|
|
Post by amsiraK on Oct 24, 2008 10:53:17 GMT -5
Just to throw a monkey in the wrench - I enjoyed the Psycho remake. Take my horror fan card away, but I'd be lying if I said I didn't enjoy it. People (rightly) take Rob Zombie to task for making all those changes just for the sake of change to Halloween - so I was all down for a word-for-word repeat with a new cast with Psycho. Hey, if it's not broke, why fix it? *points and screams* You fiend! LOL- I just couldn't bear the Psycho redux. Even done shot-by-shot, there was something irreplaceable that Hitchcock had that for whatever reason Van Sant couldn't replicate. And for a few well defined reasons as well. (Vaughn, shooting it in COLOR, etc.) Hey, at least SOMEONE enjoyed it! There's no word limit.  And I meant that his Norman was skeevy, not Vince himself. He was just horribly miscast. Ah, I sorta misread you. But..what'd you think of my idea? It's an intriguing idea. Owen Wilson does have that affable thing going - the swerve would definitely be massive, if no one saw it coming. That was probably a problem with the remake, too. We saw it coming. We were waiting for it. Anytime you remake a movie like that, it's going over old ground. |
|
Welfare Willis
Crow T. Robot
Pornomancer
555-BONE
FDIC Bonsured
Game Center CX Kacho on!
Posts: 44,259
|
Post by Welfare Willis on Oct 24, 2008 11:06:40 GMT -5
Just to throw a monkey in the wrench - I enjoyed the Psycho remake. Take my horror fan card away, but I'd be lying if I said I didn't enjoy it. People (rightly) take Rob Zombie to task for making all those changes just for the sake of change to Halloween - so I was all down for a word-for-word repeat with a new cast with Psycho. Hey, if it's not broke, why fix it? *points and screams* You fiend! LOL- I just couldn't bear the Psycho redux. Even done shot-by-shot, there was something irreplaceable that Hitchcock had that for whatever reason Van Sant couldn't replicate. And for a few well defined reasons as well. (Vaughn, shooting it in COLOR, etc.) Hey, at least SOMEONE enjoyed it! Is it lonely in the "I enjoyed the Psycho remake" fan club?  |
|
hollywood
King Koopa
the bullet dodger
The Green Arrow has approved this post.
Posts: 11,122
|
Post by hollywood on Oct 24, 2008 11:53:21 GMT -5
Interesting choices for this list. Naturally, I have my share of picks I think should be included, but many of them are probably just my own humble opinions. However I will say this much...
If Dracula, starring Bela Lugosi, isn't included somewhere on this list, this list is WRONG!
|
|
|
|
Post by Big DSR Energy on Oct 24, 2008 12:22:53 GMT -5
Interesting choices for this list. Naturally, I have my share of picks I think should be included, but many of them are probably just my own humble opinions. However I will say this much... If Dracula, starring Bela Lugosi, isn't included somewhere on this list, this list is WRONG!*cough* Nosferatu was better *cough* |
|
hollywood
King Koopa
the bullet dodger
The Green Arrow has approved this post.
Posts: 11,122
|
Post by hollywood on Oct 24, 2008 12:31:57 GMT -5
Interesting choices for this list. Naturally, I have my share of picks I think should be included, but many of them are probably just my own humble opinions. However I will say this much... If Dracula, starring Bela Lugosi, isn't included somewhere on this list, this list is WRONG!*cough* Nosferatu was better *cough* *cough* The hell it was! *coughcough* |
|
Jiren
Patti Mayonnaise
Hearts Bayformers
Posts: 35,163
|
Post by Jiren on Oct 24, 2008 15:39:51 GMT -5
Interesting choices for this list. Naturally, I have my share of picks I think should be included, but many of them are probably just my own humble opinions. However I will say this much... If Dracula, starring Bela Lugosi, isn't included somewhere on this list, this list is WRONG!*cough* Nosferatu was better *cough* True that |
|
|
|
Post by Maidpool w/ Cleaning Action on Oct 24, 2008 15:43:50 GMT -5
Just to throw a monkey in the wrench - I enjoyed the Psycho remake. Take my horror fan card away, but I'd be lying if I said I didn't enjoy it. People (rightly) take Rob Zombie to task for making all those changes just for the sake of change to Halloween - so I was all down for a word-for-word repeat with a new cast with Psycho. Hey, if it's not broke, why fix it? Actually that IS my problem with the Psycho remake, TR. What's the point in remaking it if it's the exact same thing? They did a great job with it the first time, so why do it again without throwing in some unique and different stuff? A Re-Make is SUPPOSED to have differences or else it's completely pointless. |
|
Jiren
Patti Mayonnaise
Hearts Bayformers
Posts: 35,163
|
Post by Jiren on Oct 24, 2008 15:58:18 GMT -5
Just to throw a monkey in the wrench - I enjoyed the Psycho remake. Take my horror fan card away, but I'd be lying if I said I didn't enjoy it. People (rightly) take Rob Zombie to task for making all those changes just for the sake of change to Halloween - so I was all down for a word-for-word repeat with a new cast with Psycho. Hey, if it's not broke, why fix it? Actually that IS my problem with the Psycho remake, TR. What's the point in remaking it if it's the exact same thing? They did a great job with it the first time, so why do it again without throwing in some unique and different stuff? A Re-Make is SUPPOSED to have differences or else it's completely pointless. Point As much as I hate Zombie's Remake of Halloween, I respect what he tried to do. But he just f***ed up. See: - The Blob - The Thing - The Fly - Dawn Of The Dead For how remakes are to be done well. |
|
Lick Ness Monster
Dennis Stamp
From the eerie, eerie depths of Lake Okabena
Posts: 4,874
|
Post by Lick Ness Monster on Oct 24, 2008 23:17:04 GMT -5
And now, the elite of the elite - the top five. #5.  JAWS 1975 Director: Steven Spielberg Brief, brief synopsis: In the film’s opening passage, a young girl wanders off into the ocean, is suddenly jerked around, and turns up the next morning dead – and completely mutilated. A horrific series of shark attacks follow, leaving Amity Island's tourist industry and summer season in shambles. Eventually, the town’s heroic police chief (Roy Scheider), a cocksure oceanographer (Richard Dreyfuss) and a crusty fisherman (Robert Shaw) are sent to kill the monstrous natural terror that threatens the town on many different levels.  TR’s thoughts: Some people will no doubt think it sacriligious that I’ve listed some of films that will follow in this thread as better than Jaws, and you know what? They might be right. A visionary movie director sat down in 1974 with the intentions of filming Peter Benchley’s novel about a shark terrorizing a small, vacationer-hungry Atlantic coast town, with plans to improve the characterization and story from the novel and to create a truly gripping, suspense-filled third act. Nonetheless, the most successful director in the history of film succeeded on all counts. Movies with acting and execution this good are a rare breed, and if you haven’t seen Jaws already, you haven’t smurfin’ lived. Villain ruminations: Perhaps what makes the villain in Jaws so striking is its classic application of the “less is more” concept. We barely see the film’s monstrous shark for much of the first two acts – we catch a quick glimpse of its immense size in the film’s “pond” attack scene, and are truly caught off guard by the sheer enormity of what we’ve just seen. And when the great fish is finally revealed to the three characters on the dingy boat, we agree with Scheider’s famous line.  Why it deserves to be in this spot: This is the film that changed movies forever. The first movie in history to be released under the “wide release” concept, and the first film ever to cross the $100 million threshold, Jaws made the summer season what it is today – and indeed, so immensely popular that it has even been expanded to include May! But, at its absolute root, Jaws is a human story – excellently acted, written, and directed, and one that makes us care about the characters. While the novel doesn't particularly endear any of the three main characters to the audience, the film does, making them living, breathing and relatable - and that’s why it works. |
|
|
|
Post by Rorschach on Oct 24, 2008 23:54:55 GMT -5
*Picks up baseball bat*
Ok....now to see what knocked this out of it's rightful #1 spot.....
;D
All kidding aside, you know I am perhaps the biggest JAWS mark on this board (and if tehboobz comes in here and knocks the film....well, I KNOW where HE lives...) and think it is in an elite group of films that are important not only to their respective genres....but to moviemaking and cinema as a whole.
It may not be YOUR #1 best horror film ever....but it is among the greatest films ever committed to celluloid.
Viva la difference!
|
|
Lick Ness Monster
Dennis Stamp
From the eerie, eerie depths of Lake Okabena
Posts: 4,874
|
Post by Lick Ness Monster on Oct 25, 2008 1:43:47 GMT -5
Just to throw a monkey in the wrench - I enjoyed the Psycho remake. Take my horror fan card away, but I'd be lying if I said I didn't enjoy it. People (rightly) take Rob Zombie to task for making all those changes just for the sake of change to Halloween - so I was all down for a word-for-word repeat with a new cast with Psycho. Hey, if it's not broke, why fix it? Actually that IS my problem with the Psycho remake, TR. What's the point in remaking it if it's the exact same thing? They did a great job with it the first time, so why do it again without throwing in some unique and different stuff? A Re-Make is SUPPOSED to have differences or else it's completely pointless. OK, just this one post, and then back to happyland... I used to post over on the rottentomatoes forums, and I once started a thread over there entitled "Was Van Sant's Psycho really THAT bad?" And of course I was greeted with about 2,000 posts detailing what a moron I am, and that's pretty much the same way it goes everywhere. I see where you're coming from - but I'll stand up for what I believe in. Yeah, it's not the greatest flick, but again - is it really THAT awful? I don't think so - I'll give it to everybody that they could have gotten someone better than Vaughn, but I still enjoyed the film. Sheesh, people react the same way to this movie like they do to Hellraiser III - they act like it molested their mother, or something. I'll also give it to everybody that there is nothing - absolutely ZILCH - that Van Sant could have done to improve the original film. Because it was PERFECT the way it was. And I think Van Sant knew that, so instead of trying to improve it, he did an homage. Maybe not the greatest attempt, but, IMO, far from the total failure everyone thinks it is. And as a 15-year-old at the time that it came out, I for one actually thought it was cool to see a horror film with no pot-smoking teens, excessive gore or Party of Five cast members in the era of Scream clones. *Picks up baseball bat* Ok....now to see what knocked this out of it's rightful #1 spot..... ;D All kidding aside, you know I am perhaps the biggest JAWS mark on this board (and if tehboobz comes in here and knocks the film....well, I KNOW where HE lives...) and think it is in an elite group of films that are important not only to their respective genres....but to moviemaking and cinema as a whole. It may not be YOUR #1 best horror film ever....but it is among the greatest films ever committed to celluloid. Viva la difference! Really, Rorschach, there's not much we disagree on save for just the placement. Jaws is technical perfection on every level. Another opinion of mine that varies GREATLY from most people...well, in the civilized world. I think slasher films are the most important films...there are. They're vital morality tales for this generation, contemporary manifestations of urban legend, chances for really, really badass villains to come to life, and essentially the modern campfire scary story. They're also the first thing I think of whenever I even start getting close to this time of year. My prejudice toward slasher films is well apparent - absolutely love 'em. With that knowledge, I think the next three entries are going to surprise people. Three of the films so far - TCM, Psycho and Spielberg's classic - would be very much expected to be on anybody's list of top ten horror films. The next three - not so much. |
|
|
|
Post by Maidpool w/ Cleaning Action on Oct 25, 2008 1:52:05 GMT -5
Actually that IS my problem with the Psycho remake, TR. What's the point in remaking it if it's the exact same thing? They did a great job with it the first time, so why do it again without throwing in some unique and different stuff? A Re-Make is SUPPOSED to have differences or else it's completely pointless. I used to post over on the rottentomatoes forums, and I once started a thread over there entitled "Was Van Sant's Psycho really THAT bad?" And of course I was greeted with about 2,000 posts detailing what a moron I am, and that's pretty much the same way it goes everywhere. I see where you're coming from - but I'll stand up for what I believe in. Yeah, it's not the greatest flick, but again - is it really THAT awful? I don't think so - I'll give it to everybody that they could have gotten someone better than Vaughn, but I still enjoyed the film. Sheesh, people react the same way to this movie like they do to Hellraiser III - they act like it molested their mother, or something. I'll also give it to everybody that there is nothing - absolutely ZILCH - that Van Sant could have done to improve the original film. Because it was PERFECT the way it was - just like Halloween was. And I think Van Sant knew that, so instead of trying to improve it, he did an homage. Maybe not the greatest attempt, but, IMO, far from the total failure everyone thinks it is. And as a 15-year-old at the time that it came out, I for one actually thought it was cool to see a horror film with no pot-smoking teens, excessive gore or Party of Five cast members in the era of Scream clones. I actually agree with you TR that the Psycho remake wasn't that bad. But it's odd, because like I said earlier that's almost why I hate it. It's so exact to the old one I just see it as completely, and totally unessacry waste of time. I don't actually think it's bad. They kept it so exact they should have just re-released the OG in my opinion. I hope you understand what I'm saying. My thoughts on that movie are odd. |
|
|
|
Post by Maidpool w/ Cleaning Action on Oct 25, 2008 1:55:09 GMT -5
*Picks up baseball bat* Ok....now to see what knocked this out of it's rightful #1 spot..... ;D All kidding aside, you know I am perhaps the biggest JAWS mark on this board (and if tehboobz comes in here and knocks the film....well, I KNOW where HE lives...) and think it is in an elite group of films that are important not only to their respective genres....but to moviemaking and cinema as a whole. It may not be YOUR #1 best horror film ever....but it is among the greatest films ever committed to celluloid. Viva la difference! R-Man, my friend! Look who was just seen on a boat getting ready for his new role of "Bruce the Shark"!  |
|
Lick Ness Monster
Dennis Stamp
From the eerie, eerie depths of Lake Okabena
Posts: 4,874
|
Post by Lick Ness Monster on Oct 25, 2008 1:58:47 GMT -5
I actually agree with you TR that the Psycho remake wasn't that bad. But it's odd, because like I said earlier that's almost why I hate it. It's so exact to the old one I just see it as completely, and totally unessacry waste of time. I don't actually think it's bad. They kept it so exact they should have just re-released the OG in my opinion. I hope you understand what I'm saying. My thoughts on that movie are odd. Oh yeah - we're on the same page. Btw -- PSYCHO 1998 Director: Gus Van Sant *** |
|
|
|
Post by amsiraK on Oct 25, 2008 8:52:40 GMT -5
JAWS? OH HELL YES!
I agreed when Bravo had this at #1 and it totally belongs here, too. This movie left me with DECADES worth of nightmares about Sharks. Bruce the shark rocks in all his mostly-off-screen glory!
~~~~~~~/\~~~~~~~
|
|
|
|
Post by Rorschach on Oct 25, 2008 20:42:56 GMT -5
*Picks up baseball bat* Ok....now to see what knocked this out of it's rightful #1 spot..... ;D All kidding aside, you know I am perhaps the biggest JAWS mark on this board (and if tehboobz comes in here and knocks the film....well, I KNOW where HE lives...) and think it is in an elite group of films that are important not only to their respective genres....but to moviemaking and cinema as a whole. It may not be YOUR #1 best horror film ever....but it is among the greatest films ever committed to celluloid. Viva la difference! R-Man, my friend! Look who was just seen on a boat getting ready for his new role of "Bruce the Shark"! HUMMMAHA<MANANANMMAHAHHAHMMAHAHAMAHAHAMA  God, he has the toothy grin down to a SCIENCE, the evil bastard! |
|
Lick Ness Monster
Dennis Stamp
From the eerie, eerie depths of Lake Okabena
Posts: 4,874
|
Post by Lick Ness Monster on Oct 26, 2008 0:03:34 GMT -5
And now for something completely different... #4.  FRIDAY THE 13TH: THE FINAL CHAPTER 1984 Director: Joseph Zito Brief, brief plot snynopsis: After the events of Friday the 13th Part III, deranged serial killer Jason Voorhees is presumed dead and taken to the morgue. The unstoppable Jason springs to life, escapes, and makes his way back toward Crystal Lake, where a group of teenagers have just set up shop in a lakeside house, and the likable and engaging Jarvis family reside. It’s a slasher bloodbath for the ages as Jason hacks through his newest batch of conquests – but meets his final fight at the end from a most unexpected opponent.  TR’s thoughts: While pretty much every entry in the Friday the 13th series has its merits (well, except for New Beginning and JGTH; God only knows what they were thinking with those), this film encapsulates the true spirit of the franchise better than even the first film. This is the definitive Jason movie – and every horror aficianado should have at least one movie that features Mr. Voorhees. Splatter at its very finest, everything you’d ever want in a slasher film is here - you’ve got a group of horny teenagers (including Crispin Glover as the goofiest, most offbeat slasher victim ever - just look at the gif above - yeah, that wasn't scripted, that was Crispin winging it), more cringe-worthy murder scenes than you can count, the awe-inspiring special effects wizardry of the great Tom Savini, and a truly intense final twenty minutes. Fridays would never get any better than this. Villain ruminations: TFC contains the absolute best version of Jason ever seen in the motion pictures. Period. While Kane Hodder does perhaps the best portrayal of Jason, the Jason of TFC is gritty, wet, cold, monstrous, and truly pissed off and brutal – the killings in the film are fantastically sick, always lingering that extra second to really show off Jason’s wrath against the ever-present oversexed and/or potsmoking teenagers. Most F13 films, especially the earlier ones, had a more methodical Jason – in this one, he’s pretty direct. This Jason wants everyone dead – in preferably the most brutal way possible.  Why it deserves to be in this spot: When I think slasher film, I think Friday the 13th: The Final Chapter. I think of the film’s awesome theatrical trailer, the glorious cheesiness of it all, the image of the hockey mask comin’ at ya before the film’s even more gloriously cheesy opening explosion and Harry Manfredini’s amazing score kicking in, and truly disgusting kill scenes. I think houses by the lake, teens having a little too much fun, and the Friday the 13th name itself. And I also think Corey Feldman and Crispin Glover. |
|
|
|
Post by SsnakeBite, the No1 Frenchman on Oct 26, 2008 6:03:31 GMT -5
Jaws is a horror movie? I'd rather count it as a monsters movie, no?
|
|
|
|
Post by Big DSR Energy on Oct 26, 2008 13:00:29 GMT -5
Jaws is a horror movie? I'd rather count it as a monsters movie, no? I've always thought of Jaws as a horror movie. When I think of "monster movies" I generally think of monsters that don't actually exist, i.e. gill-men or firebreathing lizards the size of buildings. Sharks are pretty real, dude. Even still, if you consider Jaws a monster movie, that doesn't mean it can't also be a horror movie. A good portion of monster movies do fall in the horror category, for one. For another, genres aren't really like different shaped holes, and each film can only fall into one specific hole. Rather, I tend to think of film genres more like paints. You can paint a picture using only red, or you can mix red with blue and make purple, etc. Basically, being classified as one genre obviously doesn't mean the film can't fall into other genres, as well. |
|
Jiren
Patti Mayonnaise
Hearts Bayformers
Posts: 35,163
|
Post by Jiren on Oct 26, 2008 13:04:11 GMT -5
I will not stand for anyone dissing "Friday V: A new beginning".
It's not that bad plus it's much better than the new line series
|
|
