What a load of shit...

[ChEEbA]

I saw "the frighteners" WAY back when, before anyone knew PJ for anything but his splatter/comedy films...ALWAYS thought it was awesome, and it's still one of my favourite movies to date.

So, I was looking in imdb for a description of The Frighteners for a friend, and I got this:
(All from the same guy, I'll interject where necessary)

"Peter Jackson's "The Frighteners" becomes an odd cinematic experience after a while that goes all over the map way too much to be a complete success. The screenplay tries to be something for all audiences and this makes the film a sad mis-fire."

- If you ask me, the eclectic feel of this movie is but one of the many things that made it cool...a sad misfire? SUCK MY NUTS.

"Paranormal investigator Michael J. Fox is trying to figure out why many in his sleepy little town are dying mysteriously. Side-stories galore, vivid characters, crazed special effects and an uneven tone make the film feel strange to the viewer."

- Is this a bad thing? No...

"Amazingly funny sequences are followed by disturbingly dark scenes that may bother more than intrigue the audience."

- I agree with the first part, that's relatively accurate, but at no point was I "bothered" by it...I found it unusual, and pretty damn engrossing. It wasn't the most conventional of films, nor do I fit it into any particular genre - but none of these things "bothered" me, they only made me feel as though I'd seen an original film...and yes, I was INTREGUED, assmonkey.


"A really great concept and idea seem wasted at times and in the end "The Frighteners" just becomes another could-have-been movie. 2.5 out of 5 stars."

- Yes, it was a great concept...I think every element of the film was put to good use and effect. It was a badass blend of light and dark comedy, mild horror, and supernatural thriller.
What a shitty, cocksucking BITCH of a rating. I would've given it at LEAST 4.
"Could have been"?? Motherfucker it WAS, and IS, for anyone who KNOWS SHIT.

Man...does IMDB just take any jackasses assessment?!?
I just had to say something.

Ok, I'm done.

- B

[The_Return]

I love that movie!


That feller that wrote that review should pull his head outta his ass



On a related note : Micheal J. Fox's character "kills" his wife on my b-day, right down to the year and everything! When I 1st saw the movie, I thought I was imagining things, so I rewound it to Milton's speech, and I was right! Creepy, eh? [July 3rd, 1990]

[ChEEbA]

I love you, man...

[urgeok]

its a great flick ...
you used to be able to get fairly good reviews on IMDB but its gone to shit lately and sometimes you get these wannabe critics trying to make their splash - set themselves apart from all of the other fanboys by getting in your face..


I nabbed the soundtrack of the Frighteners too by the way ..
I love the cover of Don't Fear the Reaper by The Muttonbirds.

[damage_plan]

I love this movie, its a lot more original than most of the crap that passes for horror these days.

[nine9]

This is a great movie! Love it!!!!!!! :D

[The STE]

Originally posted by ChEEbA
Man...does IMDB just take any jackasses assessment?!?

Yes, actually. You submit a review, it goes up automatically, kinda like Amazon.com or Netflix

[evil_blonde]

But that's a cool movie... Some people just can't review movies... That includes me but... oh well...

[theshadow]

i started watching that movie one night and hadto go pick someone up or something and never saw the rest. now i'll make a point of watching it. thanks.

[ChEEbA]

Yes, actually. You submit a review, it goes up automatically, kinda like Amazon.com or Netflix

That is a fucking joke.



i started watching that movie one night and hadto go pick someone up or something and never saw the rest. now i'll make a point of watching it. thanks.

- Yes, you should...

[42ndStreetFreak]

Hold on...the guy just found fault with the film...he was not stupidly nasty about it, or even completely negative.

It was better than some of the shit on message boards along the lines of "this movie is gay dude", or "this movie raaawks"!

You just don't agree with his views...big deal.

if he said the exact same things about a film you all dislike you would either be saying nothing or praising him.


I for one think "The Frighteners" has some great ideas and visuals but it's not a patch on the vibrant creations that are "Bad Taste" and "Meet the Feebles"...it's a big budget mainstream horror film which is simply average as a whole.

Now flame me.

IMDB has it's many faults...but some of the reviews are pretty good (some are excellent) and the links to external reviews can be very helpful.

Yes i have many external reviews linked...no, i am nothing to do with IMDB and no i am not this guy you are all slamming.

[urgeok]

Originally posted by 42ndStreetFreak
Hold on...the guy just found fault with the film...he was not stupidly nasty about it, or even completely negative.

It was better than some of the shit on message boards along the lines of "this movie is gay dude", or "this movie raaawks"!

You just don't agree with his views...big deal.

if he said the exact same things about a film you all dislike you would either be saying nothing or praising him.


I for one think "The Frighteners" has some great ideas and visuals but it's not a patch on the vibrant creations that are "Bad Taste" and "Meet the Feebles"...it's a big budget mainstream horror film which is simply average as a whole.

Now flame me.

IMDB has it's many faults...but some of the reviews are pretty good (some are excellent) and the links to external reviews can be very helpful.

Yes i have many external reviews linked...no, i am nothing to do with IMDB and no i am not this guy you are all slamming.


you have to admit ... IMDB isn't what it used to be ..
unfortunately this 'voice' that we have all been given is a double sided coin and there are lot of sub par contributions on IMDB as a result ... (let alone the forums - they have gone completely ape-shit)

True that The Frighteners was a bit of a departure for Jackson and flawed in places but at least the review gave way to a bit of a movie discussion here ...which is getting to be a rare thing.
And it was a fun movie...

[Vodstok]

It was enjoyable and not retarded, that makes it a modern masterpiece.

My esteem of the average review in IMDB is that they are mostly crap. However, just submitting it doesnt garuntee it gets posted. it gets reviewed first, although not very well. i'v ewritten a few, namely for some Alien movies, Dungeons and Dragons, and Marilyn's Man (which was a piece of shit, even for a cheap-ass documentary.....)

[ChEEbA]

I wasn't really slamming HIM, or slamming at all. He had his p.o.v, I found fault with IT (just like he clearly did with the movie), and I said MY peice also - hey, I agreed with him on SOME points.

However, I think that if I were to have gone into imdb and stumbled across this film without having seen it, and read THAT - actually, no...not me...I don't go on reviews, but I'm sure a lot of people do...so, I'd say a lot of people might read that review and be convinced that it was a shit film with a good concept.
Was it Underworld? NO.
Yeah yeah, I'm dissing Underworld...but I'm not writing reviews for the imdb about it...eg: Ok, for the record, I didn't TOTALLY hate Underworld, but I thought that the majority of the characters were very 2 dimensional, and the acting was simply shithouse. I found that it had an overly convoluted plot for this kind of film and too much uneccesary conversation, seemingly both in an attempt to "smarten" what was clearly just another "clone" action film - this made the non action sequences boring, and a chore to sit through.
IMO, it also had an anticlimatic ending, tailor made only to say "here comes a sequel"...however, I guess the female was nice to look at, and the film had some interesting transformations, and nice weapon/combat effects, borrowed as they were. (SEE? piling shit on a film and saying one or two good things doesn't make it come off as great...)

You're right 42, I don't agree with all of his views - nor do I agree with yours. I wasn't telling him he didn't have the right to say those things...if I wanted to do that, MY review would be up there too, intentionally ripping into his.
But for all intents and purposes, he made a GOOD film look like shit...and he can do that, and SOME people will agree with him, you're walking proof.
All I'm saying is that since imdb is such a huge resource for films, I think that if someone submits a review like this, fine - but they should at least wait for a more posetive review to be posted also, for more objectivity...no doubt some Underworld fans would have liked the same...However, I DO think the majority of people that have seen the movie would agree that this was a rather poor review, I guess the only way to actually prove this though would be to have somebody that hasn't SEEN the film to read the review, then see the film. (hey, if anyone can get THAT happening, let me know...maybe I can ask my abovementioned friend that I was initially getting the review FOR)

urgeok, I agree...it's nice to have a film discussion going on for once...

[EXTR3MIST]

Well, the guy who wrote that review is obviously a flamboyant retarded homosexual who sux and is gay.

Best thing about The Frighteners is it put the frighteners up those kids expecting a fun comedy horror - it's quite bloody nasty in places.

It was cut in the UK & USA - including blood splashes to Jeffrey Combs' face and a rumoured "rectal worm" (don't ask) sequence.

And the film was temporarily banned in Tasmania in the wake of the Port Arthur massacre, which the film apparently echoes...

[slasherman]

Not my favourite but.......its more like comedy than horror.....like Ghostbusters...