What is the best horror movie franchise?

[Andrew NDB]

In your eyes? I apologize if yours isn't on the poll (I could only put 15).

[Leo656]

My vote goes for "Nightmare". They're not all classics but the worst of that series is still way ahead of most horror movies, period. They're easily the most consistent and watchable even when they're not hitting home runs, and even the very worst films in the series have some good and/or memorable moments. Compared to the wild inconsistency of most of those other series, which generally range from "Quite Good" to "Absolute Dogsh*t".

A "bad" Freddy movie is always miles ahead of some of the worst in those other franchises. They've all got their ups and downs but there's nothing in the Nightmare series that approaches the cinematic vomit of stuff like "Friday the 13th: A New Beginning" or "Any Saw After The First One".

I'd argue that the "Hellraiser" franchise comes off the worst by default, simply because after Part III they weren't even true Hellraiser movies anymore, they just pulled random horror scripts out of a filing cabinet and stapled Pinhead into them to make a fast buck. First one is obviously a classic but everything starting with the fourth one was just... wrong. Just everything bad about the "business" of making horror movies. Just the most cynical, half-assed, money-grubbing tripe.

[newfan]

Ooh, not sure what to pick. Also find myself in one of those cases where favourite isn't necessarily 'the best' In this case having a run of well written sequels for example.
Also I haven't watched all of everything on that list. I'll think on it.

[Andrew NDB]

A "bad" Freddy movie is always miles ahead of some of the worst in those other franchises. They've all got their ups and downs but there's nothing in the Nightmare series that approaches the cinematic vomit of stuff like "Friday the 13th: The New Blood" or "Any Saw After The First One"

I loved The New Blood. It aged not as well as I hoped when I saw them all again a few months back, but it's pretty good. Jason actually gets a worthy adversary.

I'm also of the mind that the Saw movies dipped in quality here or there, but generally got more intelligent as they went along.

I'd argue that the "Hellraiser" franchise comes off the worst by default, simply because after Part III they weren't even true Hellraiser movies anymore, they just pulled random horror scripts out of a filing cabinet and stapled Pinhead into them to make a fast buck. First one is obviously a classic but everything starting with the fourth one was just... wrong. Just everything bad about the "business" of making horror movies. Just the most cynical, half-assed, money-grubbing tripe.

I'd say even after II. But I and II are SO GOOD. Even III isn't terrible, but it feels pretty detached from I and II and seems kind of like the studio wanted to push Hellraiser into some kind of action/special effects extravaganza. IV was... disappointing. I remember as a kid watching it in the theater and feeling about the same as I did seeing Alien 3... as in, "Eh. I didn't hate what I just saw, but man... that pretty much blows." It has its moments... there was a good movie to be made in IV, but this wasn't it. They should've worked the script a bit more.

As for the direct to video ones beginning with 5? Obviously the scope and budget isn't there, but I actually liked "Inferno." I liked the "big twist," even though it kind of goes against the idea of what the Cenobites are supposed to do and be about. 6 was decent, though it sort of redid the same exact plot of 5 ("Hah! He was in Hell the whole time!"). It was nice to see Kirsty Cotton back!

"Deader" was awful and totally un-Hellraiser-like and Hellworld was OK but was definitely even less Hellraiser-like than "Deader." I've actually seen "Revelations," the first of two (the latest two Hellraiser movies) that don't actually have the same guy playing Pinhead. Story-wise it was actually super good... and perhaps the most Hellraiser-like since the first two. Have not seen "Judgment," but a friend keeps urging me to, insisting I'll like it.

My vote is for Romero's the Night of the Living Dead movie series. Pound for pound the initial quadrilogy (Night, Dawn, Day, Land) is classic and awesome and look at everything they inspired. Even the latest two aren't that bad, "Diary" and "Survival."

[Leo656]

Sh*t, I completely apologize for getting my titles mixed up. I meant to say "Friday the 13th: A New Beginning." "New Blood" was one of the really good ones.

"New Beginning" is terrible. I sincerely apologize for my egregious misstep and will Edit my previous post accordingly. I don't even care that Jason wasn't the killer, it's just a very bad movie A-to-Z. Like it's wall-to-wall terrible even once you accept/ignore the Fake Jason twist. I can do that. I can accept what they tried to do. I can't accept the awful acting, scripting, staging or... well, everything past the concept.

Sorry I got my "New _____" Jason movies mixed up. "New Blood" was by far one of, if not the best in the series. My complete and total apologies.
----------------

I confess that there's a ton of movies in these various series that I still have yet to see. So full disclosure, I can't give a fully informed opinion on a lot of them. I do read a lot, though, and am at the very least familiar with almost every film of every franchise listed. And going by a pure story level, a ton of those movies are broken at the very foundation by being just plain badly written. I can't speak to the execution in many cases, but in reading the ABCs of the plot, it's pretty obvious some of them are absolute garbage. They don't even read well, I can't imagine how bad they come off in execution.

The first "Saw" is one of the smartest horror movies I've seen, still. After that they went off the rails into full-blown torture porn. First one is very cerebral, with very few scenes of open gore; most of it's in your head. Even when he hacks his foot off, you hardly see anything. Only the "key in the guts" scene is very graphic, the rest is pure suggestion, "tricking" you into thinking you're seeing more blood and gore than you really are. From part 2 onward they were just like "Eh, just throw some guts at the camera." I've seen MOST of them in snippets here and there from being played at the gym a lot over the years, and honestly I think the story turned into a pile of nonsense very quickly. Every single character was Jigsaw's secret apprentice at one point, it seemed. It's ridiculous. The whole thing worked better when there was a ton of mystery involved; as they went on they over-explained everything to the point where it was just this massive spider's web of plot twists that were impossible to keep straight. Horror movie franchises shouldn't need a flow chart! :trazz:

People can like what they want to, obviously. Just calling it like I see it, as usual.

[Andrew NDB]

Sh*t, I completely apologize for getting my titles mixed up. I meant to say "Friday the 13th: A New Beginning." "New Blood" was one of the really good ones.

About to say. Though I'm sure there's people out there who regard "New Blood" as some kind of Carrie ripoff.

"New Beginning" is terrible. I sincerely apologize for my egregious misstep and will Edit my previous post accordingly. I don't even care that Jason wasn't the killer, it's just a very bad movie A-to-Z. Like it's wall-to-wall terrible even once you accept/ignore the Fake Jason twist. I can do that. I can accept what they tried to do. I can't accept the awful acting, scripting, staging or... well, everything past the concept.

"New Beginning," I give it points for trying something new... but definitely my least favorite Jason. Though I don't know... I can't find a lot to like in "Jason Goes to Hell." I love the rest. They're like comfort food for me. You know, "Ah, here we go, meeting all the new cast that will die." Then one by one, and all.

The first "Saw" is one of the smartest horror movies I've seen, still. After that they went off the rails into full-blown torture porn. First one is very cerebral, with very few scenes of open gore; most of it's in your head. Even when he hacks his foot off, you hardly see anything. Only the "key in the guts" scene is very graphic, the rest is pure suggestion, "tricking" you into thinking you're seeing more blood and gore than you really are. From part 2 onward they were just like "Eh, just throw some guts at the camera." I've seen MOST of them in snippets here and there from being played at the gym a lot over the years, and honestly I think the story turned into a pile of nonsense very quickly. Every single character was Jigsaw's secret apprentice at one point, it seemed. It's ridiculous. The whole thing worked better when there was a ton of mystery involved; as they went on they over-explained everything to the point where it was just this massive spider's web of plot twists that were impossible to keep straight. Horror movie franchises shouldn't need a flow chart! :trazz:

The Saws definitely get convoluted... but I kind of didn't mind. I was able to follow them in both watchings of them.

I'm really surprised there hasn't been a new Freddy or Jason movie in like a decade. I never thought they'd ever stop, and didn't want them to.

[neatoman]

I'm going with Alien but that's only because the original is my favourite movie of all time.

... Do any of these examples, or any horror series aside from them, have more good movies than bad? It seems to me like the first installment is almost always the only good one and is followed by catshit after dogshit until you have an overused diaper of a series.

[Andrew NDB]

I'm going with Alien but that's only because the original is my favourite movie of all time.

The first two are REALLY good. Though two out of 6 movies isn't a great average.

... Do any of these examples, or any horror series aside from them, have more good movies than bad? It seems to me like the first installment is almost always the only good one and is followed by catshit after dogshit until you have an overused diaper of a series.

Hm... I say Chucky does! They're all hysterical to me except for the kind of odd duck, "Seed of Chucky." They went a little experimental with it. 6 out of 7 movies ain't bad!

Nightmare on Elm Street is pretty consistent, as Leo will attest to. Didn't care for 5, 6, or New Nightmare, though.

[Leo656]

About to say. Though I'm sure there's people out there who regard "New Blood" as some kind of Carrie ripoff.



"New Beginning," I give it points for trying something new... but definitely my least favorite Jason. Though I don't know... I can't find a lot to like in "Jason Goes to Hell." I love the rest. They're like comfort food for me. You know, "Ah, here we go, meeting all the new cast that will die." Then one by one, and all.



The Saws definitely get convoluted... but I kind of didn't mind. I was able to follow them in both watchings of them.

I'm really surprised there hasn't been a new Freddy or Jason movie in like a decade. I never thought they'd ever stop, and didn't want them to.

It was a "Carrie" ripoff, quite deliberately so in fact. They were tossing around random ideas for the next Jason picture after the very first "Freddy vs. Jason" pitch was rejected (neither studio wanted their guy to job; this was before both characters were owned by New Line, remember) and "Jason vs. Carrie" was one of them. They obviously couldn't do it "for reals" so they created a Carrie expy so they could do the same basic plot.

"Jason Goes To Hell" was definitely not a good movie. This was a case of New Line "trying something new" and instead they totally sh*t the bed. As a kid who knew very little of the previous Jason films' canon, watching it in a vacuum was entertaining. But it just doesn't fit in with the series at ALL. It's so contradictory it becomes laughable. Like they create the Creighton Duke character, who's one of the most entertaining parts of the film (not a high bar to clear), but they f*ck it up by presenting him as a Big Huge Deal when this is the Very First Time we've ever seen this guy. They pretend he's been around the entire time, but we the audience know better because we've actually seen the films. He handcuffs himself to Jason and is all like, "Remember me?!" And I like to imagine Jason replying, "No, actually... pretty sure we've never even met before Right This Very Moment. By the way, you're dead." :lol: It was so STUPID.

Obviously there are much, much bigger problems with "Jason Goes To Hell" than inconsistencies with Creighton Duke or the Voorhees Family Tree, although those are big problems. It's just... it doesn't work.

I kind of have a ton of problems with the entire Jason series. I got into them late, and as such have no real sentimental attachment to them. Most of them completely bleed together in my mind and I can't tell much apart from one to the next after Part III. I hate how generic and one-dimensional all the characters are; they literally exist for no reason other than to get butchered, and I know "that's the fun of these movies" but I sort of don't agree and I sort of question how that's good enough to suffice as entertainment for some folks. "I don't need to know names, I don't need compelling protagonists... I just like to watch a meat grinder in action." Like, what does that say about the viewer? I'unno. I have a problem with that in a LOT of horror movies, not just Jason ones. The fact that I can't cite a single Jason movie protagonist's name aside from Tommy Jarvis despite seeing every film in the series at least four times (and often more) tells me that they really didn't try to write stories, just set pieces. I know "it's just horror movies", but you should still try. Some of them try, and they turn out pretty good. I'unno.

The fact that they stopped making Freddy and Jason movies after the remakes is baffling. They both made a LOT of money; the Freddy reboot that "everyone hated" made four times its budget back, and they had Haley signed on for two more films. They were absolutely going to do more in each series; I say this about a lot of movies, because it happens to this very day, but what happened was, they were just embarrassed at being razzed by the hacks at Entertainment Weekly, so they gave up. They made a ton of money, but left even more on the table because "They said mean things about us!" :roll:

What's dumber is that they're trying to develop a RE-reboot of Freddy, without Haley, who was by far the best part of the remake. Scrap the rest if you MUST, but what the f*ck, man. Don't throw out the baby with the goddamn bathwater. Even Englund vouched for the guy. Let him keep the glove, he did a fine job with what he was given.

Both remakes had their ups and downs, but were altogether a solid foundation for future films. It's ridiculous that instead, they just gave up. "Critics made fun of us!" DUDE. You make f*cking Freddy and Jason movies critics ALWAYS made fun of you WTF OMFG. Why the sudden craving for critical acclaim with your "slasher rips teenagers apart" movies? JESUS.
-----------------------

Yeah, Freddy's movies are the most consistent, and the "bad" in that series comes nowhere near the sh*ttiness of most others. "Freddy's Dead" was bad, easily the worst in the series, but at least parts of it are genuinely funny, and a few scenes are unsettling. No Freddy movie is 100% worthless. There's always one scene or one set piece or SOMEthing that redeems the entire rest of it to a point. And most of them are actually just plain good, and the less-good ones are at least entertaining and competently-made. They're not hack movies.

I agree that Chucky also has a better average than most. Although one or two of those are REALLY bad, in my opinion. But again, like Andrew said, that's a really good average. "Seed" is probably the only truly sh*tty one. Even the most hardcore defenders of the series really struggle to put that one over. The rest are a mixed bag, but like Freddy movies, the worst of them don't come close to the worst of the genre, not by a mile, not even by ten.

Horror movies are a tough nut to crack. None of them are usually intended to be more than one movie. Then it makes money and they subsequently do more. But they hadn't planned to do more, and so the creative spark is gone, and the rest is just an attempt to keep the money train going and it all becomes very transparent very quickly.

Y'know what series sucks? F*cking Leprechaun. They don't even pretend those movies fit with each other. Entertaining moments, and the first one ain't too bad, but as a series? Good LORD. Not even "so-bad-they're-good". Just plain dumb. Although I'm always happy to see Warwick Davis get work. But that's all they have going in their favor!

[Wildcat]

Ya all the Chucky movies are good except Seed. It just went too far into adult comedy. I'm not counting the remake, which was pretty good imo but it's more of a separate thing.

Chucky is my favorite horror series but I don't think I'd call it the best horror franchise. Killer dolls is very specific.

I agree the Living Dead franchise is probably the most influential. I have not seen all of them but zombies taking over a house or whatever does seem to cover the broad concept of horror movies.

Other than ghosts zombies/ghouls/skeletons are like the "face" of horror.

[Andrew NDB]

It was a "Carrie" ripoff, quite deliberately so in fact. They were tossing around random ideas for the next Jason picture after the very first "Freddy vs. Jason" pitch was rejected (neither studio wanted their guy to job; this was before both characters were owned by New Line, remember) and "Jason vs. Carrie" was one of them. They obviously couldn't do it "for reals" so they created a Carrie expy so they could do the same basic plot.

And there was serious talk about a sequel, Freddy vs. Jason vs. Ash.

"Jason Goes To Hell" was definitely not a good movie. This was a case of New Line "trying something new" and instead they totally sh*t the bed. As a kid who knew very little of the previous Jason films' canon, watching it in a vacuum was entertaining. But it just doesn't fit in with the series at ALL. It's so contradictory it becomes laughable. Like they create the Creighton Duke character, who's one of the most entertaining parts of the film (not a high bar to clear), but they f*ck it up by presenting him as a Big Huge Deal when this is the Very First Time we've ever seen this guy. They pretend he's been around the entire time, but we the audience know better because we've actually seen the films. He handcuffs himself to Jason and is all like, "Remember me?!" And I like to imagine Jason replying, "No, actually... pretty sure we've never even met before Right This Very Moment. By the way, you're dead." :lol: It was so STUPID.

They made a big stink to... eh, something about "The producer of the first one returns to bring you the last!" But it was terrible.

Obviously there are much, much bigger problems with "Jason Goes To Hell" than inconsistencies with Creighton Duke or the Voorhees Family Tree, although those are big problems. It's just... it doesn't work.

The heartworm thing does a lot to explain a few things... even though they don't really explain it at all. Did he always have that? Where did he get it? The lake?

I kind of have a ton of problems with the entire Jason series. I got into them late, and as such have no real sentimental attachment to them. Most of them completely bleed together in my mind and I can't tell much apart from one to the next after Part III. I hate how generic and one-dimensional all the characters are; they literally exist for no reason other than to get butchered, and I know "that's the fun of these movies" but I sort of don't agree and I sort of question how that's good enough to suffice as entertainment for some folks. "I don't need to know names, I don't need compelling protagonists... I just like to watch a meat grinder in action." Like, what does that say about the viewer? I'unno. I have a problem with that in a LOT of horror movies, not just Jason ones. The fact that I can't cite a single Jason movie protagonist's name aside from Tommy Jarvis despite seeing every film in the series at least four times (and often more) tells me that they really didn't try to write stories, just set pieces. I know "it's just horror movies", but you should still try. Some of them try, and they turn out pretty good. I'unno.

I love the Jason movies. I would watch them all over and over as a kid, so they give me a lot of nostalgia. They aren't pretentious in the slightest and deliver exactly what they portend to.

The fact that they stopped making Freddy and Jason movies after the remakes is baffling. They both made a LOT of money; the Freddy reboot that "everyone hated" made four times its budget back, and they had Haley signed on for two more films. They were absolutely going to do more in each series; I say this about a lot of movies, because it happens to this very day, but what happened was, they were just embarrassed at being razzed by the hacks at Entertainment Weekly, so they gave up. They made a ton of money, but left even more on the table because "They said mean things about us!" :roll:

The Jason thing makes sense... there's a lawsuit. Though that doesn't explain the umpteen years before there was one but after the "remake" where there wasn't one.

But Freddy? Weird. And we still have Englund. What's the problem? Like, just make a brand new Nightmare on Elm Street movie with Englund... him killing a new batch of kids in Springwood or whatever, and don't even talk about the other movies.

What's dumber is that they're trying to develop a RE-reboot of Freddy, without Haley, who was by far the best part of the remake. Scrap the rest if you MUST, but what the f*ck, man. Don't throw out the baby with the goddamn bathwater. Even Englund vouched for the guy. Let him keep the glove, he did a fine job with what he was given.

Haley was fine. But that movie... yeah, no.

Both remakes had their ups and downs, but were altogether a solid foundation for future films. It's ridiculous that instead, they just gave up. "Critics made fun of us!" DUDE. You make f*cking Freddy and Jason movies critics ALWAYS made fun of you WTF OMFG. Why the sudden craving for critical acclaim with your "slasher rips teenagers apart" movies? JESUS.

I like that the Jason "remake" functions as stealth sequel, too. There is nothing saying after FvJ that Jason's heart worm couldn't have went and inhabited some other host. Cue, movie.

I agree that Chucky also has a better average than most. Although one or two of those are REALLY bad, in my opinion. But again, like Andrew said, that's a really good average. "Seed" is probably the only truly sh*tty one. Even the most hardcore defenders of the series really struggle to put that one over. The rest are a mixed bag, but like Freddy movies, the worst of them don't come close to the worst of the genre, not by a mile, not even by ten.

What is the other bad one? 3 might be a LITTLE weak, but a nice production and a new environment.

Y'know what series sucks? F*cking Leprechaun. They don't even pretend those movies fit with each other. Entertaining moments, and the first one ain't too bad, but as a series? Good LORD. Not even "so-bad-they're-good". Just plain dumb. Although I'm always happy to see Warwick Davis get work. But that's all they have going in their favor!

Yeah, Leprechaun wasn't worthy of the list. To a lesser extent, Ghoulies or Critters. Though there is some good there.

[Leo656]

- "Freddy vs. Jason vs. Ash" got pretty far along, too. It got to the point where all they needed was Campbell to go along with it, but he wasn't gonna let Ash do the job and thus it all fell apart in negotiation.

Simply put, they wanted Ash to do the job, and Bruce very smartly reasoned that Ash Doesn't Do Jobs, Brother. You can "kill" Freddy or Jason or both, and they can come back in the next movie and it's No Harm, No Foul. You kill off Ash, then he's Dead and you can't use the character anymore. The studio didn't understand this, and their insistence that Ash HAD to die fighting Freddy and Jason because "They're the ones selling the tickets" ruined the entire thing.

At the very least, the comics that came of it (based on the script treatment) were quite entertaining. Unencumbered by the budget and logistical limitations of a live-action film, the two mini-series were ten times more fanservice-y than even the "Freddy vs. Jason" movie was. AND - "Spoiler Alert" - Ash came out on top both times because That's What He Does. "El Jefe" don't job to some Goalie From The Grave and a crusty old fart in a Christmas sweater. Not now, not ever. He'd eat both of their lunch.

A movie sure would've been nice. But those stories exist in SOME form, at least, and there's absolutely no reason to disregard them when they work harder to fit the canon of all three film series than most of the actual films ever did. So I'm glad we got something out of the deal in the end.

- I've heard Jason's heart demon... thing, called "The Hellbaby" by some people. Supposedly there's some obscure novel that tries to explain it, but... put simply, just like Jason's sister and "Only A Voorhees Can Kill Him", it was a retcon from New Line when they acquired the license and nothing more. There was zero information from the original Friday the 13th movies to even suggest at such things. The fact that it never came up again and "Jason X" merely talks about him having superhuman regeneration abilities (with nary a peep of having some demonic parasite inside of him) more or less suggests that "The Hellbaby" is the "Midichlorians" of the Jason franchise. In other words, "We don't talk about it. Please forget we ever mentioned it."

"Freddy vs. Jason vs. Ash" explicitly makes Jason a Deadite, retroactively explaining why the Necronomicon was in the Voorhees house in "Jason Goes To Hell" and entirely dancing around the "Hellbaby" business. "He became The Undead when he got struck by lightning in the cemetery after Tommy dug him up. Something-something-his-mom-screwed-around-with-the-Necronomicon-once-upon-a-time-so-now-he's-an-unkillable-zombie." That's why he can't be killed and why he always comes back. Sure, it's also a retcon. But it kiiiiinda makes sense within the context of the lore and is a bit easier to swallow that the Hellbaby angle. I can believe that Pamela Voorhees may have meddled with dark forces beyond her control way back in the day; she was a nut. The Hellbaby thing just comes out of nowhere, and aside from the one movie (which doesn't even try to explain the concept) is never mentioned again. Jason being a Deadite, though? Sure. I'll buy that for a dollar. As ass-pull retcons go, you don't have to reach quite so deep. :lol: He's already quite clearly a zombie, if someone argues he can't ALSO be a Deadite then they're just splitting hairs. :trazz:

- "The Problem" with Robert Englund doing more Freddy movies is that he simply has no interest in doing them. He's been very outspoken that he'd love to do a cameo in the next one but that he's not interested in the grind at his age and would rather bow out gracefully. At times, he's candidly suggested that "Freddy vs. Jason" wasn't his best work with the character and that maybe it's time to pass the torch. He has no problem at all with the idea that the character and the franchise will move on without him. He had some problems with the remake but publicly and vocally endorsed Jackie Earl Hailey as his successor and thought he did a great job. He also said it wasn't at all fair that people compared the two of them, even though of course people are gonna do that.

But yeah, the "problem" is simply that he's an old man, the make-up sucks and it's a lot of work. He was prepared to bow out over 25 years ago and they kept bringing him back for "Just One More." He's a gracious individual to a fault but he's earned the right to retire if he wants to. I admire the fact that he's realistic enough to want the franchise to continue on even if he's not involved, so long as the material is good.

- I like the remake. Ignoring the fact that there's 8 prior iconic movies with the same title and pretending that it's its own thing - nigh-impossible, I know, but IF a person can manage to do that - but there's a lot to like about it. I would have changed a lot of stuff, but mostly small things. I don't think they really did anything wrong, I just think it happened to come out at a time when people were openly very hostile to remakes. Same with the Jason remake, also better than its reputation. Since then, people have softened on the entire concept of remakes. 10 years ago, different attitude. Now? People even defend the "Robocop" remake, a more toothless and pointless movie you'll never find. I feel like if either of those remakes came out now, they'd find a more generous audience.

Regardless, they both made money. Therefore, I don't understand why they stalled on making more. They NEVER used to care if the Freddy or Jason movies had good word-of-mouth, they only cared about profit. Well, the remakes were in the top-three of their respective franchises as far as dollars earned, so the fact that it's been over a decade with NO movement at all in either brand is... well, what the actual f*ck? The Jason lawsuit, sure. But even before that mess, they had no plans for a sequel to the remake. They were gonna do ANOTHER remake instead, a found-footage one. Then the lawsuit. But again, even before that, they were flailing.

It just doesn't make any sense. They never used to care about getting picked on. Now they do. It's weird.

- Eh, some people don't care for "Bride of Chucky", either. I'm kinda iffy on it, myself. It has its moments but I have to be in the mood for it. I was never a fan of the series going into full-tilt comedy and it was very obvious to me that they'd simply run out of ideas by that point. Like "Jason X". "We can't play it straight anymore, so let's make fun of ourselves". It's an admission of defeat. "Freddy's Dead", same problem. Once your franchise starts unashamedly taking the piss out of itself, you can spin it any way you like but the truth is you've simply run out of things to say and now you're the drunk guy at the party putting the lampshade on his head for attention. You've told all your Good Jokes and now you're just hoping to skate by on being "kooky". But that stops being endearing pretty damn quick.

- Jennifer Aniston had awesome calves in the first "Leprechaun" movie. :tgrin: I wanna destroy her insides.

NOT the way the Leprechaun was trying to! I mean in the Good Way! :tgrin::trazz:

[Shark_Blade]

No Sinister? Annabelle? The Conjuring? Insidious? Happy Deathday? Unfriended? The Grudge?

:D

[AquaParade]

None of those are scary to me except the first Exorcist, so I'll go with that. I've always appreciated the look and sound of most of these franchises, but the feeling isn't there.

[Allio]

Im a sucker for the one missed call trilogy. Love the third, though not good story wise, had a great 2nd act with all the forwarding messages.

[oldmanwinters]

It's a hard poll, because many of these franchises have an excellent initial movie (and maybe one or two sequels worth remembering), but for the most part they are just terrible cash-in trains on the name.

I'm surprised we only had one Gremlins sequel since 1984. You would think the studio would have tried to milk that brand dry over 35+ years.

[Andrew NDB]

No Sinister? Annabelle? The Conjuring? Insidious? Happy Deathday? Unfriended? The Grudge?

:D

Those are all terrible.

It's a hard poll, because many of these franchises have an excellent initial movie (and maybe one or two sequels worth remembering), but for the most part they are just terrible cash-in trains on the name.

I'm surprised we only had one Gremlins sequel since 1984. You would think the studio would have tried to milk that brand dry over 35+ years.

Do we really consider Gremlins "horror"? Mm.

[Allio]

I’d say it’s a sub-genre. Like Goosebumps

[Autbot_Benz]

Evil Dead/Ash Vs The Evil Dead.

[Leo656]

No Sinister? Annabelle? The Conjuring? Insidious? Happy Deathday? Unfriended? The Grudge?

:D

Those are all terrible.

Right? :lol:

[Andrew NDB]

Evil Dead/Ash Vs The Evil Dead.

Those are kind of... horror-comedy. Less so the very first one (and definitely the remake is), but that's definitely overall not a straight up horror series.

[Leo656]

I thought the remake was surprisingly good. I wanted to dislike it but they did a good job.

[Andrew NDB]

I thought the remake was surprisingly good. I wanted to dislike it but they did a good job.

Yeah, they went straight up horror and scary with it. I wouldn't mind a part 2 at all, which the new one coming out may or may not be ("Evil Dead Rise").

[Shark_Blade]

Those are all terrible.

The Conjuring 2 is 80% fresh on rotten tomatoes (81% by general audience). So, no.
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_conjuring_2

[Leo656]

RottenTomatoes scores are as relevant as polka music.

[newfan]

Just trying to think how many fall under the Conjuring Universe, did the Nun count? (I didn't care for that) I think the 2nd Anabelle movie might have been the strongest of those for me, other two were not so great. Conjuring was okay, re-watched that yesterday as it came up Netflix. I liked the Insidious movies.

Even though they have continuity all over the place and some bad sequels, I am always up for a new Halloween Movie.

Edit: I watched the Saw movies due to watching with someone else, I wouldn't usually choose human torture but the stories were well written, this run was successful.

[Andrew NDB]

Of that "universe" I've only seen the first Annabelle. Absolutely terrible... it's probably the worst horror movie I've ever seen.

[Leo656]

Worse than "Book of Shadows: Blair Witch 2"? OUCH!

So far that's my pick for worst. I confess, though, unlike some people I don't habitually watch bad movies for yuks. So there might be worse ones but I wouldn't know on account of I got better things to do. If I wanna torture myself I'll at least do it in ways that can potentially induce orgasm, intentionally or otherwise. Watching bad movies doesn't cut it.

[Shark_Blade]

RottenTomatoes scores are as relevant as polka music.The RT reviewers yes I don’t really care for them. The audience’s score however is worth noting tho.

Of that "universe" I've only seen the first Annabelle. Absolutely terrible... it's probably the worst horror movie I've ever seen.Annabelle is pretty weak I reckon but The Conjuring 2 is better.

The Grudge 1 & 2 are okay but a lot better if watched in their original Japanese versions (Ju-On: The Grudge 1 & 2).

The rest is mid tier, not terrible but still okay tbh.

[Leo656]

Nah, people change their minds too much for any of it to ever mean anything. Reviews and even box office ultimately have very little to do with objective quality.

All any of those things are, is a snapshot of how someone felt on a very specific day. Ask the same people how they felt about the same movie a week, a month, a year, or 10 years later... they'll generally not feel the same. They might, but might not, or at least not as strongly.

I've mentioned X-Men 3 before - and I know some people appreciate it for its attempts at grand spectacle, ANDREW :trazz: - but at the time it was released a lot of people praised it as being "The way all comic book films should be made." Not even two years later, it was already being derided. Now it's considered Bottom 3 of its entire franchise. So it's a really good example how something can be Beloved on a Monday and Scorned by Friday, figuratively speaking.

More apt for the subject, "Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me". Scorned upon its release by fans and critics. "Too dark." "Too bleak." "Too weird." "Too joyless." "Too cruel." "Not Twin Peaks-y enough." "Not popcorn entertainment." "Who'd ever make this? Who'd even WATCH this?" And so on and so on.

25+ years later, it's a whole new song and dance. Most of the critics who reviewed it Then have admitted they were wrong and done a 180. Same with Twin peaks fans. It very quietly graduated from being "trash" to "Cult Classic" to plain and simple "A Classic, but ignored upon release." Just because people change their minds a lot. The movie didn't change. People just watched it when they were in a different mood, or had more context, or whatever. It'll never be universally beloved - it's FAR too much of a David Lynch movie for that to ever happen - but most people who had a strong opinion on it once upon a time have taken it back.

That movie's a big reason why I laugh whenever people say, "If you tell people 'They didn't get it', you just can't admit you made a bad movie." Well... what about all the critics who have openly said, about that or any number of other films, "Yeah, we totally Didn't Get It"? Sometimes you don't get it. It happens.

All reviews both Positive and Negative are subjective. They're just data, information. They don't state anything conclusive, nor can they, because People Change Their Minds A Lot. "Is this movie good? The reviews say..." Well, if you go by that, you'll never really know. You'll only know how people tell you to think, but you won't know your own opinion until you find out for yourself. Consensus exists, but it's by no means definitive.

It can't be. because People Change Their Minds A Lot.

I really like reading reviews, but for me it's just entertainment. Food For Thought. Often, I'll find an intriguing point of view I hadn't considered that reframes my own thoughts on the subject. Sometimes, I just see someone talking out of their ass. Sometimes it's even very obvious that the person either didn't watch the movie they're reviewing, or missed the entire point of it.

I like reviews. Quite a lot, actually. But they don't ultimately matter to me. They're all just hot air, really. Good, bad, indifferent... it's just words. Sometimes they have substance, sometimes it's someone talking to be heard.

So when people say, "The reviews say..." I just dismiss it. It's data, sure, but nobody should care so much about what other people say that they use that as a flag to carry into "battle" every time there's a difference of opinion. That's silly.

Same for the dollars-and-cents argument, honestly. Lots of movies that make billions of dollars also cause brain damage. :lol:

All you can ever ascertain from these things is what the cultural temperature was on that specific day and time. None of it has anything to do with how Good or Bad any movie is or isn't

[Andrew NDB]

Worse than "Book of Shadows: Blair Witch 2"? OUCH!

I found things to like in Blair Witch 2. And 3 was great.

[Allio]

3 was pretty crap. And I say that as someone’s favorite “worst” sub-genre is found footage. Sometimes you’re in the mood for a ****** film and Found Footage never fails.

[frank_one]

It's Alien for me, as I love the sci-fi/horror mix. I honestly have never thought about Psycho as an horror.

[Leo656]

I found things to like in Blair Witch 2. And 3 was great.

I haven't seen the third. I remember two seconds of tits in Blair Witch 2, after that it just makes me angry. Can't recall anything good except for that, honestly. :lol:

I haven't seen them all but I mentally equate the Alien franchise with action/sci-fi more than horror, except for the original. Is that wrong?


3 was pretty crap. And I say that as someone’s favorite “worst” sub-genre is found footage. Sometimes you’re in the mood for a ****** film and Found Footage never fails.

Well that's unfair. Have you seen "The Poughkeepsie Tapes"? That's one of the best horror movies I've ever seen in any genre. I agree, as a whole that kind of filmmaking is rather annoying but sometimes you find a good one. That one's a real gem.
Especially the part where he cuts the husband's head off and implants it into the wife's womb while she's sedated, then wakes her up to film her reaction. That was awesome.

That movie stayed with me for a couple of days. No shame.

[newfan]

The footage type movies aren't my first choice though a good story would still be a good story. I did watch the first Blair Witch movie in the theatres, not watched the sequels.

I've also not watched any of the Paranormal Activity movies, 4th just popped up on Netflix, am I missing out? I guess they did okay seen as there are a number of them, just not something I have thought to watch.

I often see Alien more as Sci-fi even though it is both, like that franchise.

I like Poltergeist from that list too, not so much the 3rd one. Kinda sad knowing that the little girl was unwell during that and died not long afterwards. (also sad knowing that the actress who played Dana was beaten to death by her BF, I think after the 1st movie which is why no mention of her in the 2nd) My only little gripe with the first movie is right after everything they had been through and they are told 'this house is clear' it was like normal, kids back in that very room and mom just taking a bath, no sign on being shaken by any of that (till it all kicked off again anyway)

[Leo656]

I think I have a hard time seeing Alien as horror because I saw them out of order, missed a few, and most of what I've seen was definitely more "action movie" stuff than horror stuff.

First one was, sure. But I don't know if I'd label it a "horror" franchise any more than I'd label Terminator a "horror franchise". That series also started with a straight-up horror movie but most certainly isn't a horror "series", as it were, despite the very first film most definitely being That.

The criteria is very flexible on these things.

[Voltron]

I'm confused. Does it have to be straight horror? If there's shlock, then it's a no go? B movie stuff won't make the cut? Like Re-Animator or Killer Klowns from Outer Space?

If not, I'm going to throw Godzilla in there.

[Leo656]

I think the original Gojira can definitely be viewed as straight horror with a strong science fiction bent. But only that one. Other kaiju movies, though, certainly. Many of those were played "straight" by the standards of their day and are only hokey with the hindsight of a modern lens.

If there was NO "ha-ha" allowed then most things wouldn't even be on that list, like the Chucky ones, which got pretty hokey at one point. It's definitely a flexible criteria.

I mean, Evil Dead (and the remake) are pure horror. Evil Dead 2 is more absurdist. Still horror, but strong comedic elements. "Army of Darkness" is pure comedy. "Ash vs. Evil Dead" has one foot planted firmly in both horror and comedy. SO. How to rate the franchise? It's mostly horror, but the fact that the most well-known and oft-quoted movie in the series is a straight-up comedy with zero "pure" horror elements almost disqualifies the entire series from the conversation, whether that's fair or not.

It's all worth discussing. But in any case it's tough to apply a strict criteria or half of these films wouldn't even be under consideration.

[The Deadman]

Those are all terrible.


You called all those terrible but listed Amityville in the poll, there's been 2 good movies in the entire Amityville franchise, that being the original and the remake.


Do we really consider Gremlins "horror"? Mm.

IMDB and Rotten Tomatoes seem to think so.

[The Deadman]

Just trying to think how many fall under the Conjuring Universe, did the Nun count? (I didn't care for that) I think the 2nd Anabelle movie might have been the strongest of those for me, other two were not so great. Conjuring was okay, re-watched that yesterday as it came up Netflix. I liked the Insidious movies.


The Nun does count, it's the demon that showed up in The Conjuring 2 and it shows up in a picture in Annabelle Comes Home.

[newfan]

The Nun does count, it's the demon that showed up in The Conjuring 2 and it shows up in a picture in Annabelle Comes Home.

I couldn't quite remember the connection, missed it in Annabelle comes home. Need to stop being on my laptop while watching movies :lol:

[Allio]

Just trying to think how many fall under the Conjuring Universe, did the Nun count? (I didn't care for that) I think the 2nd Anabelle movie might have been the strongest of those for me, other two were not so great. Conjuring was okay, re-watched that yesterday as it came up Netflix. I liked the Insidious movies.

Even though they have continuity all over the place and some bad sequels, I am always up for a new Halloween Movie.

Edit: I watched the Saw movies due to watching with someone else, I wouldn't usually choose human torture but the stories were well written, this run was successful.

Conjuring 1 and 2
annabelle, creation and comes home
the nun
And despite them never mentioning it The Curse of La Llorona.

[neatoman]

Does anyone actually like Amityville? I've seen the first movie and it was the most boring horror movie I have ever seen. I get that the appeal was the whole "true story" thing (even though that has been debunked) but it's not really entertaining.

[Andrew NDB]

I'm confused. Does it have to be straight horror? If there's shlock, then it's a no go? B movie stuff won't make the cut? Like Re-Animator or Killer Klowns from Outer Space?

If not, I'm going to throw Godzilla in there.

I would've put Re-Animator on there for sure if there was room. Good stuff. Killer Klowns wasn't a series, though I wish it had been.

[Leo656]

Fair points about Amityville. Remake wasn't bad. Given that the series is public domain and even I could theoretically make one, it's no surprise there's so much garbage.

I might have to change my vote for "worst", because "Amityville Dollhouse" is definitely, definitely terrible. There's probably worse within the same series but Lord knows I'll never see them.

[neatoman]

It sounded strange to me that Amityville is in the public domain, so I looked it up. It... Kind of is? It's really more like you can't trademark a real place or claim copyright over events that (allegedly) really happened (Jay Anson probably has copyright to his book though).

But it's kind of like saying any movie with "New York" in the title is part of the same series, not really sure that counts... Although the idea of "Escape from New York" crossing over with "Hercules in New York", "Gangs of New York", "King of New York", "Sherlock Holmes in New York" and "Tarzan's New York Adventure" intrigues me...

[Leo656]

I'd watch "Sherlock Holmes Escapes From New York" but only if Henry Cavill and Kurt Russell were both in it.

[Voltron]

Conjuring 1 and 2
annabelle, creation and comes home
the nun
And despite them never mentioning it The Curse of La Llorona.

The Curse of La Llarona has the priest from Annabelle make a cameo in it. He mentions the doll.

[neatoman]

I'd watch "Sherlock Holmes Escapes From New York" but only if Henry Cavill and Kurt Russell were both in it.

What about Arnold as Hercules?

[Leo656]

I'd give it a shot. :lol:

[Allio]

The Curse of La Llarona has the priest from Annabelle make a cameo in it. He mentions the doll.

I know. But it doesn’t seem like they still count it as part of the conjuring universe. Still just listed as “from producers of the conjuring” on the box instead of “from the conjuring universe” like the other films.

[Leo656]

Watched "Nightmare" 3, 4 and 5 in a row. Yeah, I gotta say this is almost certainly the most consistently upper-quality horror franchise. 4 and 5 are generally considered near the bottom of the list, and there's a lot of good reasons for that, but they're both better than I remembered them being and they're far from being "bad movies" in any respect. They're just weaker Freddy movies. Particularly because they both end in ways that make you feel like they just didn't know how to end them. There's still a ton of good stuff IN them, the whole in either case just doesn't add up to more than the sum of its parts.

"Freddy's Dead" is the only true clunker and that's not a bad average out of nine movies. Although I certainly have my problems with "Freddy vs. Jason" but it almost doesn't seem fair to criticize that one too much and I do enjoy the movie, for what it is. They explicitly weren't making a movie, they were making a theme park ride. It's not how I would have done it, but most of its problems can be handwaved as simply as, "They were going for pure spectacle." Nobody expected much, and therefore it didn't try very hard but still gave people everything it promised. That said, aside from the fights it's mostly-junk. But again, it hardly seems fair to point that out. They weren't even trying to make a "real movie" and... they didn't.

[Allio]

I didn’t mind Freddy being jokey as I used to, but I honestly felt like the later films declined because of the fact.

[Leo656]

I mean, by part 5 they were blatantly marketing the character to kids, as screwy as that is, and it showed in the material. Even by Part 4, a little... I mean, by the time your main villain is starring in a rap video with The Fat Boys, there's hardly even a pretense that this is anything more than a joke. A dark joke, sure, but... still a joke. Part 5 gave Freddy his OWN rap song, and... yeah. Now he's a cartoon. "Freddy's Dead" had a few bright spots, but it was SUCH a self-parody that it felt less like a movie, and more like a series of Freddy-centric MadTV skits stapled together. I liked it AS a kid, because it fit my interpretation of what the character was, based on how he was presented in magazines and on MTV and such, but I'd also only seen the originals a few times. But seeing it again as an adult it's like, "Wow, this is a goddamn farce." A few good moments, as is the case every time out, but... bad movie. Barely even a good "Freddy movie".

I generally really don't like "Wink at the audience" stuff in movies. When I watch horror, especially, I don't like to be "in on the joke". Wes Craven's "Last House on the Left" is one of my "favorite" horror movies of all time (despite the fact I can hardly stand to watch it often) because good Lord, there's certainly nothing goofy about THAT sh*t. Sh*t like that happens every day and it's horrific in the purest sense of the word. I definitely don't think EVERY horror movie should be like that, but I definitely appreciate that approach more than "Isn't this all just a lark?" Stuff like "Jason X", for example, I just gag. Way too "cute".

For NOES 4 and 5, it wasn't even really just that he became a jokester, it's that the staging of scenes was a bit too bright and clean across the board. I mean when he's standing on a beach in broad daylight wearing shades, it's like yeah, this is very silly. The "grit" was gone. Although the motorcycle scene in Part 5 was definitely a strong attempt to get things back where they needed to be.

To say it fell off JUST because Freddy got silly is an oversimplification. It didn't help, but there were other problems in the execution along the way that combined with the added humor just really diluted the entire premise by 5 and 6.

"New Nightmare" went right over my head as a dumb kid but it's easily Top 3. I really appreciated the sincere attempt to make Freddy a straight villain again, but sadly nobody else did. They were too conditioned for "Funny Freddy" by that point. It also probably came too soon after "Freddy's Dead", I remember there being some gripes about that at the time.

It's a series with Ups and Downs like all of the ones listed. But "Freddy's Dead" is the only one that's PURE cringe. Between that and "Jason Goes To Hell"... New Line wasn't doing so hot by then with their horror icons. THAT is a goddamn awful movie right there.

[Andrew NDB]

The RLM guys just talked about Friday the 13th 4 and 6.

mSFGoon-5Wc

[Shark_Blade]

I wonder if Little Shop of Horrors is a horror film too. :D It’s got “horror” in its title so it’s gotta be. And plenty of murders and bodily mutilation too.

jPZVjxWMLpo

[Andrew NDB]

I wonder if Little Shop of Horrors is a horror film too. :D It’s got “horror” in its title so it’s gotta be. And plenty of murders and bodily mutilation too.

jPZVjxWMLpo

Eh... I'd call it a horror movie. Probably in the same way Gremlins would be. Though "Little Shop of Horrors" isn't much of a franchise.

[MsMarvelDuckie]

Not unless you count the original one. The Moranis movie was a remake, after all.

I kind of have to agree with Leo regarding NoES as the best overall. Evil Dead franchise and Chucky are my other top picks, simply because even while not all scary, they were all always at least entertaining, imho. I'd also day the Gremlins SHOULD count, since there were two, and there WERE plans at one or two points to do more, they just never panned out.

[Leo656]

How were Evil Dead 1, half of 2, and the remake "not at all scary"?

Granted, the poor production values on 1 and 2 hurt them, but c'mon. If you suspend disbelief even a little bit that sh*t's positively nuts.

I've had people get up and leave the room on me during the first one. Granted, they're pussies, but still. :lol: Some people get all whiny about chicks getting raped by trees. Feh!

Only reason I don't entirely count the series is that, as stated, the most well-known movie in the series is a straight-up comedy flick and that breaks the consistency and "flow". But I can't take horror points off of the rest of the series.

Especially the remake. Brrrrrrrr. Finally a good horror remake and "all" it took was some dizzy broad hacking her own face off. Nice. Nice.

[neatoman]

So since there was some discussion about Amityville being Public Domain, would you consider Night of the Living Dead to be as well? The first movie is quite literally considered Public Domain and Return of the Living Dead, Night of the Living Dead 3D, Night of the Living Dead: Darkest Dawn, Mimesis: Night of the Living Dead, Night of the Living Dead: Resurrection as well as Zombi 2 are all derivative movies that don't involve Romero or anyone else from the original production staff nor under license by anyone.

[Andrew NDB]

Especially the remake. Brrrrrrrr. Finally a good horror remake and "all" it took was some dizzy broad hacking her own face off. Nice. Nice.

Yeah, the Evil Dead remake went for straight up scary and bloody.

So since there was some discussion about Amityville being Public Domain, would you consider Night of the Living Dead to be as well?

Not the real Night of the Living Dead movie series (Night of the Living Dead, Dawn of the Dead, Day of the Dead, Land of the Dead, Diary of the Dead, Survival of the Dead). Even if The Matrix became public domain tomorrow and I made a new edit of it and shot new footage for it... that doesn't mean the original version by the Wachowskis ceases being the original version.

The first movie is quite literally considered Public Domain and Return of the Living Dead, Night of the Living Dead 3D, Night of the Living Dead: Darkest Dawn, Mimesis: Night of the Living Dead, Night of the Living Dead: Resurrection as well as Zombi 2 are all derivative movies that don't involve Romero or anyone else from the original production staff nor under license by anyone.

The Return of the Living Dead movie series (which I think goes up to 5?) would count and would be on the list if it "made the cut." Those other movies are just their own things.

[MsMarvelDuckie]

How were Evil Dead 1, half of 2, and the remake "not at all scary"?

Granted, the poor production values on 1 and 2 hurt them, but c'mon. If you suspend disbelief even a little bit that sh*t's positively nuts.

I've had people get up and leave the room on me during the first one. Granted, they're pussies, but still. :lol: Some people get all whiny about chicks getting raped by trees. Feh!

Only reason I don't entirely count the series is that, as stated, the most well-known movie in the series is a straight-up comedy flick and that breaks the consistency and "flow". But I can't take horror points off of the rest of the series.

Especially the remake. Brrrrrrrr. Finally a good horror remake and "all" it took was some dizzy broad hacking her own face off. Nice. Nice.


I didn't say not AT all scary ( though I never found them scary save for the tree rape) but that they are NOT ALL scary- ie, first one was, second was a deliberate spoof of the first, and third was straight up camp.

[Leo656]

Alright, I see you are in fact correct, and I misread "not all scary" as "not at all scary". I owe you some beef jerky.

I think the second one is still PRETTY scary if one allows it to be. To some, the parts where it tries to be funny only add to the surreal horror of it all. I definitely laugh, but I'm also definitely shook by some of it. It's just such an awful situation.

The way my brain works is that when I watch or look at something, my mentality is "This is real, this is happening". Which definitely helps me when I'm wrestling, for example, given the non-reality of it all. :tgrin: But yeah, even a "funny" horror movie like Evil Dead 2... yeeeeeesh, it wouldn't be "funny" AT ALL if you were the one dealing with it! :trazz:

I remember the second time I saw it, I showed it to a buddy of mine who also likes horror movies. We'd been up all night drinking coffee and were all buzzed and sleep deprived, and for some reason he hadn't seen it. So we watched it, and when the thing with the f*cking moose head happened, he just shook his head and was like, "This is the most f*cked-up movie I think I've ever seen." :lol: Granted, we were 18, but it was like, a recognition that all of this came from a brilliant but twisted mind.

At one point loooong ago, I was so impressed with the series that I started writing a "Part 4" fanfic. Then not only did the internet discover those movies, and thus literally everyone who'd ever watched them did the Exact Same Thing, but also about a million comic books came out which continued the story in a very satisfactory manner. So I ultimately abandoned the project as being utterly, utterly pointless. :ohwell: But it should speak to how high on my Personal Favorites list they all are.

I have a few friends who loved 1 and 2 but completely and thoroughly disown and ignore "Army of Darkness", though. That makes me sad. It's absolutely not horror but it's SUCH a great movie. I can't even get them to watch the "Ash vs. Evil Dead" show because it's got a little bit of the same humor. *I* think the show did a GREAT job of marrying the pure horror elements of 1 and 2 with the comedic elements of the third film (and parts of 2). But to them, "If it tries to be funny, I'm not interested." :ohwell: I can't force anyone to do nothin', but it's so frustrating when I KNOW for an almost certain fact that if they gave it a chance, they'd like it a lot.
-----------------

Off the movie topic and to deviate a bit: I've mentioned this elsewhere, but I recently started reading the comic series "Crossed" and it's thoroughly addicting despite also being truly sick. I thought Garth Ennis was pushing it almost "too far" at times with "Preacher" (which I love but haven't finished yet... terrible, I know, but I'm busy!), but this book is like... OOOF. It is by far the "worst" thing I've ever seen in my life, and I don't shake easy. Like "Walking Dead" times a hundred. Like it makes "Walking Dead" seem like it's for little kids by comparison. I can't really recommend it, because it's explicitly graphic beyond almost anyone's imagination and breaks every single taboo there is or could be thought of... but I do really like it. And if someone is of the "I can't be shook" mindset, well... there's your homework. :lol: Get through the "Family Values" arc and come tell me that nothing shakes you. That's a dare. :trazz:

Shockingly, the issues Garth wrote are actually TAME compared to most of the others I've seen, which is no mean feat if you know Ennis's work. I haven't even gotten close to the ones Alan Moore worked on, which came way later on; I can only f*cking imagine.

I guess I have to say it's my "favorite" horror comic ever, on account of it managed to do something none of the others I've read ever came close to: It legitimately made me uncomfortable. Anything else I've ever read was "just entertainment" but this is truly gut-churning stuff. Mileage Will Vary on whether it's just "gore porn for edgelords" but I'unno, I think it's well-done for what it is.

I thought I knew what I was getting into when I saw "Garth Ennis" and "Published by Avatar". I had NO idea. :lol: Every single person who worked on these books never had a kitten. OR, they did and when they were little they must've seen said kitten fed to a wood chipper. That's all I can figure. :lol: Had to be one or the other.

[Andrew NDB]

I have a few friends who loved 1 and 2 but completely and thoroughly disown and ignore "Army of Darkness", though. That makes me sad. It's absolutely not horror but it's SUCH a great movie. I can't even get them to watch the "Ash vs. Evil Dead" show because it's got a little bit of the same humor. *I* think the show did a GREAT job of marrying the pure horror elements of 1 and 2 with the comedic elements of the third film (and parts of 2).

Army of Darkness does take a bit of a turn. And "Ash vs. Evil Dead" was amazing. Some of those episodes have the grossest stuff I've seen in anything. Like him getting his head stuck in the butthole of the corpse, with a dick flapping around with a big ring in it? lol...

Looks like more RLM talk about Friday the 13th sequels:

N-px3CZv0zI

[Leo656]

:lol: That "Jason Takes Manhattan" unmasked Jason head is the worst f*cking thing I've ever seen. :lol::lol::lol:

[MsMarvelDuckie]

Heh, I kind of feel the same way as you about the trilogy as a whole, EXCEPT that while I agree about the humor of AoD, I DO feel it is horror, simply due to some of the bizarre and straight up "horrific" things Ash encounters. Like having the evil duplicate slowly splitting off of his own body, or getting sucked into the book, and the mirror image shattering into a bunch if tiny, vicious doubles. (Or, assuming you've seen the alternate ending- that.) Granted, many of those scenes are played for laughs, but like you said about 2, the situations themselves, if you were in them? Yikes! (And the tree rape in 1 or 2 is still one of the most horrifying things I have ever seen in concept. The remake did a GREAT job of showing just how terrifying that would be.)

Regarding Ah vs ED, I've only seen the first season, but I loved it! Great continuation of the movies. And the inclusion of Lucy Lawless, both as a nod to their previous work together on Xena, and as a wink at the comic crossover, was purely inspired.

[Leo656]

I originally was gonna post this in the "Latest Watched" or whatever thread, but since it's horror, and it's Halloween, I figured I'd put it here instead. It's long, so Two Parts. Sorry in advance, I have a lot to say. :trazz:

My wife and I watched the two Rob Zombie "Halloween" movies - Unrated Cut of the first and Theatrical cut of Part II. Full disclosure, I've seen the original Carpenter one maaaybe twice in my life and absolutely none of the other ones. We just got sick of having the Zombie ones sitting on the shelf without watching them. I was waiting for another box set to come out so I could watch the original series all in order before moving on to the remakes, but all the DVD and Blu-Rays are stupid expensive so we just said "f*ck it" and decided to just watch these already.

Having said that, I know for a fact that my perspective on them is going to be entirely different from a "real" fan of the franchise. I've only seen "Alien", for example, and never seen the direct sequels, and thus I like "Prometheus" and "Alien: Covenant" a lot more than people who are balls-deep in that series, as well. These things are unavoidable. When you're on the outside coming into a series, the very specific "These movies don't honor what the franchise is SUPPOSED to be" criticism simply doesn't apply, and that can be a good thing because it's a lot easier to be objective and take something for what it IS versus what it Is Not. You simply can't be objective about ANY movie, especially a remake, when you have eight other movies in a series in your head going into it, it simply isn't possible. So for what it's worth, I AM glad that I saw these more or less in a vacuum.

Most of my friends who are horror buffs hate these movies predominantly on the grounds of, "They're not 'Halloween' movies, they're just Rob Zombie movies called 'Halloween'." And that's fine, but I always hate that type of criticism. So while the original plan WAS to watch all of the films in release order, having seen them, I'm honestly glad it didn't happen that way. Just for the sake of being objective.

Having said that... really mixed feelings. On the whole, I liked them more than I didn't, and I will watch them again (we already ordered the Director's Cut of Part II). More than anything, they reinforced my opinion that Rob Zombie has ONE thing that he does really well, and that he doesn't do a lot of other things very well. Competently, but not exceptionally.

After watching Part II, I commented to my wife that Rob Zombie's directing style is akin to someone pressing your face against a hot stove, and then just pressing HARDER for two hours. There's no subtlety, no build-up, no real sense of suspense or climax... there's just violence and more violence until finally, it's over. And again, that's his style and he does it very well, but it's exhausting, sometimes. And from what I understand, it's pretty much the polar opposite of the original series films, which were all about the build-up of dramatic tension. One could argue he shows too much, too soon, and then just doubles- and triples-down from there for the remaining running time. I'm not one to say the movies are "bad" because of that, but I respect that criticism, absolutely. So much of what makes horror movies "horror movies" is in what you DON'T see as much as what you do. With Zombie's films, you see EVERYTHING, and immediately, so it's like opening a wrestling match with a finisher when you still have 20 more minutes to fill. What now? Where do you go from there? His stuff is less aptly called "horror movies" and more like watching a fabricated snuff film.

Which isn't to say that I didn't like them. I thought they were "okay". My wife is a HUGE Zombie mark, so to her they're fantastic, but I can't really agree. There's a lot here that could have been better, especially the second one. Put simply, I liked both of them more than people repeatedly and firmly told me I would, BUT less than I expected or wanted to - again, especially the second one. I definitely don't even think Part II is a "bad movie", but if people want to make that case I really can't fight them too hard. There's a lot of case to be made. My counter argument is, I've seen a TON of movies that legit make me never want to see them again and a few that even made me angry, and this one doesn't come close to that. If people want to say it's thinly-written, that's fine. If people want to say, "This isn't 'Halloween'," then that's also fine, they'd certainly know better than I would. If people want to say it's a flat-out "bad movie", I might give them a really long list of "actual" bad movies that this movie is much more watchable or at least more entertaining than. But I wouldn't lose my voice trying to change their mind. It really doesn't deserve a strong defense. If you like Rob Zombie movies then it's pretty okay, that's about it.

I really don't have a LOT of problems with the first one, other than again, due to the way Rob makes movies you pretty much get the whole hog early on and everything afterwards is simply escalation. *I* don't really have an issue with that, other than, again, there's no real sense of build-up or suspense and everything is as subtle as a brick to the face. BUT, I'm always willing to meet a director halfway and acknowledge what their style is. BUT, I'm aware of the criticisms in comparing it to the original film(s). Having not seen them all, the most I can say is, "I see where that comes from, absolutely". But it doesn't really sway MY opinion one way or the other. Objectively, in a vacuum, it's a pretty entertaining bloodbath movie about an abused kid who grew up to be a psycho killer.

Part II, I have a few more problems with. Specifically, Rob Zombie tried SO HARD to channel David Lynch, and make a David Lynch movie, without really understanding what makes Lynch's stuff "click". For example, it can't JUST be surrealism and weird imagery and all that all the time. I completely "got" what Rob was trying to do with the White Horse and the hallucinations between Michael and Laurie and all that, I just didn't think it worked very well because of bad execution. For one thing, the new kid playing Kid Michael was AWFUL, and so was Rob's wife, who I actually thought did a pretty good job in Part I. Here, both her and the kid felt like they were in a goddamn high school play, or a really sh*tty straight-to-DVD horror movie. It just felt really "off". Really campy. Given how serious the rest of the movie was, and also how much better those characters were portrayed in the previous film, I was cringing pretty hard at times whenever they showed up. Again, I was intrigued by the concepts, the execution just brought it down.

Much has also been said about Rob Zombie's complete inability to write likeable characters, and how almost everyone in any of his movies is a scumbag you almost want to see get killed. Now, I did like some of them, but in both films 99% of the on-screen characters were there to get mulched and there wasn't even a point in giving them names, and that's the exact sh*t I hate in Jason movies and other slasher films. There were some good exceptions in the main cast; Sheriff Brackett, I liked a lot, and while Loomis was a pretty big sh*tbag by the end of things I thought MacDowell played it great, so I enjoyed whenever he showed up. And I generally liked Laurie, although by the end of Part II I was kind of over her. Although I will say that Rob did a good job in portraying a victim of a traumatic experience in a very realistic way... to a POINT.

That's another thing, is that Part II tries to be this weird blend of hyper-realism and surrealist fantasy, and it just doesn't come together all the way. The whole "mental link" between Laurie and Michael stuff, while intriguing, just wasn't done very well and kind of came out of left field in the middle of all the hyper-realism of the first film and most of the second. It was this weird mash-up of Zombie and Lynch and it was just very jarring. It's a very flawed piece of work. It definitely has its moments, though. I did mostly like it, and I will watch the Director's Cut, and then after that I'll probably end up seeing it a few more times in years to come, but even trying to meet Zombie halfway on what he was trying to do, I just didn't like it as much as I wanted to.

On the whole, I like them both fine as movies, I think the first one is better, and I think the second one had ambition that was far beyond Rob Zombie's particular grasp to execute. I didn't hate either one, and I do think that much of the "they're terrible" criticism simply comes from being wedded to the originals. I don't think they're terrible, but they are very flawed and much of one's enjoyment rests on their tolerance for Rob Zombie's entire filmmaking style.

(Cont.)

[Leo656]

As to whether or not they're "good remakes"... well... honestly, I can't really say without having seen the original in a long time or having seen the others, period. What I WILL say, is that I'm very aware of the "These movies simply are not 'Halloween', therefore they're awful" criticism. To that, I have to say that I'm VERY sympathetic to what Zombie was trying to do with these. When something is as iconic as the original "Halloween" film, and then you have like 8 other movies in that series, IF you have to do a remake, you're mostly left with two options: Re-do the first one shot-for-shot, beat-for-beat, and end up with an almost Xerox copy, OR, do something that's entirely different. It's obvious which direction Rob decided to go in, and for that, I honestly think it was a good call. I don't think he's a good enough director to really justify ALL of his creative choices, but I admire that he went off of nobody's template but his own.

Like, many people flat-out hate all the time spent on Michael's family history, his origin, the roots of his "evil" being in his abused childhood, simply because that wasn't Carpenter's intent and was never a factor in the original series in any way; he was originally JUST a mysterious, unstoppable killing machine without rhyme or reason, and that's fine. BUT, as I said, after 8 or 9 movies... what CAN you do, except pretty much exactly what Zombie tried to do? To many, giving any reason at all for Myers's killing sprees is blasphemous; I understand that, but I simply don't see it that way. I pretty much see it as necessary, if they HAD to do a remake. Whether or not they indeed DID have to do a remake in the first place, well... that's a conversation that will never end regardless of what movie we're talking about. But I really can't say I would have made a very different "Halloween" remake than what Rob Zombie did. I probably would have made some of the exact same creative choices, at least on the first one.

Most of what I was told would bother me about Part II, didn't bother me much. What bothered me was that the characters were mostly cardboard cutouts and only Laurie and Brackett had any depth whatsoever, and that the acting in the more surrealist moments was so hokey that it took me out of the experience when I was really trying to be invested in it. Again, I really LIKE that kind of artsy-fartsy crap, when it's done WELL. But I don't think it was done particularly well, here, and so much of the movie rests upon it that it has to be a point off.

From my neophyte's perspective, I guess I'd say that "just" as movies and comparing them to absolutely nothing, and also keeping in mind that I'm generally more forgiving than most, I'd say the first Zombie Halloween gets an A and the second one gets a B. I sort of expect to like the Director's Cut of II better, since I usually do, but we'll see. And again, if they're an "F" in the eyes of "real" fans of the franchise, that's entirely your prerogative. I'm just looking at them as movies, and judging how I see them entirely on their own merits. I'm quite sure that there's all kinds of reasons to take points off if you're a "real" fan of the franchise. But as I said, for the sake of objectivity, I'm kind of glad I saw these before doing a deep dive on the rest.

I'm glad they knew when to call it quits, and didn't do the proposed Part III with Laurie as the killer. That would have been stupid, and frankly I thought the ending of II was already kind of silly to begin with. Abandoning the "reboot series" after Part II and leaving it there was probably the smartest thing to do.

[Leo656]

Just got done watching "The Devil's Rejects" and "3 From Hell".

Like I said, I like Rob Zombie movies in general but goddamn, they're exhausting. I haven't seen Rejects in over 10 years and this was the first time we got around to watching 3 From Hell. They're both good but not something I'd wanna watch very often. Although they definitely fit right in with stuff like "Last House on the Left" and other things they're sort of based on, as far as that goes. Rob certainly is not shy about paying homage to his influences.

It's just so odd in how he works SO hard to make the heels into the babyfaces, especially in "3 From Hell". Since I'm a human being with a functioning moral compass (I know, I KNOW, but trust me, it's skewed but it's there :trazz:), I just don't buy it. Like just after the motel scene in "Rejects", for instance, I don't care how charismatic the characters are, they more than earned a very violent retribution and it was cathartic seeing them get tortured and brutalized the same way they'd done to so many other people. "Live by the sword," etc. I'm rather Old Testament in that way. Like, these are not good people. Charismatic, yes, but seriously, they're garbage. Yet these movies try SO hard to get you to root and cheer for the cannibal, rapist, corpse-f*cking redneck serial killers that it's kind of f*cking insane.

And then, in 3 From Hell, of COURSE they get away scot-free with everything. :tgrumble: Like holy sh*t, man.

I suspect the "real life" reasoning is, in great deal, that most of Rob Zombie's other movies don't get a lot of attention, so he "needs" these characters alive so he can do another movie every time he's strapped for cash. Which is pretty much why he weaseled out of the ending of "Rejects" without anything by way of explanation. I get it, it's just a little frustrating to me, personally, to see characters who unrepentantly do so much f*cked up sh*t get away with it all. That happens enough in real life.

Good movies, though. Just don't know when I'll feel like watching them again. Maybe next year. But probably not before then.

[Last Ronin]

I'm a Friday kind of guy. But not much into the horror genre to be honest. Chucky started great but then just became a damn comedy. Halloween is very much up there especially the first movie.

[Leo656]

I was very shocked when I discovered that the series creator was the same guy who was behind "Bride" and "Seed of Chucky". When I first saw them, I wasn't paying much attention to the credits and was like, "Wow, this sucks, this is exactly what happens when people who don't understand a franchise get their hands on it and crank sh*t out for a fast buck." Then I found out that they came from the original creator, and that made it even WORSE. :ohwell: Like "Yeah, I guess when you're hard up you gotta just milk that cow until the tits fall off, but it'd be better to NOT do that."

I don't remember much about the newer ones, but they did a good job of getting things back on track. Much better than expected, anyway. Didn't see the remake yet. But it's pretty surprising that they COULD even get things back on track after Bride and Seed. I get why they have a camp appeal for some folks, but to me they're just shining examples of not knowing when to call it quits.

[Last Ronin]

Yeah dude, it was like a serial killer just found his comedic side in death. But to have the original creators go that route is astounding.

[Leo656]

I'm willing to bet it was one of those cases where the studio was gonna make more movies anyway, and so the guy was like, "If anyone's gonna bludgeon my baby to death, it's gonna be me." I can see that.

Doesn't excuse or forgive it, but I get the logic, sure. It's pretty much why Craven kept dipping his toe in the Elm Street pool every now and again. "So this is IT, though, right?" "Sure, Wes, sure." And then they do the best they can under the circumstances, despite their hands being figuratively tied.

I kinda have a love/hate thing with horror franchises for that exact reason. So many of them just weren't even MEANT to be franchises, and so even though the sequels are what makes them "iconic series", the side effect is lots and lots of bad movies.

[Last Ronin]

I agree with everything there, especially the "blugeon my baby it's gonna be me" thing. I would too to be honest.

[Shark_Blade]

Watched the old Halloween & Friday the 13th for the first time. They should re-categorize as comedy instead of horror cause they’re just terrible lmao. :tlol:

[Andrew NDB]

Rewatched the Poltergeist trilogy. This time it was really jarring for me seeing the pretty drastic drop in quality between 2 and 3. Even the music, previously memorable and eerie, now is like elevator music. Also, I get that Cain/the Old Man actor died after 2... but being afraid of showing the replacement actor's face for longer than a split second is pretty weird.

[neatoman]

Rewatched the Poltergeist trilogy. This time it was really jarring for me seeing the pretty drastic drop in quality between 2 and 3. Even the music, previously memorable and eerie, now is like elevator music. Also, I get that Cain/the Old Man actor died after 2... but being afraid of showing the replacement actor's face for longer than a split second is pretty weird.

Huh, I had no idea that was a trilogy, I just watched the first one for the first time a few weeks ago.