Posts by Betty Chase4

Nathan Wells29 said:To be perfectly honest, I found the first Terrifier to be absolute garbage.
Look, when it comes to the plot, there isn't much to write home about—it follows the standard slasher formula you'd expect. Some slashers manage to pull off clever plot twists or give us characters that actually feel interesting, but this one doesn't really stray from the beaten path.
I honestly don't get why everyone seems to be obsessed with gore—it’s just not my thing.
Do you all honestly enjoy it when he slices a half-naked woman in two—or when he uses his own filth to write out his name?
And please, let's not go around comparing this movie to something like Halloween Ends.

Honestly, I still find the first Terrifier to be better than the sequel—even if I have to admit that Terrifier 2 definitely steps things up when it comes to the practical FX effects.
It’s widely understood that this movie doesn't exactly promise a deep or complex plot—which is why people looking for a slasher with actual substance, character development, or a compelling narrative tend to stick to classics like *My Bloody Valentine*, *Scream*, *The Intruder*, or *Nope*... rather than picking up something like *Terrifier*. This particular flick is a very specific breed of slasher—one that leans heavily into pure, unadulterated splatter elements.

People have this fascination with gore—it’s almost like they’re admiring a specific kind of dark creativity. Take those classic slasher kills, for instance. I often think back to that scene in Halloween 4 where Michael Myers grabs a shotgun; you’re sitting there thinking, "There’s no way he’s actually going to use that," and then suddenly he nails Kelly to the wall with it. It leaves you stunned—you can't help but think about just how much raw power Myers possesses to pull something like that off. Beyond the shock value, though, there's this genuine appreciation for the craft—people really sit back and marvel at how a special effects master managed to execute such a gruesome sequence so flawlessly.
There is honestly nothing more frustrating than when a movie clearly needs a certain level of intensity or gore to work—but instead, the filmmakers shy away from it, offering some watered-down, timid version just to protect a PG-13 rating or keep things "polite." It completely kills the momentum.

That cutting scene was genuinely stomach-turning—even if the practical effects were a bit hit-or-miss since you can tell they’re using a silicone dummy—but I actually caught myself wondering, "Wait, is he really going there?" And then once it started... man. It hit me just how truly diabolical Art the Clown is. Honestly, that scene with the excrement just solidifies exactly how repulsive of a character he's turned out to be.

You really can't compare this movie to Halloween Ends—it’s just not in the same league. While the plot might be straightforward, it avoids all that aimless philosophical rambling you see in Halloween, which ultimately leads nowhere. To put it simply, Terrifier 2 is a superior, higher-quality film in every single department... even when you look at the protagonists themselves.

Patrick Martin said:I honestly don't get you guys acting like experts on this movie. Have any of you actually played a > game before? And I mean the original one from '96, not some watered-down remake. To me, this is about as close as we're getting to that original vibe 🤷

I’ve played everything except Village—but honestly, the movie is still pretty terrible. It doesn't even come close to the quality of those first two Resident Evil films.

Justin Rogers5 said:Compared to the series, this is a total masterpiece.🤣
I liked the setting and the vibe; felt a bit like walking through Raccoon City myself. Could've used a little more runtime, though.
The casting is fine enough.

You really covered everything in that film—you hit every single point perfectly. 👍

Larry Walker24 said:The first two—and maybe even the third—are solid. Everything else is just junk.

That’s exactly right. You could count the first three as legitimate entries—I’d definitely include the third one, given it actually had some decent ideas and introduced those new cenobites while sticking to the lore of the 'demonic box'...
Everything after that? It's just a downward spiral... from part five through ten, the whole franchise basically just goes straight to hell.

Ethan Davis34 said:I agree—though I’d also throw a Nobel Prize (for Literature) into the mix. That said, the film *Murina* picked up seven awards from seven different festivals around the world, so it's pretty hard to argue that this was anything but legitimate.

I’m actually thinking about catching his segment this weekend while I'm at work—I didn't get a chance to see him when he was on NBC a few days ago—so we'll just have to see how it turns out.

P.S. — I’ve been watching "Teresa 37"... it’s a solid film, really, but I don't think it's quite an Oscar contender.

Ethan Davis34 said:I agree—I’d also throw a Nobel Prize (for Literature) into the mix. That said, looking at the film Murina, it picked up seven awards from seven different festivals around the globe; so, in this particular instance, it’s hard to argue that anything was rigged.

Even the "marshal" managed to snag around seven or eight awards for that one—though, if you ask me, the movie itself is barely entertaining. Sure, the soundtrack is fantastic, and there are a few decent actors scattered throughout, but that’s about where the quality ends.

Ethan Davis34 said:It’s an easy way to make a buck, but both sides—whether you agree or not—were judged by industry professionals who actually know their stuff. So, what do you bring to the table? What’s your actual background? And if American films don't appeal to you, why bother watching them at all? Or am I just assuming Americans on this forum are the only ones reading your sharp little critiques? That’s the beauty of living in a massive country like ours—any random person can feel entitled to have an opinion.

Sometimes awards just aren't the gold standard—look at the Oscars over the last few years, for instance...

I recall back in 2006 when Hrvoje Šalković won 100 $0.00 for his best unpublished novel, "Pretend You Didn't See This"...

The book was essentially a blatant rip-off of Hunter S. Thompson's "fear and loathing in Las Vegas" (he even lifted a scene straight out of "Who Is That Pev" where Milivoje Tomić flies past the marshal and shouts, "Who are you calling a spy?")... and strictly because of that, he shouldn't have been allowed near that award... but, well, damn it, the industry gave it to him anyway...

There are plenty of instances like that—so I can't really say these are just isolated incidents...

Drew Chavez52 said:I’m siding with everyone who loved the first two films—they were fantastic. To me, they felt like truly atmospheric, raw, and unapologetic horror movies. There’s a seamless flow between them, almost as if they were shot back-to-back, which makes the transition feel incredibly smooth. Plus, those Cenobites have such a unique charisma; they really stand out as iconic figures, especially Pinhead.

Those movies were a quiet torment to me when I was a kid—I didn't actually sit down and watch them until my college days. Back then, my older friends would always insist, "You have to see Lord of Hell, man! It's the scariest horror movie ever made, seriously." 😁 Since those tapes were tucked away on the very top shelf of the video store, I could never quite reach them—and honestly, I was way too embarrassed to ask my aunt about the sadomasochistic imagery on the covers. Ah, the nostalgia.

Personally, I feel like the series starts its downward slide right around the third installment—though, to be fair, the fourth one is still worth a watch. I found the design of the Cenobites particularly fascinating, though; there was something genuinely captivating about their aesthetic that kept me hooked.

I watched from the fifth installment through to the eighth—which, honestly, was a total disaster—and I have to say, they were all equally terrible. It felt like nothing more than some low-budget, bargain-bin production you'd find on a local cable channel.

I stopped watching at number nine because, frankly, the film looked like total garbage—and I didn't even realize there was a tenth installment out there. Honestly, though, I might give this remake a shot just to get a quick laugh at Višnjić's expense. 😁

Christian Myers said:I watched this one, and honestly, I wouldn't recommend it. It really struggles to hold anyone's attention for a full two hours—they overextended the runtime by dragging out certain scenes way more than necessary. While there are a few solid, tense moments scattered throughout, they’re definitely the exception rather than the rule. To be blunt, Pinhead looks almost feminine until he actually speaks, and even the rest of the Cenobites can't quite touch the look of the ones from the original film. On the bright side, Višnjić was great; it might have even been the performance of his career. 😬 4/10

I’m thinking along the same lines—everything was going smoothly right up until the fourth installment, and then suddenly, everything just falls apart. This reboot really shouldn't have dragged on for two full hours, though I will say it does have some standout moments—specifically those scenes involving the Cenobites. And honestly? It’s highly likely this is the performance of a lifetime from Višnjić.

Actually, I already covered that entire point in my review...

Paul Anderson7 said:I honestly don't see the point in starting a thread about a ten-year-old movie that sits at a dismal 3.5 on IMDb. Sure, we all love seeing a cheerful Snipes on screen—he's always a pleasure to watch—but I just don't see the sense in digging this up.

Some of us just have a thing for Snipes—and honestly, if you love a good Western and a solid horror flick, you’re probably in good company with us.

P.S. — I’ve been feeling for a while now that a lot of the ratings over on IMDb just don't carry much weight... Take "Prey," for example—it’s sitting at a 7.2 right now based on over 91,000 votes, yet personally, I found the movie so bad I could barely justify giving it a 5.

P.S. 2 — and what does the age of a film actually have to do with anything? Based on how you're framing this—do you really think we should only be talking about recent releases?

I recently sat down to watch Gallowwalkers (2012), and I have to say—it’s one of those films that really tests your patience if you aren't already a die-hard fan of the genre. It attempts this gritty, Western-meets-zombie aesthetic that feels like it wants to be much more profound than it actually manages to be. The whole concept is interesting enough on paper, but the execution feels a bit disjointed. You have Wesley Snipes leading the charge, and while he brings his usual intensity to the screen, it feels like the script doesn't quite know how to utilize his presence effectively. He's there, he's doing the work, but the momentum often stalls out during the slower beats. There are moments where the atmosphere hits the right note—that dusty, desolate feeling is definitely present—but the pacing issues prevent it from ever truly catching fire. It’s a decent enough distraction if you’re looking for something low-stakes to put on in the background, but don't expect it to redefine the genre. It's a solid, middle-of-the-road genre flick that lingers somewhere between being an interesting experiment and a missed opportunity. Review #3

So, this movie just hit its 10-year anniversary—and while it definitely had a hefty $17 million price tag attached to it, I have to say, it’s pretty bad.

Has anyone had a chance to check out that Western horror flick starring Wesley Snipes yet?

Directed by: Andrew Goth
Written by: Andrew Goth and Joanna Reay

CAST:
Wesley Snipes (Aman)..............Kevin Howarth (Kansa)
Riley Smith as (Fabulous)...........Tanit Phoenix (Angel)

SYNOPSIS:
"- After a gang of outlaws takes his sweetheart's life, Aman (Snipes) sets out on a relentless hunt to wipe them out. He ends up caught in the crossfire and killed during the confrontation—only to be brought back from the brink by his mother’s supernatural powers.
From that moment on, Aman stays alive, but there's a catch: every person he kills is resurrected by her—including the very bandits he sought for revenge. Now, with the outlaws looking to settle the score themselves, Aman teams up with a young gunslinger known as Fabulous (Smith) to finally finish this cycle of vengeance once and for all."

The whole second act—specifically that scene involving the head—really gives me the impression that he’s actually an alien...

neonfox65 said:This honestly feels like some kind of B horror flick

Well, it definitely qualifies as B-horror...

The first two movies are actually great—but that third one is 😵🤦🙂

By the way, what’s your take—is Creepy Joe a demon or an alien?

- Hands down, this is the finest adaptation of a Charles Bukowski novel ever put to screen—and honestly, even if you ignore that, it’s easily the best drama of the decade, despite having the most atrocious jazz soundtrack I've ever had the misfortune of hearing.
Matt Dillon, Lilli Taylor, and Marisa Tomei all deliver what are essentially career-defining performances here. On top of that, the movie is packed with unforgettable scenes and a script that is just incredibly tight. Personally, I've lost count, but I’ve definitely sat through this one over 100 times...👍

For me, this is quite simply the best film I’ve seen 🙏...it really is that good. I can't even decide whether the acting or the music is more impressive...

Director: Bent Hamer
Screenplay: Bent Hamer and Jim Stark
Music: Kristin Asbjørnsen
Based on the novel "Factotum" (1975) by Charles Bukowski

CAST:
Matt Dillon.........Henry Chinaski
Lili Taylor...........Jan
Marisa Tomei......Laura

SYNOPSIS:
"- This drama focuses on Henry Chinaski—the fictional alter-ego from Charles Bukowski's novel "Factotum"—as he drifts through Los Angeles, scraping by on odd jobs just to fund his basic needs: wine, gambling, and women, all while relentlessly working on his manuscript..."

AWARDS
Academy Award Nominee Best Director (Bent Hamer)
Winner Best Director - Sundance Film Festival (Bent Hamer)
Winner Best Actress - Sundance Film Festival (Lili Taylor)
Winner Best Supporting Actress - Los Angeles Film Critics Association (Lili Taylor)
Nominee Grand Jury Prize - Cannes Film Festival (Bent Hamer)

1. Horror
2. Sci-Fi
3. Fantasy
4. Western
5. War
6. Comedy
7. Action
8. Drama

Even though I put Drama at the bottom—just a personal preference, really—take a look at the sheer amount of great dramatic films out there...

Taylor Gray5 said:That whole story is actually just a well-known old hoax rather than anything true. That character even popped up in American Horror Story: Freakshow back in the day. There’s really only one article ever written about him—which, believe it or not, was by a sci-fi writer—and not a single verifiable fact in it turned out to be accurate. 😁

I'll say it again—if you liked the concept of the movie, or if you actually thought the film itself was good, do yourself a favor and watch the Japanese Evil Dead.

Are you thinking of Charles Lotin Hildreth?

It might be a hoax (and it probably is), but Wan still found a way to utilize it for the film. That said, I do believe an anomaly like this could exist and potentially be dangerous for the individual involved—in certain specific cases, at least. You don't necessarily have to be named Mordrake... but from a medical standpoint, the case of a parasitic twin is a fascinating phenomenon.

Carol Hughes10 said:That’s actually pretty interesting—where can I find more details about this case?

It was the case of Edward Mordrake, if I remember correctly... Or maybe just Mordrake...

Carol Hughes10 said:Are you serious??

Aha. It’s essentially the same vibe—just without the supernatural elements and he didn't actually murder anyone. He was this guy with a face on the back of his head... plus the whole thing about a twin brother constantly whispering in his ear to kill people.

It's an old story, but a pretty famous one—certainly for those who have an interest in the bizarre and the macabre. It carries about the same weight as the case of John Merrick.

Does a movie carry more weight if I claim it’s inspired by a true story?

As silly as that might sound.

I actually wish this had been folded into The Conjuring Universe... though it probably would have worked better with a bit more tension and a little less action.

To everyone constantly insisting this is a zombie movie 🤦—it’s really not, man... it's a film about the infected. The people aren't actually dead; they're living beings under the influence of a virus.

In this case, you can take one down with a single shot to the chest... just like any other living person.
And if you ask me, movies about the infected feature much more terrifying monsters than standard zombie flicks.

Eric Patel7 said:For crying out loud, zombies aren't just slow-moving, undead corpses.😁

evo, here are the different types of zombies—which includes the ones from 28 Days / Weeks Later.

And check out this cool infographic about how zombies have evolved in movies.

"Zombie" is a pretty broad term, 😬

Zombies aren't a broad term... they have to be dead first and then brought back to life.

So:

The Grapes of Death (1978) — an infected movie
World War Z (2013) — a zombie movie
REC (2007) — an infected movie
28 Days / Weeks Later — infected movies
Zombie (1979) — a zombie movie
Ravenous (2017) — an infected movie
Warning Sign (1985) — an infected movie
The Return of The Living dead (1985) — a zombie movie
The Crazies (2010) — an infected movie

And so on and so forth...

There are essentially two types of zombies—voodoo zombies and George A. Romero-styled zombies (which, again, split into two groups: Romero's slow ones and the fast ones from "ROTLD").

p.s.
Also, "Nightmare City" (1980) is very likely an infected movie, though I won't be able to confirm that until I get around to watching it in the next few days.

I'd love to know what you all think about the Deadites from "Evil Dead"—are they zombies, the infected, or something else entirely?

I finally sat down to watch Romero's version—the third one I've checked out in just a few days—but honestly? I still think Argento's European version is the superior cut. It’s the one we all grew up watching back in the old VHS era. My only real question is why they left out that helicopter scene with Ellie in that specific edit.

Romero's cut includes the helicopter sequence, but you lose Goblin's score, and there's just way too much humor injected into it. In my opinion, Argento was right to trim all that excess away to tighten up the editing.

It’s a fantastic movie. I’ve revisited it countless times, and somehow, it seems to get better with every viewing. The acting is top-tier, and the zombies themselves are genuinely iconic and unforgettable....

And no, I'm not being hyperbolic here—the film is truly incredible... regardless of whether someone else manages to grasp that or not.
If someone thinks the movie is bad, that's their prerogative; at the end of the day, it's just their opinion.

I don't let nostalgia cloud my judgment. Just because I liked a movie years ago doesn't mean it holds up for me today. And if I find that I don't enjoy it anymore, I'll be the first to admit it—I'll say it was good then, but it doesn't pass the test now. I don't have any trouble being honest about that.

The film series is just as phenomenal as the TV show itself...