Movie Bashers Inc.
 

If this has been done before, sue me.:p

Its common to see hate towards a particular movie. Sometimes a favorite of one person turns out to be hated by another.

Here we will feel free to dissect a movie.

- Why didnt you like it? (or) What part of it wasnt good?

- What movie makes you turn the TV/DVD player off?

- What pisses you off about it?:mad:

- (do you quietly watch it afterwards, when your hateful peers are gone or snoring in bed? Is it a guilty pleasure for you?;) )

Bash the movie, as much as you want. But dont take it personal, please. This will be healthy/unhealthy criticism of the movie ONLY, not the people who like it for some reason.:)

Ok...lets have the first one, which shares a love/hate relationship a lot around these parts...


Halloween 3: Season of the Witch.

Bring it on, folks.....:cool:

Ooh! Cool thread idea, V.
I've yet to see Halloween III, so I can't participate. The damned DVD has been sitting on my shelf for ages...perhaps it's all the bad things I've heard that pushes me away from it.

But you haven't told us...do you like it?

i agree. a great new idea for a thread. it seems like ages since one came along. lets hope they're like buses. oh yeah, almost forgot, haven't seen halloween III. sorry:) . if this was a sticky it's exactly the type of thing i come here for.

I'll go...

the fucking song!

Jesus H Tap-dancing Christ...that song works it way into your brain until you want to claw your ear drums out.

To the tune of "London Bridge is Falling Down" - and with an Alvin and the Chipmunks voice
"Happy, Happy Halloween
Halloween, Halloween,
Happy, Happy Halloween,
Silver Shamrock"

I dont hate it. But it isnt in my list of favorites anyway.

First of all, like Rod said, that annoying song. Everytime it played in the movie I was literally close to pulling my hair off. Then the stupid make-up effects, which was totally lame.

Sure, the plot was decent...but wtf were they thinking borrowing the Halloween name for? Only to rake in the money IMO.

I had remarked once in another thread that IF Halloween II hadnt followed the story of Myers, and this one was touted Halloween II, then Season of the Witch COULD HAVE been a mild success.

Making an independent movie separate from the Myers storyline and calling it Halloween 3...it was the biggest mistake in its downfall, among a hoard of others.

(No comparison to Friday the 13th pt. V here, at least the killer in that one imitated and copied Jason's M.O.)

Thats my view.

I like the idea that they wanted to mix up the franchise. But, if you're going to mix up a franchise and you don't want to alienate its viewers don't say "okay, you can have Michael Myers or you can have an ass sundae made with a low fat ass substitute that we synthesized in a lab so that it would taste only slightly worse than ass and have half the fat content. C'mon people, try our low fat ass substitute!" While the other Halloween movies often leave the taste of rancid ass in your mouth, at least it's actually the taste of rancid ass and stale creativity, instead of an anemic substitute for it. If it weren't a Halloween movie, people would be to this day asking "what's the name of that terrible, meandering, lameass movie with the masks that make people's head explode for no good reason?" And we'd be telling them "the Gate." If they wanted to make a set of Halloween films not directly connected to Michael Myers, why not make movies in which Doctor Loomis solves other macabre crimes and make the franchise "Donald Pleasence Adventures"? That way, following the death of Donald Pleasence, people wouldn't have continued to make paper-thin and stupid entries about Jamie Lee Curtis' slide into mental illness. The more I think about Halloween 3, the less I like it and the more I dig the original. And Halloween 5. Halloween 5 was pretty sweet.

:D :D
Sweet
:D :D

Excellently dissected, Doc. Thats what is true movie-bashing.:D

(btw once you feel a movie has been bashed enough, any of you may go on to suggest a movie...which shares such love-hate relationships with its viewers)

Who knows, tony, maybe we might make this thread good enough to be stickied.;)


Moving on to our next "victim", some of you LOVE it, some of you HATE it...but whats actually wrong with

Event Horizon?

Bring in the bashings, folks!

Nothing's "wrong" with Event Horizon. It's just ideologically charged. If there is a non-existentialist bone in your body, then Event Horizon can be a croquet mallet to the kidneys. Lots of people like Nekromantik 2 for example, but I think it contradicts the first one's sense of affirmation too much, and Event Horizon's the same way. It's a cold , vicious environment and it has a cold, vicious message attached to it. It gets right in there and targets one's sense of existential fairness. Everybody's floating in raw, angry space. If you can dig the effects and ignore the fact that it is made to feel claustrophobic and it is made to be an assault on the senses, then you can have a good time . If you're a Nekromantik 2 fan, you can have a good time. But for the film to be enjoyable, there's a certain amount of tune-out and tune-in required at the same time and that's a challenge for a lot of people. And it's a little longwinded. Like my deconstruction thereof.

It just tried to be too shiny. It had this kind of simple, fucked up, psychological ghost story premise, but then there were these weird CGI tricks that detracted from the scares.

All in all, though, it really ain't bad.

I actually liked Event Horizon. I have a soft spot for good space horror.

I can not bash this movie, it's in my top 10.
Can't even think up one wrong move with this flick:)

I fucking hated it - but haven't seen it since it came out. I just dropped it into the top of my Netflix queue to see if I got it wrong, but I found it nonsensical, not at all scary and boring as shit.

A plenty good set-up that falls into really stupid behavior and wretched acting.

I really love EH...I thought the premise and story were excellent and Sam Neill with Fishburne really delivered. It was pacy, had taut and creepy atmosphere throughout...and there was this lingering feeling that something really bad was gonna happen any minute...an "Alien"-esque feeling which I didnt have for a long, long time. Maybe the climax wasnt upto the movie's standards, but the story was solid, and the movie excelled.

Doc summed it nicely. Rod still hates it with a passion. Alky is sorta in the middle. Guess we will leave this one for awhile. (Maybe pick it up later)

This thread is getting more and more interesting...and thats good.

Many of you love it, but many of you bash it for some reason. So haters, why is there no love for

House of 1000 Corpses?


Bring on the bashing, folks!:cool:

TCM rip off.......but a good one.....kinda fell apart at the end.

Exactly my thoughts too, bro.

But many out there dont give it more than a 5 out of 10.

Any other reason for the movie failing to deliver where The Devil's Rejects, its sequel, scored?

Rejects was more grounded in reality.....that shit could and does happen....much more frightening IMO.

I am one of those that loves The Devil's Rejects, and doesn't care for House of 1000 Corpses.
I felt House of 1000 Corpses was generic, the characters were more annoying than frightening (particularly Baby), or they just weren't terribly memorable, and the end just killed it for me. Overall, it was just.....forgettable. So it was very disappointing.
The Devil's Rejects was actually surprisingly well-written, darkly funny at times while also being a brutal film. In my opinion it just had smarts that the first film lacked.

House of 1000 corpses was just horribly average.

Corpses was not so good, IMO. Although Zombie definitely grew as a filmmaker between films. Rejects was much better.

Felt like a music video that went on too long and had no purpose

I watched Rejects once and enjoyed it, but I have never felt like rewatching it.

I liked House, not nearly as good as Rejects, but anyway, I enjoyed the movie, particularly Otis and Spaulding.

this movie lost it's way half way through. i didn't find it gripping over the duration of the movie which is an absolute crime in a slasher. TCM, haute tension, halloween etc. all build a little story and a lot of tension. i guess the directing and writing fall down here. what it lacks in story and tension it more than makes up for in it's characters. it's one redeeming feature is, IMO one of the great horror characters, capt. spaulding. i would've prefered it if he'd been one of those bad goodies like william muni or T2:D ps. glad to see EH didn't take too much of a beating.

I thought House of 1000 Corpses was just an over-dramatization of the Texas Chainsaw Massacre. Most of the characters were too loud and simply annoying.

I do agree with most of the points raised. Excellent bashing, folks!!:D

Ok, many of you absolutely LOVE it, but some of you HATE it and call it over-rated...but why does


The Shining


share such bipolar attitude with the audiences?

Bring on the bashing!

No hatred here.

NO BEER,NO TV, MAKE HOMER...SOMETHING,SOMETHING.

http://entretenimento.globo.com/Entr...886-NDP,00.jpg

Exactly, on spot, sir.

I don't hate it, I have lots of love for Kubrick as a filmmaker and it is a solid, smart horror film. BUT it is definitely not my favorite Kubrick film. Its just because the book is so well loved. And it was very much Kubrick's The Shining, and not King's. Normally, I wouldn't have had a problem with that, I want directors to put their own spin on things......but in the novel, Jack seemed like a regular guy that had anger management problems, and a drinking problem, but he wasn't crazy.....it was a slow descent into madness, and the problems that he already had made him particularly susceptible to the evil of the place. In the movie he just seemed to start out nuts and he was hard to identify with. In the novel, Jack was very easy to identify with (you didn't always like him, but you "got" him), which made it all the more frightening. It just wasn't as scary or as effective as the book was, in my opinion.

Watching a crazy man going crazy is not an exciting passtime for me. Jack Torrance has shreds of normalcy that Nicholson doesn't pull off. And of course, Kubrick, consummate auteur, consummate egotist decided that an artist going mad was much more interesting than a child exploring a world of danger created by a parent's loss of sanity and grounding. I definitely agree with Jenna that the book worked better. It was also too sterile for me. The Overlook felt like a hospital.

It's a great movie, just not as great as it's reputation would dictate. The book was far better (though the movie has a better ending)

I love Jack Nicholson's performance in the Kubrick film. One of the best "crazy" performances in cinematic history. However, as an avid reader and a fan of Stephen King's book, the film just doesn't do the book justice. Kubrick took ALOT of liberties with the storyline, but I can understand why he did this.

King wrote about Kubrick's film:

"There's a lot to like about it. But it's a great big beautiful Cadillac with no motor inside, you can sit in it and you can enjoy the smell of the leather upholstery - the only thing you can't do is drive it anywhere. So I would do every thing different. The real problem is that Kubrick set out to make a horror picture with no apparent understanding of the genre. Everything about it screams that from beginning to end, from plot decision to the final scene - which has been used before on the Twilight Zone"

Yep, that was my biggest beef (though I enjoy The Shining): The Overlook just wasn't the monsterous, horrifying dungeon it was described as so beautifully by King.
Plus, even though it may have turned out looking awful, the exclusion of Danny's voyage into the garden of the hedges was a big no-no...one of the books most tense scenes would have made a creepy escape from what starts to get monotonous.

Kubrick made it all his own...it stopped being King's Shining the moment Kubrick's Jack Nicholson alienated Torrance from the audiences.

Granted, the descent into madness was portrayed brilliantly, but we felt one with the character of the book, not the movie.

And of course, the Overlook and its scares werent so scary in the first place. There wasnt much creepiness in it, cept for what Nicholson showed on-screen. All being said, Kubrick made one hell of a movie adaptation, and Nicholson's portrayal still stands as one of the best performances so far.

Excellent...this is getting better and better as we go along...

Speaking of bipolarity, why do many of you feel no love for


Land of the Dead


while some of you speak of it with much fondness?

Bring on your bashings!!

I liked it... John Leguizamo and Dennis Hopper in the same movie reminded me of my childhood. (Did anybody get that?)

My favorite part of the movie was Robert Joy, I knew he would kick some ass one day since I saw him on Malcolm In The Middle.

For me, this movie seemed very "rushed." The acting (in general) kinda sucked. And there was not nearly enough character development. I didn't even care if the main characters lived or died. And on top of that, Romero even tried to "humanize" the zombies so we sympathize with them. Blah!

Also, the film did nothing that the previous films hadn't already done.

If Land of the Dead was judged on the basis that it was just another zombie movie it would garnar a lot of praise I think. It's a great zombie film. Unfortuanatly it doesn't live up to the other films in Romero's Dead franchise but maybe it's because we've seen so much with zombies now. I liked it much better than the Dawn remake (which I thought was pretty decent).

Oh, and I love Hopper in this one too, what an ass.

i felt a bit disappointed after watching this movie. it just doesn't feel like a romero. good cast, good story and decent script but not as raw and edgy as the previous installments. i can't put my finger on it but it was just a little hollywood. maybe my expectations were too high.

No scares - none

The other movies had jump-out-of-your-seat scares...this one was dull and uninspired. Sure the subtext is solid, but who goes to see a movie's subtext?

I wanted more Asia and more terror.

Jeepers Creepers
This movie is complete shit. The creature is stupid, the story is stupid, the acting was shit, and I can't believe they made a sequel. :rolleyes:
I DO NOT understand why so many people @ HDC like this waste of time and film.