Posts by wiredraven82

Patrick Martin said:Look, for me, Dirty Harry is way more of a classic, and honestly, First Blood stands out so much in quality compared to all those sequels that I’m sticking to my guns on this one.
So yeah, regarding that, I thought the first poll was actually pretty spot on.☕

It’s basically Dirty Harry, but man—the action was something else. 🙂 And besides—he was the first one... how should I even put this... the first real, gritty protagonist of the action genre—and if you ask me, still the most compelling one out there. 🙂

As for Rambo—honestly, I don't think he even belongs in this poll. His inclusion here just opens up a whole mess of questions, mostly because Rambo ties so closely into that specific war-driven sub-genre. But hey, fine—if people want him included, let them have him.

Jacob J. Harper said:Well, James Bond 007 is in a league of his own 👍

Lethal Weapon and 😁 are great—they’re absolute action classics—but they don't even come close to the James Bond films, nor does any other action franchise for that matter.
The JB movies are unique, distinct, and there are just so many of them that no other series can ever hope to touch them.

@Dragon, man, you missed Rambo in the poll. He had to be in there; I know you probably thought "maybe some other option," but Rambo is Rambo.

I didn't want to include Rambo 🙂 because, well... he's more of an action-war movie—at least those later ones after the unit—and adding him would have opened a whole can of worms about where all the other action films mixed with different genres fit in. 🙂 These are what you'd call... pure action-thrillers or just straight-up action movies... haha... I hope you get my drift. 🙂

But fine, look, I put Rambo in this poll anyway. 🙂

I'll be dropping my remaining comments from the previous poll right here:

wiredraven82 The user said:The Bourne series—specifically that first trilogy—possesses this distinct atmosphere that’s honestly tough to put into words. It has a certain "soul," if you will, that sets it apart from your typical run-of-the-mill thriller. 😁Maybe it’s just something about the vibe of Europe and its historic cities—I don't quite know how to put my finger on it, honestly.

Only something like the original 1996 Mission: Impossible had that kind of energy—and even then, they were filming all over Europe to get it done.

Look, let me be blunt—Jason Bourne is... man, he’s just top-tier. Absolute perfection.

Man, that ending to the Bourne ultimatum—I swear, I almost blew up my seat in the theater because of how good it was. Seriously, top-tier stuff. And that Moby track, "Extreme Ways"? Absolute perfection.

The Bourne ultimatum — an epilogue.

Look, people can complain all they want—they can nitpick every frame and grumble about the pacing if it makes them feel better—but I’m going to play one more card here. I'll pull out the scores from both the critics and the general audience. I don't usually bother doing this—it's not really my style to get caught up in the numbers—but honestly, right now, I really want to. 🙂

The Bourne ultimatum stands alone as arguably the most highly rated action saga—both from the perspective of critics and general audiences—in the entire history of cinema. ☕

When it comes to the Mission: Impossible franchise, I’ve already made my feelings pretty clear about how much I love it—especially that first installment. For me, that opening sequence remains one of the top two or three greatest action scenes in the history of the entire action genre.

The Mission: Impossible TGV scene—it’s one of those rare moments where a director actually understands how to build tension without relying solely on cheap jump scares or frantic cutting. It’s pure, calculated cinematic momentum. Most modern action flicks try to hide a lack of direction behind a blur of shaky cams and rapid-fire editing, but this sequence works because it respects the geography of the stunt and the physics of the situation. You actually feel the speed, the danger, and that looming sense of catastrophe in a way that feels earned rather than manufactured.

I still get chills thinking about that moment when Tom Cruise leaps from the train onto the helicopter—it’s pure cinematic adrenaline. 😁And then there’s that music—specifically from the 04:22 mark onwards in the video. 🙂

In that exact moment—when he leaps, right as the score swells to meet the action, and the entire sequence unfolds—you finally grasp the true definition of the word: pure action. Mission: Impossible And when it comes to an action scene—well, that’s where things really get interesting.

Not many people seem to realize that in the original 1996 Mission: Impossible, Tom Cruise doesn't actually fire a single shot from a gun—yet somehow, the action sequences are still incredible and the whole thing remains a total blockbuster.

wiredraven82 said:When it comes to James Bond, the whole franchise has felt like some sort of cartoon to me for a long time now. Even if we aren't strictly defining it as an action saga—which, let's be honest, it's supposed to be—it wouldn't even make it onto my list if that were the case. At this point, the series has become a complete joke.

The only Bond films I've actually sat through were the ones featuring Pierce Brosnan and Sean Connery—everything else since then just hasn't hit the mark for me.

Absolute garbage.

I'm reopening this poll because—honestly—I can't believe I forgot to include Dirty Harry in the lineup. It’s one of those things where you fail to see the forest for the trees; some movies are so woven into the fabric of cinema culture that they just... slip your mind. Haha. For me, Clint Eastwood is practically synonymous with the genre.

So, cast your votes from the options below and let me know what you think. Personally, there isn't even a debate here:

Mission: Impossible and Jason Bourne (though, personally, I don't count the fourth Bourne installment) 🙂

Look, let's be clear—I love Lethal Weapon and Die Hard, but Mission: Impossible and Bourne are just part of my DNA. That's that.

The 1996 Mission: Impossible is my absolute favorite action saga of all time, right up there with the Bourne ultimatum.

It is genuinely difficult to articulate how much I love that first Mission: Impossible; it's hard to put into words. 🙂 Interestingly enough, a few years after seeing it, I visited Prague and it was... love at first sight. 😁 Everything just clicked—Prague, that specific movie, the plot, the whole vibe.

I'm a huge fan of Mission: Impossible 3 and 4, and I'm counting down the days until the fifth one, but the original remains the GOAT for me.

As for the Bourne series, they are all excellent, except for the fourth one—I don't really count it if Matt Damon isn't in it.

Bottom line for me, no contest: Mission: Impossible and Bourne.

The Dirty Harry films will always be a part of me, but again, Clint Eastwood is such a massive icon and his other work is legendary, so I'll stick to voting for Bourne and M.I. here.

I decided against including the Rambo franchise because, in my view, aside from the first film, the sequels are more war movies than pure action flicks. Including them would open a Pandora's box regarding movies that blend action with other genres, but since some people specifically asked for Rambo, fine, he's in.

Forgive me, folks, but I didn't want to clutter the poll with every other request. They wouldn't stand a chance against these heavy hitters anyway, and if I included everything, we'd be here arguing about edge cases until tomorrow. Just vote for the ones listed; they are likely your favorites, or at least close to it, even if your absolute number one isn't on the list.

PLEASE VOTE HEAVILY FOR THESE TWO SAGAS.

James Taylor3 said:Look, my eternal, untouchable icon—nobody actually insulted you.

Everyone was just laughing at your posts. And then, suddenly, the joke stopped being funny... 😁

The reality is, while some were busy laughing at me, I was largely laughing at you—and let’s be honest, I was right about almost everything I wrote, regardless of how much people hate to admit it.

Another undeniable fact remains: you shouldn't be able to ban someone simply because they aren't "likable"—whether it's their personality, their takes, or anything else for that matter.

If that's somehow allowed here, I’d love for the admins and mods to point out exactly where in the site rules it states that.

AND HERE IS THE MOST IMPORTANT POINT FOR ANYONE UNFAMILIAR WITH HOW THE NBA SUBREDDIT MODS OPERATE: IF YOU AREN'T ALIGNED WITH THE MAJORITY WHO RUN THE SHOW AND DON'T SHARE THEIR SPECIFIC PERSPECTIVE, YOU DON'T FACE A PERMANENT BAN. SO IF I AMN'T ALLOWED TO STAY, I WANT AN EXPLANATION: WHICH SECTION OF THE TERMS OF SERVICE MANDATES A PERMANENT BAN JUST FOR BEING AN UNLIKABLE PERSON?

I thought about just staying quiet and letting this go, but honestly, I can't.

It’s been six months—maybe longer, I haven't kept track—since I was banned from the NBA sub-forum simply because the moderator didn't like my perspective or how I think.

That individual told me back then that I could file an appeal here. At the time, I told him I wouldn't bother, but I'm doing it now because basketball is quite literally my life, and I refuse to let this slide.

What kind of logic is it to ban someone from a discussion board just because your opinions don't align with someone else's views? I didn't insult anyone there—ABSOLUTELY NO ONE. In fact, it was the majority of people there insulting me, and those who actually have some integrity could testify to that right here.

So, the rule is: if half the users on a forum start attacking you because they disagree with your take on a topic, they have the right to BAN you?

That is a first for me—I've never heard of such a thing, nor have I ever experienced it until now. I am asking the moderators and administrators to please look into this and ask that specific person WHAT EXACTLY DID I DO to deserve a PERMANENT BAN from the NBA sub-forum? Let me repeat: a PERMANENT BAN.

I received a permanent ban on that board because the moderator took issue with my stance and my reasoning. Unbelievable. Truly... I'm at a loss for words.

And now, as I speak up here, it's clear that the moderator and his little clique are running their own private circle—acting like they're a separate entity entirely from this main forum. Their decision to ban me, along with others (or so I hear), is proof enough. My question is this: are they accountable to this forum, or do they just get to do whatever they want over there?

I HAVE A RIGHT TO POST THERE. The fact that someone doesn't like my way of thinking or disagrees with me isn't my problem, and no one has the authority to ban me for it. If they do, then we aren't looking at a forum with rules and regulations—we're looking at anarchy.

bluenomad2 said:Let’s be honest—Rocky is massively overrated. Looking back at it now, the whole thing feels almost laughable. It's hard to wrap my head around how that movie managed to snag an Oscar before heavyweights like Network or Taxi Driver even had a shot. 🤦

It really comes down to personal taste, doesn't it? Personally, I can't get behind the idea that Rocky is overrated—nor do I buy the argument that Taxi Driver should have taken home the Oscar instead.

Taxi Driver is a legendary piece of cinema—I absolutely love it—but for me, Rocky is basically The Bible. It’s a total masterpiece. I know, I know... people have their own preferences, but I certainly am not alone in feeling this way. Quite the opposite, actually. 🙂

Everything about *Rocky* was executed to perfection—and I’m not saying that about *Taxi Driver*, mind you. From the acting to the screenplay (which wouldn't have worked an ounce without Sylvester Stallone), it just hits differently. Honestly, I can't even picture anyone else in that role in *Rocky 1*; it just wouldn't stick. There’s this weird, positive paradox at play here: because of the way Stallone actually carries himself, he feels more authentic as Rocky than if you had somehow dropped someone like Jack Nicholson or Pacino into his body. Even with their massive acting talent, it wouldn't have landed the same way—it wouldn't have felt as real as it did with him. It was just Stallone — so natural, aka: a masterclass in acting.

Plus, here’s something a bit more sentimental—something that hits home for me, and I’m certain it does for millions of others. To me, the core message of Rocky stands even taller than Taxi Driver. It’s about how Rocky 1 managed to pull a sense of human spirit out of the audience—something so raw and profound that it arguably did more to stir the soul of humanity than every religion on this planet combined.

I’m struggling to wrap my head around the criteria being used here—what exactly makes Rocky a "laughable movie" by today's standards?

If you had applied that same logic to Rocky 2, 3, 4, or 5, then—and only then—would I actually concede the point.

But a single unit? How exactly is that supposed to be funny? There’s nothing remotely laughable about it—it’s a boxing movie that stays as grounded in the reality of that era's sport as it possibly can. The core message of the film is all about Rocky’s sheer endurance; he’s a guy who possesses absolutely nothing in this world except for one vital thing: the refusal to ever back down when he finally gets his shot. He’d sooner die than stay pinned to the canvas.

Do you actually find those kinds of athletic mentalities believable? To me, Rocky 1 serves as the ultimate cinematic manifestation of that specific spirit found in so many legendary sports icons.

So, if you really want to get into it, just go ahead and dig through the archives and look at what Janica Kostelić accomplished—dominating her sport even when she was basically skiing on one leg. Or look at Goran Ivanišević back in 2001, or Michael Jordan during that 1998 NBA Finals run, where he played through a fever and the flu so intense that most people wouldn't even be able to make it to the corner store, let alone pull off an MVP performance. It’s all right there if you actually bother to look.

Maybe people don't realize just how raw and grounded *Rocky* actually is—it hits a certain level of reality that most modern flicks completely miss. It manages to tap into those deep-seated human desires and struggles that we all recognize in ourselves, making the whole thing incredibly relatable. And honestly? The soundtrack is nothing short of legendary—it stands up alongside everything else that makes this movie a masterpiece.

To me, *Rocky* is an absolute cinematic masterpiece—I’m not saying *Taxi Driver* isn't, but for me, there is simply no debate between those two. With all due respect to *Taxi Driver*, *Rocky* earned its Oscar fair and square. Even if that exact same movie were released today—say, if *Rocky* hadn't happened back then and was just being made right now with Sylvester Stallone (and let's be honest, imagine if he wasn't as seasoned as he is today)—I would still hand it an Oscar without blinking.

If you can’t wrap your head around the sheer scale of that "simple" yet absolutely masterful message in Rocky 1—the performance, the direction, everything about it—and you still have the nerve to call it "silly" for modern audiences, then honestly, I'm at a loss for words. You might think Taxi Driver is better, but you really have no right to label a film like Rocky 1 as ridiculous.

Not going to happen, outlaw.

I have nothing but pure respect for Sylvester Stallone as a figure; I am personally someone who will stand up for his performance, his screenwriting, and everything else he brings to the table. In fact, one of my top five all-time favorite films—hands down—is
Rocky 1976.
Stallone is a good man with a massive heart—an actor who can deliver incredible performances when he actually decides to tap into that raw emotional depth of his. You see that clearly in his iconic Rambo - First Blood 1982, which remains a cult classic even today; it serves as a symbol for all those veterans who come home from war only to be discarded by their own country—not just by the government, but by society at large.

STALLONE IS A LEGEND.

But honestly? Projects like the one being discussed in this thread are definitely not something he needs. It’s just... man, it's a mess.

Take Rambo II, for instance. While it holds a nostalgic spot in my heart from childhood, let's be real: it’s basically "brains on vacation" action, plain and simple. Then there's Rambo III—which I also hold dear for sentimental reasons—but it is absolute, pure propaganda. I still find it hard to believe Stallone took that role. To make matters worse, he's now working on a film where he attacks Islamists, whereas in Rambo III, he was essentially defending Mujahideen types. It feels like he's just pivoting to whatever aligns with current American political trends. It's the same pattern as Rocky IV, which had good intentions at its core, but goodness—trying to compare Rocky 1976 to Rocky III or IV is like comparing The Godfather to a Saturday morning cartoon. Don't get me wrong, I have an emotional connection to the third and fourth entries, but objectively speaking, Rocky Balboa (2006) is, in my opinion, the best installment after the original. And I'll say it again: Rocky 1976 is more than just a movie to me; it's practically the Bible.

As for Rambo IV, I'll be honest: it wasn't as bad as I expected. Even if it felt unnecessary, it was certainly better than the third one—and that's saying something, even if I try to set aside my childhood nostalgia for the earlier films. But this specific film we are talking about here? It’s a total disaster, a complete joke. This is definitely not something Stallone needs. Honestly, I truly don't know why he's doing this.

Who would have guessed that FD would end up being one of the main contenders in this poll? Looking at the results, I’m actually pretty glad to see it—honestly, I think the franchise gets overlooked simply because it didn't emerge from the same era as Friday the 13th. But I'll say it again: I’d take FD any day of the week, regardless of the season, over Friday the 13th. ☕

P.S.: To be perfectly honest, I’ve never been much of a fan of SAW—not that I can't appreciate it, per se, it’s just that... I've never really felt a connection to that whole aesthetic or the way it presents itself.

I really wanted to cast my vote for Evil Dead in this poll—I absolutely adore that film—but there’s just something about that specific Halloween charm and the whole atmosphere surrounding it that pulled me away. Honestly, combined with how much I enjoy Part II, I found myself gravitating toward Halloween instead.

Patrick Martin said:Personally, I think this one’s got the most massive potential out of the bunch. Man, I am seriously itching for a third installment☕

Setting aside the whole debate about its potential—I’ll give you that—there's no denying these are fantastic movies. Personally, I'm counting down the days until the third installment drops, but does anyone actually have a clue when that might happen?

goldenscout14 said:I don't think it's actually that obvious—if anything, it only becomes clear through the sequels. Isn't part of the original's charm found in that very ambiguity? Leaving it up to the viewer's imagination to decide whether M.M. is a person or something else entirely is what makes it work.

It isn't explicitly decided, but there's a certain "vibe" hanging in the air, if you know what I mean... You just get the sense that this guy isn't human—it's even hinted at—so it's more decided than you think. After all, do you remember what the Doctor said about him?

Halloween (1978) Dr. Loomis

But the entire movie maintains that "status quo" regarding him, as you put it—that ambiguity is definitely part of the charm.

However... M.M. isn't human, and he fits right into our little club of supernatural entities, hehe.

P.S.: Man, I have to get this off my chest because I can't keep it bottled up anymore, haha: I am convinced that the legendary Halloween music was STOLEN from the original The Exorcist (and I'm not saying this because The Exorcist is the Alpha and Omega Horror for me, but seriously, it's the truth). It just wasn't used as a signature trademark there as extensively as it was elsewhere. For example, that music *is* Halloween—sure, it's been "slightly" reworked in the Halloween version, but it comes to the same thing. It IS that music. Even if the rhythm is a bit different, it's the exact same vibe. Just wanted to add that.😁

Anyway, here is a comparison of the music:

The Exorcist Theme
Halloween (Michael Myers) Theme Song

It's funny how when that music from The Exorcist plays, you almost see kids in masks running down Halloween Street.🙂

casualcanyon3 said:I don't see the point in comparing slashers to supernatural horror. In my view, you should group something like Scream and Halloween together, while characters like Freddy Krueger and the Cenobites belong in an entirely different category. Furthermore, I wouldn't go so far as to call Final Destination a cult franchise; the latter two certainly earn that title. Compared to them, FD feels somewhat lightweight, which is why I don't consider them to be in the same league for comparison purposes.

When voting among the titles provided that feature supernatural elements, the Hellraiser series stands out to me as the absolute best. Personally, I’ve never been particularly fond of Krueger.

What about King's IT?

And yes, I would also add the Alien franchise to another category.

Since I’m primarily a fan of horror with a supernatural edge, Halloween doesn't belong in "your" category—it belongs in ours. 😁Michael Myers certainly isn't just some guy; there is nothing but pure supernatural energy behind him, which was glaringly obvious even back in the original film. 🙂

James Harris34 said:Have you ever wondered if the events in the Final Destination series would actually happen if this person hadn't foreseen them first? It reminds me of when the Oracle mentions the vase to Neo in The Matrix, then asks him if he would have broken it if she hadn't brought it up. What are your thoughts on that kind of causality?

That's a solid thought, though looking at the internal logic of the saga itself, it seems the character in the fifth film actually had their vision before the character from the original movie did—at least, that’s how it plays out. 🙂

As for the core of your question—if you view this through the lens of cause and effect, it becomes that classic "chicken or the egg" dilemma regarding what the Oracle said. It's an interesting philosophical loop, but let's be real: Death in these movies kills people with the efficiency of a heat-seeking missile. 🙂

rapidmason22 said:I’m honestly curious how you process movies in your head. If you were watching them the right way, you wouldn't even think to write something like that.

Final Destination is, first and foremost, a smart movie. Sure, it was made for a younger crowd, but older viewers can watch it without any issues. Why? Because the film weaves in philosophical questions, various phobias, gut feelings, and even misconceptions. Beyond just the title 'Final Destination,' there’s actually a deeper message here—death is present, it's inevitable, and nobody can run from it. Plus, we can look at the quote: you never know how bad luck might have saved you from an even worse stroke of luck.

Right at the start of the first movie, it poses a highly debatable philosophical question regarding the existence of God—something most of us grapple with during our teenage years—followed by several others:

They board the plane and hear/see a child crying:



which is followed by this comment:



Immediately after, there's the scene where they see a sick individual:



and the accompanying commentary:



So, just within these few scenes, there are more than just a couple of debatable philosophical and social questions, not to mention the question of God itself. And that's just the beginning...

Maybe it would have been better if this movie hadn't turned into a franchise, but regardless, it's a high-quality, intelligent film. Unlike most horror flicks, this one actually offers something intellectual and worth discussing. Reading your comment is honestly pretty funny, so, Remus, you might need to eat a bit more fish oil.

I find myself in complete agreement with everything that's been laid out here. 👍 In my opinion, the Final Destination series is seriously underrated—I’m not saying you need to light candles and pray before watching, but come on, you get what I mean. It holds its own way better than those Friday the 13th flicks that I occasionally enjoy simply because they capture that specific 80s vibe; but honestly? I wouldn't sit through another Friday the 13th if you paid me.

I don't know if I can make sense of this, but what really baffles me about FD 5—which, in my opinion, stands right alongside the original as the best entry in the entire franchise—is that final twist. You know, that moment where he actually steps onto the plane from the first movie? It leaves me wondering: why did the characters in this installment have to die? It just doesn't sit right with me. I’ve been sitting here chewing on it, thinking that since they had successfully rid themselves of "that thing," they should have been safe. It just feels like a massive logical gap.

bluenomad2 said:It’s like that Infinite Day vibe, where he heads to the bank and runs straight into a terrorist.

Exactly. When you look at series like Wrong Turn and Final Destination, they're clearly made for kids who haven't seen much of the world yet (check the last post on page one). Unfortunately, everything went in the wrong direction.

Now there's an Evil Dead series coming. Sam Raimi and Bruce Campbell back together. ☕

Yeah, 👍 who knows... maybe it’s just déjà vu for everyone. 🤣

bluenomad2 said:You familiar with this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...Files#Season_8? "Flight 180" Check it out.

And OP, don't worry about us rambling. We aren't attacking you personally. This was just a bit of an outlet. At the end of the day, what matters is you included 👍Ash Williams
.

I'm not entirely sure about this 🙂

But it reminds me—in a way—of that one episode of The X-Files where Fox Mulder keeps looping back in time, constantly meeting his end only to wake up at the start of the day again. That specific concept was a brilliant bit of storytelling for me, even if the mechanics here aren't an exact match; if anything, what we're dealing with feels more like a sense of intense DEJA VU.🙂

Noah Roberts46 said:Honestly, the movie is a disaster—I’ve actually rewatched certain scenes multiple times just to process them. Now that I'm sitting through it properly, you have to realize PTA put this together when he was only 27; the core idea had been rattling around his head since he was 17. 🙏

He originally wanted to give the lead role to DiCaprio, but the guy turned it down because he was busy with Titanic. Instead, Leo recommended Wahlberg, who had already proven himself to PTA in The Basketball Diaries.

PSH absolutely kills it in this film. 🤣

Every single scene in this movie is a masterpiece, let's be real... HHAHAHA... But for me, nothing hits harder than that sequence where they try to sell detergent under the influence—man, that is intense. Personally, it sits comfortably in my all-time top 10 cinematic moments. Maybe it's just me, but here I am again, obsessing over that specific scene and breaking it down in excruciating detail, HHAHAHA:

Boogie Nights Jessie's Girl

The acting is flawless, and the atmosphere is so surreal you don't know whether to laugh or just stare in awe at how masterful it all is, HHAHAHA. The Chinese guy keeps setting off those damn firecrackers constantly (because, you know, he's Chinese and apparently loves setting off fireworks, haha) , and everyone jumps every time one goes off because they’re out there trying to peddle detergent as cocaine—they're terrified they won't pull it off, while this guy just keeps popping firecrackers left and right. He starts playing Jessie's Girl and venting about how much it bothers him that songs on tapes aren't in order, so he decides to reorder them himself.

Then the chaos erupts at the 01:50 mark—THOMAS JANE stands up wanting whatever is under the bed (the German song Nena - 99 Luftballons starts playing), and Thomas Jane cries out: "That's what we goddamn came here to motherfucckiiin' do, and that's what I'm gonna fuccckiiin' do right fuccckkiiin' now!" Hahahaha, the acting, the dialogue—it's incredible. The peak is when he heads toward the room, completely unhinged and high, knocks over a lamp (The lamp falls on him, and he tosses it aside like he's actually personally offended by the lamp itself, haha) and you hear: "FUCCCK NO!" HHAHAHA, what an absolute powerhouse of a scene... aaaaaaaaaaaaa 🤣 🤣 🤣

I could watch this for days, honestly. Night after night.

Without question, this is one of my TOP 10 film scenes of all time.

Jack Murphy5 said:If you dig around online, you'll see how messy the production actually was. They had major friction with Reynolds, who apparently felt humiliated having to act alongside some kid. Add the subject matter to the mix, and it's a powder keg. Rumor has it he clashed heavily with Anderson during filming—at one point, he even allegedly struck him.
Later on, he refused to do any interviews regarding the film until the critical acclaim started rolling in and the nominations for Reynolds began appearing; only then did he change his tune.🙂

👍

Noah Roberts46 said:

I've been rewatching some scenes lately—that opening sequence is just powerhouse stuff, everything captured in one continuous shot. 🙏

It’s an incredible film; even now, I struggle to wrap my head around how they actually pulled this off... I could watch certain sequences twenty thousand times over. It’s like those movies where the actors play characters who are complete idiots and clearly don't know how to act—you know what I mean? It reaches that level where the performances are so layered that they're essentially acting like they can't act in specific moments, hahaha—not to mention everything else... man, I won't even go there. I just absolutely love this movie.

When I say they're playing "bad actors" when it's actually masterclass-level performance, look at this:

Boogie Nights - Brock Landers documentary

hahahahhahahahahhahahahhamm, let me write this down... every single time I watch this film, I hit 00:44 min... Chest Rockwell...

bluenomad2 said:I completely disagree. To me, that series is strictly for wannabe horror fans who still have a lot to learn.

Well, The Exorcist had to be included. That third installment is damn underrated and features one of the scariest scenes in horror history. The one in the hospital hallway 🙏 and the final struggle are effective and atmospheric. So, the first is a masterpiece, the third is very good, while the second is bad. If we include Emily Rose, then we get another quality sequel. It makes no sense to leave that series out when we know very few franchises in this poll have more than two good films, besides Evil Dead, obviously.☕

Regarding this watching FD, I don't agree with you, but fine. However, I will concede regarding The Exorcist—it absolutely belonged here. For me, it’s easily the best and most beloved horror ever made; it's basically the The Godfather of horror. Honestly, its sequels are better than the first movies in the Wrong Turn series, for crying out loud. 🙂

But you know as well as I do that if The Exorcist were listed, it would sweep this entire poll. Maybe that's why the OP didn't include it, but still...

No offense intended to the author or the poll itself, but it's a bit of a clumsy little thing. 🙂 I didn't want to be one of those people complaining about the poll... which is why I hesitated to say anything about The Exorcist earlier. I was trying to save the OP's ego, because they clearly put a lot of effort into the intro post, but whatever. Let's give the guy a break, haha. Look, if I can admit that The Exorcist is my holy grail, you can too. haha 🙂

Look, everyone, please don't get me started regarding The Exorcist 🙂—it’s easily my top horror pick. It isn't on this list because I can actually see the logic here; most of these seem to be treated as franchises, yet even The Exorcist has some genuinely worthy sequels like Emily Rose, or even The Exorcist III... and let's not forget Dominion: Prequel to the Exorcist, which isn't half bad either. Still, I get why it was left out—the author clearly wanted to focus on franchises that follow a very specific pattern... what I'd call a literal "story-to-story" progression (one film leading directly into the next plotline), whereas on the other hand:

THE EXORCIST WOULD ABSOLUTELY WIPE THE FLOOR WITH ALL THESE SAGES, HAHA 😁

Out of the options listed for Halloween, I’m going with those, mostly because the first two films—especially the first one—hold a special place in my heart among this selection, though I did find myself torn when considering Evil Dead.

I’ve also got a soft spot for the Final Destination movies, but—let’s be real—in terms of pure cult status, they don't quite sit on the same level as Halloween. That said, in my opinion, Final Destination is an incredibly underrated franchise; for instance, you really have to hand it to them for the concept and the twist in Final Destination 5.

Why am I calling it underrated? It’s underrated when you compare it to franchises like Wrong Turn, which are absolute nothing compared to Final Destination. And honestly, regardless of how much anyone wants to argue with me on this, we all know what Friday the 13th is... just overhyped, cliché trash that people love simply because it’s from the 80s. But that doesn't make it any better than Final Destination. Even if FD follows certain tropes (aside from the original), the death sequences and the storytelling are far more original—not to mention that Friday the 13th is essentially a tired rip-off of something else (regardless of which era it came from). At least FD brings something unique to the table, unlike Friday the 13th, which is just a total headache for me—even as someone who appreciates the 70s and 80s.