MovieChat Forums > mel2000 > Replies
mel2000's Replies
<blockquote>Yeah it was pretty believable that they didn't take her seriously. Especially given the area.</blockquote>Yeah, sure. If the movie took place in the same universe as Jeffrey Dahmer, Ariel Castro, John Wayne Gacy, Ted Bundy, Ed Gein, among many other US kidnappers and murderers, it would be professional negligence and lawsuits galore if there were no investigation of an eyewitness account of a serial killer. All hell would break loose when the truth finally made headlines.
Invasion of the Body Snatchers was all about alien infiltration via small town social networking. This movie deliberately avoided networking as much as possible. Body Snatchers had a plot, this one did not. They're nothing alike.
<blockquote>this is a dracula film not a history channel black history month program</blockquote>You're the one who brought an ignorant take on black history into the Dracula discussion.
<blockquote>My problem with this movie is that we all know the outcome.</blockquote>The traditional tale is based on the captain's log. But the captain died before the ship made it to England, so there's lots of wiggle room to fill in the blanks of how Dracula got there.
<blockquote>there was no such thing as black doctor in 1800s at least not a western medicine black doctor only voodoo witch doctors from the jungle.</blockquote>You seem quite confident of your ignorance and racism. James McCune Smith was the first African to earn a medical degree (University of Glasgow in Glasgow, Scotland). He died November 17, 1865. The movie takes place in the 1890's.
<blockquote>yeah black doctor back in 1800s?!? get the fuck out of here!!!</blockquote>What an ignorant statement. James McCune Smith was the first African American to earn a medical degree (University of Glasgow in Glasgow, Scotland). He died November 17, 1865. The movie takes place in the 1890's.
<blockquote>So in all that time she didn't know that he was a vampire?</blockquote>She knew he was a vampire because she showed the doctor her puncture marks. The better question is why didn't she tell anyone about the sunlight vulnerability.
She was a totally useless character for Terrifier 2. Just made an overlong movie last even longer.
<blockquote>Two Hours and Twenty Eight minutes? Very long for a horror film.</blockquote>The total lack of plot for all that time made it excruciating to sit through.
People who prefer Part 2 are not fussy about horror. Part 2 was overlong and lacked tension. It never grabbed me like the first one because there was no tension. I was glad when it was finally over.
<blockquote>In other words, they overthought it and killed it. I won't be seeing it.</blockquote>Good idea. Part 2 is horrible and boring. Long and plotless with no horror atmosphere, no tension and no imagination. First half is a pointless non-horror family soap opera. The second half is full of monotonous fake-out death attempts. Don't bother.
<blockquote>There is very little difference in plot of two movies.In both movies it is not mentioned why the clown kills.</blockquote>In Terrifier 1 he went after the two girls because they dissed him in the restaurant. Then he went after anyone who got in his way. In this movie he mostly killed people who had no contact with him whatsoever.
The movie turns incredibly boring as soon as the action moves to the hospital (after about 45 minutes). Just a lot of moping and pointless hallucinations.
<blockquote>Second half boring jumbled mess</blockquote>The movie went downhill at the speed of light as soon as it moved to the hospital.
<blockquote>They had to guarantee that the victim would show up of his own freewill, which meant more than just the assurance of a flimsy "Okay, see ya at the beach" phone call.</blockquote>Jeff was fully pussy-whipped by then. There was no doubt he'd have been just as incentivized to make it to the beach. And surely the cult would have been on his tail for assurance, just as they were in the movie. Note that they still ended up kidnapping him to force his appearance at the final cult scene.
<blockquote>Smaller planes flying at lower altitudes would spot the village, though.</blockquote>The FAA sets restrictions on how low flights can go over land. Anyway, since the movie takes place in Pennsylvania, any sightings would have been ignored as an Amish community sighting. Still plenty of those in Pennsylvania.
<blockquote><b>I think it was the style back then</b> for an eligible young woman to be "courted" by many different gents, yeah. Then she picks which one she wants to marry,</blockquote>Back then, as now, when a woman took her beau to see her parents, it meant that she was serious about the guy and that she was no longer playing the field.
We're going to have to agree to disagree here. I saw the same movie you did and their conversation was NOT directly under the waterfall. They'd have gotten drenched if they were. It has already been debated that if they could construct and harvest on a farm, they could do so near that waterfall.
I thought the movie had a good start, but it slowed to a crawl after they went to the hospital.
<blockquote>Perhaps, she got pregnant before the "whole thing" happened</blockquote>The timeline text in the movie made it clear that the pregnancy started at least 111 days AFTER the 3rd child died.