It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
That said, I'm glad they gave him the two films to put his own stamp on the franchise. I think the studio forced him too much into a certain box with the Halloween remake, and I think he's even said as much, but I thoroughly enjoyed Halloween II and would rank it as possibly the best sequel in the entire franchise. That film clearly isn't keeping in line much with what Carpenter created, but I liked that they actually did a film that focused on the aftermath of one of Myers' massacres, dealing with the destruction that was left in his path as Laurie, Annie, Loomis, and Brackett (who was portrayed wonderfully by Brad Dourif) were forced to pick up the pieces following the events of the remake rather than jumping ahead a year and acting as though nothing had happened.
I couldn't have put it better. :) Sara Paxton has also been in Static & Cheap Thrills, but I haven't seen those two. I have them on DVD, but it's a case of so many films I want to see, and not enough hours in a day to see them. It doesn't help that I keep buying or adding new films to my 'want to see' list.
Admittedly it’s been a while since I took my collection of 80’s slashers out for a spin but I second the suggestions so far. I think the original Friday the 13th is a must and it’s not really gory, although certainly effective when it put its mind to it. Though somewhat clunky, it also slowly builds an uneasy mood to be enjoyed well before the slightly underwhelming final act. Speaking of effective gore you might also want to check out the work of Tom Savini in The Prowler, though I remember that one being a bit more nasty.
In a slightly different vein there are also films like Hell Night and in particularly The Funhouse, adding more grotesque, monstrous touches to the proceedings. I would also suggest Happy Birthday to Me and He Knows You’re Alone, rather early and not particularly gory films that at least attempts to blend the emerging Slasher formula with plotting and characterizations the commercial success of the more straightforward Friday the 13th and its followers soon made redundant. He Knows You’re Alone also reportedly offers Tom Hanks’ big screen debut, it you’re into those sorts of things.
To the best of my recollection, yes. Not many shocks but an ambiguous story with a pensive, claustrophobic, eerie, bleak and somewhat unsettling atmosphere. I haven’t seen the remake but it might be interesting to do so.
@JennyFlex, one thing you might want to stay away from is Paranormal Activity. Don't believe the hype!! It's about as exciting as watching me eating soup. To summarize PA:
Camera switches on.
Let's go to bed.
Did you hear something?
Wake up: you're sure you didn't hear something?
Let's go to bed.
(Repeat the previous three lines about six times. Sometimes some physical stuff happens. But not much.)
End of film. Seriously, no climax besides the obvious.
Terrible. The horror experience is in having to sit through this dull movie. What gets half the American population so excited about PA is beyond me. I mean, I know that superstition, magic and false spiritualism have returned from the Dark Ages and seem more popular than ever before. I know that even educated people consult fortune tellers rather than their real doctors (emphasis on 'real') nowadays. But even then, do folks really dig this nonsense? "Yeah, I like, saw that Paranormal Activity film. I'm like, that's like in OUR house, man! We have a ghost for real. I ain't foolin' ya, I swear, stuff's real y'know." My ex-girlfriend consulted a fortune teller once too. I discovered that after the facts. Strike one towards our inevitable breakup. Still, I don't mind a good ghost movie. The Innkeepers is a fair example of that. But here's what the Innkeepers has going for it compared to PA:
- It doesn't have to rely on the "found footage" craze to be a good film.
- People actually sat down for more than half an hour to write a decent job.
- Real actors are involved.
- Music, camera work, sets, ... are all thought about.
- It doesn't require a cheap scare every five minutes just to please the attention disordered crowd. (Offensive? Sorry, then stop ruining my theatrical experiences.)
- ...
I recall having read a review of a supposed Halloween 3D script that continued on from where Rob Zombie's Halloween II left off. Might have been the same one, as I remember it being just completely absurd with a lot of random nonsense happening just for the sake of it.
Also, I never understood exactly how they were planning to make a Halloween 3 in the Rob Zombie universe anyway,
I think if:
Still, the only thing standing between them bringing back Myers for a third Rob Zombie Halloween film and not is simple logic, which is certainly something that's never gotten in the way of bringing forth a horror sequel. ;)
He really has proved himself with the horror genre (he was also good as the awkward actor in 'You're Next'), I'd love to see him get to handle a big film like 'Halloween' in his own way.
Everyone seemed to love it but me, and most of the reviews reflect the majority opinion that it is better than the first. I still say the first was leagues better.
On another note, does anyone miss the 70's/80's horror films that contained a lot of likable characters? I feel like well over half of the horror movies I've watched from the 21st Century contain tons of unlikable people. Doesn't make it easy for me to connect with anyone or hope for the survival of a certain character.
Nice to meet a fan of He Knows You're Alone, somewhat obscure and low-key (well, for a slasher) but I found it a pleasant surprise. It's probably been about 10 years since I saw Happy Birthday to Me but while I recall some bizarre, gory moments (not to mention a decidedly macabre scene) I don't believe there was anything too intense. Allegedly the MPAA had a hand in that, but nonetheless. Hope you'll like it if you give it a try.
I miss that as well. I think that's a huge reason why today's horror films aren't really all that scary, as there aren't any characters for the audience to have a real vested interest in over the course of the film.
I think a prime example of that was 2009's Friday the 13th. I love what Derek Mears' did in the role of Jason, and to be honest, the film itself wasn't all that bad in terms of story, plot construction, etc. The problem there was that there was a big lack of likeable characters, which got me to a point where I was almost rooting for Jason. I think the only character in that film that I really cared what happened to her was Danielle Panabaker's character, as she was about the only one that didn't come across like a self-centered, entitled jerk.
And this is a problem in a good number of horror films
I liked both Panabaker and Padalecki in the film. It was nice having the latter survive a horror movie finally. They made a really good pairing in a really great film. Then, you had your typical, cliche horror characters: the pot smoker, the whore, the token black guy, the rude jock, etc.
Another great thing about horror films from the 70's and 80's: there was no hour-long buildup to a few moments of suspense and horror. They tend to jump right into it. Just started 'Black Christmas' and that's exactly how it seems to be. Same with 'The Fog' when I watched it, and the excellent 'Halloween' and 'The Thing.' They get right down to it.
Also, here are more blu-ray details for 'See No Evil 2,' along with the trailer:
http://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=14616
TOTALLY @Creasy47 ....in fact i watched one last night that i had recorded,an Aussie horror called 'Primal',and i had to wait a fairly long time and be patient with it,as it started off so stereotypical and predictable.
The characters were pretty hateful and i couldnt care less if they were all butchered and eaten.
The film did improve and was quite enjoyable with a good ending as well,but,no,generally i have switched off from watching quite a few horrors recently due to the film being half way through and i sit there thinking 'why am i watching this ,im getting nothing from it ?'.
When I watch some of those reboots or remakes, I usually do so strictly out of interest. Let me see, I watched Invasion Of The Body Snatchers, both the Siegel and the Kaufman film, in the double digits, whereas The Invasion I have watched only twice, the second time for the sake of writing a small revue in our Last Movie thread. The Wolfman, starring Lon Chaney Jr, I have watched at least five times. That Benicio Del Toro remake? Once. Gus Van Sant's Psycho remake: once. And it'll stay that way. Carrie is a exception, because I adore Chloe Grace Moretz. ;-)
It's why I've found myself solely focusing on watching older horror films now for entertainment, and newer ones (remakes, reboots, the generic 'new' film, etc.) for, like you said, interest or curiosity. I don't think I'll bother with the 'Rosemary's Baby' remake, but I do love Saldana and Isaacs, so I might give it a shot. But, of course, I'll go into it knowing it won't capture what the original did. In terms of psychological horror, I can't think of too many films where almost every scene counts or means something like it did in 'Rosemary's Baby.' All of the events connected and everything was a clue, so the smallest of conversations or favors in the movie had a dark, sinister meaning behind it.
The Innkeepers
American Mary
Hatchet II
Curse Of Chucky
You're Next
While the previous decade had the likes of:
May
Outpost
House Of The Devil
Friday The 13th
Toolbox Murders
The Woods
Triangle
The Descent
30 Days Of Night
Ginger Snaps
Dog Soldier
I don't have a favourite decade, as each one has had its gems.
That Psycho remake was something else. It's hard to imagine how something that is essentially a shot-for-shot remake of the original can turn out that much worse than the original. I think a lot of it was down to the casting, which saw virtually every major role miscast, except for William H. Macy, who did a great job as Arbogast.
I actually liked the remake of Carrie, although I'd agree that it lacked a certain punch. I think had they not gone ahead and given it a different visual look, as opposed to the cliched music-video look that a lot of these remakes tend to have, then it might have come off a bit better. At times it felt rather sterile and soulless, but it also had its good moments as well, and you couldn't really ask for a better duo to take over from Spacek and Laurie than Moretz and Moore.
I haven't seen the original, but I loved the remake, and I've seen quite a few people who said they prefer it to the original, as surprising as that is.
@WillyGalore, I love Liev Schreiber, but I haven't bothered with the remake. The original is too good that the remake can only be disappointing.