maycanady
SERIAL KILLER
????#???? ?$ ??????+?????? ????? ????????? ?
Posts: 600
|
Post by maycanady on Aug 20, 2007 9:04:39 GMT -5
Just watched Return To Oz (1985). That movie scared the crap out of me as a kid and it's still creepy now.
|
|
|
Post by lazario on Aug 20, 2007 13:35:54 GMT -5
watched: John Landis's Innocent Blood (1992) about 2 days ago. And, as usual, had a BLAST! This is pure entertainment and a guaranteed good time!
|
|
|
Post by lazario on Aug 23, 2007 0:52:02 GMT -5
Ghost World (2001) - probably the best movie of the new millennium thus far.
|
|
|
Post by Evil Dave on Aug 24, 2007 1:22:10 GMT -5
Wolfen (1981) - well... This was every bit as amazing as Evil Dave seemed to signal it was. Of course, though, I have problems with it (naturally). I didn't like the fact that some of the killings didn't fit the logic pattern the movie came up with at the end, the music score was too old fashioned and screeching, and that scene with the naked bridge-worker guy was just plain dumb. Glad to hear you enjoyed it Laz. One of my all time favs.
|
|
|
Post by Evil Dave on Aug 24, 2007 1:23:30 GMT -5
Just watched Return To Oz (1985). That movie scared the crap out of me as a kid and it's still creepy now. I totally agree May.
|
|
|
Post by lazario on Aug 28, 2007 2:19:17 GMT -5
Ghost World, again. Impossibly-fascinating movie. You just can't turn it off. It practically watches itself while you're sitting there. If you haven't seen it, you're SERIOUSLY missing out! Slums of Beverly Hills (1998) - worth checking out in case you haven't. Not very funny, but definitely interesting, well-made, very well acted, and entertaining. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Guess Who? (2005) - yeah, the interracial dating comedy with Ashton Kutcher and Bernie Mac. It was much better than I expected it. Not as goofy as most of A.K.'s stuff. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Slugs (1987) - not very good. But also not as bad as I expected. Not as gory as I was told it was, which I must admit disappointed me. But the scenes of people being attacked were very intense. Actually, it was completely pointless, but I expected it to be cringe-worthy because of the fact that the director is the same guy who did the infamously bad Euro-shock film, Pieces. The dubbing was the most embarassing thing about the movie. I may need another watch with this one to fully get it. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Squirm (1976) - GREAT! Sorry, you guys, but you were dead wrong about this movie. It was very good. The acting was only so-so, but I was expecting that. It's a movie about killer worms. You knew that, right? The logic is a little bent, sure. That didn't bother me. And it could have probably used some more shots of the worms eating people... but the film absolutely held my attention throughout the entire thing. It literally was never boring. And was very creepy at the end. The director seemed to know there wasn't going to be a lot of FX or gore, so he really staged the scare scenes in the movie as being half worm-attack / half human-attack. And I very well may have nightmares about Roger. I don't know how you guys got this one mistaken, but you surely did. It's a good movie.
|
|
|
Post by tsmooth31 on Aug 28, 2007 15:15:31 GMT -5
nope squirm was terrible..it was cliche all the way to the ending...and it wasnt even a fun movie it was just boring..watch the MST3K version...its 100 times better
|
|
|
Post by lazario on Aug 29, 2007 9:20:03 GMT -5
You are incorrect. Squirm was very good.
|
|
|
Post by tsmooth31 on Aug 29, 2007 20:54:53 GMT -5
if by very good you mean terrible then you are right ...there wasnt one good thing about that movie except when the credits rolled
|
|
|
Post by lazario on Aug 29, 2007 21:52:13 GMT -5
That is untrue. The movie was good. You are wrong.
And if I have to say you're speaking out against the movie because you don't know horror..., I will.
|
|
|
Post by tsmooth31 on Aug 29, 2007 23:59:41 GMT -5
i know horror...i also know horrible...acting was bad..the main character was some dumb nerd.. the movie didnt even make sense..it was all cliche down to the dumb ending..plus they were just regular worms..that would be nothing to panic over..you have to really fail hard if you cant even make a good movie about killer worms
|
|
|
Post by lazario on Aug 30, 2007 0:45:31 GMT -5
The acting didn't have to be good, but it wasn't that bad. You are wrong.
The main character was a nerd? What the hell do you care? What does it matter? It doesn't.
The movie didn't have to make sense either to be effective. Which it was.
And it was ANYTHING but cliche.
You really didn't get it. Either you need to watch it again or you've only seen the MST3K version. You are wrong, sorry.
|
|
|
Post by tsmooth31 on Aug 30, 2007 2:12:06 GMT -5
the whole thing was cliche...and i did see the non MST3K version..sadly i bought the movie and was quick to trade it in for something better...and the nerdy little sissy main guy ruined the movie..although he was great to pick apart in the MST3K version..you seem to be one of the only people who like it..as you were the only who didnt like house of 1000 corpses...so it looks like its you who doesnt know horror if its any1..although i would never say someone doesnt know horror based off what movies they like..its all about opinion..i only say it since you brought it up
|
|
|
Post by lazario on Aug 30, 2007 2:39:23 GMT -5
the whole thing was cliche... Uh, no it was not. Do you even remember what happened in the 2nd half of the movie? That is not cliched. And even if it was, that doesn't stop the creepy scenes at the end from being incredibly well-staged and planned out. and the nerdy little sissy main guy ruined the movie Um, for who? And don't call him a sissy. And again, drop this "nerd" crap. If you think he's a nerd - who cares? I don't. He wore glasses. He's not exactly the first character in a movie to wear glasses. He was kind of skinny. Again, not the first time in a horror movie we see a skinny guy. What is your point? I doubt you even have one. you seem to be one of the only people who like it Sure I was. That's why nationally reknowned film historian and critic Leonard Maltin (of Entertainment Tonight, Hot Ticket, has appeared on over half a dozen DVD's, and has had DOZENS of books on film published) gave it 3 out of 4 stars. The Los Angeles Times also raved about it. Not exactly a fly-by-night publication, either. as you were the only who didnt like house of 1000 corpses Okay, you are literally high on marijuana right now. Everything about that movie was weak. Except 2 scenes in the movie: A) the roller coaster / haunted-fun house ride thing through that Museum of oddities place at the Chicken & Gas guy's place, B) the Firefly girl's "I Wanna Be Loved By You" (?) musical number - which was admittedly very off-putting, compelling, and well-done. Then, I will also give credit to a couple more little things about the movie: A) the shots of the girl's Father's house where outside you see the little trick or treaters on the street (kinda cool, nostalgic, and reminiscent of TV-aired Halloween specials), B) that moment where Bill Moseley shoots the cop as the camera is showing an arial / Bird's Eye view of the cop down on the ground right when he slowly shoots him to death, and C) that oddly watchable little scene where Firefly goes to get beer or something and flirts with that guy at the counter. Other than that, the entire film is an awkwardly assembled, rickety, fall-apart trash compilation of clips that are not in any way well-made. The characters are all stupid, the actors can't act at all and are completely annoying. None of them are capable of doing anything but being annoying (although that guy who played Otis in Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer tried - and inevitably failed). so it looks like its you who doesnt know horror if its any1..although i would never say someone doesnt know horror based off what movies they like Um, bull shit. You can't come up with adequate reasons for why Corpses is good and Squirm is not. You can't just say it's cliched without examples. And at least I can provide examples for why Corpses is bad. Therefore... I think I know horror pretty da mn well. If a 3rd party took a good look at this conversation, they would have to say that I've actually done my homework. And Squirm was very good and highly watchable. The girl who played Geri was a completely effective performer with a great face, the other actors did their dialects / accents very well, the photography was good, the editing was very tense, there was great use of shadow and lighting, and that guy playing Roger goes from creep to sympathetic loser to what almost looks like evil, possessed Master of the Worms somehow. You really didn't get into the spirit of the movie. Which means it's your fault the movie didn't work for you. The movie was a lot better put together than House of 1,000 Corpses. People here only liked it because it's trendy, made by Rob Zombie, and it's too new to get on MST3K. Try watching them have a go at it and getting away with telling me it's good because "more people like it than Squirm." When I think about those last 18 or so minutes of Squirm, I can still feel it. It worked.
|
|
|
Post by Evil Dave on Aug 30, 2007 5:16:55 GMT -5
^^^Lol..............Squirm..........
|
|
|
Post by lazario on Aug 30, 2007 10:28:21 GMT -5
I guess I know how you guys feel. But it's still good. If it weren't, I wouldn't have seen so much good in it. I'm not stupid. Although, I'm sure it looks as though I'm carrying on like a stupid person. I'm very perceptive and I understand a lot about horror. You can say whatever you want to about me, but watch what you say about the movie or I will have to correct you. Bad habit? Or duty I accept on behalf of good horror movies everywhere? You decide.
Seriously though, when I see something good, I have to stick up for it. Those scenes in that dark house were COMPLETELY scary, creepy, and well done. And the townspeople weren't that dumb, and there was nothing especially wrong with the lead actor guy. So, cut it out. Forget what those MST3K people said. If you believe everything they say, you're stupid. Because they've also thrown the book at what many people feel is the greatest horror film ever made, Night of the Living Dead. MST3K is supposed to be fun - you're not supposed to take them this seriously. And they would be the first people to tell you that. You're shaming them, not doing a tribute.
|
|
|
Post by Evil Dave on Aug 31, 2007 2:09:10 GMT -5
Lol............Squirm............again
|
|
|
Post by tsmooth31 on Aug 31, 2007 4:37:47 GMT -5
well i actully saw squirm before i even got into MST3K..so they didnt influence me..it was a predictable boring movie..you knew that dirty perv hick roger was gonna go crazy and die..and you knew little sissy boy would save the day..the scenes inbetween were boring and dumb..now lets stop talking about this pathetic excuse for a movie
|
|
|
Post by lazario on Sept 1, 2007 9:07:14 GMT -5
No, because it's not a bad movie. And there was no way you could tell Roger was going to go crazy. It's a movie about killer worms, not Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer. So, you're a big, fat liar if you say you knew. Which you clearly didn't. And, how did you know the day would be saved? If you really paid attention to the movie, you would have seen that the movie was All Signs Pointing to the ending not being a happy one.
If you thought it was boring and dumb, it's because you didn't try to give the movie a chance. Which is not the movie's fault. So, back off the movie already. You clearly have no clue what you're talking about.
|
|
lowkey
SERIAL KILLER
Posts: 574
|
Post by lowkey on Sept 1, 2007 12:02:30 GMT -5
LOL Roger had psycho, stalker written all over him the moment he stepped on-screen. It might as well have been tatooed on his forehead. I was pretty drunk when I watched this, and saw something like that coming.
|
|