Where does this scene rate for you on a purely creepy, eerie and bone-chilling level, on a scale from 1 to 10(10 being the most downright frightening to you)?
I'll personally give it an 8; MAYBE a 7 and a half. But when I was a kid it was a straight 10 for certain!
"Life IS pain highness. Anyone who says differently is selling something".
I just watched it last week, I compared it to the 2004 version. I give it a 8.5, I give the 2004 version a flat 0.
shareI just watched it last week, I compared it to the 2004 version. I give it a 8.5, I give the 2004 version a flat 0.Agreed: I think that that scene was lame, but the 2004 film itself was decent. share
Just because it was closer to the book doesn't make it a good movie though.
What if you never read the book like most people haven't, I bet you would feel differently.
Quite so, but it doesn't make it a bad movie either.
Just because it was closer to the book doesn't make it a good movie though.
What if you never read the book like most people haven't, I bet you would feel differently.
I'm not saying your opinion is not valid, of course it is. I just find it inconsistent with what I perceive to be your usual focus.
I have a general idea of how old you are and I know you've watched some of the greatest movies of all time. The acting in the 2004 version is subpar, the special effects( Floyd coming through that drainpipe) is laughable, the reconfiguration of Burke, and a host of other things make this movie substandard even by typical movie standards.
How did you like Marjorie Glick bending over backwards? Did that do it for you? How about Dud Rogers' asinine dialogue?
There are a ton of bad movies that I like, but I will be the first to admit that they are bad movies. I like them, but I would never show them to others at a movie night nor defend them in spite of their lack of quality.
If the book never existed and they released the '79 and '04 versions as stand-alones I find it hard to believe that you would like the latter as you say you do. It's the book that you like, and '04 is closer to it.
If you watch it again I bet you'll see more clearly what I mean.
I'm not saying your opinion is not valid, of course it is. I just find it inconsistent with what I perceive to be your usual focus.I like the 1979 film, okay? But I like the 2004 film a bit better.
I have a general idea of how old you are and I know you've watched some of the greatest movies of all time. The acting in the 2004 version is subpar, the special effects( Floyd coming through that drainpipe) is laughable, the reconfiguration of Burke, and a host of other things make this movie substandard even by typical movie standards.
How did you like Marjorie Glick bending over backwards? Did that do it for you? How about Dud Rogers' asinine dialogue?
There are a ton of bad movies that I like, but I will be the first to admit that they are bad movies. I like them, but I would never show them to others at a movie night nor defend them in spite of their lack of quality.
If the book never existed and they released the '79 and '04 versions as stand-alones I find it hard to believe that you would like the latter as you say you do. It's the book that you like, and '04 is closer to it.
If you watch it again I bet you'll see more clearly what I mean.
I'm offended by this movie(2004). It smacks in the face of a lifetime personal legacy of being afraid of open windows and rocking chairs.
Seriously though, you have to admit that you don't waste an opportunity to let everybody know how much you like it, maybe that's why I'm ribbing you. Liking it is one thing, but saying you like it more than the 79 version is just looking for trouble.
Did you like Dud Rogers depiction? I don't know if it came from the book or not but this guy offered Ruth Crockett a dead rat as a gift of love. Speaking of Ruth Crockett, did you like the scene where her own father approaches her sexually? Wasn't that riveting cinema?
Last but not least, how did those zombies at the end of the movie grab you? The vampires go from floating around, as vampires do, to walking mindless zombies with no purpose.
I'm finished with I have to say about this Gary, but remember this the next time you watch your favorite movie Salem's Lot 2004: When you see Matt Burke stare at Mike's chest with lust, I want you to think about our conversation and the many other conversations you've had with other people about this movie.
I'm offended by this movie(2004). It smacks in the face of a lifetime personal legacy of being afraid of open windows and rocking chairs.
Seriously though, you have to admit that you don't waste an opportunity to let everybody know how much you like it, maybe that's why I'm ribbing you. Liking it is one thing, but saying you like it more than the 79 version is just looking for trouble.
Did you like Dud Rogers depiction? I don't know if it came from the book or not but this guy offered Ruth Crockett a dead rat as a gift of love. Speaking of Ruth Crockett, did you like the scene where her own father approaches her sexually? Wasn't that riveting cinema?
Last but not least, how did those zombies at the end of the movie grab you? The vampires go from floating around, as vampires do, to walking mindless zombies with no purpose.
I'm finished with I have to say about this Gary, but remember this the next time you watch your favorite movie Salem's Lot 2004: When you see Matt Burke stare at Mike's chest with lust, I want you to think about our conversation and the many other conversations you've had with other people about this movie.
Geoffrey Lewis really pwned that scene...he and Lew Ayres are/were fine actors.
shareI was 13 and in the house alone in the country and yes it was the scariest thing in the world, 9
share[deleted]