Last movie seen — Page 373

Lord Haseo said:

ray_afraid said:

TV’s Frink said:

Lord Haseo said:

REC?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/REC_(film)

He only has room on his horror shelf for Child’s Play. No room for good movies.
And, again, saying there’s only one good horror movie since 1896 is stupid. And totally false.

FTFY

Lord Haseo said:

yhwx said:

Lord Haseo said:

ray_afraid said:

TV’s Frink said:

Lord Haseo said:

REC?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/REC_(film)

He only has room on his horror shelf for Child’s Play. No room for good movies.
And, again, saying there’s only one good horror movie since 1896 is stupid. And totally false.

FTFY

How come my original photo disappeared in my post but didn’t disappear in your reply? lol

1. I right clicked on the photo and clicked ‘Open image in new tab’
2. The image showed up in a new tab and right clicked on the image to download the photo
3. I uploaded the photo to my personal GitHub repository
4. I embedded the image in my post

FanFiltration said:

“Mission Galactica: The Cylon Attack” (1979) 4/10

This was the second Battlestar Galactica theatrical release. It is a re-edited version of the original Battlestar Galactica T.V. series episodes “The Living Legend”, “Fire in Space” and the pilot episode “Saga of a Star World”, with some extra (never used on the T.V. show) model shots thrown in to extend the running time to theatrical film standards. I can see how Universal wanted to get their money back from the expensive special effects bill that the T.V. show ran up, but this film does not play as well as the slimmed down pilot had. The “Fire in Space” segment is so laughable. The nova space-minefield segment from the previous movie was shoehorned into the final battle segment and it just did not work. At least this movie version cut most of of the boxy scenes out. This movie never played in theaters in the U.S. (wise move), but was a big money maker overseas.

Wait until you see Conquest Of The Earth. 😉

The one saving grace of the movie edits is occasionally there is live action footage that didn’t make it into the episodes.
Universal allegedly sold Galactica FX footage to cheesy low budget films like Space Mutiny, which later became infamous thanks to MST3K. I did a double take when I saw the VHS for sale at Kmart.

Why are you bolding the year in my post?

The Haunted Castle

Whatever. I’m out.

I haven’t seen many horror films, but the ones that I have seen have been pretty good to great. Here is a list of what the IMDb says are horror films I’ve seen and what I give them out of ten:

The Evil Dead (1981) - 8/10

Evil Dead II (1987) - 9/10

A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984) - 7/10

The Shining (1980) - 9/10

The Cabin in the Woods (2012) - 8/10

Drag Me to Hell (2009) - 8/10

Evil Dead (2013) - 6/10

Alien (1979) - 9/10

So yeah, I wholeheartedly disagree with you on your "Halloween is the only horror film that is well made" statement

Lord Haseo said:

Sci-fi/Horror = not a true horror movie.

I hate that sort of boxing in. Besides, Alien is much more Texas Chainsaw than Star Trek. Ridley calls it a horror film as do the writers and producers and cast.
Why isn’t a horror film set in space/the future a “true horror film”?

Tobar said:

SilverWook said:

I did a double take when I saw the VHS for sale at Kmart.

Are…are you a time traveler?

I should have added back in the day. 😉

Another note on horror movies- MOST of them ARE terrible films.
I feel fully qualified to call myself a horror aficionado. I love everything from no-budget scrappers to big-budget spectaculars, and I can tell you than most horror flicks are cynical productions made on the cheap for a quick return with no redeeming value if you aren’t an investor. I’ve had to trudge through WEEKS worth of total crap to find just one interesting flick, much less a truly well made piece of art. But there are plenty of filmmakers that have gave the genre masterwork pieces of cinema. A list of what I’d call truly well made horror films would take up pages.
But, also, art is subjective. One mans trash is another mans garbage.

I actually haven’t seen it yet!

ray_afraid said:

I feel fully qualified to call myself a horror aficionado.

Carp.

Lord Haseo said:

LuckyGungan2001 said:

I haven’t seen many horror films, but the ones that I have seen have been pretty good to great. Here is a list of what the IMDb says are horror films I’ve seen and what I give them out of ten:

The Evil Dead (1981) - 8/10

Evil Dead II (1987) - 9/10

Evil Dead got a 7.6/10 and Evil Dead II got a 7.8/10. Still good scores. Also I always thought these were action/horror films but okay.

A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984) - 7/10

This actually got a 7.5/10.

The Shining (1980) - 9/10

8.4/10

I’m going to watch this one this weekend as well. I don’t even remember it to be honest.

The Cabin in the Woods (2012) - 8/10

This got a 7.0/10 on imdb. Still a good score though

Drag Me to Hell (2009) - 8/10

Actually it got a 6.6/10

Evil Dead (2013) - 6/10

6.5/10

Alien (1979) - 9/10

Sci-fi/Horror = not a true horror movie. Also it got a 8.5

Where did you get these scores from? lol

I went to my ratings, then filtered them down to what IMDb considers to be “horror” films. The ratings I specified are what I give them, not the general consensus.

Star Trek Beyond (2016)

As someone who liked the original 2009 Abrams-verse film and not ‘Into Darkness’, this was a pretty good experience for me. While this certainly has the worst villain (or at least worst-developed) of the trilogy, I think this is the best as an overall film. It has some genuine moments of insanity but it just runs with them, and I honestly applaud that. Unlike ‘Into Darkness’, or '09 for that matter, which felt like they were following some sort of screenwriter’s checklist of necessary moments, this one is far more straightforward.

Thumbs up. See it, make up your own damn mind…

Star Trek: Beyond - 9/10

Weakest villain of the three newer films, but everything and everyone else shines.

Basically, everything Tack said.