Turtle The BBC condemns Lottie Lion Episode 4 on tonight.... Do you think they were convicted? Tom Allen Nights in white satin Where do they get these divs? Bump. Am I the only one who really liked this? View all posts >


I think that was intentional. They were supposed to be the worst team in the league. So you had a short guy, a fat guy etc.... I see nothing that indicates that was Harley. This thread makes a lot more sense now I know the film has no Billy in it. Actually, I didn't see the trailer. I heard it had a lot of spoilers in so avoided it. That's interesting. So there's not even any Billy in this version? Seems weird to even classify it a Black Christmas movie then. By horror movies, I was referring to slasher movies predominantly. And yes they are desperately trying to defend themselves, but they can be cool or badass about it. Take Nancy Thompson setting up booby traps everywhere to get Freddy. Yes, she's scared, but she bravely fights back and wins. That's what I meant about kicking ass. Even in the original Black Christmas, Jess showed she was capable by defeating Peter in the end. Granted, he wasn't the killer. But when it looked for all the world like he was, she ended up defeating him. Again, she was scared. But she won anyway. Though, from what I've heard, it doesn't sound like this version will do it anywhere near as well as the original movies do. I don't really care about the 'woke culture' spoiling this movie. As I've said in various threads previously, women have been kicking ass in horror movies for decades. You'd struggle to find a slasher movie made since 1980 where they haven't. My worry is more that they're bigging up the women fighting back angle like it's something new and different. It's not, it's existing in horror movies for decades. You wonder how many slasher films the makers have watched before. Also, the fact that they are fighting back at all implies that they reveal who Billy is. When the interesting part of the firtst movie is that nobody knew who Billy was. You never saw him. Seems an odd attitude to me. Especially when you consider that slasher films have always had final girls who survive. Pick pretty much any slasher movie from the 1980s, and there'll be a female lead who ends up bravely defeating the villain. I hate the idea that they have now that this is some radical new idea. Women have always kicked ass in horror movies. From your Ripley in the Alien films, to Nancy Thompson (and several others) in A Nightmare On Elm Street, to Kirsty Cotton in Hellraiser. I'm just naming a few of the famous ones. There's plenty of others. This sounds like a cynical way of trying to make something that has always existed sound modern. In a way, it kind of insults the movies that went before. Slasher Movies were having strong female characters who kicked ass before lots of other movies were, so why pretend otherwise. Instead of pretending it is something that was just invented for this movie, why not just have a continuation of it as a slasher tradition? If anything, it just suggests that the people making it don't know the first thing about slasher movies, which almost confirms what people had already suggested. That this movie is most likely going to suck. And as for aiming it at young girls. I mean, I can only assume that their intentions are good and they want to give young people good role models. And though I'll applaud it if that's what they're trying to do, it still makes me think that the movie will suck. Most generations of kids have had at least big horror franchise that they've wanted to see or tried to see sneakily because they were told it was too old for them. That's a natural part of growing up. Aiming it at kids seems a weird idea. You can't have a horror movie that adults tell you it's safe to watch, it just feels forced. Watch A Nightmare On Elm Street or something. You'll get to see a brave, intelligent, independent woman that you can learn life lessons from without it being all parenty. Just opinion, I guess. But I feel the complete opposite. The story in the original has more mystery and leaves a lot unexplained, which makes it more interesting and sinister to me. The remake feels generic. I preferred the cast in the original to the remake, not counting Andrea Martin obviously who was in both movies. Even Margot Kidder. Her not being in the remake is a complaint from me, not a benefit. Each to their own. I don't think we can blame this show too much for Traylor Howard's recent lack of work. She went on to be in several seasons of Monk afterwards. It's not like she did this and never worked again. Despite what people seem to think nowadays, how a film does at the Box Office doesn't necessarily indicate the quality of the movie. I'd say that was probably even truer pre-internet. There wouldn't have been forums like this one or Twitter or anything like that to create a buzz for a movie. You relied on TV advertisement, and maybe posters on busses or at the cinema to tell you what was coming out. If a movie wasn't advertised very well, less people would go and see it irregardless of the quality of the film. Also, as has been stated, if it came out at the same time as a lot of bigger movies that were getting more publicity, that would've also harmed it. This won't have been the only film that has been released that did poor at the Box Office but got critical acclaim once it was out on video/DVD or started airing on television. I quite liked Egghead. I'll try to take over the world, by stealing all the eggs. View all replies >