I mean, when a movie's going to market itself by claiming it's "the best horror thriller since Alien," well...those are some big shoes to fill.
And I already tried watching the Cave, which couldn't really hold my interest.
Why should I care about the Cave in Lions Gate form?
-pH
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
LOL, Chris and I saw this preview (we had seen The Cave in the theater when it came out) and we both turned to the other and said simultaneously, "Didn't we already see this movie?"
Yeah, I'm probably going to see this just 'cause I'm a sucker for a bug-hunt movie, but (as I usually do for these) I'm gonna go in with very low expectations.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
I have a great idea. Lets make a horror movie set in a cave. But this time we'll make it more realistic, and less expensive. Since its most realistic to be pitch black in a cave, we'll just shoot the whole movie with the lens cap on, and throw in a bunch of different people screaming in different ways.
It will end with yet more sounds of slashing flesh, but this time we add guns and explosion, followed by some witty remarks made by a woman, and a man, followed by some kissing noises, only to be interupted by the sound of the comic relief saying something innapropriate.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
From what i've been able to gather the difference is more chicks.
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
And they're spelled differently, too.
How many times has something like this happened? Remember when Wyatt Earp and Tombstone were released days apart? Or Deep Impact and Armageddon?
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Well, but it's from the studio that brought us Saw and Hostel!
I loved Saw, but I doubt there's room for a convoluted plot in "chicks get lost in a cave with things that eat them." Which leaves Hostel, the "frat boys that you hate die gruesomely, only all the gross parts were already in the trailer."
How can you compare this to Alien? HOW?!
-pH
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
I like horror movies as much as anybody, I suppose, but I'm growing a bit uneasy with the rising tide of movies that seem to be little more than excuses to show lots of people dying in (albeit creatively) gruesome ways.
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
"Rising tide"? How many Friday the 13th movies have there been again? Nightmare on Elm Street?
Maybe those aren't good examples... At least those had an overlying plotline, and Nightmare... had a real psycho of an actor playing the lead, in my opinion.
I don't understand movies like Final Destination, which makes absolutely no sense to me. It's like they thought "OK, we have a movie where everyone dies, but how creatively can we do that? Oh, didn't think of that one!"
Do keep in mind that the marketing line you mention is, odds are, not provided by the studio. But by a critic, and even then might be taken completely out of context. As far as you know the critic stated "...this film sucks beyond description. It is nowhere near being the best horror thriller since Alien..." And it's perfectly legal for the studio to take that sentence fragment and use it to their benefit.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
I know that it was stated by a critic, but the fact remains that the movie people decided to use that particular line to sell the movie, thus claiming to be "the best horror thriller since Alien."
-pH
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
See, I rather liked Final Destination, not so much for the deaths, but for the way the filmmakers toyed with the cliches of the genre and then blindsided you. The (first) sequal more of the same, but by then it was old hat. I haven't seen the 3rd. However, these aren't exactly what I'm talking about.
The "rising tide" I'm seeing is more graphic and gratuitous. What was artistic about the early films in the genre was the way the director built suspense, and got a reaction without actually showing all that much. Lately, not only has there not been any qualms about showing the actual gore and torture, but the camera tends to linger on it. Saw II relied almost entirely on lingering shock shots, and Hostel was practically snuff porn.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
As I've said before, just about all the gore in Hostel was in the trailer. The torture scenes were pretty short.
The first Saw was awesome. I agree with you on the second, but at the same time, I wonder what else they could've done. It's like the Matrix; the first one was different and a bit of a surprise. For the second one, we already knew what to expect. I love Saw, and I was very excited for sequels, but at the same time, I can't see a way for the surprise and twistedness to continue after we already know the killer's MO.
-pH
Posted by SC Carver (Member # 8173) on :
I find myself laughing at the wrong times in these movies. Like when a sign falls off a 20ft roof and some how manages to slice a body in half longways. Even if it were really heavy wouldn't it just crush them, not slice them? I guess they started making signs out of all used razors coming our to my Mach 12.