Let me explain what I mean by saying that it "went there."
-
novastar_6 — 14 years ago(December 23, 2011 11:17 PM)
Is not fair at all, Camilla Belle is a very good actress and the film is the only legitimately suspense film I've seen in recent years.
You don't see a lot of movies do you? There's no suspense here, we KNOW from the promotional ads before the movie even came out that she is going to be perfectly safe until the cops tell her he's in the house, which was what, an hour into the movie? By that time we don't care if she gets killed or not, it'd give the movie something worth seeing. -
stayprettystockholm — 13 years ago(December 31, 2012 09:20 PM)
Um, I know you think you're "cool" for liking an old movie like every other pretentious movie snob here, but you're not. I have never seen a horror movie from today starring a "teenybopper wearing a pound of lipgloss and talking like a valley girl". even if she was. so? point being? isnt that exactly how most if not all of the old heroines were (Carol beign the obvious exception)? and obviously for someone who seems to take such (unoriginal) pride in loving old movies over new, you sure seem pretty ignorant about how new ones work. or else, you dont pay one bit of attention to them, because you have the actresses today totally confused with the old ones.
nor do you seem to have an understanding of what "acting" is. if she is supposed to talk like a Valley Girl or some strange mix of Creole-Chinese, SHE WILL DO IT. if the makeup artist makes her wear gloss or a layer of powder, SHE WEARS IT. And I hope you're not referring to Camilla Belle because that sounds nothing like her performance (no shock, you probably saw it once and didnt pay much attention because it forces you to think instead of making killers pop out of every corner to capture your interest) and obviously you dont know much about young girls- that seems pretty realistic for a young babysitter.
oh, and by the way, the remake is much better. I'll admit this one is more realistic but Camilla Belle was great with what she worked with and it was much more suspenseful. Stop bashing new movies just because it's "hip" to, and try actually WATCHING them and forming your own opinion, instead of what your cool hipster film snob friends tell you.
And another thing, you CAN always guess what happens in the old ones for exactly what you said. nothing shocking. Besides, Black Christmas, WASC, Halloween, etc. all have very very similar plots. Nothing shocking, once again.
"I do pretend I am a princess, so that I can try and behave like one." -
-
moviemadness2012 — 12 years ago(May 29, 2013 09:14 PM)
It's not so much being "politically correct" but more about today's filmmakers worrying more about box office results, since murdering a child would instantly get a film an R rating, and R-rated films are generally believed to be less likely to make money than PG-13, PG, or G-rated films.
The 1980 George C. Scott film "The Changeling" has an on-screen murder of a child by drowning. It got an R even though it had no foul language nor any other violence. -
Lilyette — 12 years ago(July 11, 2013 04:44 PM)
Good post Engelhaft. A child dies on camera in Halloween III and many more off camera at the very end. A child is suffocated with a pillow in the 1992 Belgian film Man Bites Dog and a child is shot to death in the 1997 Austrian film Funny Games. Man Bites Dog is on Youtube right now!
Perhaps the most disturbing child murder is in the unrated version of Caligula. A baby is beaten against the stairs, I believe.
-
Sox575 — 9 years ago(July 16, 2016 05:03 AM)
I think the issue with horror movies nowadays is that most will follow the formula pattern and the characters do things that we as audience members know they shouldn't be doing (especially when it's been spoofed and described in DETAIL in "Scream") so when we see this happening it ruins the suspension of disbelief. Like in the remake of When A Stranger Calls the baby sitter does
everything
you know not to do (like walking around in a dark room and then leaving the security of a locked house to go and check on a guest house where the lights keep going on and off and no one answers the phone), and so the audience no longer buys the whole scenario.
In the original WASC the viewer doesn't actually see the kids being murdered; we hear about it and get the description and then later
we see the killer in a flashback in the kids' room covered in blood
so it's our imaginations that fill in the blank. Same with the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre because a lot of viewers thought it was really gory but it was only the last few minutes that were really bloody; everything else was filled in by the viewer's imagination (which is sometimes scary than actually seeing anything). I myself thought that TCM was really gory until I watched one of the special features on the DVD and it was described how the movie wasn't as gruesome as many thought it was
, so I watched it again and they were right.
Engelhaft, I don't know if you've seen the remake of WASC, but if you do, I'd like to know what you think of it. I was cringing and rooting for the killer to get the main character.
But'Cha Are, Blanche! Ya'Are In That Chair!