Yeah. I know he was fukked up. Racist too.
Essential The Official Coli Horror Film Thread: Discussion, Recommendations And Murder.
- Thread starter Dominic Brehetto
- Start date
Also if you haven't seen it yet, "True Detective" season 1. It is heavily influenced by Lovecraft mythos. Even has some direct references to it.
Fred.
didn't know she was that one chick on The 100 
The last film that really fukked me up..chills and hardcore trip..was enter the void.
Exorcist messed me up during my child and teenhood..
Exorcist messed me up during my child and teenhood..
Off the top of my head of flicks I have actually watched there is Demons Never Die and Tormented.
New horror flick written and directed by Jordan Peele of Key & Peele fame:
GET OUT
GET OUT
Cool list...there are a couple films on the list I haven't seen that I will be adding to my Halloween Month of horror viewing.
This one quote from the author about Psycho is so true and highlights one of my biggest issues with most slasher films of the last 20-30 years:
I hate watching any type pf horror film but especially a slasher film where the victims are all just interchangeable ciphers who I don't give a damn about. Making the audience care about a character before they get brutally murdered is one of the best ways to get an emotional response from people.
And while I have never considered Hush Hush Sweet Charlotte to be a horror film, even though it gets categorized as such by a lot of people, I am glad it was added to the list so hopefully it will get horror heads to check it out. The movie is one of my all-time favorites. DeHavilland and Davis give tour de force performances in this movie.
These stories are from the vault of horror comicsTales From the Crypt, OG British Flick from 72
...Botch murder/Reanimated FUKKERY/Poetic Justice (literally)/Blind revenge PIFF
Lowkey, now I see where Tales From the Hood got its premise from
Im glad you appreciated this gem..amicus studio made further anthologies..with a great cast.
Just splendid.
I think this is a great way to break down horror flicks too. by decade and by era rather than lumping them all together and trying to pick out the best. sensibilities change
New Blair Witch is mostly unimpressive.....missed opportunity.....Too loud, unsubtle, repetitive, lacked an a sense of real eeriness or foreboding, just hit you in the head with jump scares and loud noises.
fukk it, I'm still hot about Halloween 2007.
The most offensive thing to me, more than the excessive gore/language/lack of great camera work, is that the first 40 minutes of the movie are completely pointless. Lop it off entirely and the movie is a fairly straight forward remake of 1 with elements of 2 and as such doesn't need any of the information given in the first 40 minutes. All it serves to do is demystify Michael by making him a generic killer with a shytty childhood. It's almost like that part was added just so Zombie could say he was putting his own spin instead of doing a straight remake.
In the original, Michael goes after Laurie because she happens to be the first person he sees when he's back at his house. That's what happens in the remake as well. He has no way of knowing this random girl is his sister, nor that the Strodes adopted her. Yet half way through the movie Loomis is all "he's coming to kill his sister", but how the fukk does he know who Laurie is? He hadn't seen her since she was a baby. She was just a random girl, which is the entire point and part of why Halloween works so well. You can't play it off the same as the original and then graft the sister thing on in the same movie.
Of course, this could have been easily avoided had he not decided random scenes needed to be exactly like the original even if it interfered with the story he was trying to (poorly) tell. Rob Zombie is not a good filmmaker. John Carpenter was drunk as shyt while writing Halloween II and still managed to get a scene in about Laurie having visited Michael later in life but had repressed the memories, explaining (not super well, but at least the attempt was made) how Michael knew Laurie was his sister if he had been locked up for 15 years.
The most offensive thing to me, more than the excessive gore/language/lack of great camera work, is that the first 40 minutes of the movie are completely pointless. Lop it off entirely and the movie is a fairly straight forward remake of 1 with elements of 2 and as such doesn't need any of the information given in the first 40 minutes. All it serves to do is demystify Michael by making him a generic killer with a shytty childhood. It's almost like that part was added just so Zombie could say he was putting his own spin instead of doing a straight remake.
In the original, Michael goes after Laurie because she happens to be the first person he sees when he's back at his house. That's what happens in the remake as well. He has no way of knowing this random girl is his sister, nor that the Strodes adopted her. Yet half way through the movie Loomis is all "he's coming to kill his sister", but how the fukk does he know who Laurie is? He hadn't seen her since she was a baby. She was just a random girl, which is the entire point and part of why Halloween works so well. You can't play it off the same as the original and then graft the sister thing on in the same movie.
Of course, this could have been easily avoided had he not decided random scenes needed to be exactly like the original even if it interfered with the story he was trying to (poorly) tell. Rob Zombie is not a good filmmaker. John Carpenter was drunk as shyt while writing Halloween II and still managed to get a scene in about Laurie having visited Michael later in life but had repressed the memories, explaining (not super well, but at least the attempt was made) how Michael knew Laurie was his sister if he had been locked up for 15 years.
Last edited:
I always felt that Zombie, despite his claims of being a huge Carpenter fan, was really more inspired by the later Halloween movies where Michael was chasing after Jamie Lloyd because she was his niece. Because that seemed to be what he was doing with Michael and Laurie in his films.fukk it, I'm still hot about Halloween 2007.
The most offensive thing to me, more than the excessive gore/language/lack of great camera work, is that the first 40 minutes of the movie are completely pointless. Lop it off entirely and the movie is a fairly straight forward remake of 1 with elements of 2 and as such doesn't need any of the information given in the first 40 minutes. All it serves to do is demystify Michael by making him a generic killer with a shytty childhood. It's almost like that part was added just so Zombie could say he was putting his own spin instead of doing a straight remake.
In the original, Michael goes after Laurie because she happens to be the first person he sees when he's back at his house. That's what happens in the remake as well. He has no way of knowing this random girl is his sister, nor that the Strodes adopted her. Yet half way through the movie Loomis is all "he's coming to kill his sister", but how the fukk does he know who Laurie is? He hadn't seen her since she was a baby. She was just a random girl, which is the entire point and part of why Halloween works so well. You can't play it off the same as the original and then graft the sister thing on in the same movie.
Of course, this could have been easily avoided had he not decided random scenes needed to be exactly like the original even if it interfered with the story he was trying to (poorly) tell. Rob Zombie is not a good filmmaker. John Carpenter was drunk as shyt while writing Halloween II and still managed to get a scene in about Laurie having visited Michael later in life but had repressed the memories, explaining (not super well, but at least the attempt was made) how Michael knew Laurie was his sister if he had been locked up for 15 years.