/horror/ general megathread - Let's talk about movies and shit.

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
The Nothingness said:
Both cuts of Exorcist 3 (theatrical and director's) have their strengths and flaws. It's a matter of taste for which one you prefer.
Click to expand...
I do not accept the "director's cut" as reflecting Blatty's true vision, but I appreciated the concept. With better takes, camera angles, editing, and complete sound design, I could get behind that ending.

Hopefully AI algos will help people make better fan edits in the future.
 
frozen_runner said:
I do not accept the "director's cut" as reflecting Blatty's true vision, but I appreciated the concept. With better takes, camera angles, editing, and complete sound design, I could get behind that ending.

Hopefully AI algos will help people make better fan edits in the future.
Click to expand...
I want a Bayformers with the G1 gang instead of the scrap metal monsters
also Shia gets domed in every scene he's in
 
Watching JLongbone's video on the original and latest remake of Silent Night Deadly Night shows just how far slashers have fallen.

Instead of a simple story of a man snapping after years of trauma, this version decides to have Billy be Dexter Morgan and only kill bad people. How does he know they're bad? Because the guy who killed his parents, I shit you not, transferred his spirit into Billy and now he knows if people have been bad or good (you know, like Santa). Oh and the reason Billy's parents were killed is because they poisoned Grandpa to get his money.

The guy behind this remake also did the Wrong Turn remake where the mountain people are not inbred cannibals but are living in a socialist paradise.
 
Last edited:
The Nothingness said:
Instead of a simple story of a man snapping after years of trauma, this version decides to have Billy be Dexter Morgan and only kill bad people. How does he know they're bad?
Click to expand...
What years of trauma? I don't remember Billy getting any sort of background in the original. We don't even see him, we just see his eye. Right? Am I finally going old lady crazy.
 
Norman Bates and Patrick Bates being both unrelated characters in their movies each called Psycho takes the cake for 'same name' confusion.

Watched Primate. Probably the only good January movie. Wanted a chimp chimping out on a B movie and I got it. Sped past a barely-there plot after 10 mins and the movie spends all the runtime on the kills.
Also was dragged to see the Bone Temple recently and like the others already mentioned, its a weird movie. I don't know how to describe it. Feels like a good kind of weird? I liked it better than 28 Years Later if that says something.
 
Tried to watch Haunting of Margam Castle. Legit couldn't finish it because the acting and effects were awful and the costuming even more so. The modern suit as a Victorian era outfit was offensive as well.

Then I tried watching The possession of Hannah Grace and while that supposedly is in a Boston Hospital about 85% of the characters was a shit skin. I fucking couldn't deal with it. The setting had potential.

Don't recommend either of these.
 
Spooky all year said:
Tried to watch Haunting of Margam Castle. Legit couldn't finish it because the acting and effects were awful and the costuming even more so. The modern suit as a Victorian era outfit was offensive as well.

Then I tried watching The possession of Hannah Grace and while that supposedly is in a Boston Hospital about 85% of the characters was a shit skin. I fucking couldn't deal with it. The setting had potential.

Don't recommend either of these.
Click to expand...
I assume if you're scraping the barrel, you've already seen Stonehearst Asylum and The Ward? They're a fair bit better than those.

Taking the opportunity to shill Frankenstein and the Monster from Hell (a Hammer joint) since it has an asylum setting and is pretty underappreciated but obvs the focus is not 100% on that.
 
frozen_runner said:
Which is why it might be great. I can overlook the standard Hollywood race bullshit if the action remains that good and funny throughout.

Let me put it like this: Danny Boyle is an atheist shitlib who tried to use the previous film to make thematic points about Brexit and racism or whatever, and because he's a good filmmaker, you could overlook that quite easily and enjoy what was a weird as hell, creative zombie movie. Some liked how strange it was, others did not.

The Bone Temple is well-directed by Nia Dacosta, but Garland wrote this one as well, so it has the same DNA as the first film. But it's far more character focused than the first (which felt like it was about ideas, not characters), so, outside of some throwaway lines at the end that seem directed at the audience, you again get an interesting, weird film.

It moves between tones in an unexpected and strange way: some will hate this, others will accept it. It is unapologetically, strangely funny and surreal at times. It also commits the horrible sin of letting the subject matter naturally evolve away from the compelling, initial premise of the series (a straight up zombie movie), and others won't like that.

If you didn't like 28 Years Later, you aren't going to like this, because it's more of that, including a ton of unerotic nudity.
Click to expand...
Saw this yesterday and thought it was way better than 28 Years. The plot didn't include two or three separate story lines mashed together and was way tighter in pacing and focus. They leave some plot lines from 28 Years and pickup on others and finish them.

I thought Jack O'connell's performance was really good, his conversation with Ralph Fiennes when they first meet was strangely amusing when you realize just how full of shit this guy really is.

"It moves between tones in an unexpected and strange way: some will hate this, others will accept it. It is unapologetically, strangely funny and surreal at times. It also commits the horrible sin of letting the subject matter naturally evolve away from the compelling, initial premise of the series (a straight up zombie movie), and others won't like that."

I tend to enjoy absurdity, so this film was pretty funny for me and I'm glad you pointed this out.

"But it's far more character focused than the first (which felt like it was about ideas, not characters), so, outside of some throwaway lines at the end that seem directed at the audience, you again get an interesting, weird film."

Yeah, Cillian Murphy's lesson at the end was so obvious and cringe I rolled my eyes; also, did he have a kid with Naomi Harris' character? Is she gonna be in the next movie?

One last thing, not sure if this is a nitpick or super autist observation. How did the woman in the rafters of the barn manage to slide, throw, or otherwise thrust the metal hook with enough force to stick in the Jimima's head? That one had me scratching my head.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom