|
Post by tsmooth31 on Jul 9, 2007 0:40:19 GMT -5
and what did you think of it??
|
|
|
Post by lazario on Jul 9, 2007 19:52:40 GMT -5
I don't know...
I've been watching some DVD's but not actually sitting through the entire movies.
I did see almost all of the Nightmare on Elm Street movies from parts 2 through 6. I liked them all at least a little.
|
|
|
Post by tsmooth31 on Jul 9, 2007 19:58:36 GMT -5
i never sat through a full nightmare on elm street..just always catch parts of them..
lately i have been watching movies from a set called 50 chilling classics..50 movies for about 20$$ you would think are all garbage but it actually has alot of good movies..if your into older lower budget movies..
|
|
|
Post by lazario on Jul 9, 2007 20:00:49 GMT -5
Like... Carnival of Souls? Night of the Living Dead? Dementia 13? Little Shop of Horrors?
One of those sets?
|
|
|
Post by tsmooth31 on Jul 9, 2007 20:26:50 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by lazario on Jul 9, 2007 20:34:28 GMT -5
Okay, I just read some of the movies in that set and I have to ask... What are the Audio/Video qualities like for most of the movies in that set? Are the movies really grainy? Does the sound of their voices and music scratch the speakers a lot?
|
|
|
Post by tsmooth31 on Jul 9, 2007 20:41:02 GMT -5
the video quality is a little fuzzy and grainy on them..mostly the lower budget ones..but that doeasnt really bother me much..the adio quality is better..havent really had any problems their..on a few of the movies you hear a little pop and sometimes a scratch but its no big deal at all..the only prob i had was with a bell from hell..the sounds so really muffled up and hard to understand..but its a great set for the price you pay..
|
|
|
Post by lazario on Jul 9, 2007 20:49:57 GMT -5
How much did you pay for it? Do you remember? (without me checking the link again)
|
|
|
Post by tsmooth31 on Jul 9, 2007 21:48:12 GMT -5
it goes for about 20$ everywhere..i think it was like 18.99..not sure exactly..but pretty much when it comes down to it its like spending 40-50 cents a movie..easily worth it to me even if they arent the best print
|
|
|
Post by lazario on Jul 10, 2007 7:52:46 GMT -5
Well, one of the reasons that I would never buy one of those things, other than the fact that I've been burned before (by AMC/Genius's horrible 4-movie Cult Classics packs, the quality was nightmarish!), is that a lot of times, the movies on those sets are not the full versions. They're often less than Public Domain condition, the companies don't usually digitally remaster the movies.
Or maybe I'm just a stickler for quality. I don't know.
|
|
|
Post by Evil Dave on Jul 10, 2007 8:17:15 GMT -5
I just finished watching two remakes of some classic 70's horror flicks, The Hills Have Eyes and Black Christmas. I gotta say "The Hills" remake actually might be better than the original. I'd have to watch it again before I'm sure. Unfortunately, I can't say the same for the reworking of Black Christmas. This piece is only slightly better than "Jason X" as far as slasher films go. And as we all know, that ain't sayin' much!
|
|
|
Post by lazario on Jul 10, 2007 8:39:05 GMT -5
I just finished watching two remakes of some classic 70's horror flicks, The Hills Have Eyes and Black Christmas. I gotta say "The Hills" remake actually might be better than the original. I would say "bite your tongue," but I was basically slamming Hills in a way when I said Last House was better. But anyway, there are still far too many qualities of Hills that no dumbs hit Alexandre-Aja (who hasn't directed 1 good horror movie yet) can top the original. Even if the 'Desert-Cannibal' family in the movie could stand some improvement. Anyway, remakes will never work unless they actually remake a movie that sucked.
|
|
|
Post by Evil Dave on Jul 10, 2007 9:04:26 GMT -5
Well I will agree with you that Last House is a better film. And I usually avoid remakes of any movie of any genre like the plague, but I do have to say I thought this one actually did improve on the original. My reasoning is as follows: For the most part, they stuck to the original storyline (which is good 'cuz I've always thought the original screenplay was brilliantly paced). The only major plotline that was changed was that the mutant clan lives in the nuclear test town instead of caves and tents, which I found to be a very clever and creepy touch. And when they did add some story to the original I thought it was a vast improvement. I always wished they had done more with Doug's journey to recover his stolen baby, and the remake definitely delivers on that! These added scenes give the viewer a much higher emotional investment in the outcome. I remember the crowd in the theater actually clapping and cheering when Doug finally got the upper hand in his bloody-great battle with Pluto. And my final point of improvement is simply, the gore! While the original was quite horrifying on atmosphere and context, the low-budget gore lets you down after you know what's coming. Whether somebody likes this movie or not, you have to admit the blood & guts were pretty terrific (especially in the unrated version). We see bone chips from an axe to the skull, a pick axe driven into an eye socket, one of the most visceral bullets to the head ever, and I thought the eyes turning white during the "burnt alive" scene was a great touch. I will say that the dead dog in the remake looked much cheesier. But that's of course because in the original they used an actual dead German Shepard(in case someone already didn't know that - i'm not kidding, it's a real dead dog). Anyways, I hope I've made some valid points as I really do think they got this one right. But that's the great thing 'bout movies, everybody sees 'em a little differently!
|
|
|
Post by tsmooth31 on Jul 10, 2007 16:47:51 GMT -5
Well, one of the reasons that I would never buy one of those things, other than the fact that I've been burned before (by AMC/Genius's horrible 4-movie Cult Classics packs, the quality was nightmarish!), is that a lot of times, the movies on those sets are not the full versions. They're often less than Public Domain condition, the companies don't usually digitally remaster the movies.
Or maybe I'm just a stickler for quality. I don't know.
well i can say that i know most of the movies are full versions..there is a few foreign movies that are edited..but for the most part you are getting full movies
also with the talk about the hills have eyes...i liked them both..overall i think the original was better but like dave said the gore in the remake was pretty good..although i have never seen the unrated version..only saw it in the theater
|
|
|
Post by Evil Dave on Jul 10, 2007 19:36:30 GMT -5
Here's a list I compiled of extra shots you see in the unrated version of "The Hills" remake: *There are a few more shots of the 2nd to last radiation guy being slammed into the rocks by a very visible Pluto. *Maybe two or three seconds more of the Gas Station guy blowing his head off. *About a 5 second shot of Big Bob's hand and wrist (tied) burning away and then a close up on his face a neck, where his eyes turn white and his skin is starting to burn away on the side. ;D *A longer shot of Lizard pouring the bird's blood into his mouth and onto his face. (about 6 seconds longer) *Another quick shot of Lizard hitting Pluto with the gun. (about 4 seconds) *A few extra seconds of the pillow fight. *A tiny bit longer of Brenda getting hit and then her finger in the blinds of the window. There were also some minor shots switched around. Nothing important, but some were reversed. (about 5 seconds) *A point of view shot of the gun being pointed at the baby's face and another shot of Lynn's reaction. (about 6 seconds) ;D *A slight above shot of the gun being pointed right at Lynn's forehead and then her being shot. Also there is one more quick shot of blood splattering, and her falling to the floor. Here the shots were switched a bit also. Instead of first seeing the baby's mobile with blood on it and then Brenda screaming, they are switched. (about 3 seconds without factoring in the switched shots) *Maybe a second or more extra of the shot with Doug's fingers being chopped off. *A shot that is below Pluto's head looking up after Doug slams the ax in his head, where little pieces fall down towards the camera. And about a second more of a shot right before he pulls it out. This shot is worth the price of the DVD alone. ;D *About 6 more seconds of Doug grinding the axe into the Cyst's back. And then the infamous close-up of the spiked end on the pick axe after it has been driven into the eye of the Cyst. *An extra bit when Jupiter is eating the mother's heart. Right before he notices Bobby, he takes another bite or two and then looks at him. Also about a second or so of the mother's split open rib cage. *When Doug swings and hits Lizard with the shotgun, there is a shot of Doug slowly walking over towards him. Then he hits him 5 times instead of 3. *Doug shoots Lizard 3 times with the shotgun instead of 2. The first shot is to his stomach, the second shot is to his neck which gives about 3 satisfying spurts, and the third is to his left shoulder. ;D --If you're ever compelled to buy the remake, this is the version to own. If you have HBO, this is also the version I believe that they've been showing.
|
|
maycanady
SERIAL KILLER
????#???? ?$ ??????+?????? ????? ????????? ?
Posts: 600
|
Post by maycanady on Jul 13, 2007 20:53:29 GMT -5
I just finished watching Saw 2...for a sequel it's not bad, I guess. It could have been better, for sure, but it wasn't horrible.
|
|
|
Post by tsmooth31 on Jul 13, 2007 23:03:37 GMT -5
yea part 2 was a bit of a letdown for me..not a bad movie but not nearly as good as the first..i thought part 3 was alot better then 2
|
|
|
Post by Evil Dave on Jul 14, 2007 2:43:03 GMT -5
i agree
|
|
maycanady
SERIAL KILLER
????#???? ?$ ??????+?????? ????? ????????? ?
Posts: 600
|
Post by maycanady on Jul 14, 2007 10:21:55 GMT -5
I have Saw 3 coming to me next from Netflix, so I'm hoping it will be better than 2. It looks pretty promising from the trailer I saw, so here's hoping. ;D
|
|
lowkey
SERIAL KILLER
Posts: 574
|
Post by lowkey on Jul 14, 2007 21:02:36 GMT -5
The last movie I watched was Dawn of the Dead, for like the billionth time. I never get tired of it, or Night.
Speaking of remakes, anyone here a fan of Mystery of the Wax Museum and/or House of Wax? This is one of the few cases I can say that the remake surpassed the original. Vincent Price always did good work.
I also think Christopher Lee did a better Dracula than Bela Lugosi, and that's saying a lot. Lugosi pretty much got it perfect to begin with, but somehow Lee managed to surpass him.
|
|