Erm.....Scream?It's alright.I'm glad Drew Barrymore's character died,like in the first 10 minutes.YEY!

i think scream was over rated, there was alot of hype about this movie bringing back the horror genre. It was a good slasher movie but it brought us other movies like I know what you did last summer, and the summer after that, and the summer after that, and oh yes scream 2 and 3 which i don't care for

I really liked Scream, and watch it every halloween along with the 2 and 3. But I agree with the illdojo talking about Ulrich, he isnt very good.

Bad metafilm is infinitely worse than bad film, and Scream is loaded with bad metafilm. If you go by Scream, Wes Craven knows about slasher movies as Kevin Williamson knows about teenagers. Not scary, not funny, too dialogue heavy, smells like an elephant, propositions your sister, eats all the ice cream sandwiches, borrows your car without telling you, constantly plays Warrant albums really loud all the time, insists that Megablox are superior to Legos and constantly votes Republican. Goddamn Scream. Don't get me started. To quote Billy Crystal "Feh!"

I really enjoyed SCREAM and thought it reinvigorated the genre. I saw it the day it premiered with a packed theater and people screamed their heads off. Fun stuff.

I saw it the day it came out out as well. I was 8 yrs old and my dad was going on a date and he couldnt get a babysitter so I got to tag along! I still remember how amazing it was, we also went and saw the other 2 opening day as well.

Excellent.

Of course Scream wasnt any better than an 80s slasher, but the concept and the cheesy tack made it an instant hit. Further, it came at a time when horror was going through a serious bad patch and had hit an all-time low, so it can be safely assumed that this was the movie which brought the audiences back to the theaters, plotholes and bad characterizations aside.

Good to see more people developing an active interest in this discussion. Of course, the lovers can also bash a movie they like...if you think a character was out of place, or if some scenes slowed the pace down...even if you love that movie, feel free to put it down here.

Speaking of slow paces...one movie has always been targeted for being a patchy entertainer. Some of us hold it in very high esteem, yet some of us think it was grossly over-hyped and over-rated. But, why does

Saw

actually share such a love-hate relationship with the audiences, despite its fresh approach and unique scripting and direction?

Is there a flaw in the movie...if yes, what is it? Let the bashings begin!!

I like the original, Danny Glover is the shit. But I must say, Fuck the Saw movies, I don't think a single horror movie comes out in October because of those damn movies.

i like alittle gore in my horror movies, it had you guessing the whole the movie with a good ending. Like this one best out of the 3.

I think they're mediocre at best; the acting in the first at the climax was unbearable.

Thank you.....:D
I have thought that the people that made Saw thought they were making a smarter movie than they actually were. Some great death scenes. But the acting was just awful. Elwes, who I actually usually like, was almost painful to watch. I wanted to throw something at my television, and I love my television. He killed the experience for me. Because yes, there was a lot I liked about it. I like the basic idea, and the claustrophobic feel of the film. But some of it was just boring, and some of it was just ridiculous. The end took me by surprise.....but I laughed....I LAUGHED man.....:p I don't think I was supposed to be laughing. I think I was supposed to actually take that seriously. The filmmakers seemed like they were trying so hard to shock, they just forgot to tell a good story.
It just didn't work for me.

Saw made me laugh too. I think what's worse then the fact that it was laughable was the fact that everyone made me feel like such a horrible person for laughing.

The gore was, however, fairly good.

the acting was bed, the camera was stilted...but the you knew someone was going to saw a leg off...and you spent 90 mins. building toward it. I thought it was a breath of fresh air in the genre.

I think it would have been better as a half hour short. It didn't feel like the premise had enough legs for a movie, or a franchise. But, it was pretty distinctive and was one of the better Theater of Cruelty films out there.

The short that led to Saw was surprisingly good, and I liked the movie too. Was it perfect? No way... wasn't even close. But look at the 20 "horror" flicks released in theaters in 2004. I'd say that Saw was easily in the top five and probably in the top three.

1 The Grudge
2 AVP: Alien Vs. Predator
3 Dawn of the Dead
4 Saw Horror
5 Resident Evil:
6 Exorcist: The Beginning
7 Anacondas: The Hunt for the Blood Orchid
8 Seed of Chucky
9 Darkness
10 Gothika
11 Godzilla: The Original Japanese Version
12 Ju-On: The Grudge
13 The Texas Chainsaw Massacre
14 Riding the Bullet
15 Malevolence
16 A Tale of Two Sisters
17 Fabled
18 The Manson Family
19 Evil Remains
20 The Hillside Strangler

Personally Saw is one my my favorite post 2000 horror films and a very consistent franchise... so far.

With those stats in front of my face, Saw looks good.

Must admit all those other movies make Saw look like a bulldozer. Although the movie had its shortcomings (like Scream did), what won the audiences over was its fresh approach (again!) to the waning genre. Audiences are willing to look over weaker aspects of the movie (ala High Tension) if the overall movie has a fresh and unique appeal to it.

This is good. Excellent bashings, folks! Keep em coming...

Over the years, we have seen a movie being mentioned so many times...quite fondly by some, but uncared by others...but what did the haters not like in

Tenebre?

Was it the bad dubbing/acting or the effects?



Bring on the bashing!!

although i am a huge fan of argento this is the one movie of his who's popularity baffles me. people rate it comparably to suspiria but for me it was just a slightly poorly constructed slasher. the plot was too sketchy and the storyline very loosely woven together to the extent where it seemed like a series of set pieces. i remember reading a critique of argento's movies that delved into how some of his characters seem to act without motive or explanation and this appears most evident in tenebre. i'm not saying i need my hand held all the way but i did become distracted during this movie. finally, the bad dubbing is at it's worst in this one but as almost all his best work has bad dubbing it's probably irrelevant here. almost forgot, his movies are always visually beautiful but this is the rosie o'donnell of argentos

Tenebre is one of those situations in which Argento characters definitely act inhuman. I think it's because Argento is a visual guy who works with symbols and gestures more than anything, therefore the characters work within the symbolic logic instead of any psychological logic. Tenebre doesn't have enough grounding in reality to make its dreamlike characters and action seem perversely real as they do in other Argento films. It's still an interesting early stab at the points he makes about art and violence in Opera. There's just too much Fellini and not enough Bava in it.

I can't bash this one, since it happens to be my favorite film from one of my favorite directors.
But, despite that, I can understand why others might not like it. Argento isn't for everyone anyway, and Tenebre is not an easy movie, because of character and motivations (which has already been mentioned). But the camera work in this one has always stood out to me, the death scenes are very well done, and there are a few really creepy moments. Logic problems aside (which always plague Argento's films), I still think this is one of the most intriguing films I have ever seen. And after several viewings, it hasn't ever lost its appeal for me.

Completely agree with the points Doc raises. Of course the characterization and editing was somewhat different from other Argento movies, and that maybe deters some from its main theme of being a solid slasher movie.

Most of the Italian movies of those times suffered from the bad dubbing problem...which was worse in Tenebre...but dubbing notwithstanding, I thought it was a great slasher overall and had a good script and fine performances to back it up. It was a signature movie from Argento's movie-making table.

Very nicely dissected, I must say...Doc, tony and Jenna. Its good to see people appreciate and criticize a movie at the same time. This is great stuff...

Love-hate relationships have been a huge factor in many movies' popularity. Its very rare to get a movie which EVERYONE loves or EVERYONE hates (except some complete and utter crap and nonsense). The haters manage to find some positives in a movie they hate, and that is good. But yet, why do the haters find it hard to accept

Army of Darkness

in the same league of its illustrious predecessors, Evil Dead and Evil Dead 2?

After all, it added a whole new dimension to the Ash saga and built up on the horror/comedy factor of Evil Dead 2.

Then why the indifference?

Bring on the bashings!!!

I've never seen anyone hate this??

I have not one bad thing to say about AOD.
Ash and Army of Darkness are kick ass. :cool:

I've known a lot of people who really hated the direction the series went with less horror and more comedy. Personally I loved it, but I can see where people expecting the same gruesome scares of the first two films would be dissapointed. A lot of the people that I've talked to that dislike AoD (at least in comparison two the first two) feel that AoD took a different direction. I think that if you look at Evil Dead 1 & 2 first you can see the progression of the series, it's not a different direction at all, this series simply followed the course it began from the first to the second.

I agree.
I love Army of Darkness, but I can see why some would be disappointed by the lack of gore. Evil Dead 2 is my perfect movie. And I don't feel Army of Darkness is quite as good as the first two. But still lots of fun, and definitely a worthy entry in the series. It did, at least to me, feel like a natural progression. All three of the films have distinctly different feels, in my opinion. And I like that about them.

I think some fans were alienated not just by the addition of more comedy, but by the total breakdown of genre. To go from pure horror to medieval craziness is a big departure. I like Army of Darkness and think it was a gutsy move for Raimi, but not everybody is going to be into something that weird and progressive. People were also alienated by the fact that Land of the Dead was a sci-fi action piece.

Where the first one started off with out-and-out pure horror, the second managed to successfully blend some cheesy humor into the same horror scenario. Where the 3rd went was into more cheesy, black humor in a different setting than horror like the first and second.

And it was like watching Conan or Red Sonja rather than an Evil Dead sequel. Of course Ash got his "king" tag from this movie (and from the end of ED2), but as far as ED movies go...AoD was more in the lines of an entertaining comedy/horror...than a horror movie with doses of comedy.

Excellent critical bashings folks! I have to say we have some very knowledgeable members here at HDC who can successfully critically dissect a particular movie...

Speaking of which...one movie which I have seen a lot of people giving the thumbs down to...is

Phantasm

yet there are some of us who adore it.

Why do the haters hate it? What doesnt click with them? Bring on the bashing!!

Honestly, I have yet to finish Phantasm, everytime I try I seem to zone out.....:p One day I really do plan to make it through that film, and the second one, because I have heard it is pretty decent.

I like Phantasm in spite of a lot of silliness. The plot makes almost no sense, the horror is completely hit or miss and anarchy reigns over the entire third act. Even if you get it, you're still asking "what the hell was that? An evil mortician enslaves an army of space midgets and a stoner ice cream man is the earth's last hope?" It's wacky, it's completely over-the-top, but it's fun, it's often scary and Angus Scrimm is spectacular. You need to forgive this movie its trespasses and exalt in its carnival virtues to like it.

Wow Doc...I think that pretty much sums it up. Great write up:)

Phantasm is a damn fun movie...its really bizarre, but I think thats a big part of its charm.

was it a phantasm movie i remember where this kid gets buried alive at the beginning? i think it might've been his birthday.

I love Phantasm ,The Tall Man,Chrome death spheres,Hearses,Caskets,Midgets and Reggie ... what's not to like?

Mixed opinions...but yet, some of us still find Phantasm boring and akin to kids horror. For me it was a nice blend of atmospheric horror and nice characterisation...especially The Tall Man.

Moving on to a more modern example...this movie was hailed as a throwback to the cheesy black humor horror of the 70s and the 80s...it was filled with gore to the brim but had its share of campy humor in large doses. If it ended up as a good movie experience, then why do the haters bash

Slither?

Bring it on!!!

Slither is great. It's the freshest spin on campy horror-comedy since I-don't-know-when. The effects were awesome, the gore plentiful, and it had that squeamish factor we love so much from bug movies.

I blind-bought this, which means it had a big rep. to keep, and I had nothing bad to say about it at all.

Loved every second of Slither. Nathan Fillion is one of the most talented "up-and-coming" actors out there today...this was my first exposure to his work and I've been a fan ever since. Not to mention the cool 80's horror plot, the awesome gore and all the little references to classic horror flicks...great movie.

Slither is killer!!! Kinda like a Night of the Creeps remake, but better.

I completely agree. I had so much fun with this film.

Things have pretty much slowed down around these parts, so I decided to **bump** this thread back. It holds so much potential for critical analysis and appreciation that, it should get a second shot.

So...judging by the above reactions, there isnt much wrong with Slither. I agree too, to an extent...although I thought Michael Rooker's part was a bit stretched and overcooked. The humor was spot-on though, and some of the sequences were outlandishly entertaining.

Righto...umm...many of us has seen this movie, and some of us became lifelong fans of it...but there are others who see the flaws in it, beyond its cheesiness...and dont regard it too highly.

So, movie bashers, why dont you like

Tremors?


Bring it on!!:cool:

Tremors 1 & 2 are a good time. too many bad sequels though.

Tremors is great! I remember seeing it at the drive-ins.

What would have been really scary is if the underground creature tried to steal their music. Then Kevin Bacon would have something to really be pissed off about. Dancing would ensue.