Your favorite Horror films

11011121315

Comments

  • 23scidoo23scidoo Thessaloniki,GreecePosts: 8,871
    Saw The Visit last night..the ''grandma'' was excellent..
    Athens 2006. Dusseldorf 2007. Berlin 2009. Venice 2010. Amsterdam 1 2012. Amsterdam 1+2 2014. Buenos Aires 2015
    EV, Taormina 1+2 2017
  • green_girlgreen_girl Posts: 895

    saw this trailer before Split (which was really good, IMO) tonight. Looks promising although i was kinda surprised Jordan Peele of Key and Peele directed it

    Disturrrrrbing trailer. Really looking forward to it.
  • eeriepadaveeeriepadave West Chester, PAPosts: 25,921

    saw this trailer before Split (which was really good, IMO) tonight. Looks promising although i was kinda surprised Jordan Peele of Key and Peele directed it

    has 100% on rotten tomatoes. probably check it out this weekend
    bf959b1f-9b77-457c-baf8-038776f33339_zps8a6a389d.jpg?t=1365722973
    8/28/98- Camden, NJ
    10/31/09- Philly
    5/21/10- NYC
    9/2/12- Philly, PA
    7/19/13- Wrigley
    10/19/13- Brooklyn, NY
    10/21/13- Philly, PA
    10/22/13- Philly, PA
    10/27/13- Baltimore, MD
    Tres Mts.- 3/23/11- Philly
    Eddie Vedder- 6/25/11- Philly
  • Dr. DelightDr. Delight Posts: 10,403
    This looks promising
  • 23scidoo23scidoo Thessaloniki,GreecePosts: 8,871
    Saw this the other day..didn't like it..

    and this is for tonight..
    Athens 2006. Dusseldorf 2007. Berlin 2009. Venice 2010. Amsterdam 1 2012. Amsterdam 1+2 2014. Buenos Aires 2015
    EV, Taormina 1+2 2017
  • MayDay10MayDay10 Posts: 8,804
    I saw Krampus last night

    ...


    I thought it was really good. It didnt take itself seriously at all.... and if you understand that it is classified as a 'comedy horror', it was amusing
  • eeriepadaveeeriepadave West Chester, PAPosts: 25,921
    apparently the new stephen king "it" movie trailer premiered at SXSW the other day, can't find a link to it anywhere though.
    bf959b1f-9b77-457c-baf8-038776f33339_zps8a6a389d.jpg?t=1365722973
    8/28/98- Camden, NJ
    10/31/09- Philly
    5/21/10- NYC
    9/2/12- Philly, PA
    7/19/13- Wrigley
    10/19/13- Brooklyn, NY
    10/21/13- Philly, PA
    10/22/13- Philly, PA
    10/27/13- Baltimore, MD
    Tres Mts.- 3/23/11- Philly
    Eddie Vedder- 6/25/11- Philly
  • eeriepadaveeeriepadave West Chester, PAPosts: 25,921
    :smiley:
    bf959b1f-9b77-457c-baf8-038776f33339_zps8a6a389d.jpg?t=1365722973
    8/28/98- Camden, NJ
    10/31/09- Philly
    5/21/10- NYC
    9/2/12- Philly, PA
    7/19/13- Wrigley
    10/19/13- Brooklyn, NY
    10/21/13- Philly, PA
    10/22/13- Philly, PA
    10/27/13- Baltimore, MD
    Tres Mts.- 3/23/11- Philly
    Eddie Vedder- 6/25/11- Philly
  • 23scidoo23scidoo Thessaloniki,GreecePosts: 8,871

    :smiley:

    Nice..we gonna have 2 great King's movies this year..
    Athens 2006. Dusseldorf 2007. Berlin 2009. Venice 2010. Amsterdam 1 2012. Amsterdam 1+2 2014. Buenos Aires 2015
    EV, Taormina 1+2 2017
  • InHiding80InHiding80 Upland,CAPosts: 7,623
    Saw Play Misty For Me last night on Cinemax. Jessica Walter is one psycho beyotch in that.
    RIP America (1776-2016)
  • Dr. DelightDr. Delight Posts: 10,403

    :smiley:

    I was extremely skeptical of this movie when I heard they were remaking it and when I aw the first Pennywise pics.
    But i must say that after seeing that trailer I have high hopes for the end product.
  • MayDay10MayDay10 Posts: 8,804
    Yes. It looks like they stay true to the book, which is the #1 crime committed by these adaptations
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BCPosts: 35,821
    edited March 30
    MayDay10 said:

    Yes. It looks like they stay true to the book, which is the #1 crime committed by these adaptations

    Yeah, except for the time periods. The new movie has been altered so that the past events are in the 80s or 90s or whatever and present day is our present day. I would have preferred it if they'd stayed true to the original time periods of the book.
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • dankinddankind I am not your foot. Posts: 8,977
    PJ_Soul said:

    MayDay10 said:

    Yes. It looks like they stay true to the book, which is the #1 crime committed by these adaptations

    Yeah, except for the time periods. The new movie has been altered so that the past events are in the 80s or 90s or whatever and present day is our present day. I would have preferred it if they'd stayed true to the original time periods of the book.
    A case could also be made that film adaptations that stay too close to the source material often suck rocks.
    I SAW PEARL JAM
  • rgambsrgambs Posts: 8,537
    PJ_Soul said:

    MayDay10 said:

    Yes. It looks like they stay true to the book, which is the #1 crime committed by these adaptations

    Yeah, except for the time periods. The new movie has been altered so that the past events are in the 80s or 90s or whatever and present day is our present day. I would have preferred it if they'd stayed true to the original time periods of the book.
    I disagree, that movie was made and it impacted the people who lived in the era.
    This one will impact the people just younger than my sub-generation.
    The 70's just aren't as relevant or relatable as they were.
    It makes perfect sense to me.
    Monkey Driven, Call this Living?
  • PJSirenPJSiren Salem, ORPosts: 5,863
    I don't remember ever adding mine in here...my all time faves are the Hellraiser movies, Storm of The Century by Stephen King, the ORIGINAL Scream.

    OMG they remade IT? That is my LEAST favorite!!! I was traumatized by that movie...I can't even look at a clown because of that movie.
    Music is my Religion and Pearl Jam, my Savior!
    Tattooed Dissident!
  • eeriepadaveeeriepadave West Chester, PAPosts: 25,921
    dankind said:

    PJ_Soul said:

    MayDay10 said:

    Yes. It looks like they stay true to the book, which is the #1 crime committed by these adaptations

    Yeah, except for the time periods. The new movie has been altered so that the past events are in the 80s or 90s or whatever and present day is our present day. I would have preferred it if they'd stayed true to the original time periods of the book.
    A case could also be made that film adaptations that stay too close to the source material often suck rocks.


    i'm ok with it being a little updated. Didn't realize this was the first part with the kids and the adult ones come after i guess?
    I haven't watched the original in over 20 years (yeah scared me as well). Might have to try and find it somewhere and re-watch it
    bf959b1f-9b77-457c-baf8-038776f33339_zps8a6a389d.jpg?t=1365722973
    8/28/98- Camden, NJ
    10/31/09- Philly
    5/21/10- NYC
    9/2/12- Philly, PA
    7/19/13- Wrigley
    10/19/13- Brooklyn, NY
    10/21/13- Philly, PA
    10/22/13- Philly, PA
    10/27/13- Baltimore, MD
    Tres Mts.- 3/23/11- Philly
    Eddie Vedder- 6/25/11- Philly
  • MayDay10MayDay10 Posts: 8,804
    What time period are they doing. Gotta roll back some degree as the story spans 30 years. Unless the adults fight pennywise with flying cars and robots
  • MayDay10MayDay10 Posts: 8,804
    Hopefully they include the demise of patrick hockstetter
  • I remember reading Stephen King religiously back in the late 80s.

    The Stand. It. The Talisman (with Peter Straub). Pet Semetary. The Shining. Misery. Etc.

    King was unparalleled.

    Wasn't the original It a made for tv show? And from what I can recall... didn't it kind of suck?
    "My brain's a good brain!"
  • MayDay10MayDay10 Posts: 8,804
    the tv miniseries wasnt bad.... actually one of the better adaptations. They did have to leave a bit out due to gore, special effects restrictions, and also some sexual themes.
  • MayDay10 said:

    the tv miniseries wasnt bad.... actually one of the better adaptations. They did have to leave a bit out due to gore, special effects restrictions, and also some sexual themes.

    I like that new preview.
    "My brain's a good brain!"
  • eeriepadaveeeriepadave West Chester, PAPosts: 25,921

    I remember reading Stephen King religiously back in the late 80s.

    The Stand. It. The Talisman (with Peter Straub). Pet Semetary. The Shining. Misery. Etc.

    King was unparalleled.

    Wasn't the original It a made for tv show? And from what I can recall... didn't it kind of suck?

    The original one was a 4 part mini series for tv. Don't think it sucked at all, very good and scary.
    bf959b1f-9b77-457c-baf8-038776f33339_zps8a6a389d.jpg?t=1365722973
    8/28/98- Camden, NJ
    10/31/09- Philly
    5/21/10- NYC
    9/2/12- Philly, PA
    7/19/13- Wrigley
    10/19/13- Brooklyn, NY
    10/21/13- Philly, PA
    10/22/13- Philly, PA
    10/27/13- Baltimore, MD
    Tres Mts.- 3/23/11- Philly
    Eddie Vedder- 6/25/11- Philly
  • My friends and I all read the book and loved it. I think, at the time, it was near impossible to replicate the imagery King presented in words on film.

    We were tough critics though.
    "My brain's a good brain!"
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BCPosts: 35,821
    edited April 2
    rgambs said:

    PJ_Soul said:

    MayDay10 said:

    Yes. It looks like they stay true to the book, which is the #1 crime committed by these adaptations

    Yeah, except for the time periods. The new movie has been altered so that the past events are in the 80s or 90s or whatever and present day is our present day. I would have preferred it if they'd stayed true to the original time periods of the book.
    I disagree, that movie was made and it impacted the people who lived in the era.
    This one will impact the people just younger than my sub-generation.
    The 70's just aren't as relevant or relatable as they were.
    It makes perfect sense to me.
    The 70s? I don't think the 70s ever came into play with IT, did they?
    I just like the 50s setting for the children's part of the story because I find a killer clown in the 50s way scarier and creepier than a clown in the 80s or 90s, and I feel like Derry was a town that can't really carry its evil factor into modern day fully. Just a feeling I have about it. I guess I just think the original era suits the story, characters, and location best. I think 11/22/62 might have actually helped solidify that sense.
    Post edited by PJ_Soul on
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • rival.rival. ChicagoPosts: 7,775
    Didn't read this entire thread, jumped around a bit, but I don't see any mention of 'Night of the Living Dead'.

    How is that possible? How does that happen?
  • 23scidoo23scidoo Thessaloniki,GreecePosts: 8,871
    Has anyone see this???

    Athens 2006. Dusseldorf 2007. Berlin 2009. Venice 2010. Amsterdam 1 2012. Amsterdam 1+2 2014. Buenos Aires 2015
    EV, Taormina 1+2 2017
  • Jason PJason P Posts: 16,345
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BCPosts: 35,821
    edited April 3
    dankind said:

    PJ_Soul said:

    MayDay10 said:

    Yes. It looks like they stay true to the book, which is the #1 crime committed by these adaptations

    Yeah, except for the time periods. The new movie has been altered so that the past events are in the 80s or 90s or whatever and present day is our present day. I would have preferred it if they'd stayed true to the original time periods of the book.
    A case could also be made that film adaptations that stay too close to the source material often suck rocks.
    Maybe... but I've never seen a film adaptation that was really close to the book it's based on suck rocks. Not once. Every single book to film adaptation that sucks rocks that I've seen invariably stray too far from the book in some way. All the ones that are super close to the book are awesome. Can you give me some examples of movies that are very close to the book upon which they're based that suck because it's too close to the book? I can't think of one that I've seen. I can think of dozens that suck because they strayed too far from the source material though. And this has been a particular problem with Stephen King adaptations over the years IMO.
    Post edited by PJ_Soul on
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • 23scidoo23scidoo Thessaloniki,GreecePosts: 8,871
    edited April 5
    PJ_Soul said:

    dankind said:

    PJ_Soul said:

    MayDay10 said:

    Yes. It looks like they stay true to the book, which is the #1 crime committed by these adaptations

    Yeah, except for the time periods. The new movie has been altered so that the past events are in the 80s or 90s or whatever and present day is our present day. I would have preferred it if they'd stayed true to the original time periods of the book.
    A case could also be made that film adaptations that stay too close to the source material often suck rocks.
    Maybe... but I've never seen a film adaptation that was really close to the book it's based on suck rocks. Not once. Every single book to film adaptation that sucks rocks that I've seen invariably stray too far from the book in some way. All the ones that are super close to the book are awesome. Can you give me some examples of movies that are very close to the book upon which they're based that suck because it's too close to the book? I can't think of one that I've seen. I can think of dozens that suck because they strayed too far from the source material though. And this has been a particular problem with Stephen King adaptations over the years IMO.
    This is a great adaptation of King's book..

    Athens 2006. Dusseldorf 2007. Berlin 2009. Venice 2010. Amsterdam 1 2012. Amsterdam 1+2 2014. Buenos Aires 2015
    EV, Taormina 1+2 2017
Sign In or Register to comment.