MovieChat Forums > JigsawX > Replies
JigsawX's Replies
To be fair, Castro's campaign was done when he announced. He's literally gained no traction from what I can tell, and along with about eight other people, will only benefit from dropping out now as opposed to prolonging their utterly pointless campaigns.
I don't know much by Welles, nor have I seen almost anything with him in it.
I do really appreciate his 1953 short ghost story Return to Glennascaul, which he narrates: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=59yMEgjY-1w
I love so much about the second movie. I just wish the story was a bit more cohesive.
As you can imagine, the sequels were rather mixed.
Hell on Earth was entertaining, but didn't really have the same vibe at all. Bloodline had a sort of more epic intention, but I don't think it worked at all. Inferno was something else entirely, more a gritty horror-crime, but it has nostalgic value for me. Hellseeker is more of a mess than anything, while Dead is probably more enjoyable overall. I have a soft spot for Hellworld, and Revelations is utterly God-awful.
I've not seen Judgment, but I've heard that it's definitely better than Revelations, though I imagine that the bar has never been set lower.
I think it's all perspective.
Personally, while I get where you're coming from, I think that Skarsgård's Pennywise felt more 'alien' than Curry's ever did. I liked Curry's performance, don't get me wrong, but he didn't give off the same alien vibe I got from Skarsgård.
That said, I generally think that many people would agree with you, but I do think both actors have really positive parts to them.
I know you didn't ask me, but if you didn't mind, I'd like to chime in.
Personally, I think Halloween and A Nightmare on Elm Street are clearly better. Also, I won't lie, I liked Friday the 13th more.
It should be said that I'm a big fan of shashers, though, especially 80's, so it might make sense I'd like those films more than this one.
That said, Hellraiser is often considered a classic for a reason. Great special effects, a pretty dark story, and pretty memorable sequences.
I'd advise giving it a shot, but just keep in mind it tends to be more innovative and unique than other films from the same time, so it's possibly you won't entirely care for it (I don't know what else you like, so it's hard to say).
Hope that this finds you well.
I apologize for not seeing this reply earlier.
Yes, it should be said that my rating system is a bit different than others (something friends often mock me for, but as I've been using this system for many years now, I doubt I'll change it), in which my 7/10 indicates an average score. 6.5/10 is slightly below average, 7.5/10 above average, and so on, so forth.
Understandably, there are some individuals who don't care for it. My defense is that, as I was in school at the time I seriously got into horror films, using a 70% (C grade) as an average made sense to me, so it just sort of slipped over into how I rate movies.
As for this movie itself, I've still only seen it the one time, but it is one that I think would probably benefit from a rewatch later on, which would probably up my score.
Thanks for the reply, and I hope this finds you well.
Yeah, I've not been active here, nor posting reviews recently, mainly because I'm posting them all on a forum I'm a member of (Fight Evil), but that said, I may post a few over here as well, as there's a chance for a larger audience here. This all said, I hope to be more active here than I have been the past year.
You're right in that Saw definitely has more a crime feel than Hostel, but when one of your main characters is a police detective, I think that's probably somewhat unavoidable. For me, personally, Saw was one of the perhaps ten horror films I saw as a kid that really got me into the genre, so it's a hard one to push aside, even when against stiff competition.
Hostel II is a better film, I feel (I gave Hostel a 7.5/10 and the second one a 8/10), much for the same reasons you do. They delve into the operations and organization of the company, and that bidding scene near the beginning was always really interesting to me. More so, sort of showing the point of view of a would-be torturer and his motivations were pretty cool, and felt, for lack of a better word, unique.
Now, something can be said for the fact that, in the first movie, these American kids have absolutely no idea why they're being tortured, which makes it all the more horrifying, but still, as a viewer, I like knowing more about the company and their operations.
Hostel's one of those films that, for many people, looking past the gore and reputation as 'torture porn' (as jacob below alludes to) would probably be either difficult or disinteresting, which is a shame, as I do think this movie has something to offer.
Out of those, I've only seen The Devil's Candy, and the only reason I didn't add it here was because I ran out of room. A fantastic and tense film.
I'm not familiar with the Siccin series (looks like there are five of them at the moment), and I've not seen much Turkish horror, but it certainly looks interesting.
I've heard of the others, but for both At the Devil's Door and Inner Demons, at least from my immediate horror circle of friends, they seemed lukewarm. That said, if I do happen to check them out, hopefully they'll both be decent, so thanks for the recommendations.
Generally speaking, I think the second one's a better movie also (if just marginally).
Every time I watch this, while I'm impressed with the on-screen gore, I can't help but think how overblown the outcries against the violence here was, as it wasn't really even that over-the-top. Don't get me wrong, the gritty setting, chainsaws, the eye scene, it could easily lead someone to think the movie's gorier than it is, but aside from a few specific scenes, I think some people are missing the story here (and interesting character paths) over the violence.
The revenge feel of the conclusion went a long way to make the film more satisfying than it otherwise would have been, and that really goes a long way to setting the movie apart (which is, on a personal level, somewhat ironic, as I utterly adore the first Saw, from the year prior).
Thanks for the comment.
The problem is that I have never used the term "review" the way you do. On IMDb, you can leave reviews on media, ranging from detailed and thought-out multiple paragraph essays to a few cobbled together thoughts on the film. IMDb doesn't distinguish between which are reviews and which aren't.
Never once, in all of my time posting my reviews (on here, and other sites) have I been told what I write aren't reviews, so it seems to me that there is simply a disagreement of definition of terms.
I am an average movie watcher. I write reviews. Just because you don't see them as reviews doesn't mean I should change my phrasing. I don't see calling my writings "reviews" as being dishonest whatsoever, for the exact reason that we see what constitutes a "review" differently.
Like I said, I've been writing reviews for movies for years, and you're the first to say they're not reviews. So maybe, in your view, I am "insulting skilled reviewers," but you are the first one ever to make that claim. Now, maybe a lot of people have the wrong idea of what a review is, but given that you're the first individual to take issue with my calling my thoughts "reviews," I don't really know what you expect.
I don't see my threads as deceptive, and like I said, no one else has either, at least as far as I'm aware.
I will keep calling my thoughts reviews because, unlike your experience, I've never had any issue with the term before. Am I the exception? Has everyone who I have used the term "review" to describe my thoughts on movies the exception? It's possible. But based on my experience, I see no reason to not continue describing my thoughts as reviews.
It has nothing to do with my ego, and everything to do with different definitions of how we see reviews.
Still, I do thank you for your lengthy explanation, and for what it's worth, apologize to you for expecting my post to be more than what it was.
I have no idea where you get the thought that I think my views are special. I am one of many people who have seen this movie. Some may have liked it, some didn't. I'm not special, nor are my views. They are simply my views on what I watched.
And I don't use the same definition of "review" as you do, that much has been made clear. Sorry about that.
I'm just confused. Nowhere did I say my word is law. I simply posted a review of a movie on a movie site for people to read. Either they agree, disagree, or don't care. But nowhere did I say I have the right view on the film, or the ultimate answer, or anything like that.
My opinions are my own. I love some horror flicks others hate, and hate some others love. I've never once said that my views should be seen as the right ones, so I have zero idea why you think I conflate my views above others.
I entirely disagree, but to each their own.
I feel as though a collection of thoughts on a film can indeed be called a review, regardless of whether or not it's "shallow."
I appreciate your criticisms, but as I'm not even attempting to make any money off anything I write, nor do I intend to, I don't see what's wrong with writing up my thoughts as I please and share them with others.
Hope this finds you well.
There's so many fantastic 80's horror flicks out there, so it's hard for me to say where exactly this would compare with others, but The Stuff is an extraordinarily fun flick, and Moriarty's character is both memorable and fun.
That's an interesting point - I hadn't thought about it.
I suppose they'd have to learn what happened eventually. I imagine the parents would try and find one way or another to tell them, as it's not the type of thing that would be spoken of openly in public.
Either way, they'd eventually find out what happened, if for no other reason through osmosis, I feel.
To each their own - I personally don't know anyone who's seen it (insofar as friends are concerned), so I can't compare my thoughts with others, but I rather enjoyed it.
I mean, it seems that more people agree with you, looking at other reviews, but different perspective allow for alternate views. *shrugs*
For what it's worth, I'm sorry that you didn't like it. It did appeal to me, though.
In my opinion, I think the best thing to do would be let her go for it. If she watches Child's Play and it becomes too much, then she knows to tread more lightly.
The Others (2001) or Dead Silence (2007) might be okay bets, though, if you think something more modern would be more likely to have appeal to her.
Afraid to watch Halloween?
Assuming you're talking about the original, I think you might want to point out that there's very little objectionable things in that film (no blood/gore, for example). Just pure suspense and great music. For someone who has seen modern horror flicks, I can't imagine that Halloween would come across as too shocking whatsoever.
If gore's not her thing, than the original A Nightmare on Elm Street would be out, but you could try both Poltergeist (1982) and Psycho (1960). She might think that Psycho is too boring/too old, but worth a shot.
If she likes Poltergeist, she might be willing to wade into the supernatural side of horror (The Haunting 1963, The Changeling 1980, The Others 2001 and Burnt Offerings 1976, for example).
And lastly, if she's more into slashers such as Child's Play (the first and second Child's Play flicks are fantastic ways to start into horror, I feel), then it may to safe to take her down the slasher path with flicks that don't have much gore or nudity (unless that's not a concern). I don't have a list like that on hand, but if you wanted, I could come up with one.
Hope this helps a little.
I in fact did not know that. My knowledge extends to the fact that Sutherland and Goldblum are in it, but aside from that, nothing.
Which, all things considered, should make it more enjoyable when I finally do see it.