|
|
Post by Evil Dave on Nov 10, 2007 0:32:09 GMT -5
jason X looked pretty cool tho..and it had 1 good scene where the guys head got froze and then cracked..i think it was that movie Yeah, that scene is in Jason X. And I did think it was fairly cool too. |
|
|
|
Post by lazario on Nov 10, 2007 21:16:05 GMT -5
The Friday the 13th series died, for me, with Jason Goes to Hell. Granted, I was so obsessed (and still am) with the look and feel of the Paramount movies. But, they just changed him so much in that movie. They changed everything so much... That it just wasn't a Friday the 13th film anymore. It was high gross-out, sludge flying everywhere, possession movie (kinda ripped off Shocker a lot), the music turned to absolute shit, the actors totally sucked, and the humor was overwhelmingly pathetic. Creating backstory? Who wants it??! A sister- who cares? A wrongly accused guy in jail trying to break out? Oh please!! They did that already in Jason Lives. And they did it much better in that movie. And when Jason shows up... he looks awful! He's fat and stuffed like somebody's embarrassing Uncle, there's ugly pink flesh hanging off his face like he pressed the hockey mask so hard, it's stuck in his head... As for the Nightmare series... they really changed the whole thing with New Nightmare. That's one of my least favorites, but I wouldn't call it the worst. I mean, it does things that are worse than any of the other movies- things they didn't do. But at least that whole section of the movie that takes place at the hospital really gets the movie's quality back on track. I really didn't like the whole "the movies weren't real, but neither is the Real Life of the people you're watching..." So, nothing is real, but the "Freddy" movies are still fake. And even then, there was little impressive about it. Freddy wasn't really that much scarier... Well... maybe a little bit. And there's some interesting stuff about dreaming and sleeping. But, who cares that much about what happens to Dylan? All the mothers sitting, watching the movie? I don't know. For my money, I do think Dream Child is the worst. But again, there are some things that Freddy's Dead and New Nightmare did that were worse than it. The opening of Freddy's Dead for instance... is unbelievably awful. But it does get better about halfway through. And of course the ending is just freaking cool. And I'm not talking about the "Inside" Freddy's "Brain" bit. The showdown scene in the basement. I loved that. That scene kicks all the butt of everything in Dream Child. And of course, the girl playing Tracy was a very believable and intense actress. And she's so good because they never put the whole movie on her shoulders. I also really liked Katherine as a character. These factors definitely outweigh everything in Dream Child. But of course... Dream Child was very well visualized. Only problem is, the whole story is stupid. The characters are kind of lame, but the dialogue is sq uirm-in-your-seat bad. It's very melodrama, teens in high school- my parents are putting all their own hopes and dreams into me and I can only hold my hopes and dreams... It's an interesting idea for a device in the movie, but it's so routinely done. It's only to create stress and not to enhance character. Also, their dreams never free them or provide a release- like in Dream Warriors. It's just psychologically sadistic. The writers must have been a little messed up at the time they made it. Plus, Freddy is such a joke in the movie. A lot of people now critisize him as a villain- say he's not scary and he's not cool or whatever... This movie is the reason why. They could have forgiven part 4 if part 5 had made him more of a phantom and less of a bad birthday-party clown. "Halloween"? Weird pick but I have to go with H20(Not counting part 3) Oh, come on... How could anyone not consider Halloween 6: Curse of Michael Myers the worst film of that series? Didn't you see it? Every little thing about it is awful. Well, only 1 thing makes it okay: the locations. There are some beautiful small-town locations here. It really feels like Halloween in the fall in America. Great shots of buildings and atmospheric elements, like flowing billows of smoke, rain, and things like that. But, everything else is terrible. Everything else. Compared to this movie, the second worst Halloween movie- part 5, looks 10x better. H20 had a lot of great things about it. In fact, only 2 things hurt it: the mother and son characters' emotional bullshit. And Jamie Lee Curtis's overly nervous performance of the mother. Because of that, even the sound of her voice screaming, "MICHAEL!" in the finale bothered me. A woman like that...hard to believe she could even be a teacher and have a boyfriend. Are we supposed to believe she only lost it a little more because of Halloween day? I don't know. Oh, yeah, and... the special effects didn't look very good. But other than that, it was really good. Better than it should have been. As for Child's Play... well, I sort of put 2 and 3 together. They're so much alike. In all the wrong ways. I hate the fact that in part 2, Chucky breaks things in the house and the kid gets blamed for it. COME ON! The sister gets blamed for tying the boy up, because, conveniently...the parents come into his bedroom when she goes into his window? That's so stretching it. And I just hate the way Chucky complains all the time. Do the filmmakers actually think it's scary for us to follow him as he tries to put his soul in Andy's body?? So naturally, you'd think I think part 3 is better... Not so fast. Everything that was bad about 2 is what's bad about 3. But part 2 had that amazing ending in the toy factory. That scene is really, really good. If I could buy just that ending scene on DVD (at a fraction of the price of the full feature, of course), I would. Part 3's ending in a spookhouse carnival ride is okay, but not as good. The thing about part 3 that sort of gives it an edge over part 2 to me is the military academy thing. I know I've said before that I freaking hate military themes in horror. But for some reason... this one is kind of cool. Because now, we have 2 characters: Chucky and Andy, in a situation where both of them are what the army type considers to be "pussies." You know, Charles Lee Ray as a human was a (what you'd expect to be) smokin', drinkin', drug usin' type. Not exactly a tough, buff soldier. And then Andy is the baby who's been psychologically coddled his whole life and now he's being ordered not to have a psyche, but to just be pure body brute force. Whatever. So, Andy can't adjust...but Chucky sort of does. Doesn't he? And he uses the sort of "kill or be killed" of the military against their recrutes. Now, that is cool to me. Very. Because it gives the whole movie an edge to it. Almost a subversive angle. But then... the movie does the boring old- sympathetic versus sympathetic character thing. They give the movie this tone of: Chucky is definitely the bad guy. So, you can't think he's cool. And Andy... he gets pushed around, bruised, battered, and he's already traumatized to begin with... Damn it- I want to see him kill someone! He's just so "we must do the right thing" even after almost everyone has had their turn doing terrible things to him. Andy is like the Carrie of this movie but apparently he has no sense of flexible psychology. He's like a BRADY BUNCH Kid! Nothing affects him. He's a Care Bear. A goody-two shoes. And just because he has a crush on a girl. Why she's attracted to guys who are supposed to be screwed up, is beyond me. |
|
|
|
Post by malbowski13 on Nov 11, 2007 0:38:26 GMT -5
H20 was too wimpy though.At least Curse had some good kills in it, just a shitty story.H20 had better ending.Sometimes when I say "better movie" I mean it has rewatch value as well.Like I said, H20 was very light on everything (graphic kills,body count, etc.) including boobs.lol
|
|
|
|
Post by lazario on Nov 11, 2007 8:45:12 GMT -5
H20 was too wimpy though.At least Curse had some good kills in it, just a shitty story.H20 had better ending.Sometimes when I say "better movie" I mean it has rewatch value as well.Like I said, H20 was very light on everything (graphic kills,body count, etc.) including boobs.lol Okay, I actually used to pay attention to words like wimpy... when I was 6. Boobs are for porn. Graphic kills are nice and all, but you can't count on them to be in every movie. These are things you should know by now. |
|
|
|
Post by malbowski13 on Nov 24, 2007 18:51:59 GMT -5
I'm also bringing the word "Boss" back as well so get ready! O.k Laz : Name me 5 horror masterpieces without boobs(from 70's up). A great horror movie does not need excessive gore or nudity to make it great but in certain situations it is necessary. If not, why have attractive people in it? Offhand, Feast is the only one I can think of without nudity but was still great.To be contradictory, boobs and gore go hand-in-hand as do love story-tragedy.
|
|
lowkey
SERIAL KILLER
Posts: 574
|
Post by lowkey on Nov 24, 2007 20:53:56 GMT -5
They wanted Jason to appear more sympathetic, so they made him shorter. That was supposedly the excuse they gave Hodder, for not hiring him anyway.
It's kind of messed up too. Hodder has been the only person to play Jason, that actually enjoys the experience. He doesn't refuse to do stunts, or think the movies should be toned down like some Jasons have. It would make better sense to stick with the guy you know is going to put everything he has into it, instead of risking having to deal with someone who just going to create problems, because he doesn't get the appeal of this type of movie.
|
|
|
|
Post by lazario on Nov 24, 2007 21:00:39 GMT -5
Sorry, Mal: but I am entirely rejecting your theory.
|
|
|
|
Post by malbowski13 on Nov 25, 2007 16:09:00 GMT -5
Nightmare on Elm St. part 1, Suspiria... I guess that it's not really a rule,after all.Must be my inner-child talking...
I still say that Friday 7 has the best looking Jason.
|
|
|
|
Post by lazario on Nov 26, 2007 14:33:45 GMT -5
I don't know if I said this in this topic or not, but I think part 3 has the best looking Jason. But, the style of the later movies is quite different from the earlier movies. So, I agree part VII's Jason is probably the best of the later movies.
|
|
|
|
Post by malbowski13 on Nov 28, 2007 21:29:47 GMT -5
Part 3 VS Part 4 Jason (Is there a difference)?
|
|
|
|
Post by lazario on Nov 29, 2007 5:34:59 GMT -5
Actually a lot of fans say there is. I think you hear more groaning and noise from the one in Part 4. Not sure about that, but I remember he groans during the killing of the hitchhiker. Plus, he groans at the end when Trish kicks and slaps him, and during the machete in the head moment.
Certainly, when their faces are revealed, they look much different. Tom Savini's makeup on the one in part 4 made him look like a zombie (and yeah, it looked great). The makeup on the one in part 3 made him look like a very cool kind of Hills Have Eyes cannibal-creep, but very intense and concentrated face.
|
|
|
|
Post by malbowski13 on Nov 29, 2007 7:25:49 GMT -5
The effects at the end of Jason 4 look just great. CGI has a long way to go(not a big fan).I'd rather see a guy in a foam-latex suit than a computer generated image anyday!
|
|
|
|
Post by lazario on Nov 30, 2007 8:36:58 GMT -5
Same here!! CGI is only best used to hide strings and touch up make up effects. When we're using it to create King Kong and the Incredible Hulk, then horror movies use it to create blood and werewolves... It's bullshit.
|
|
|
|
Post by malbowski13 on Nov 30, 2007 15:08:04 GMT -5
Look at the new Superman even. Give me a guy on wires with a fan blowing his hair than a really phony looking shot of Superman ready to fly Anyday!A crew from Winnipeg actually did the SFX on that movie.Just saying...
|
|
|
|
Post by tsmooth31 on Nov 30, 2007 17:53:43 GMT -5
i feel sick when i see CGI...especially when a movie is done on a low budget and the monster is completely CGI and looks like he came right out of a video game..ill take a man in a rubber suit over CGI anyday and everyday
|
|
|
|
Post by Evil Dave on Dec 1, 2007 3:07:11 GMT -5
CGI only seems to work if it's done REALLY, REALLY well. Unfortunately, the stuff that shows up in most movies these days looks like something made by a v.g. programmer. To me, most times the appearance looks good enough, it's the movement that gets really over the top. A good example of this can be seen in the movie Van Helsing. The werewolves look decent when they're just standing there, but as soon as they start running or jumping it looks completely corny and cartoony.
|
|
|
|
Post by tsmooth31 on Dec 1, 2007 4:28:41 GMT -5
not many people can do CGI very well tho so thats why it usually looks like crap
|
|
|
|
Post by lazario on Dec 1, 2007 4:33:48 GMT -5
That's why just the basic operations are what they should use it for : covering up wires and blending makeups / prosthetics that might look fake.
|
|
|
|
Post by Evil Dave on Dec 1, 2007 4:39:44 GMT -5
Yeah where they screw up is that they go too far with it. If they had more self control it could actually be a good thing.
|
|
|
|
Post by lazario on Dec 1, 2007 4:54:21 GMT -5
Self control is not something major studios preach. And they basically started it with movies like Jumanji. Which by the way, I have to admit being very impressed with when they came out. Now... the CGI looks it's age and not so state of the art anymore.
|
|
