Tbh, most horror movies don't have the shock factor like they use to. The music either gives it away or the "eerie" quietness meaning something is going to happen.
Nightmare on Elm Street Remake
- Thread starter nation
- Start date
-
Welcome to "The New" Wrestling Smarks Forum!
I see that you are not currently registered on our forum. It only takes a second, and you can even login with your Facebook! If you would like to register now, pease click here: Register
Once registered please introduce yourself in our introduction thread which can be found here: Introduction Board
Tbh, most horror movies don't have the shock factor like they use to. The music either gives it away or the "eerie" quietness meaning something is going to happen.
I liked Saw and Dead Silence. While being hugely gory, they were also very "scary" imo. Simply for the fact that there was, in Dead Silence, that sickening feeling of being oblivious as to what could/will happen. Saw was the type of film that if you watched any more than 3 hours could actually make you mentally ill. It was pre-meditated, twisted and full of insane people. Horrible for me.
Hostel was the most disgusting and unnecessarily violent film I've ever seen. Don't plan on seeing the second or third, it was a seriously stupid film.
Never seen a Tobe Hooper film. Don't hit me.
Beer, you need to rent the first (Hooper) and second (not Hooper) Poltergeist movies. They have some gross parts, but if you like being scared - creeped out, you'll like them. Just steer clear of the 3rd movie. Not horrible, but the worst of the trilogy and really unnecessary.
If you didn't like the Devil's Rejects, you probably won't like Hooper's TCM. You might want to check out Lifeforce - the plot is full of holes, but it has some decent sfx for the time it was made and Mathilda May is nude through the whole thing. Hubba hubba!
We agree on Hostel. I watched the first one and said no thanks to the sequel. While Cabin Fever has its moments, it's a movie that you see once and only once. No replay value.
As the Saw films go along, I become less and less interested. By #6, the overall plot has become so convoluted, you need a chart to just keep things straight. I like them, but it's getting to the point where enough is enough.
I really didn't like Dead Silence. The whole plot is laughable and at no point am I scared, apprehensive or even nervous. I'd say the only positive thing about the movie is that the dolls looked neat, but scary? Uh, no.
I agree, it's funny. I'm not allowed to form an opinion based on trailers and reviews I've seen about it? Everything I've seen and heard leads me to the conclusion that I do not want to see the movie. I thought I expressed that rather well in my original post.
If I end up seeing it a year or so from now and like it, I'll change my opinion. Or seeing it may only strengthen the opinion I have now. That's the great thing about opinions. You can change them.
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2008
- Messages
- 6,480
- Reaction score
- 3,124
- Points
- 118
- Location
- Raccoon City
- Favorite Sports Team
-
Um, yeah, it's Blue to judge a movie based on a trailer. You haven't seen the finished product, only parts of it. I've seen some bad trailers before and the movie turned out to be great, just like you see some trailers that only show the good parts and the movie sucks.
So you read reviews and go on that? You do know that everyone has their own opinion, right? A lot of people rate it good, a lot of people rate it bad. If you just go by what other people say, that's just dumb. What they hate, you might love. What they love, you might hate.
Everyone blew their loads all over Avatar and I thought it was one of the dumbest, lamest movies ever. Reading reviews is a fail because everyone likes different things. Go see the movie and judge for yourself before making comments on it.....you listed a 'gripe' about the movie without actually watching the movie to see if they explain it.
Your thoughts are the equivalent of never eating a tomato but saying it looks gross so it must taste gross.
I agree on the part about the reviews, this part I disagree with. The key factor of (movie) previews is to get people to watch the movie. If it's a suck ass preview, I wont watch the movie. There have been movies that the previews sucked and the movie was good or vis-versa. But that doesn't mean because on some instances, that that actually worked, I'll go so any movie willy nilly because of a few experiences I've had. It's their job to get people to watch the movies they make. Hince the reason for previews.
There are instants were I wouldn't go by the previews at all. Like if it's someone in the movie I'm a fan of, like a Will Smith movie. Or a movie series I'm a fan of, Like The Mummy or Resident Evil. Or just something that was an old tv/game that because a movie, like Dragon Ball Z (that movie sucked btw).
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2008
- Messages
- 6,480
- Reaction score
- 3,124
- Points
- 118
- Location
- Raccoon City
- Favorite Sports Team
-
Of course! I know that's what they are suppose to do but I learned in my time not to always go by trailers. I've wasted enough money on movies that looked good and ended up being piles of shit. I stopped trusting them, lol. They just want to either make me waste my money or miss out on a good movie.
Guess sometimes they just hire douchebags to put together a trailer.
Guess sometimes they just hire douchebags to put together a trailer.
Johnny depp is a straight up eyelash wearing smurf...
so that automatically makes the ORIGINAL Nightmare film better than the new one....unless the jonas brothers get killed off in the new one.
but other than that, depp dying = biggest win ever.
so that automatically makes the ORIGINAL Nightmare film better than the new one....unless the jonas brothers get killed off in the new one.
but other than that, depp dying = biggest win ever.
I see where you're coming from, LadyHotrod. If I was reviewing the movie without watching it, telling people it sucked and not to go see it, sure I agree, that's Blue, but that's not what I wrote in my original post. I wrote that I have no interest in seeing it, especially in theaters, and listed some of the reasons why.
Oh, and it's illegal in Jersey to not like tomatoes.
Oh, and it's illegal in Jersey to not like tomatoes.
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2008
- Messages
- 6,480
- Reaction score
- 3,124
- Points
- 118
- Location
- Raccoon City
- Favorite Sports Team
-
I see where you're coming from, LadyHotrod. If I was reviewing the movie without watching it, telling people it sucked and not to go see it, sure I agree, that's Blue, but that's not what I wrote in my original post. I wrote that I have no interest in seeing it, especially in theaters, and listed some of the reasons why.
Oh, and it's illegal in Jersey to not like tomatoes.
Sorry but no, your entire post was Blue because YOU JUDGED A MOVIE YOU DIDN'T EVEN SEE and listed a gripe you had when you didn't even watch the movie to see if they explained it.
If you have no interest in seeing it, why the fuck do you waste time typing out complaints and spoilers? Jesus.
You whined about shit like 'well, they could have done this and this and they didn't bring anything new to the table'. It's amazing how a minute long trailer can tell you the entire movie.
Sorry, I just can't stand people who talk without experiencing, it's stupid.
If you think the second remake was bad, go watch the remake of The Last House On The Left. Ten times worse.
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2008
- Messages
- 6,480
- Reaction score
- 3,124
- Points
- 118
- Location
- Raccoon City
- Favorite Sports Team
-
That rape scene was the worst. Ugh.
Anyways, FROM SOMEONE WHO ACTUALLY WATCHED A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET, the movie was fucking AWESOME.
SPOILERS
The only part that was gay was when Freddy came through the wall. The fuck? It looked way better in 1984 when they didn't even have amazng technology.
My favourite scene was in the pharmacy, that was fucking awesome.