YAWN
Wait… was this a comedy? The acting is so hammy, the dialogues are laughable, horror? don't make me laugh… LOL… did people in the 1960s actually find this scary? Morons… this needs a remake. BORING!
shareWait… was this a comedy? The acting is so hammy, the dialogues are laughable, horror? don't make me laugh… LOL… did people in the 1960s actually find this scary? Morons… this needs a remake. BORING!
shareSome bridge in England seems to be missing its troll.
"No fate but what we make." -Terminator II
Why? Because I thought it was boring and not scary at all? If you were scared by this, fine. I read somewhere it's one of the scariest movies ever made. Eh… hm… no, it's not. Maybe, if you're 6 years old. How is it scary? How, exactly?
shareEh… hm… no, it's not.
[deleted]
Yep, number 1 on Scorsese's scariest horror movies of all time.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2009/10/28/martin-scorseses-top- 11-horror-films-of-all-time.html
[deleted]
I think I saw it, years and years ago. But I'm not positive, and have now found it on YouTube, so will take a look. Thanks!
Just finished watching the 1989 version of The Woman in Black. You've seen it? It was decent, I like the atmosphere in the scenes at and around the house on the marsh.
[deleted]
Yes, I did, but now I feel like I need to watch it over again to compare the two.
I just came across one of your posts on the Woman in Black board, and while I've only just watched it, I can see why watching it years after your original viewing left you disappointed. I agree that The Scene isn't very effective.
I'm now 20 minutes into The Changling and don't recognize any of it, so this is a treat! The house is amazing, and George C. Scott is excellent, as usual.
share[deleted]
The Changeling is worthy inheritor of The Haunting's creep factor. No spoilers here, but...
No fate but what we make. -Terminator II
So basically you think this board is for people who like the movie, and those who do not need not apply? Who the heck made you king of this forum, and who gave you the power to decide who posts what and when?
I guess fascism IS in fact an innate aspect of the human psyche, judging by your lamentably juvenile attitude.
Having said that...telling people that a bunch of folks think such and such has no bearing whatsoever on the actual truth of a film's quality, not that one can objectively measure the quality of a work of art such as a film.
Call me back in 50 years when your posts are being discussed in a forum.
The Mona Lisa is very small, faded, and is not all that attractive. In the end my opinion on that particular masterpiece matters not at all.
There are plenty of films that I find intolerably worthless that are considered 'great masterpieces of horror', but I don't go onto their Boards to criticize them with my 'opinion' because...as I said above...the people have spoken on that matter and my opinion isn't going to sway theirs, only make them angry (which is called 'trolling', as I've mentioned previously in this thread.) I simply know better than to throw mud on someone's sacred cow, no matter what I think.
No fate but what we make. -Terminator II
Lolllll you're funny, you're good at telling jokes.."top ten most frightening films ever made" hahaha!!!
shareI agree, despite the director made the Curse of the Cat people witch i like. this is BS, i'm not enough patient to watch it.
The Gosh and Mrs Muir for example is also much better.
L
[deleted]
It's an interesting flick, but not scary. You may not agree - and it doesn't mean either of us is "wrong."
The Kubrick film IS far superior, in every way.
Simply this movie has aged quite badly. The same thing happened to The Exorcist: when I saw its re-relase at the teaters some time ago, all the people laughed.
The atmosphere in this movie are still the best thing about it, but it is plagued by the same problem so many american movies had in the sixties: cheap self-loathing psychology. overly dramatic characters that suffer for the whole movie then die dramatically... too much drama turns into laughter!
'What has been affirmed without proof can also be denied without proof.' (Euclid)
This movie was remade in 1999. The remake is considered inferior to the original by most fans. Watch it and tell us what you think:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0171363/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1
[deleted]
Yep. That's why over 50 years later people keep watching it.
Oh, and it was remade not too long ago. The remake sucked in comparison to the original. But you'll probably like the CGI.
Get me a bromide! And put some gin in it!
It's funny you should say that, because I watch newer horror movies and think "People today actually find THESE scary?" There's no attempt at creating a creepy atmosphere, building suspense, or putting in well written characters. Instead all attempts at subtlety are replaced with a loud jump scare every few minutes and/or a few gallons of blood. As hard as I try, I just can't enjoy newer horror films as much as I can with older ones from before the 21st century.
Death lives in the Vault of Horror!
Agreed.
shareI was pretty disappointed in this movie. I'm not sure if calling it dated helps. Movies like The Birds or the original Cape Fear are well superior horror stories that are just as old. But I wasn't impressed with The Exorcist either.
5/10
It *did* get a remake in 1999, if you don't like subtlety, unique direction and cinematography with some actually stellar acting and well paced suspense you might like that one just okay.
shareYAWWWN...to this thread.
share[deleted]
More then likely the original poster is a teen or in his early twenties or hasn't outgrown that way of thinking. That type has no ability to appreciate subtlety, atmosphere and good actin, writing etc. If the film doesn't have blood, guts, bimbettes running around topless getting slaughtered and the rest of the cliches in films these days they can't understand how anyone could like it. Bet he thought 'Saw' and 'Hostel' were great.
share[deleted]