Last film you watched and your rating

MASH - Forgotten how good this film is. Probably been about 15 years since I last saw it, but the film is as funny as ever. Some absolutely classic pranks in there. For a film which is over 40 years old, it's also feels remarkably fresh. It has this brilliantly anarchic spirit to it, it's like a big strawberry float you to the establishment. Would have been more pertinent then because of Vietnam. Probably Robert Altman's finest and one of the finest of the 70s. Which was arguably when Hollywood was at its peak.

I've just started Predators. I haven't finished it though.

I can't see Aiden Brody as a hardcore "I don't give a gooseberry fool" marine-type. So I'm finding it hard to see him acting all hard. I've only seen him once before, in the Pianist.

Corazon de Leon wrote:Lads, your amazing speed at figuring that out with only my vague ass description has done me proud. I'mma get that gooseberry fool downloaded right now. That's been annoying me for over a year, thanks!

It's more likely due to Story Of Ricky being one of the most profoundly memorable films you could ever see.

I'm not even joking.

The remake of A Nightmare on Elm Street.

Utter crap. 1/10

Banjo wrote:

Corazon de Leon wrote:Lads, your amazing speed at figuring that out with only my vague ass description has done me proud. I'mma get that gooseberry fool downloaded right now. That's been annoying me for over a year, thanks!

It's more likely due to Story Of Ricky being one of the most profoundly memorable films you could ever see.

I'm not even joking.

It's memorable alright, memorably gooseberry fool.

Banjo wrote:

Corazon de Leon wrote:Lads, your amazing speed at figuring that out with only my vague ass description has done me proud. I'mma get that gooseberry fool downloaded right now. That's been annoying me for over a year, thanks!

It's more likely due to Story Of Ricky being one of the most profoundly memorable films you could ever see.

I'm not even joking.

Fair point. It's certainly stuck with me over a lengthy period of time.

Magius wrote:The remake of A Nightmare on Elm Street.

Utter crap. 1/10

It's not that bad, but I think it was an opportunity missed. But to make Freddy out to be a paedo....

He sure showed a lot of guts.

Gandalf wrote:

Magius wrote:The remake of A Nightmare on Elm Street.

Utter crap. 1/10

It's not that bad, but I think it was an opportunity missed. But to make Freddy out to be a paedo....

Isn't that in the original story though, that Freddy was a child murderer or something?

Preezy wrote:

Gandalf wrote:

Magius wrote:The remake of A Nightmare on Elm Street.

Utter crap. 1/10

It's not that bad, but I think it was an opportunity missed. But to make Freddy out to be a paedo....

Isn't that in the original story though, that Freddy was a child murderer or something?

Freddy was a paedophile in the original films too. Although this wasn't explicitly stated. He was the bastard son of 1000 maniacs, who was tortured and killed by the neighbourhood parents in retaliation for him being a child-killing paedo.

Gandalf wrote:

Magius wrote:The remake of A Nightmare on Elm Street.

Utter crap. 1/10

It's not that bad, but I think it was an opportunity missed. But to make Freddy out to be a paedo....

But the thing is that Freddy Kruger was originally written as a paedophile. But it got written out to avoid sensitive issues that surround the similiarities in a child molesation cases that's happening during production.

From Wiki:

Additionally, Craven's original script detailed Krueger as a child molester, which Craven said was the "worst thing" he could think of (this idea was later recycled for the character's background in the 2010 remake). The decision was made to instead make Krueger a child murderer in order to avoid being accused of exploiting the spate of highly publicized child molestation cases in California around the time A Nightmare on Elm Street went into production.

But his paedo traits are plainly still there, in the older movies.

Wedgie wrote:

Gandalf wrote:

Magius wrote:The remake of A Nightmare on Elm Street.

Utter crap. 1/10

It's not that bad, but I think it was an opportunity missed. But to make Freddy out to be a paedo....

But the thing is that Freddy Kruger was originally written as a paedophile. But it got written out to avoid sensitive issues that surround the similiarities in a child molesation cases that's happening during production.

From Wiki:

Additionally, Craven's original script detailed Krueger as a child molester, which Craven said was the "worst thing" he could think of (this idea was later recycled for the character's background in the 2010 remake). The decision was made to instead make Krueger a child murderer in order to avoid being accused of exploiting the spate of highly publicized child molestation cases in California around the time A Nightmare on Elm Street went into production.

But his paedo traits are plainly still there, in the older movies.

I always thought Freddy was a paedo, even before I knew what the term 'paedo' was.

Personally, I think it would have been far more interesting if Freddy had turned out not to be a paedo, and the parents had killed an innocent man and turned him into a monsta.

I watched it at the weekend and can barely remember a second of it. The bit where Freddy comes through the bedroom wall stuck out for me though. I remember that scene being genuinely creepy in the original, and it was probably just a guy pushing through a piece of rubber to make the special effect. The new versions CGI take on things just made it look rubbish imo.

CGI in horror films.

Just. Doesn't. Work.

I don't think any of the main characters actually said he's a child molester. It's been years since I saw any of the older Nightmare films. But anyone can see he is one. It's fairly obvious hidden message.

Preezy wrote:CGI in horror films.

Just. Doesn't. Work.

This. You can't beat old fashioned latex rubber and corn syrup! The Thing is testiment to that!

CGI can be great. If used sparingly. A mixture of conventional special effects and CGI would be the ideal. Like Jurassic Park for instance, where the dinosaurs were robots and the CGI was used to get rid of the 'strings'.

The problem is that CGI is cheaper though. At least they should have make it look less cheap though.

I'll agree with the Jurassic Park reference, but in general horror films (which I wouldn't class JP as, despite me crying in the cinema when I first saw it ) just don't work with CGI.

That's part of the problem.

Horror movies doesn't really command a high budget like summer blockbusters. In this age, they are turning to CGI for the special effects.

They even used CGI to show a "hole" on Freddy's cheek in the remake. It looks cheap produced. Really I don't even see the point of the remake.