|
|
Post by lazario on Jan 28, 2009 14:33:15 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by tsmooth31 on Jan 30, 2009 19:02:05 GMT -5
you should pick some new movies, i will do this later tho
|
|
|
|
Post by lazario on Feb 4, 2009 16:53:31 GMT -5
I know. I plan to.
|
|
|
|
Post by Necroscope on Feb 23, 2009 5:02:14 GMT -5
01. 9.5/10 One of my favorites of all time...
02. 6/10 I understand it's importance, I just never liked it.
03. 8/10 Jeffery Combs rules! This movie is hilarious.
04. 9.5/10 As has been bantered back and forth on this board, I think this is one of the most important, if not best, horror films ever made.
05. 8.5/10 My first introduction to Bruce Campbell. Atmospheric, creative, violent and creepy. What more do ya need?
06. 7/10 One of the most delightfully weird movies ever made...
07. 7/10 A different movie than it portrays itself to be. Should never have been turned into a series, although the original stands up just fine on its own.
08. 9/10 Probably the most fun I've ever had watching a horror movie. Ridiculously over the top and worth it every step of the way. ("Hoiperactive." Genius!)
09. 8.5/10 Such a bold and original idea for its time, beautifully filmed by Craven.
10. 3/10 Laz and I are gonna fight over this one, but I just don't like Argento. I felt like too much plot and characterization were sacrificed for atmosphere.
11. N/A Sadly, as is the case for a few movies on this list, I've never seen this one...
12. 8/10 Deftly filmed and cleverly written. The transformation scene is tattooed on my brain...
13. 7.5/10 Was the first film to take werewolves to the next level.
14. N/A I know I've seen it, but I don't remember it very well...
15. 7.5/10 Great acting and a decent script, taken from a good source material. The hand at the end? Fucking scary!
16. 6.5/10 I like Fulci, but I never felt like this one lived up to the hype.
17. 8.5/10 Saw this quite young. Some very disturbing visuals.
18. 8/10 One of the best sci-fi/horror films ever. Manages to capture claustrophobia and xenophobia at their most frightening levels.
19. 8/10 Not sure I consider this to be a horror movie, but excellent nonetheless.
20. 7.5/10 A clever tongue in cheek lampoon of the horror genre.
21. N/A Again, I've seen it, but it was a very long time ago...
22. 7/10 The second horror movie I ever saw. The face ripping scene scared me bad.
23. 7.5/10 Good acting and nice cinematography make for a tense watch.
24. 7.5/10 I really liked Cronenburg's new spin on a classic story.
25. 6/10 This is another one of those films that I just didn't understand the hype over.
26. 8.5/10 My favorite werewolf film, hands down. Great script.
27. N/A The first horror movie I ever watched. It scared me so bad that, while i do own it, I've watched it again. (HA!) So it would seem unfair to rate it...
28. 6.5/10 Fun, but ultimately too silly for me. Loved it when I was 13.
29. 8/10 Zombie films rank higher for me, but this one was hilarious.
30. 7/10 Having never been a big fan of the "slasher" film, I can't go any higher on this one.
31. 9.5/10 In my opinion, the best sci-fi/horror film ever. Combine fully realized paranoia with the most kick ass SFX ever and you got yourself one of my all time favorites.
32. 7/10 This one holds a special place in my heart. C'mon! The zombie fights a shark! What not to like?
33. 7.5/10 It's been a while, but I remember liking this film very much. Plus, Tony Todd is cool...
34. N/A Again, I've seen it, but I don't remember it well enough.
35. N/A Never seen it.
36. N/A Never seen it.
37. 3/10 I hated this piece of garbage. Don't even get me started...
38. 5/10 Loved Gary Oldman, but even he couldn't make up for the other terrible acting in this film.
39. 7/10 Very well made film. Well acted, well directed.
40. N/A Never seen it.
41. 8/10 Very dark, clever and funny. Well written, well acted, well directed. What else is there to say?
42. N/A Never seen it.
Is that what you were looking for? Wow. That took a while. Hope I didn't ramble on too much. For the films I've never seen, please let me know if they are worth a watch.
|
|
|
|
Post by Evil Dave on Feb 23, 2009 8:11:27 GMT -5
Note: I based my rankings purely on how much I personally enjoy watching the movie. If I were to rank them based solely on how well they were made, impact on the genre, etc. most would move +/- 1-2 stars. 01.  Dawn of the Dead (1978)  02.  Halloween (1978)  03.  Re-Animator (1985)  04.  The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974)  05.  The Evil Dead (1981)  06.  Phantasm (1979) 07.  Hellraiser (1987) 08.  Dead Alive (1992) 09.  A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984) 10.  Suspiria (1977) 11.  Black Christmas (1974) 12.  An American Werewolf in London (1981) 13.  The Howling (1981) 14.  The Fog (1980)  15.  Carrie (1976) 16.  The Beyond (1981) N/A - Haven't seen it. 17.  The Exorcist (1973) 18.  Alien (1979) 19.  The Silence of the Lambs (1991) 20.  Scream (1996)  21.  Rosemary's Baby (1968) 22.  Poltergeist (1982) 23.  The Shining (1980) 24.  The Fly (1986) 25.  The Last House on the Left (1972) 26.  Ginger Snaps (2000) 27.  Creepshow (1982) 28.  Child's Play (1988) 29.  The Return of the Living Dead (1985) 30.  Friday the 13th (1980) 31.  John Carpenter's The Thing (1982) 32.  Zombie (1979) N/A - Haven't Seen It. 33.  Candyman (1992) 34.  Fright Night (1985) 35.  Don't Look Now (1973) N/A - Haven't Seen It. 36.  The Changeling (1980) 37.  28 Days Later (2002) 38.  Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992) 39.  Misery (1990) 40.  May (2002) 41.  American Psycho (2000) 42.  Open Water (2003) |
|
|
|
Post by lazario on Feb 23, 2009 10:56:43 GMT -5
10. 3/10 Laz and I are gonna fight over this one, but I just don't like Argento. I felt like too much plot and characterization were sacrificed for atmosphere. I don't think most of his movies are that atmospheric though. But you're right that it's less about story / plot. Dario is a true artist and his films are like audio-visual concept composition pieces rather than stories. Though I disagree about characterization. His films are absolutely packed with it. His approach is simply different than traditional filmmaking / storytelling. You just have to know where / how to look for it. Clearly, Argento isn't for everyone. In fact, I'm surprised there are as many horror fans who are fans of Argento. I honestly expect 9 times at least out of 10, most horror fans to be so jaded, that Argento would be too stylized for them. His popularity is a testiment to horror as an artform rather than a dramatic medium. 16. 6.5/10 I like Fulci, but I never felt like this one lived up to the hype. Now there's a filmmaker who sacrifices plot and characterization. Only he did it for tons of gore and a little atmosphere. Also, his ability / talent as a director was radically inconsistent over the entire course of his career. 20. 7.5/10 A clever tongue in cheek lampoon of the horror genre. Lampoon? After checking with the online dictionary, these are the definitions of that word I found: 1. A written attack ridiculing a person, group, or institution. 2. A light, good-humored satire. Clearly, Scream is neither of these things. It's not attacking the horror genre in any way. And could never be considered light. The humor is vicious and pitch-black. And it's not a send-up or parody. And the last thing it's doing is ridiculing the horror genre. Also, in case anyone else here thinks Scream is bad- neither the writer nor the director got involved to just make money / "sell out." 25. 6/10 This is another one of those films that I just didn't understand the hype over. I believe the "hype" started back when the film was raking in a ton of cash at various theaters and such. The film was a big success back in its' day and garnered a reputation for being too intense for most viewers. Without this history, the film wouldn't have any hype, it would have been buried in obscurity, and Craven wouldn't have a career, nor would there be no Freddy Krueger, nor - since Sean Cunningham was the producer of Last House - any Friday the 13th franchise and Jason Voorhees. 37. 3/10 I hated this piece of garbage. Don't even get me started... Is it because the infected run very fast? That's the only thing that truly bothers me about that film. Re-doing my list: 01. Dawn of the Dead (1978)  02. Halloween (1978) 03. Re-Animator (1985)  04. The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974)  05. The Evil Dead (1981) 06. Phantasm (1979)  07. Hellraiser (1987) 08. Dead Alive (1992) 09. A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984) 10. Suspiria (1977) 11. Black Christmas (1974) 12. An American Werewolf in London (1981) 13. The Howling (1981) 14. The Fog (1980) 15. Carrie (1976) 16. The Beyond (1981)  17. The Exorcist (1973) 18. Alien (1979) 19. The Silence of the Lambs (1991) 20. Scream (1996) 21. Rosemary's Baby (1968) 22. Poltergeist (1982) 23. The Shining (1980) 24. The Fly (1986) 25. The Last House on the Left (1972) 26. Ginger Snaps (2000) 27. Creepshow (1982) 28. Child's Play (1988) 29. The Return of the Living Dead (1985) 30. Friday the 13th (1980) 31. John Carpenter's The Thing (1982) 32. Zombie (1979) 33. Candyman (1992) 34. Fright Night (1985) 35. Don't Look Now (1973) 36. The Changeling (1980)  37. 28 Days Later (2002) 38. Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992) 39. Misery (1990) 40. May (2002) 41. American Psycho (2000) 42. Open Water (2003) 43.  The Serpent and the Rainbow (1988) 44.  Pet Sematary (1989) 45.  Day of the Dead (1985) 46.  Evil Dead 2: Dead by Dawn (1987) 47.  City of the Living Dead (1980) 48.  Demons (1985) 49.  Cemetery Man (1994) 50.  House by the Cemetery (1981) 51.  Videodrome (1982) 52.  Deep Red (1975) 53.  Killer Klowns from Outer Space (1988) 54.  Bad Taste (1987) 55.  Piranha (1978) 56.  Opera (1987) 57.  Rabid (1977) 58.  Basket Case (1982) 59.  Brain Damage (1988) 60.  Tenebre (1982) 61.  Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer (1986) 62.  Salem's Lot (1979) 63.  The Hills Have Eyes (1977) 64.  It's Alive (1973) 65.  Dolls (1986) 66.  Martin (1976) |
|
|
|
Post by nickconrad on Feb 23, 2009 22:15:36 GMT -5
37. 3/10 I hated this piece of garbage. Don't even get me started... Is it because the infected run very fast? That's the only thing that truly bothers me about that film. I remember seeing this movie early, just me and a couple of friends, and we had a really fun time with it. That's because we were laughing hysterically. The church with "The end is EXTREMELY FUCKING NIGH" on it in blood? Priceless. Also, yelling "JESUS, BUDDY, HOW MUCH BLOOD DO YOU HAVE??!" at these monsters that need a Michael Phelps diet with all the athletics they do, but never intake anything whatsoever AND have the gallons of blood to spare all over everyone else's face. In short we felt like we had seen a comedy movie as we got up at the end. |
|
|
|
Post by tsmooth31 on Feb 24, 2009 0:02:06 GMT -5
28 days and weeks later were both overated pieces of crap
|
|
|
|
Post by Necroscope on Feb 24, 2009 1:11:15 GMT -5
First off Laz. Yes. While it is not the only reason I hate that movie (28 Days Later), the fast moving "zombies" were a huge part of it. Secondly, it seems like you might have misinterpreted my use of the word lampoon. It was not meant in a negative way. The movie certainly takes the genre to task on some of its more cherished cliches, but does so lovingly. I definitely feel like it is satirical, and not nearly as dark as "vicious and pitch-black". It's not a goofy as Dead Alive or RotLD, but I wouldn't say it's as dark as Re-Animator or American Psycho. Perhaps "cheeky homage" might be a better descriptor.
|
|
|
|
Post by Evil Dave on Feb 25, 2009 9:11:57 GMT -5
28 days and weeks later were both overated pieces of crap Absolutely agree! |
|
|
|
Post by lazario on Feb 26, 2009 6:14:18 GMT -5
Did you only see the movie once, Dave?
It didn't need a sequel, so I'm just talking about 28 Days.
|
|
|
|
Post by Evil Dave on Mar 1, 2009 7:18:53 GMT -5
Yeah I only watched them both once. Why? Is it better after more than one viewing? I guess some movies can be like that............ Oh, and you forgot to post your rating for 'Tenebre' on your list. Just thought I'd let ya know.  |
|
|
|
Post by lazario on Mar 1, 2009 7:50:18 GMT -5
Yeah I only watched them both once. Why? Is it better after more than one viewing? I guess some movies can be like that... The last 35 or so minutes are much more powerful the 2nd time around. But true to form, I'm still impressed with my 2nd viewing. Only, I'd say I was more impressed with the movie. There is no horror this decade that is as visceral and still packs a fucking unbelievable punch of truth as the scenes in that military compound in 28 Days Later. You have to look at the social significance and the statement it makes about people. After that movie, there's no necessity for shit like Wolf Creek and those other movies about people doing bad things to each other. I'd expect someone as perceptive as you to have gotten that the first time around. Instead of nodding your head in agreement with the #1 Most Likely Never to Use His Brain poster on this board - T. I haven't seen Weeks yet. And after the first movie, I have no desire to. The first movie did everything it needed to. |
|
|
|
Post by Evil Dave on Mar 1, 2009 8:07:47 GMT -5
Yeah I know what you're saying about the military compound scene and I agree with you. So I do give the movie credit for that. But that was really the only part of the movie that I found to be interesting or entertaining. The rest of it just didn't do much for me. Although I heard so many great things about it before I actually saw it that maybe my expectations were just too high. Maybe if I had saw it when it first came out I would have enjoyed it more, who knows. I dont think its completely terrible, I just think its overrated. But then again, I tend to think that about almost every zombie themed movie that has gotten high praise. Like Ive said before, Im just not that big a fan of this horror sub-genre. Anyways, Ill probably give it a second watch someday if Im bored and have some time to kill. Definitely wouldn't be the first time Ive liked a movie better the second time around. |
|
|
|
Post by Evil Dave on Mar 1, 2009 8:27:23 GMT -5
Anyways, I'll finish off my ratings for the other movies Laz added. Again, Im just rating them on how much I enjoyed watching them from an entertainment standpoint, not from production value, importance to the genre, etc. 43. The Serpent and the Rainbow (1988) 44. Pet Sematary (1989) 45. Day of the Dead (1985) 46. Evil Dead 2: Dead by Dawn (1987) 47. City of the Living Dead (1980) N/A - Haven't Seen It. 48. Demons (1985) 49. Cemetery Man (1994) 50. House by the Cemetery (1981)  51. Videodrome (1982) 52. Deep Red (1975) 53. Killer Klowns from Outer Space (1988) 54. Bad Taste (1987) 55. Piranha (1978)  56. Opera (1987) 57. Rabid (1977) 58. Basket Case (1982) 59. Brain Damage (1988) 60. Tenebre (1982) 61. Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer (1986) 62. Salem's Lot (1979) 63. The Hills Have Eyes (1977) 64. It's Alive (1973) 65. Dolls (1986) N/A - Have Not Seen It. 66. Martin (1976) N/A - Have Not Seen It. |
|
|
|
Post by lazario on Mar 1, 2009 8:40:58 GMT -5
Yeah I know what you're saying about the military compound scene and I agree with you. So I do give the movie credit for that. But that was really the only part of the movie that I found to be interesting or entertaining. Well, you know my policy, right? It just has to be good, I don't have to like it. 28 Days Later, I expected to be something very different than what I saw. I expected a bunch of cliched action scenes and characters that were just idiot versions of every popular stereotype out there. And of course, there'd be zombie attacks everywhere and blah blah blah. You know what I saw that I didn't expect to see? Intelligence. I didn't expect to see the movie really deal with so many human fears by articulating them. Then visually showing how completely isolated the characters were. They drove and lived and slept and relaxed in places where they should have been interrupted by the flow of overpopulation. They weren't. Because they were alone. The plague / infection had wiped out almost the whole country. That's how you take this idea and use it to build tension and terror. This movie is the only END OF THE WORLD movie that actually knew the importance of the calm before the storm. It actually makes me feel bad that there might have been a plague or anything to wipe out so many people. And knowing how much I hate people - that's something the movie deserves a LOT of credit for. As for "entertainment," it's a serious movie. Not really a sitcom. I don't know what you were looking for. All I know - I was looking for crap and didn't find it. The only complaint I can come up with? The running "roid rage" like zombies. And by the end of the movie, they showed you what they could do with it. And they did it admirably. When all is said and done, it's an excellent horror movie. I've only seen 3 other excellent horror movies this decade that weren't Asian films. And 2 of them were 1 hour Masters of Horror segments. That's fucking sad. That's pathetic. This is the greatest genre of film. And it's turned to shit. But no matter how many new things filmmakers think they're tackling, 28 Days Later did it first and did it better. The rest of it just didn't do much for me. Although I heard so many great things about it before I actually saw it that maybe my expectations were just too high. Why would you even listen to those people? Horror this decade is shit. You approach every movie with this simple fact in mind, you'll understand why only a mere handful of horror movies this decade don't completely suck. And out of that handful, there is 1 masterpiece and 1 near-masterpiece. 28 Days Later is in that group of 2 movies. I dont think its completely terrible, I just think its overrated. 28 Days Later is not overrated. If you look around, you'll see that more people have gone on-record praising The Descent, Dog Soldiers, Cloverfield, and The Strangers and other films much higher. If you want overrated - go after those. But then again, I tend to think that about almost every zombie themed movie that has gotten high praise. Like Ive said before, Im just not that big a fan of this horror sub-genre. I used to think I actually had subgenres that I liked better or disliked more. I'm wiser now. They're all equal in suckage. |
|
|
|
Post by Evil Dave on Mar 1, 2009 8:56:32 GMT -5
You make some good points there.
Looking back, right before I saw this movie I saw 'I Am Legend.' And right before seeing that I had rewatched 'Rabid.'
All 3 of these movies have a similar basis for their plots so maybe when I saw 28 Days I was just subconsciously burnt out on the story that was being told. This, coupled with that I just dont go into zombie movies wanting to watch them that much, maybe made me like it less than I would have otherwise.
Like I said, I'll give it a rewatch sometime and see if I feel different. It's completely possible as it definitely wouldn't be the first time that has happened when I watch a movie for the second time.
|
|
|
|
Post by lazario on Mar 1, 2009 9:15:11 GMT -5
You make some good points there. Looking back, right before I saw this movie I saw 'I Am Legend.' And right before seeing that I had rewatched 'Rabid.' AW, SHIT! There hasn't been a new Rabid has there?!! Because I'll sue! ;D All 3 of these movies have a similar basis for their plots so maybe when I saw 28 Days I was just subconsciously burnt out on the story that was being told. Very good contributionary statement. The Crazies is also a good movie to mention in relation to 28 Days. However, I always felt Rabid outdid Night of the Living Dead. But that's my personal prerogative because finally, Rabid was the first (and maybe only) "zombie"-esque movie to finally attach the epidemic to a cosmetic / superficial chemical / biological procedure - plastic surgery. I'd LOVE to see a new zombie movie, for instance, start the epidemic from something like: Botox. However, Rabid and 28 Days Later couldn't be more different. Danny Boyle certainly took some influence from Romero's movies. Epsecially, Day of the Dead and perhaps The Crazies. Boyle also says on the audio commentary that he was contemplating originally making the zombies very horny and attack people sexually. Which would have made the movie They Came from Within / Shivers, without the mouth-to-mouth parasite. So okay now, we know he had Romero and Cronenberg in mind. But around the time I saw 28 Days Later, I saw Day of the Dead. And 28 Days couldn't have done better with the formula that Day of the Dead had. It took a step further and instead of playing "Government" between the woman and the sexist military unit, 28 Days Later plays "House." And it's downright SCARY and disturbing. And unlike so many other movies - especially Wes Craven's Shocker and Serpent and the Rainbow - the military guys GET what's coming to them and they get it good! And 28 Days Later also specialized in the evacuated setting of the main scenes of horror like no other horror movie could have. And that's what the movie was. Rabid was about the attacks on largescale groups of people instead of the after-effects. As was: The Crazies. As was: They Came from Within / Shivers. 28 Days Later is what Day of the Dead should have been. And that's all that needs to be said. Because it takes into account everything 28 Days Later did. This, coupled with that I just dont go into zombie movies wanting to watch them that much, maybe made me like it less than I would have otherwise. I didn't think there was much "zombie" anything going on in the movie. It was more about escaping people looking for other people. Almost all the "zombie" killing was done for good reasons. All of it. So, they certainly solved the problem of when we needed to see them. I'm sure the sequel screws that up. As for you, I might tell you to avoid watching it again. If you just don't want to see it, nobody can change your mind. As for me, I want to see good horror. Necessary horror. I've got my 80's horror for fun, 70's and 90's horror to make me think. And a tiny handful of New-Millennium horror that actually has the balls to be different from the pack of copycats. |
|
