|
Post by Evil Dave on Sept 21, 2007 4:20:23 GMT -5
^^ You might be able to find it, but it'll probably be some crappy recording done by some shlep in a movie theater. If you're lucky though, sometimes you can find a dl of a demo tape sent out for video rental stores to preview. They're not too bad.
|
|
|
Post by tsmooth31 on Sept 21, 2007 4:22:36 GMT -5
^^ yea on wrong turn 2 which also hasnt been realeased i found a clean copy to download..only prob was it had a blurry strip along the bottom..obviously it was some type of screener versio or somethin and they blurred it out..didnt bother me all that much tho
|
|
|
Post by Evil Dave on Sept 21, 2007 4:29:33 GMT -5
lol, yeah they seem to think that little blurry crap or turning the screen grey every 20 minutes for 30 seconds will keep people from wanting to pirate the movie. Brilliant move guys.................And trusting those demo tapes to teenage video clerks is also really wise. LMAO!
|
|
|
Post by tsmooth31 on Sept 21, 2007 4:33:38 GMT -5
^^haha that is true..the way i see it is if i can get it for free with a little blury strip rather then pay to see it i will..if i was guaranteed to love the movie id have no prob buying it..but clearly there are no guarantees..and i get a sick little feeling every time i do a blind buy and the movie is garbage...its happened way to many times to me..anyway tho im gonna go watch sounds like..ill be back after or else later on in the day to give the brief review
|
|
|
Post by Evil Dave on Sept 21, 2007 4:37:39 GMT -5
Yeah I agree, especially when you're iffy on whether you'll like it or not. Not the best quality, but after 10 minutes you don't even notice it anyways. If it's something I really like I'll go out and pick it up eventually. If it's not then at least I don't contribute cash to people that continue to crank out crap movies.
Anyways, enjoy Sounds Like.
|
|
|
Post by tsmooth31 on Sept 21, 2007 5:40:50 GMT -5
^^yep thats the truth
anyway i just saw sounds like...its a very weird episode..basically a guys son dies and he takes it pretty hard..he always had really good hearing but after his son dies his hearing becomes superhuman like..thats the way they described it on the back of the box and it really is the best way to describe it..and it slowly drives him insane..it all leads up to a good fitting ending tho..i kinda saw the ending coming and i was partially right but it was still very good..overall tho it was a slower moving episode..not a whole lot happened..felt more like a twilight zone episode more then a MOH episode..no real gore or anything..it was also kinda sad/depressing...i guess thats the best way to desribe it..i would easily recommend it tho...ill watch the washingtonians later on 2nite or early 2morrow around this time and let you know what i thought of that..but sounds like deff gets the tsmooth seal of approval. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Evil Dave on Sept 22, 2007 1:48:26 GMT -5
cool, sounds fairly intriguing. I'll have to check it out after I watch the other episodes I dl'd. Thanks for the info T!
|
|
|
Post by tsmooth31 on Sept 22, 2007 2:20:41 GMT -5
no prob..i also watched hatchet..surprisingly i had a very clean copy..im not sure if you have seen all the hype for this movie...its being called the best slasher in the last decade..well it was clearly overhyped but it was a very fun movie..never really a dull moment...some great gore/kill scenes..a little comedy..and the very end kinda surprised me..but it did also have a number of our dreaded cliche's..i would deff think you would like it and would check it out if i were you..just dont fall for the whole best slasher in a decade garbage..i dont even know why they do that..they are just setting it up for failure..
|
|
|
Post by Evil Dave on Sept 22, 2007 2:28:22 GMT -5
Yeah I deff wanna see it now! You got a link to dl?
|
|
|
Post by tsmooth31 on Sept 22, 2007 2:41:23 GMT -5
yea it was actually that site you gave me torrent-finder.com...it was the first torrent labeled Hatchet___2006_Dvdrip_xvid_mp3_English
not sure if it was cut a little..imdb has it listed as 85 mins..it ran just over 80 mins..but imdb isnt always accurate..plus the kills were pretty graphic so it didnt sem cut
|
|
|
Post by Evil Dave on Sept 22, 2007 2:44:56 GMT -5
awesome, i found it and am dl'ing it right now. Thanx man!
|
|
|
Post by tsmooth31 on Sept 22, 2007 2:48:13 GMT -5
hey without you giving me the link in the first place i woulda never found it ...there was one thing that kinda bothered me at the end...i dont wanna say it now cuz i would spoil it but lemme know when you see it and what you thought then i will tell you..
|
|
|
Post by Evil Dave on Sept 22, 2007 2:56:43 GMT -5
Ok, I'll try to watch it sometime this weekend. I'll let ya know.
|
|
|
Post by lazario on Sept 22, 2007 5:26:13 GMT -5
^^^i wouldnt even see it as a backstory to the original...more of a backstory to the remake.. You know... you may have a point. The makers of "TCM: The Beginning" might actually have been so stupid that they thought they weren't touching on the original film at all. I think comparing him to Carpenter is a good idea, Laz. I've always felt those two's careers mirrored each other greatly. They both started out with a bang, but haven't ever really recreated it. In fact, much of their legend status as directors only exist because of those early successes. Without them, they'd probably just be considered better than average. If I had to give one the edge I'd give it to Hooper. Only because I like TCM 10 times better than Halloween. But that's just my taste. Most people have an eternal hard-on for Halloween. I'm just not one of them. But I do think it's one of the most important and influential additions the genre has ever had. So I do respect it. I think the same should be said of TCM. Whether you like it or not, there are literally at least 50 horror movies (if not, more) that never would have been made if the directors had not been inspired by, or copying TCM. I think Halloween gets better every time I see it. The first time I saw it, I wasn't impressed. But on DVD, and on repeated viewing, you really see all the little details that make it so effective.
|
|
|
Post by Evil Dave on Sept 22, 2007 5:48:00 GMT -5
Yeah I'm pretty harsh on Halloween most of the time, but to clarify, I do think it's a good movie. Just not as good as most people think it is.
|
|
|
Post by lazario on Sept 22, 2007 6:02:47 GMT -5
Well, I think I give it 4 stars everytime. I don't rave about most of the horror masterpieces because I think other people can prove their best points better than I can. Which is why I don't like to review them. But everytime I watch Halloween, I see a movie that is almost perfect for what it is. I don't know how it could be any better - other than if Jamie Lee Curtis's voice didn't waver in certain scenes. But I'm sure it was cold and she was very nervous onset a lot of the time. I'm sure that helped with her character being chased down for 25 minutes and everything.
|
|
|
Post by Evil Dave on Sept 22, 2007 6:10:04 GMT -5
I'll never understand how her role in that movie launched her career. They could've plugged just about anyone into that role if you think about it. Actually, I think Marilyn Burns' similar role in TCM was vastly superior to Curtis' in Halloween. Better looking, better scream, & a more expressive face. I don't know if I've ever seen an actress look more terrified than Marilyn's scene at the dinner table with the family. Jamie Lee's career should've been given to Ms. Burns IMO.
|
|
|
Post by lazario on Sept 22, 2007 6:19:51 GMT -5
I'll never understand how her role in that movie launched her career. It didn't. She had to do about 3 more horror films, Trading Places, and a stint on a couple of soap operas (though soap operas looked more like TV-Movies in those days). They could've plugged just about anyone into that role if you think about it. Actually, I think Marilyn Burns' similar role in TCM was vastly superior to Curtis' in Halloween. Better looking, better scream, & a more expressive face. That's very easy to say... but that's just because Marilyn did a better job at expressing terror. She had more to express- Leatherface ran at her. He had to kill 'all of 'em' because The Cook guy told him he would be sorry if he didn't (in one form or another). But Michael Myers had waited 15 years to get Laurie Strode (apparently), he wasn't going to let it happen too quickly. He wanted to savor every last second of fear and terror he could get from her (okay, I don't know that, but it's easy to gather he would run slower than Leatherface). She may not have acted like most people would in '78 in that situation, but I think she looked just about the same. Besides, both movies had completely different styles. I feel each performance worked just about perfectly for what each movie was. Besides... how many movies can just copy what TCM did? That's kind of one of the reasons it's still considered a masterpiece. Because no other movie can do what it did. Jamie Lee's career should've been given to Ms. Burns IMO. That would have lead to a drastically different version of A Fish Called Wanda. Which would impact on the career of John Cleese. That's going just a wee bit too far IMO.
|
|
|
Post by Evil Dave on Sept 22, 2007 6:25:23 GMT -5
We'll never know of course, but Marilyn would've done a much better job than Jamie Lee in Halloween. Other than the reasons I already mentioned, she'd also be much more believable as a teen than Jamie Lee was. Curtis has always looked like she was about 10 years older than she actually was at any given time. But who knows, maybe I'm just a sucker for blondes! BTW, John Cleese would've had a career regardless of A Fish Called Wanda. He's too talented not to.
|
|
|
Post by lazario on Sept 22, 2007 6:36:12 GMT -5
BTW, John Cleese would've had a career regardless of A Fish Called Wanda. He's too talented not to. Maybe so, but I'm not as quick as some to change history because some people didn't like the actress. That would be going a wee bit too far IMO. Curtis has always looked like she was about 10 years older than she actually was at any given time. If that impacted your enjoyment of Halloween in any way, I'm starting to pity you. Honestly, I get what you're saying... but it's not going to change anything. Marilyn would've done a much better job than Jamie Lee in Halloween. I don't care. They were both very different movies. Plus, I think Marilyn would have looked pretty awkward playing Jamie's part next to P.J. Soles. Laurie Strode was more than just a terrorized girl, she also was a bookworm with not much of a social life. Could you believe that coming from Marilyn? Think about that before you respond.
|
|