AtomicHyperbole wrote:If anyone says Cabin Fever was "fun" again I will slit your eyes open and piss in the holes.
IT.
WAS.
AWFUL.
That is all.
(all in the spirit of the thread, of course)
tapehead wrote:Its not a patch on the list you could have made in the late Eighties, is it?
Keepcoolbutcare wrote:what, no none of the above?
can't see any one of the listed candidates as being "the future" of horror...
unless the existential horror of being a b-movie h@ck counts.
which it doesn't.
so, sadly, I'm forced to "go with" Havoc.
again.
darkjedijaina wrote:Ugh, so I just finished watching Lucky McKee's The Woods. I really found it quite boring.
Bruce Campbell was in it, sure.... but, jeez. Yawn. Snore.
It was trying too hard or something. It seemed to be more mystery than horror, and even that was lame. I could tell right away what was happening, I had the story figured out from the beginning, and that's just boring, IMO.
ThisLifeArtificial wrote:Love Roth...as a person. He's seems like a really cool guy but I really can't get into his movies. There so...ugh.
At the minute, I'm leading towards Marshall. But I don't really feel this generation of horror directors will revolutionise horror like Carpenter did with Halloween. I don't really think the next master of the genre has been revealed.
At the minute, were getting series of horror films, some actually quite good, The Descent, for one, some bad, most average. I haven't seen a film that has truly made me go, "Wow, movie is scaring the fucking shit out of me, in a way I haven't been before".
Moriarty wrote:What a silly, silly question.
I am the future of horror, obviously.
Sheeeeeesh.
Russ Fischer wrote:The attraction of the film for del Toro is the prospect of returning to horror, and the fact that the scale of Lovecraft’s monsters should keep the movie firmly rooted in the genre.Because the proportion is so big. When the monster has a dimension that allows you to humanize it, that’s the route I usually want to go. The cosmic proportions of the Lovecraft horror are so immense, it forces you to find humanity in other aspects of the tale. You can keep the monster inhuman, remote and scary, which is a great benefit.
And his claims about the realization of those monsters is, appropriately, also on a grand scale.The way the creatures are rendered and done is going to bring forth an aspect of Lovecraft that has not been done on live action films. Part of my speech was, I’m putting all the chips I have accumulated in 20 years as a director, betting them on a single number. This is not just a movie and then move on to the next. It’s do or die time for me. Cameron does his movies like that every time and I find it surprising the way people judge success in retrospect, like, of course, I would have done that. Avatar was the largest gamble, again, so were Titanic and Terminator 2. I love that type of filmmaker, with those gigantic stainless steel balls, Alec Baldwin-style in Glengarry Glen Ross, fucking clanking together. You can’t explain success in retrospect.
Pacino86845 wrote:And what the hell's Del Toro talking about? Buried? Never heard of it! Oh, that movie where the teaser is all in the dark except for three seconds of a dude screaming while sitting in a box ostensibly buried beneath the earth?
AICN's got a review for that too!
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests