Guitar Gear Forum

how much of a dick move would it be to have a ghost that clapped behind your ear all the time like that?

i love paranormal films, but they always let me down. predicting crap. for the record though, im not some grouchy troll. i just happen to think both this and pacific rim will fall short of expectations.

Wow, a haunted house movie based on a "true" story! Finally something fresh from Hollywood!

I hope they put in some super predictable jump scares and really break new ground.

Directed by the same guy that did Saw and Insidious? Yeah...not so much.

Yarbicus wrote:Directed by the same guy that did Saw and Insidious? Yeah...not so much.

Saw I could handle (the first one, not the 4000 sequels).

Insidious should have been called "Stupidious." Or something at least warning audiences that "You don't want to try and suffer through this movie."

How do some of these guys keep getting greenlights on these POS? Do they seriously make them for nothing so even if they only do $30 odd mil at the box office they make money?

Or is there really that much demand for terrible horror movies that aren't supposed to be terrible?

ovid9 wrote:

Yarbicus wrote:Directed by the same guy that did Saw and Insidious? Yeah...not so much.

Saw I could handle (the first one, not the 4000 sequels).

Insidious should have been called "Stupidious." Or something at least warning audiences that "You don't want to try and suffer through this movie."

How do some of these guys keep getting greenlights on these POS? Do they seriously make them for nothing so even if they only do $30 odd mil at the box office they make money?

Or is there really that much demand for terrible horror movies that aren't supposed to be terrible?

Insidious (I) (2010)
103 min - Horror | Thriller - 1 April 2011 (USA)

Box Office:
Budget: $1,500,000 (estimated)
Opening Weekend: £1,441,292 (UK) (29 April 2011)
Gross: $53,991,137 (USA) (26 August 2011)

Murdoch wrote:This is actually getting stellar reviews. Sitting at 92% on Rotten Tomatoes. Even the jaded horror movie fanboys are loving this thing.

Damn. Well, that's what netflix is for I suppose.

JonVengeance wrote:

ovid9 wrote:

Yarbicus wrote:Directed by the same guy that did Saw and Insidious? Yeah...not so much.

Saw I could handle (the first one, not the 4000 sequels).

Insidious should have been called "Stupidious." Or something at least warning audiences that "You don't want to try and suffer through this movie."

How do some of these guys keep getting greenlights on these POS? Do they seriously make them for nothing so even if they only do $30 odd mil at the box office they make money?

Or is there really that much demand for terrible horror movies that aren't supposed to be terrible?

Insidious (I) (2010)
103 min - Horror | Thriller - 1 April 2011 (USA)

Box Office:
Budget: $1,500,000 (estimated)
Opening Weekend: £1,441,292 (UK) (29 April 2011)
Gross: $53,991,137 (USA) (26 August 2011)

Fuck.

Horror is somewhat of a dead genre, unfortunately. It's either all-out gore fest (which is exhausting) or it is a supernatural/ghost story. We hold both ends of the respective spectrums up to films of such high regard that we all saw probably when we were way too young that there is no way they could ever compare.

Ghost stories/supernatural invariably get compared to Rosmaries Baby, The Exorcist...how in the hell do you stack up to that? Especially when your initial impression was when you were 10-12 and (for me) the internet and it's associated spoilers and critical avalanche did not yet exist (hypocrisy noted The other branch of horror has to measure up against the classic slasher films from back in the day. Before we as an audience became jaded to the point of why would the filmmaker even try.

I thought Insidious had some good jump scares. For a PG-13 movie, it's really tough to do much since the shock bar has been raised so high. I think The Conjuring looks good and I always enjoy a good ghost story. Sometimes, it's enough to just turn the brain off and get freaked out and enjoy the experience at a base level; nothing more, nothing less.

That title card is straight mid-late 70s horror. Not a negative.
Stars Ron Livingston. ...huh.

Dunno?

cavitation wrote:Horror is somewhat of a dead genre, unfortunately. It's either all-out gore fest (which is exhausting) or it is a supernatural/ghost story. We hold both ends of the respective spectrums up to films of such high regard that we all saw probably when we were way too young that there is no way they could ever compare.

Ghost stories/supernatural invariably get compared to Rosmaries Baby, The Exorcist...how in the hell do you stack up to that? Especially when your initial impression was when you were 10-12 and (for me) the internet and it's associated spoilers and critical avalanche did not yet exist (hypocrisy noted The other branch of horror has to measure up against the classic slasher films from back in the day. Before we as an audience became jaded to the point of why would the filmmaker even try.

I thought Insidious had some good jump scares. For a PG-13 movie, it's really tough to do much since the shock bar has been raised so high. I think The Conjuring looks good and I always enjoy a good ghost story. Sometimes, it's enough to just turn the brain off and get freaked out and enjoy the experience at a base level; nothing more, nothing less.

Good poast

well the rotten tomatoes thing is promising....


ok, heres the thing, and ill try to keep it short.

i guess what gets me is maybe horror is a very personal thing. a movie can have say 20 scares in it. maybe i think 5 are outstanding, 5 are fun, and the rest are either bullshit audio scares or CGI abortions. now, which ones are which vary from person to person is the main problem i think.

that being said, i LOVE the idea of ghosts. there is certain imagery cues that will chill me every time. unfortunately, most films tend to try and go for the mass stimuli, which seems to involve CGI dead japanese girls or face morphing and i think that shit is the absolute worst.

for example, women and children ghosts scare me. man ghosts generally dont. mama should have been a smash hit, right? fucking no, and we all know why. though i remember there being some pretty good stuff early on in the film, before it went absolute full retard. so much potential.

possession: awesome. such a grand idea. seeing satanic shit going on in normally peaceful people: outstanding. yet somehow they have fucked up all of these movies.

true story: great, except its not. the story of a place being as haunted as Amityville existing on this earth let alone in my own country used to fascinate the shit out of me until i found out that it was all hoaxed to sell books.

bloody mary: couldnt even play that shit as a kid, so scary. way to ruin that by having a good scene in the trailer but not in the film, paranormal activity 3. kitchen secenes were great throughout the franchise, though, btw

so its all a magical mix of personal experiences that make up a great horror film these days i think.

the conjuring:
i think the conjuring will have a lot of the same gimmicks that everyone loves (already can see them all fucking OVER the trailer...the birds hitting the window, the ghost girl jumping from on top of the bookcase, the clap--scary maybe if i didn't see it in the trailer-- the makeup of the ghost face passing over the woman as she wakes, the excessive black veining on almost all of the ghost appearances), and only a few nice ones that will tickle my fancy (i like hanging imagery, the girl ghost mashing her head against the wall in sadness looked promising) but will it be the movies fault? probably not. i like the cast, i like the whole "same time every night" motif that is pretty gimicky but always strikes a chord with me, the rotten tomatoes score and reviews are promising but i have been fooled before, and i like the plot line of a case so disturbing that paranormal investigators wouldnt go writing 8,000 books about it immediately but hide it away.
please, please dont let me down. please. ill give you my money instead of pacific rim, jsut please dont fuck this up.

[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ONNR8Ct5XM[/video]

that sounds nice, but the truly scary thing is reviews that start like this:
"From director James Wan (Saw, Insidious) comes The Conjuring (2013), a 1970s-inflected haunted house movie that throws every trick in the book at it audience - with surprisingly successful results. Wan's latest is chock-full of kitsch class and effective scares that, whilst never attempting to reinvent the wheel, offers up one of those rare things; and exhilarating, entertaining American horror. Our focus is the Perron family, who have invested every last cent into the rural idyll they now call home. Bought at an auction price due to foreclosure and in need of substantial work, the family could never have dreamt of such a steal.

Shortly after moving in, however, the Perrons realise that there might have been a reason the house was so affordable. A series of supernatural encounters intensify in both frequency and harmful malevolence, leaving the terrified family fearing for their very lives. Enter well-dressed demonologist Ed Warren (Patrick Wilson) and his clairvoyant wife Lorraine (Vera Farmiga), who make their living helping out folk who believe that they're being haunted by forces from beyond the grave. Wan's tricksy latest then goes on to document the husband and wife duo's most spine-tingling case."




why not break the mold? why not have the exact same first 60 minutes as every haunted house movie fucking ever? maybe once id like to see the film start in the middle, crazy ghost rapes, child murder, pet destruction, shit that really torments, not on a gory scale, but on a tasteful, oh my god my heart hurts and that really disturbs me scale. and then just give me a ghost that i can look at for more than 3 seconds without laughing. then we'll be square.

yeah reading most of the actual reviews basically saying "it sucks, but consistently, so consistently that it doesnt!"

sad mike is sad.

Ol' Big-Dick Mike over here, shitting on everything, like a tourist drinking the water in Belize.

lol
big dick swangin


but seriously. when is the next "mars volta" of horror movies going to come out? (i.e. something just wildly fucking different and partially mexican)


also, how was evil dead, still never saw the new one and heard it was AMAZEBALLZZZ!!!111OMG!! and then abject silence.

Last horror movie I saw that I thought was actually a good film, was House of the Devil. But I mean c'mon, Tom Noonan. He's freaky no matter what.

Yarbicus wrote:[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ONNR8Ct5XM[/video]

When they were amazing. Good shit right there.

Y0UNGBL00D wrote:why not break the mold? why not have the exact same first 60 minutes as every haunted house movie fucking ever? maybe once id like to see the film start in the middle, crazy ghost rapes, child murder, pet destruction, shit that really torments, not on a gory scale, but on a tasteful, oh my god my heart hurts and that really disturbs me scale. and then just give me a ghost that i can look at for more than 3 seconds without laughing. then we'll be square.

^That x1000. Love me some ghost stories but would like a little shake up of the formula at some point.

Telephant wrote:Last horror movie I saw that I thought was actually a good film, was House of the Devil. But I mean c'mon, Tom Noonan. He's freaky no matter what.

Ti West is a badass. It will be interesting to see where he goes next.

I am not a big horror movie fan. If I want to get scared, I just check my bank account, 401k etc... now THAT'S terrifying.