MovieChat Forums > JigsawX > Replies
JigsawX's Replies
I've often heard that about it. Truth be told, I've not seen the remake, and I doubt I'll care for it as much as this, but that said, I certainly hope to enjoy it when I get around to it.
Indeed. I know not people are here yet, but as I'm participating in one such challenge in October for a horror movie forum I'm a member of (horrormoviefans.com/forums), it might be worth it to also do one here, for what little horror community there may be.
Heck, it might even bring some more people in, which could only be a positive. Even if most of us are mainly doing it for another site, I see no harm in also posting what we've watched here. Hopefully others might agree, but we've still half a month to go before October to think about it.
I've not seen Blue Ruin, though it does seem to me as though it'd be mildly enjoyable.
I didn't feel the story was nonsensical, I just felt it, as another viewer put it, ran out of steam toward the end. I wasn't as invested in it as I hoped I would be. Glad you enjoyed it, though.
Indeed, that's how all of my reviews are. You're the first to criticize it, which by all means is your right. I don't see how a review style, however, can reveal whether or not someone is a "cunt", though.
Hope this finds you well.
No doubt that Jeepers Creepers is a solid film also, but Session 9 took me for surprise, as I generally don't care much for supernatural films. Thought the ending was spectacular, and the tension throughout the film was well-done.
Jeepers Creepers is a solid flick, and certainly another one of my favorites from 2001.
It's probably one of my favorite horror movies from both 2001 and certainly in my top 15 horror movies for the 2000's as a decade as a whole - a very good movie which, to me, doesn't falter with re-watches, as one might expect it to.
Indeed. Tyler's freezing story in itself was a moderately moving backstory, but seeing it come into play so prominently was sort of distracting, in a way.
And there were a few problems with as to why none of the people who came over thought to mention to the kids about the grandparents, but honestly I can overlook most of that. Still, it'd had have been better if that was extrapolated on.
Glad you enjoyed it, and many thanks for you kind words.
Indeed. While I didn't mention it, Stewart's low-key portrayal really helped add realism to the whole scenario.
I've yet to see this one, but I've long heard positive things about it. That said, I haven't heard a large amount about it, so I'm in agreement it's potentially underrated.
I wrote in Jill Stein of the Green Party, and actively worked to try and get actual progressives to vote for a progressive candidate as opposed to Clinton. Given there were eight different possible leftist candidates to vote for/write-in, it seemed a good idea to let people know they had choices.
Down ballot, I didn't vote for any Democrats or Republicans. An Independent write-in for Governor, a Libertarian for Congress, and didn't vote in the Senate race (no worthy candidates).
Locally's less interesting, but suffice it to say I didn't vote for any candidates for the State House seat, nor any local elections (be them Democrat or Republican).
For 2016, that's my political history.
Insofar as Clinton specifically is concerned, I am glad she lost, though am deeply saddened that Trump won. Either Clinton or Trump would have been atrocious, so it was a lose-lose either way (as there was no way a third party candidate was going to win, though I supported them across the board).
Indeed. It's slow work, as I'm trying to re-watch every horror film I've seen up to a certain point. With a 40-hour work week that I've still not fully adjusted to, I'm still trying to properly manage my time and watch at least one horror flick per day.
I've seen my fair share of obscure flicks, along with most of the popular ones (save a few notable examples), so keep your eyes open.
Hope you are doing well, friend.
Truly a great decade for ecological horror. *thumbs up^
I've actually not seen Slither (I know, I know - just haven't gotten to it yet), but I rank Arachnophobia and Tremors very highly. I think Arachnophobia's a legitimately good movie, and quite possibly in my top ten horror flicks from the 1990's.
Eight Legged Freaks, I remember enjoying also, but it's been over five years since I last saw it, so I'm badly in need of a re-watch.
Thanks for the comments!
No doubt he does excellent in his role. Truly a great actor.
Indeed. Looking back, it's really hard for me to see what I liked so much about it. A shame, but an overall okay movie.
That's one of my favorite horror flicks from the 1970's. It's a slow-burn, to be sure, but it's totally worth it.
Perhaps in your opinion, sure. But the mini-series was a watered-down version of the novel, and while I enjoy it overall, it leaves so much to be desired. I've long been waiting for a film more reliable to the book, and perhaps with these movies, that's what we'll get.
I just don't see it as "milking" anything when anyone can reasonably say they'll need more than a single movie to fit even half of the events from the book into it. That's not "milking" something, that's being reasonable.
From my understanding, Jim is pretty committed to keeping this site up, so I do believe that he's willing to keep it going financially for as long as he can.
Come a few months time, and this site is still going without issue, I may donate in order to make Jim's life a bit easier, as this really is a resource worth keeping up.
As for more posters, well, there's only so much one person (Jim) can do, and you know how some people get when someone tries to self-promote their website. Hopefully over time, people will naturally drift here, and those of us who actively post should spread the site around however we can also, just to do our part.
Just my perspective on things. Hope this finds you well.
I mean, breaking it into two parts makes sense, as the original novel was over 1000 pages. I don't think making two movies out of the book is really milking anything - it's just being fair to the source material.
I actually disagree with much of this.
First off, It wouldn't be a remake in the traditional sense - it would be a re-adaptation. Much like how Carrie (1976) was an adaptation of the novel, and the 2002 and 2013 Carries would be re-adaptations of the novel, not remakes of the movie.
And It was a television mini-series that left a lot out, due to the fact it was a television production. It missed so much, and honestly, as a fan of the book, I'm disappointed each time I see it (despite the decent performances from all involved).
I remember the 1997 re-adaptation of The Shining, and consider it a better movie than the 1980 film. I also remember the 2002 Carrie more fondly than the 1976 movie. But those aren't traditional remakes - they're re-adaptations.
Cabin Fever (2013) was a pointless remake. Martyrs (2013) was a pointless remake. Many American remakes of Asian horror films are pointless remakes.
It is not at all a pointless remake. The 1990 television movie left so much from the book out, and it looks like this movie will finally give fans of the book more substance, which I'm enthralled about.
Even though we disagree, I hope this finds you well.