The Horror Thread - Part 3

Status
Not open for further replies.
NOES6 is a guilty pleasure just because it's so bad. Overall I'd say Dream Warriors as well. It's just a nicely done movie all around.

Freddy was a nice switch from the silent Micheal Myers and Jason. You could consider him a much more threatening villain because he could get you when you were totally defenseless unlike the other two who you could run from and just drive off from.

I never found Chucky from Childs Play scary because I always figured that if you could kick them away then they weren't that much of a threat. Of course after watching the Critters movies later I adjusted my expectations. :p

if Chucky could shoot quills, he'd be pretty scary too.
 
FvJ is a huge guilty pleasure of mine, I really do like it a lot.

i liked it a lot when i saw it at the theatre. i don't know if it'd hold up now that they've made an attempt at rebooting both series. Jason had some great kills in FvJ, though; flaming machete and back-breaker scenes.
 
Watched the new Ti West movie, The Sacrament.

It was ok. I was kind of hoping for a "Safe Haven" kind of deal but its just a fictionalized version of the Jonestown tragedy. Really good suspenseful moments and the Savannah girl was appropriately creepy.
 
I didn't see that but I did watch a horror movie documentary on Netflix. That was pretty good. It went all the way back to the beginning all through until today.

Last I checked, Never Sleep Again was on YouTube in its entirity. It's really good.
 
i wonder when Babadook will be available, here. my interest was piqued by the trailer.
 
I'm watching Never Sleep Again. It's not bad.
 
This issue is that he's now well known for his wisecracking dark humor. I don't mind it but it does get annoying after a while. The whole sequence with the deaf guy (Carlos?) in NOES6 still makes me laugh though.

It's just that after #3, the wisecracking is over done. Every kill has to be "funnier & funnier". According to an interview with Robert Englund printed in Fangoria Magazine about ten years ago, they would shoot two versions of every kill, one scary & one funny. The studio would be given the choice of which one they'd prefer and they'd always choose the funny version. They didn't start this until around #4 though.
 
i liked it a lot when i saw it at the theatre. i don't know if it'd hold up now that they've made an attempt at rebooting both series. Jason had some great kills in FvJ, though; flaming machete and back-breaker scenes.

Everything leading up to the big fight between Freddy & Jason was mediocre at best. The final fight between the two was pretty badass though.
 
Wasn't there a script that had Freddy and Jason in court for a trial?

I had that one downloaded on my computer before it died. It was Jason who was on trial. Freddy was still a dream demon, and it turned out he was the one who had caused Jason to drown as a boy.
 
Everything leading up to the big fight between Freddy & Jason was mediocre at best. The final fight between the two was pretty badass though.

The whole point of the movie was just the two fights with Jason in the dream world and Freddy in reality. Everyone knew the rest was just filler.
 
It's just that after #3, the wisecracking is over done. Every kill has to be "funnier & funnier". According to an interview with Robert Englund printed in Fangoria Magazine about ten years ago, they would shoot two versions of every kill, one scary & one funny. The studio would be given the choice of which one they'd prefer and they'd always choose the funny version. They didn't start this until around #4 though.

Personally I dig 4 & 5 don't find them to be much jokier than Dream Warriors. I have a lot of respect for how much imagination went into that odd little Trilogy within the series.

I don't know, I guess its because I've never found Freddy to be particularly scary and just find all of the better films to be quite fun and enjoy the effects. I can't stand 2 or 6 though.
 
Freddy's wise-cracking did at times go to ridiculous heights but I wouldn't mind them being tempered with more serious or toned down kills. He was at his best when he wasn't all dark and serious but not entirely camp either.
 
He was at his best in NOES #1, when he WAS dark and scary. And even his (relatively few) jokes were more creepy/dark/disturbing in nature.
 
You mean, just another (mostly) silent killer? A stand in for Michael Myers or Jason Vorhees or Leatherface? We have plenty of stoically silent killers already who were adequate killers who didn't get too inventive with their victims.
 
The whole point of the movie was just the two fights with Jason in the dream world and Freddy in reality. Everyone knew the rest was just filler.

True, but the filler could have been done better IMO.
 
You mean, just another (mostly) silent killer? A stand in for Michael Myers or Jason Vorhees or Leatherface? We have plenty of stoically silent killers already who were adequate killers who didn't get too inventive with their victims.
Freddy was anything but an average silent killer like the guys you mentioned in the first NOES.

What makes Freddy interesting is the fact that he comes to you when you sleep... the humor/jokes aren't what make the character imo

Also, that script with Jason on trial sounds awesome. Love the idea of Freddy causing Jason to drown
 
Freddy was anything but an average silent killer like the guys you mentioned in the first NOES.

What makes Freddy interesting is the fact that he comes to you when you sleep... the humor/jokes aren't what make the character imo


Also, that script with Jason on trial sounds awesome. Love the idea of Freddy causing Jason to drown

I was gonna say the same thing, but you beat me to it. He did plenty of talking in the original movie, it just wasn't all jokes and bad puns. The few examples of his sense of humor were so pitch black that pretty much only people as sick in the head as Freddy is would actually find them funny. Things like cutting off his own fingers in order to frighten Tina. Or popping up where ever a fleeing victim turns (mostly either Tina or Nancy). Stuff that's hilarious to a maniac like Krueger, but not necessarily to those watching the movie.
 
True, but the filler could have been done better IMO.

I know and there was some shots I read about that I'd have love to see in there but I'm fine with what we have. The bad just makes the good more worthwhile.
 
I agree.

Instead, we got Kelly Rowland calling Freddy a f*****t.

What the hell was Kelly Rowland doing in the picture anyway? Couldn't they find a REAL actress to play the African American machete fodder?

Plus the second rate Jason Mewes wannabe playing the stoner. I mean, if you're gonna try and build your career around imitating another actor, why would you choose a one trick pony like Jason Mewes? That's like hiring someone to impersonate Pauly Shore as a character in your movie.

I guess the real Jason Mewes and Pauly Shore had too much dignity to be seen in this movie. Just marvel at that concept for a moment.
 
Dignity schindity. I'd jump at the chance to even be an extra in a Freddy movie. :D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
202,268
Messages
22,076,843
Members
45,876
Latest member
Crazygamer3011
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"