Posts by Dennis Long7

quietdriver3 said:I see the most supernatural stuff in genres that have absolutely nothing to do with the paranormal.

I think you’re confusing "highly unlikely" with "impossible."🙂

Yeah, you have a pretty infantile way of looking at movies.

No offense,😉

But I can tell you right now—those "feelings" aren't doing you any favors.😁

It’s obvious you completely missed my point if you think my take on films is "infantile."
Like I said, I’m still stuck on the idea that you either watched the movie far too superficially or didn't watch it at all—so I’m ending this debate right here.🙂
P.S. For Halloween, it doesn't even matter if Michael Myers is a man or not... there are much bigger themes at play in that film that make it special.
We could argue about your theory if sequels weren't constantly being churned out, but unfortunately, that's just the curse of the horror genre.😉

Gerald Rivera60 said:I’m almost on your side here...
... though let’s be honest, all these genre divisions are pretty much arbitrary anyway...
... I can get behind the whole supernatural criteria...
... even if some movies we straight-up call "horror" would barely even pass that test...

That’s why—in my book—it’s always smarter to just be precise. Just say 'When a Stranger Calls' is a horror/thriller, or 'Alien' is sci-fi/horror...🙂

quietdriver3 said:Look, man—I see way more supernatural nonsense in standard action movies whenever some hero goes full "one-man army" and wipes out an entire battalion of villains. I mean, if we’re going by your logic, Commandos is basically straight-up sci-fi. 🙂)

What, you’ve never even heard of an allegory? Seriously? 🙂

I don't get what you're trying to pull with this comparison to action movies—what's your point?😕
An action movie is an action movie, and horror is horror. It’s honestly pathetic if you can't tell the difference—it really is.
And have you even considered—not that I doubt it—that stupid movies actually exist?

Maybe Dr. Loomis is just speaking metaphorically throughout the film—if that’s what you’re getting at—but when Laurie asks him if he was really the Boogeyman, his response makes it crystal clear that he knows exactly what Michael is. It's confirmed once again when he looks out from that balcony and realizes the guy is gone.
I get the feeling you haven't even actually watched the movie—you’ve just skimmed some trivia or read a summary online—so I honestly don't see where this discussion is headed. 🙂

quietdriver3 said:you're out of your mind

So 4 and 6 are the best Freddy movies??? 😵

And 6 is one of the most original films ever??? (I really hope this is some deep sarcasm I'm just not catching 🙂)

Look—the only reason 1 and 3 even matter is because they save Freddy from becoming just another generic sequel mess like Friday the 13th...

When did Wes Craven ever say that about Scream 2??? And things didn't happen that fast—Kevin Williamson had drafts for 2 and 3 ready from the jump.

🙂

What an absolute load of garbage. 🙂

By your logic, the first Halloween isn't even horror either, right?

Then why did you even include it in this thread? 🙂

If you had watched Halloween even ONCE, you'd actually know what I'm talking about. 🙄
At the end of the movie, Michael gets back up after Dr. Loomis hits him six times... the whole film hammers home that Michael Myers isn't some human being—he's pure, primal evil. Maybe you (and I) would prefer if Michael were just a man, but Michael Myers ISN'T.
That is EXACTLY what places that film—and the sequels—firmly in the category of PURE-BLOOD horror!🙂
😉

C2V3N said:Man, save your little subjective opinion for someone who cares! You’ve seen Freddy 1 and 3, but you clearly haven't touched the best ones—parts 4 and 6—or that New Age horror mess, part 7, New Nightmare! Part 6 is actually one of the most original horror films I've ever laid eyes on; Josh Raden was practically made for those 3D glasses.

I’ve seen every single Halloween movie. I liked 1, 2, and H2O, but honestly? Not one of them beats Freddy! So yeah, your take is way too biased.

Look, I'll give you a pass if you're just talking through an alcoholic haze, but seriously—you aren't making sense. Wes Craven himself basically admitted that Scream 2 and 3 were total garbage because they were rushed through production just to grab the cash as fast as possible.

Dennis Long7, get your ass to the local video store and rent some actual cult classics!

If our local video stores actually carried the real cult horror gems, we'd be living in paradise...
Regarding "Nightmares..." maybe my opinion is subjective since I obviously haven't seen the "best" parts of the series. I saw the first one, liked it, but Halloween is still better. I'll try to hunt down the rest.

And as for Scream 2...
It's weird that I, as a die-hard fan of the Scream franchise, have never heard Wes Craven say anything negative about that trilogy.
Since I don't know you, your word doesn't carry much weight here—basically, I think you're talking nonsense (no offense intended)...
I'd appreciate it if you could send me a link so I can actually see this "statement" of his.
Even if he did say it (which I highly doubt), Scream 2 is still a solid movie to me.
And looking at IMDb, I'm certainly not the only one who thinks so...😉

Brian Foster2 said:Man, I remember when Scream hit theaters—I had just gotten back from a summer trip and went straight to see it. Honestly, I didn't know what to expect, and I have to say, I was genuinely surprised.

I was convinced the sequel would be total garbage. Turns out, I was right about the quality being different, but I won't even get started on the third one!

Scream 2 isn't trash.
It’s actually one of those rare sequels that manages to be better than your average flick. Sure, the original will ALWAYS be the gold standard, but the second one does its job perfectly. It builds on the plot, pushes the comedy even further, and honestly, feels a bit more intense at times (that scene with Sidney and her roommate in the car, or the Country Cox scene in the recording studio). Everything works. Even the ending actually makes sense. Maybe people just have a hard time admitting it’s good simply because it’s a sequel.😕
My only gripe is how "immortal" certain characters feel—looking at you, Dewey—but since the franchise wouldn't be what it is without him, I can live with it.
As for the third movie, we are definitely on the same page...😢
😉

Brian Foster2 said:The first Creeper movie was way better—total waste of time they even made a sequel.
The whole thing reminds me of The Texas Chain Saw Massacre, which itself just feels like a cheap knockoff of Rob Zombie’s House of 1000 Corpses.

A few decent flicks:
Rosemary's Baby
The Last House on the Left (
Ebola Syndrome
Burnt Offerings (I've seen the source material, but the movie is worth a watch)
I Spit on Your Grave
Necromantik
Bunman: Untold Story
etc., etc.

By the way—anyone else here into Japanese horror?

I honestly don't get why people claim 'Last House on the Left' is any good.
Sure, there are a couple of decent moments, but overall? It feels hollow and unfinished—plus, the title has absolutely nothing to do with the plot.😕
I get that it set some benchmarks for the thriller/horror genre, but I fail to see why everyone treats it like a masterpiece.
Maybe it's just because it was one of Wes Craven's early ones? Who knows...😕
😉

Mad Scientist said:I don't consider Cannibal to be a horror movie... look, everyone clearly has their own definition of what actually counts as horror, but in my opinion, just because a movie is drenched in blood doesn't make it a horror film.
... then again, drawing a hard line between horror and a thriller can be tricky sometimes.
... I know I'm drifting into off-topic territory here, but why is something like Friday the 13th considered horror while Silence of the Lambs is labeled a thriller? Even though—if you ask me—Silence of the Lambs is way more unsettling than anything involving Jason.
Does a horror movie get defined by its actual content, or by the specific reaction it aims to provoke in the audience?
... honestly, I don't think defining this one way or the other is even that vital. There’s a general consensus on some things, while other topics are purely subjective—and that's fine. Everyone will agree that The Exorcist is a horror, but you'll never get a consensus on whether Cannibal or Silence of the Lambs fits the bill.

It's because there isn't a single supernatural element in Silence of the Lambs or Cannibal.
Purebred horror has to have something supernatural involved—otherwise, it simply isn't horror.
Silence of the Lambs, Scream... those are all essentially thrillers with horror elements. You've got the tension, the dread, the terror, the gore, and the sense of unease—but nothing supernatural is present.
That's why I believe horror movies are defined primarily by their content.🙂

Brian Foster2 said:Forget that mouse

It’s one of the best horror parodies—one of those postmodernist self-aware films...
Almost my favorite movie from the nineties.

The absolute peak of the new generation of filmmaking.

I’ve watched it at least 8 times.

😢

🙏 I bow down before Scream.

You definitely haven't seen it more than I have!😉 😁

I saw it in theaters once—that was the summer right after 6th grade—then I watched it twice on video the very same day it came out, and then I had the VHS at home. Back then, I was watching it every two or three days whenever I was bored.😲
Now I have it on DVD, so I don't watch it quite as often. But all told? I've seen it over 30 times, for sure.

I know my obsession sounds a little unhinged, but hey—love is love.
Scream is my favorite movie of all time, second only to The Exorcist.

🙏 🙏

I'll say 'Halloween' strictly because I have a massive soft spot for those first two films. As far as I'm concerned, everything after that is just unnecessary filler—completely mediocre.👎

The 'Nightmare on Elm Street' series isn't terrible either, though I haven't sat through the whole thing—just the first one and maybe the third. It works for me mainly because it hits those teen horror tropes, but let's be real: 'Halloween'—specifically the first and second entries—is superior to the entire 'Nightmare on Elm Street' franchise.👎

James Palmer74 said:I can't recall if there’s already been a debate over whether the Japanese or American version of *The Ring* hits harder—so I'll just lay it out here.

Personally, the American remake takes it because, frankly... it's more visceral.

Maybe it's a cultural thing, but the Japanese original just feels weaker to me.

You really need to check out the sequel, too...

Agreed.
The American one is better for me... everyone keeps obsessing over the Japanese version—"oh, it's so much deeper"—but honestly? It's nothing special.
In my opinion, the remake has way more passion behind it.
With Japanese horror, the language and the acting always throw me off—🙄and most importantly, those characters feel totally lifeless. That's exactly why I have such a hard time actually getting into Japanese horror movies...

James Palmer74 said:The critics' reactions to this movie have left me completely baffled—it’s a wild spectrum ranging from absolute, unmitigated disasters to glowing, top-tier praise.

Look, regardless of how I feel about it—I have to watch it.

Where exactly did you find those positive reviews?
I’ve been digging around online—searching for any shred of a decent review—and honestly? It’s a wasteland. Everything I come across is either straight-up trash or just mediocre at best. Even on IMDb, the thing is sitting at a 5.0—which, let's be real, is a failure.😉

I'm heading to the theater next week—though honestly, I'm not expecting much.😢