Posts by briskhound2

Donna Gray4 said:If you're asking me, NOES is easily the most high-quality series out of this whole bunch, so I’m putting my vote there.

When you're up against talent like this, it's hard for any entry to look truly bad—at least when it comes to the directing side of things—so yeah, I'm right there with you. We won't even get into the actual writing quality... 😁

Chuck Russell
Renny Harlin
Stephen Hopkins

Action directors who contributed to the (lack of) quality of Elm Street in interesting ways.

Alexander Cruz32 said:Feels like this poll is a bit biased—most people probably picked Freddy just because there's a new sequel coming out. I bet if you’d run this while Saw VI was still hitting theaters, he would've swept the vote.

My vote goes to Pinhead. Look, Hellraiser might not be the absolute best horror flick on this list, but honestly, none of these villains creeped me out as a kid quite like Pinhead did. It’s a shame they made so many crappy sequels, but hey, what series doesn't have some bad entries?

It’s possible, though I gotta say, it’s a bit surprising he didn't pull in as many votes as I expected—I mean, okay, maybe the total count isn't huge all together—but I really thought Michael and Jason might have split the vote more effectively... still, it’s a pretty cool surprise to see that the other icons haven't been totally wiped from everyone's memory. To be honest, I’m actually sitting here rewatching Freddy right now, and since he was the first one I ever saw, my choice was definitely a bit driven by nostalgia...🙂

I’m throwing my vote toward Pinhead—look, maybe Hellraiser isn't the absolute peak of the horror films on this list, but honestly? None of these other villains ever gave me the creeps quite like Pinhead did when I was a kid... It’s just such a shame they went and churned out so many terrible sequels; though, let's be real, which series doesn't have some bad entries at some point...

Facts. Honestly, the only thing I’ve noticed about Elm Street is that there’s this weirdly consistent quality level—mostly because the production value stays high, even if that doesn't exactly save a stupid script... plus they just got lucky having directors who actually knew what they were doing. Meanwhile, everywhere else, you get these untalented nobodies stepping in to take the reins—especially with Hellraiser and Children of the Corn—and they just end up completely butchering the franchise...

crimsondriver54 said:Halloween (honestly, how many horror movies actually exist without a sequel?)

I feel like there are really few—true outliers... Like, take Wes Craven's Shocker for instance—it never got a follow-up (honestly, the movie itself was a bit of a mess anyway), but Horace Pinker practically begged for more screen time. Then you've got Carpenter's The Thing, which somehow managed to stay relevant for nearly 30 years without needing a sequel, and it's honestly a miracle that even his The Fog never got stretched out into some cheap two or three-part franchise. On the flip side... The Birds II: Land's End (1994) is just straight-up criminal... it’s basically unwatchable.

Children of the Corn (1984)
Children of the Corn
Children of the Corn
Children of the Corn
Children of the Corn
Children of the Corn
Children of the Corn (2009)
status - So, even after that 2009 TV-style remake happened, there’s some chatter floating around about a proper revival... maybe with actual money behind it this time and an actual plan to hit theaters globally. Whether that's just rumors or real news... we'll see...



Saw (2004)
Saw II (2005)
Saw III (2006)
Saw IV (2007)
Saw V (2008)
Saw VI (2009)
status - Still kicking, kind of like a restless teenager. Since cranking out endless sequels clearly wasn't the old-school way of doing things, they're trying something different with a new series aiming for a 2010 debut—plus, apparently, Cary Elwes might be stepping back into the fray...



The Texas Chain Saw Massacre (1974)
The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2
Leatherface
The Return of the Texas Chainsaw Massacre
The Texas Chainsaw Massacre
The Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning
status - Basically dormant right now. That remake actually pulled in decent numbers and critics weren't too mad, which doesn't happen often... the sequel was okay, nothing crazy, but it didn't kill off Leatherface or his saw for good, so—who knows—maybe we'll see more from the Hewitt family down the road...



So, I was revisiting The Omen from 1976 the other night... man, that movie just hits different when you realize how much it defined that whole era of supernatural dread. It’s got that heavy, creeping atmosphere that modern horror seems to struggle with—you know, where the tension isn't just jump scares, but this constant, sinking feeling in your gut that something is fundamentally wrong with the world... There's something about Gregory Peck's performance that grounds the whole thing. He plays the dad with such a sense of mounting, quiet desperation—it makes the descent into madness feel almost too real. And then you have Damien Thorn... even decades later, that kid still manages to feel genuinely unsettling without needing to do much at all. It’s all in the shadows, the coincidences, and that sense of inevitable doom. It really makes you wonder how many movies try to replicate that specific brand of "preordained tragedy" and fail miserably. It’s a classic for a reason... just pure, polished cinematic tension.
Omen II... man, looking back at this one, it’s such an interesting follow-up to the original. You know how it is with those early horror sequels—they try so hard to capture that specific lightning in a bottle from the first film. With Damien Thorn, they really leaned into that sense of creeping dread, trying to show just how much damage one kid can actually do when he's basically a vessel for something much darker... It’s got its moments, for sure, even if it doesn't quite hit the same heights as the first one. Still worth a watch if you're in the mood for that classic, old-school tension...
So, I was thinking back to *The Final Conflict*... just one of those movies that sticks in your head, you know? It’s got that specific vibe—that slow, creeping dread that they just don't seem to capture much anymore. You know what I mean? It doesn't need to jump out at you every five seconds to get under your skin... it just sits there, heavy and unsettling... It’s funny how certain classics hold up, or don't, depending on how much you overthink them. But with this one, there’s just something about the atmosphere... it feels almost tangible. Definitely worth a rewatch if you're in the mood for something that actually respects the tension instead of just relying on cheap thrills... anyway, just some late-night thoughts...
Omen IV: The Awakening
So, I finally sat down to revisit The Omen... you know, the 2006 remake. It’s one of those movies that always makes me wonder why studios feel the need to touch things that aren't broken, but man, some of these modern horror remakes just hit different—for better or worse. It’s basically a reimagining of the original classic, following this guy who realizes his son might actually be the Antichrist. It tries to lean harder into that sense of creeping dread and high-stakes conspiracy than the old version did, which isn't saying much since the original was already pretty intense... But looking at it through an American lens, it feels like a slicker, more polished thriller. Less about the sheer supernatural terror and more about the paranoia of everything falling apart around you. I mean, the atmosphere is definitely there—it captures that cold, unsettling vibe perfectly—but sometimes I miss the raw, unpolished fear of the predecessor. The remake feels almost too calculated, if that makes sense? Like it knows exactly when it wants you to jump, whereas the original just sort of loomed over you. Still, if you're into political conspiracies mixed with demonic possession, it’s a solid watch... even if it doesn't quite reach those legendary heights. Just a decent way to spend an evening if you're in the mood for something dark and moody...
status It’s just a straight line—this clinically dead series that basically only exists now because of its specific themes and Damien Thorn's baby face... but honestly, it still holds a cult following and a permanent spot in cinema history, something even a weak-ass remake couldn't touch...



So, I finally sat down to revisit Psycho from 1960... and man, even after all these years, it still hits different. You know, there’s just something about that classic Hitchcock tension that modern slashers try so hard to replicate but never quite nail. It’s not just about the shocks—though, let’s be real, that shower scene is basically the blueprint for everything we see today—it’s the atmosphere. That creeping, uneasy feeling that something is fundamentally wrong with the world you're looking at... it stays with you. Watching Norman Bates unfold on screen is such a trip, too. He isn't some hulking monster like Jason Voorhees; he's much more unsettling because he feels almost... normal? In a quiet, repressed, mid-century American way. It makes the descent into madness feel so much more grounded and, honestly, much scarier. It’s that psychological weight that really carries the movie. Most horror flicks today rely on jump scares to do the heavy lifting, but Psycho doesn't need to scream at you to make your skin crawl... it just whispers, and that's way worse...
So, I was revisiting Psycho II the other day—yeah, I know, I know, it’s one of those sequels people usually write off immediately—but honestly? It’s got its own vibe. It’s not exactly trying to be the masterpiece Hitchcock gave us, but it manages to carve out this weird, moody little corner for itself... it’s much more interested in the psychological fallout than just mindless slashing. You’ve got Norman Bates dealing with the aftermath, trying to stay sane while everyone else is basically waiting for him to snap again, which adds this layer of tension that feels way more earned than your average slasher flick. It’s definitely more of a character study wrapped in a thriller skin... kind of a trip if you go into it expecting a carbon copy of the original. Not quite the same level of pure dread, obviously, but there's a certain grit to it that works... anyway, just some late-night thoughts on an old favorite.
So, I was revisiting Psycho III from '86 the other night... just one of those deep dives into the slasher era that you end up doing when you have too much time on your hands. It’s definitely a trip compared to the original—way more colorful, way more stylized, and honestly, it leans much harder into that psychological instability than the first film did. You’ve got Norman Bates still spiraling, obviously, but this installment really plays with the idea of his descent in a way that feels almost operatic. It’s less about the pure, chilling suspense of Hitchcock's masterpiece and more about this frantic, swirling madness. Even though it's a sequel, it carries its own weird, fever-dream energy that sets it apart from the rest of the series. It’s not exactly "prestige" cinema, but if you’re into that specific mid-80s vibe where everything feels slightly heightened and unhinged, it hits the spot... some parts are a bit much, sure, but there's a certain charm to how messy it all gets. Just a solid watch if you're looking for something a little different from your standard jump-scare fare...
So, I was thinking about Psycho IV: The Beginning again last night... just one of those deep dives that keeps you up way later than you should be. It’s such a weird little entry in the franchise, isn't it? Honestly, compared to the pure, sharp tension of the original Psycho, this one feels like it's trying to find its footing in a completely different era of filmmaking. It's definitely got that specific early 90s vibe—you know the one—where everything feels a bit more polished but somehow loses that raw, gritty edge that made Norman Bates so unsettling in the first place. You still get those flashes of what makes him tick, of course, but the whole "origin story" approach changes the stakes. It’s less about the dread of the unknown and more about tracing the lines back to where it all went wrong... which is interesting, I guess, if you're into that kind of psychological unpacking. I don't know, maybe I'm just being cynical, but sometimes I miss when these movies didn't feel the need to explain every single shadow. Still, it's worth a watch if you're a fan of seeing how the pieces fit together... even if the fit isn't always perfect.
So, I was revisiting Psycho from 1998 the other day—you know, the Gus Van Sant remake—and man, it’s such a trip... It’s one of those movies that really makes you think about why anyone would even bother remaking a masterpiece like the original Psycho, especially when you're dealing with something as iconic as Norman Bates. It’s definitely not trying to be the original, obviously... it’s more like a shot-for-shot recreation, which is a pretty bold move if you ask me. Some people find it hypnotic, almost like watching a ghost of the first film haunt the screen, while others just find it kind of redundant. Personally, I get the artistic intent behind it—it's like a weirdly beautiful, minimalist tribute—but it’s hard not to constantly compare it to the tension built up in the classic version. It’s a strange vibe, sitting there watching the exact same shots unfold... almost like you're watching a memory rather than a living, breathing movie. Still, worth a watch if you want to see how a different director handles that specific brand of madness...
status Just another dead series, really—though I doubt some bizarre, frame-by-frame remake could actually do much damage to its legacy. Norman Bates and the old Hitchcock classics created something with a reputation that only seems to climb... the sequels aren't exactly bad, but they aren't anything to write home about either...



So, I finally sat down and revisited The Exorcist... man, even decades later, it still hits different. It’s one of those rare flicks that actually lives up to the massive hype it's been carrying around since the seventies. You know, most modern horror just relies on cheap jump scares to get a reaction, but this? This is pure, slow-burn dread. It’s about that kid, Regan MacNeil, and the whole terrifying descent into what looks like a demonic possession... but the way they film it—it feels so grounded, almost like you're watching a gritty medical drama that just happens to turn into a nightmare. That sense of helplessness is what really gets under your skin. It’s not just about the scary imagery—though, let's be real, some of those scenes are legendary for a reason—it's that feeling of watching a family lose control of their own home and their own child. The atmosphere is heavy, almost suffocating. It doesn't rush you. It takes its time building that tension until you're practically begging for the tension to break, but it just keeps pressing on... It’s definitely one of those movies that stays in the back of your mind long after the credits roll, making you double-check the shadows in your hallway at night. Truly a masterpiece of the genre...
So, I was revisiting Exorcist II: The Heretic from the other day... man, what a ride. It’s one of those movies that just lives in that weird, hazy space between being a total mess and having these flashes of genuine, trippy ambition. You know what I mean? Like, if you go in expecting a direct sequel to the masterpiece that was The Exorcist, you're probably going to have a rough time—it's a completely different beast. It’s definitely got its own vibe, though. It trades some of that grounded, terrifying dread for this psychedelic, almost hallucinatory journey. It feels less like a horror movie and more like a fever dream that someone accidentally filmed in a studio. Some people absolutely hate on it—and honestly, I get why—but there's something about the sheer audacity of the direction that makes it worth a watch if you're just looking to zone out and see something strange... Anyway, just my two cents. It's a wild one...
So, I was revisiting Exorcist III from the early nineties—you know, that one that feels like it’s trying to find its footing after the massive shadow cast by the original... and honestly? It’s such an underrated piece of work. It doesn't quite hit those same visceral, gut-wrenching notes as the first movie, but man, it has this atmosphere that just sticks to you. It’s more of a psychological slow-burn than a jump-scare fest, which I actually appreciate... There's this specific tension building up, especially with the way they handle the hospital setting and that sense of creeping dread... It’s less about the heavy religious possession stuff we saw with Regan MacNeil and more about this haunting, lonely feeling of losing your grip on reality. Some people call it a disappointment because it isn't a direct sequel in the traditional sense, but if you go into it looking for a moody, supernatural thriller rather than a loud horror flick, it really holds its own. It’s got those quiet, unsettling moments that stay in the back of your mind long after the credits roll... just one of those movies that deserves a second look.
So, I finally sat down and revisited Exorcist: The Beginning... and man, what a trip. It’s one of those movies that really makes you wonder about the "what ifs" regarding the whole franchise. You know, looking back at how they tried to bridge the gap between the classic lore and this specific origin story—it’s definitely a different vibe than the original masterpiece. It tries to build up that sense of dread, that creeping feeling that something ancient and nasty is moving through the shadows, but it doesn't quite hit that same gut-punch level of terror we're used to. Still, if you're a fan of the series and want to see how they attempted to flesh out the backstory involving Pazuzu and the setup for Regan MacNeil, there's a certain grim fascination to be found here. It's not perfect, obviously—nothing really compares to the sheer weight of the original—but it's an interesting piece of horror history to chew on... especially when you consider how much it shifts the tone. Just a weird, moody little journey through the dark...
Exorcist: The Beginning... honestly, man, I don't even know where to start with this one. It’s one of those movies that just feels like it's trying way too hard to recapture that lightning in a bottle from the original, you know? Like, we all know how iconic the first film was—it basically defined the whole genre for us—but this prequel? It just feels a bit hollow. It tries to dig into the origins, looking for that sense of dread, but it lacks that raw, visceral punch that made the original so terrifying. It’s more about the setup than the actual terror... which is kind of a bummer when you're expecting a deep dive into the lore. It’s definitely not hitting those same heights, and it feels more like a cash-in than a genuine attempt to expand the story. Just one of those entries that leaves you feeling a little cold...
status In this particular case, the exorcism actually worked—so the demons are, as far as things stand, ancient history. It’s not like there was any massive damage done by the sequels, since the whole series was basically just a low-quality assault on the source material—even if there were a few flashes of actual interest here and there... but still, Pazuzu and little Regan MacNeil are still sparking debates in the film world, so you really have to respect the legacy of the original *The Exorcist*...



So, I was thinking about Final Destination again... that whole concept of Death having this weird, invisible design or some kind of twisted plan—it’s such a trip. It’s one of those movies that actually sticks with you because it makes you look twice at a loose bolt on a roller coaster or a leaking water bottle. It’s less about a guy in a mask chasing you through the woods and more about the sheer, terrifying randomness of it all... just waiting for the universe to find a loophole to get you. Even years later, that feeling of "what if" still hits pretty hard.
Final Destination 2
Final Destination 3... man, looking back at this one, it’s such a trip. It really leans into that specific kind of teenage dread—you know, that feeling where everything feels high-stakes and permanent even when you're just hanging out at a local fair or a mall. The roller coaster sequence is still pretty much peak disaster cinema for me... it captures that split second where things go from "fun summer night" to absolute chaos. It’s got that gritty, early 2000s vibe that hits different now. Just one of those movies that stays in the back of your mind whenever you're riding something a little too fast...
So, I was thinking about The Final Destination again... that whole vibe where death isn't just some random occurrence, but more like an invisible force with a serious grudge against you. It’s such a trip how they turned the concept of "escaping fate" into this high-stakes, Rube Goldberg-style nightmare. Honestly, looking back at the whole franchise—from the first one through Final Destination 2 and 3—there's just something uniquely unsettling about the way they build tension. It’s not even about jump scares most of the time; it’s that slow, agonizing realization that a loose screw or a leaking pipe is actually a death sentence. You start watching these movies and suddenly you're staring at a ceiling fan or a kitchen appliance like it's a ticking time bomb... which, let's be real, is exactly what the filmmakers want. The 2009 entry specifically has its own weird energy, too. It tries to play with the idea of premonitions in a slightly different way, but it still hits those same primal fears. It's all part of that specific brand of American horror where the mundane becomes murderous. Just a thought... anyway, I'll stop rambling.
status Well, death doesn't take vacations, I guess—they just greenlit filming for the fifth installment of that whole saga about those kids who think they can outsmart the old killer... Quality-wise? Honestly, things have been sliding pretty hard since the last one, but hey, the series is still young... It could easily spiral into total stupidity, or maybe even stumble into something brilliant... who knows...

Leatherface, Freddy Krueger, Norman Bates, Pinhead, Michael Myers, Chucky... man, these aren't just names anymore—they're basically horror royalty. They started out as interesting concepts and somehow morphed into these almost celebrity-level icons, and honestly, their film legacies don't look like they're slowing down anytime soon. That whole tired joke about making a "final" installment where the killer supposedly dies once and for all? It's pretty tasteless at this point, and let's be real, nobody actually buys into the idea of a definitive ending anymore. But as the dust settles on all these major franchises being dusted off for a comeback... it makes you wonder. Are we seeing a genuine resurgence in the horror genre—I mean, if you look at the box office numbers, people are clearly showing up—or is this just a symptom of total creative bankruptcy? Like, instead of coming up with something fresh, studios are just leaning on whatever worked decades ago because they've run out of ideas... which, okay, isn't exactly a groundbreaking observation, but still...

Just like always... hope you all get a killer slasher 🙂

Friday the 13th (1980)
Friday the 13th Part 2 (1981)
Friday the 13th Part III (1982)
Friday the 13th: The Final Chapter (1984)
Friday the 13th: A New Beginning (1985)
Jason Lives
Friday the 13th Part VII: The New Blood
Part VIII
Jason Goes to Hell: The Final Friday
Jason X
Freddy vs. Jason
Friday the 13th (2009)
status - Word just leaked that they aren't planning a sequel to the rebooted franchise, even though that remake pulled in nearly 100 million bucks at the box office... pretty wild if you think about it.



Hellraiser
Hellbound: Hellraiser II
Hellraiser III
Hellraiser: Bloodline
Hellraiser: Inferno
Hellraiser: Hellseeker
Hellraiser: Deader
Hellraiser: Hellworld
status - There's talk about a remake of the original film coming out in 2011



Halloween
Halloween II
Halloween III: Season of the Witch
Halloween 4: The Return of Michael Myers
Halloween 5: The Curse of Michael Myers
Halloween: The Curse of Michael Myers
Halloween H20: 20 Years Later
Halloween: Resurrection
Halloween (2007)
Halloween II (2009)
STATUS - The status - zombie director got canned from heading up this revived franchise, so now everyone's hunting for a fresh director who can actually fix some of the mess left behind by his specific "vision"... naturally, the rumors are already swirling about a potential 3D version for the next flick.



The Howling (1981)
Howling II: Stirba - Werewolf Bitch (1985)
Howling III (1987)
Howling IV (1988)
Howling V (1989)
Howling VI (1991)
Howling: New Moon Rising (1995)
STATUS - There's a remake of the original film slated for 2010, though honestly, I doubt it'll be ready by 2011... some whispers are linking Joe Dante to the director/producer chair, but nothing's official yet.



A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984)
A Nightmare on Elm Street 2: Freddy's Revenge (1985)
A Nightmare on Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors (1987)
A Nightmare on Elm Street 4: The Dream Master (1988)
A Nightmare on Elm Street: The Dream Child (1989)
Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare (1991)
New Nightmare (1994)
Freddy vs. Jason (2003)
A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010)
STATUS - Freddy is riding high on another massive box office win. A sequel has already been announced—and, predictably, they're looking to do it all in 3D.



Child's Play (1988)
Child's Play 2 (1990)
Child's Play 3 (1991)
Bride of Chucky (1998)
Seed of Chucky (2004)
STATUS - By 2010, we should see Chucky back via a remake of the original movie. Unlike some modern reboots that try to distance themselves from their roots, this doll is expected to keep the iconic voice of Brad Dourif, just like he had throughout the whole series...

There aren't really any gray areas here—long-running horror franchises are either loved or widely avoided, but you have to give them credit for one thing: they’ve become part of the cultural fabric. People turn to them whenever mainstream cinema runs dry; some grew up with them, while others are just finding them now. Looking back, most of these are built on a single, genuinely brilliant original—thanks to great filmmaking or sheer success—that just kept rolling until the well ran dry or the series drifted into weirdness, nonsensical junk, or whatever else sends a franchise off the rails... A few rare ones actually tried (and maybe succeeded, depending on your taste) to maintain some level of quality while churning them out, but this new era of film has brought most of these titles out of retirement (which is why I added statuses for each of them) to try and fix the mistakes that led to them being shelved in the first place. Whether they're good or not, these remakes serve their purpose: bringing older fans—who view an Elm Street or a Friday the 13th through the lens of their own childhood—together with new kids who just want to see some decent blood splatter. Positive or negative, resurrections happen, are happening, or are about to happen... so I'm curious which series still holds a special place in the hearts of the veteran forum members, and whose comeback might actually make the group of happy maniacs cheer. Or not.🙂

fadedseal8 said:

Freddy Krueger will Return studio reportedly wants its next Nightmare in 3d by Jim Vejvoda May 4
The studio apparently wants the next installment of the nightmare to be in 3D.
by Jim Vejvoda
On May 4, 2010, Warner Bros. expressed such satisfaction with the success of its reboot of a Nightmare on Elm Street—which debuted at number one last weekend pulling in over $32 million—that they’ve already greenlit a follow-up.

"We haven't landed on a plot yet, but this stands as the biggest horror debut in the April-May window, proving the franchise still has plenty of life in it," Dan Fellman informed The Wrap. With a modest $27 million production budget, the reboot has already broken even.

And not only will Warners make a sequel, they plan on doing it in—get this—3D. Groundbreaking.

it was only a matter of time.

Oh, yeah.

Why is everyone suddenly opening TV discussion threads using movie PDFs today?

Kate Thomas2 said:Oh boy, here we go!

They’re working on another one of those "historical" dramas based on a fairy tale or legend again.
Robin Hood is supposed to be a cheerful guy, so the movie really needs to have that kind of vibe.
Robin Hood has a mustache.
Robin Hood has a little mustache!
And Robin Hood wears a hood (that's why he's called Robin Hood) with a feather in it.
I should mention, it really shouldn't be a brutal movie, because if it is, then it isn't actually Robin Hood. It would just be using the name to grab attention, which feels a bit cheap since they're basically just making things up as they go.
I think I've mentioned "Robin Hood" in this post more than ten times already, but I don't really feel like counting.
Maybe they'll make a sequel called Robin Hood vs. Dork Knight set in the 22nd century where they fight a Superman who can't fly, just because that's more "realistic."
Or maybe tomorrow we'll see a headline with a picture of Superman saying "Passed away at age 76."
Russell Crowe looks pretty depressed, so I guess he doesn't really have a chance at being a good Robin Hood.
I bet Robin Hood will end up dying at the end of the movie, just to keep things realistic.
I'd bet money that Robin Hood won't be splitting arrows in half in this version.

I guess I'm just not normal.

Bet lost 😁 since they're already sketching out plans for a follow-up. Ridley Scott Already Thinking About New Robin Hood Sequels

"It is the beginnings of how the man becomes known as Robin Hood," explains Scott. "You don't really get that until the last few minutes. When you realise that 'Ah, this is who he is'." Scott smiles. "Let's say we might presume there's a sequel… Honestly, I thought why not have the potential for a sequel, particularly if it is a genre that you absolutely love and has never been fully explored? If there were to be a sequel to Robin Hood, you would have a constant enemy throughout, King John, and you would follow his reign of 17 years, and the signing of Magna Carta could be Robin's final act."

Based on how the movie is described—it’s basically Gladiator but with a bow and arrow... because it isn't until those final minutes that he actually transforms into the classic Robin everyone knows.

Anthony Smith3 said:That international poster...



I think Crowe is a killer choice. There’s no rule saying Robin Hood has to be some dainty guy in tights, even if Errol Flynn will always be the one and only original for me. Then again, Kevin Costner was a pretty "wild card" pick too—not nearly as smooth or charming as Flynn—but he turned out alright. Since this version is supposed to be grittier, rawer, and more realistic (which I don't doubt since Ridley Scott is directing), Crowe is IMO an excellent pick...

And don't even get me started on Sean Connery... that balding, bearded, aged version of a "spunky forest guy" was something else. But yeah, Crowe works for me too—he fits that vibe of a battle-hardened warrior taking on the system... he just has this classic adventure energy about him...

Jan De Bont’s *Speed*—man, talk about a debut. You could tell right away this former cinematographer knew his stuff... he had this incredible knack for building tension and moving the camera in a way that actually let you follow the chaos instead of just feeling dizzy. It was clear the guy had learned from some serious heavyweights behind the scenes, and the whole thing felt so incredibly fresh at the time. He definitely carried some of that magic forward into his later work, but honestly? None of his other movies ever quite hit the same high note as this one...

wiredbison82 said:Honestly, though, it kind of sucks how Carpenter’s earlier wins just get swept under the rug all the time—I'm talking about those killer TV movies like "Someone is Watching Me" and "Elvis."
They're actually better than that whole run of Magli, Christina, Vampires, and Prince of Darkness combined...

Look, Dark Star is a bit much in certain spots—maybe even a little overrated—but it’s still a pretty cool debut for a low-budget indie flick. What you're saying is spot on. To be totally real with you, I haven't actually sat down to watch "Someone..." yet, but "Elvis" definitely stuck with me, even if it was a while back...

I should probably bring up John McTiernan, too. Everyone knows him as the guy behind those massive action blockbusters, but they never seem to talk about his first real outing, Nomads. It’s a decent enough thriller, even if it isn't exactly groundbreaking...

If we’re talking about the absolute gold standard for brilliant, high-concept nonsense 😈 John Carpenter’s Dark Star...

Just finished watching it. It’s not bad—decent movie, solid premise, good cast, and Sandra is her usual charming self... but if I have to nitpick, there's zero character depth. I was actually dying to know why they even decided to step up and help him, but the movie just skips over it entirely. It felt weirdly hollow, like they just picked some guy up off a random street corner and handed him a golden ticket to heaven without any explanation—there had to be something going on in their own lives to spark that kind of trust or willingness to help. Another thing that pulled me out of the experience was how they dodged any real explanation about whether they were doing all this just for the sake of their favorite college or sports team (which, honestly, is kind of a silly reason—if you want to help someone just to boost your school's prestige, the government should probably send a thank-you note), and there was enough material there for a much deeper dive. Instead, they played it safe, leaving that whole subplot frustratingly vague just so they wouldn't mess with the overall "feel-good" vibe. Everything else was fine, though—smooth, easy watching, nothing too heavy... a passing grade for me.

Survival of the Dead (2009)Not fun, not tense, not scary, and definitely not smart... if you want a quick summary, there you go. It follows a group of survivors stuck on an island caught in the middle of a feud between two warring families—which has its moments of charm, I guess—but overall? It’s just bad. The only saving grace is the humor; there are bits where you might actually get a decent laugh out of it, plus the plot is slightly more coherent than in > and the pacing feels a bit better. The rest is just... stuff you've seen a thousand times before, underdeveloped, and honestly just stupid (like, how is the internet working perfectly in a post-apocalyptic world? Seriously?)... and there isn't a single ounce of genuine dread to be found. Only watch this if you consider it part of >'s catalog—and specifically the bottom-tier stuff.

Survival of the Dead -- Film Review
Fantastic Fest Review: Survival of the Dead

Two short reviews here, and the second one isn't exactly feeling the old George or his increasingly mediocre attempts at the genre that made him famous. Chasing sequels is all about quantity these days, but the quality is clearly tanking—if it hasn't already vanished entirely...

This looks pretty solid to me—based on the trailer, it seems like a killer blend of high-octane action and dark humor... exactly the kind of thing you want to sink into after a brutal day grinding away at the office.

Richard Wilson4 said:Caught L.A. Confidential last night—absolute classic. Kim Basinger’s basically retired by now, and you’ve got De Vito and Spacey playing the seasoned vets. Russell Crowe is obviously a massive star, but man, where the hell was Guy Pearce?

From what I can gather, the guy’s been busy filming everything under the sun lately... last time I caught him was in *The Hurt Locker* or maybe *The Road*. They weren't exactly massive blockbuster roles, but enough to know who he is... also, you gotta admit, he was never really one of those big-time, A-list Hollywood superstars—more like someone who picks smaller, actually decent projects, and honestly, he seems to be sticking to that vibe...

Anthony Smith3 said:TRAILER

Link's dead.

The Mechanic trailer 2010 promo Jason Statham Here's a fresh one.🙂

Anyway, this is definitely one of those movies I'm actually looking forward to... even if Statham isn't exactly the biggest superstar you'd pick to step into Bronson's shoes. Ben Foster is solid, though—if he shaved the beard, he’d have that pretty much blank slate look, kind of like a young Jan-Michael Vincent. The original was a classic, so let's just hope West didn't go overboard and mess it up with too much mindless action...

Just finished watching. Honestly? I’m kind of floored—everything about this movie works way better than I ever expected... it actually manages to outdo the original in pretty much every way. The story feels tight and complete, too. They avoided all that annoying political preaching and system-critique nonsense you see everywhere nowadays—there's just one tiny beat where it hints at how Americans tend to start shooting before they even bother asking questions, but that's about it. The tension is built so well, and instead of relying on cheap jump scares, it leans heavily into the atmosphere... though don't get me wrong, there's plenty of blood. It just flows perfectly. The pacing never drags, which is the real kicker, even during those moments where the characters get a bit sentimental or emotional. And the acting? Top notch. A seriously solid remake... easily one of the best...

Michael Ortiz68 said:Wait, haven't you heard about that movie "s"... 🙄 nov Spielbergov

And in 4D too—total game changer 😍 Just go watch "s", just go...

rustyscout34 said:I get it, which is why the comparison doesn't really hold water... 🙂

I was just building on what you were saying...🙂 Those two movies don't actually have anything to do with each other.