HorrorMovieFans.com

DancesWithWerewolves wrote:

Jason wrote:Wish I could meet him one day. It bugs me that I never got to meet Bill Paxton. And Pennywise is my #2 favorite role from Curry.

What's your first? I know Clue is your favorite movie, but is the role #1 too?

Yeah. I'd say Pennywise was his best performance of all time, but Clue is my favorite role. I just love the hell out of that movie.

I'm prepping puke street for Rocky Horror Gay Show.

Jason wrote:Yeah. I'd say Pennywise was his best performance of all time, but Clue is my favorite role. I just love the hell out of that movie.

You need to see Legend.

Reign in Blood wrote:

showa58taro wrote:I think you can make the case that Bill is better than Tim. I don't think anyone could sayTim Curry was the worst one ever.

What is this, I don't even...

I'm saying, preferring Bill over Curry isn't impossible. I think I like this one better, and I'm not alone in this thread.

But to go from that to Curry being the worst of all time is straight up trolling

Slaughterhouserock wrote:

Jason wrote:Yeah. I'd say Pennywise was his best performance of all time, but Clue is my favorite role. I just love the hell out of that movie.

You need to see Legend.

I almost did the other day but just ended up crashing because I had work early.

showa58taro wrote:

Reign in Blood wrote:

showa58taro wrote:I think you can make the case that Bill is better than Tim. I don't think anyone could sayTim Curry was the worst one ever.

What is this, I don't even...

I'm saying, preferring Bill over Curry isn't impossible. I think I like this one better, and I'm not alone in this thread.

But to go from that to Curry being the worst of all time is straight up trolling

This one as in this movie, or this Pennywise?

Jason wrote:

showa58taro wrote:

Reign in Blood wrote:

showa58taro wrote:I think you can make the case that Bill is better than Tim. I don't think anyone could sayTim Curry was the worst one ever.

What is this, I don't even...

I'm saying, preferring Bill over Curry isn't impossible. I think I like this one better, and I'm not alone in this thread.

But to go from that to Curry being the worst of all time is straight up trolling

This one as in this movie, or this Pennywise?

I prefer this rendition of penny wise.

The best I can come to explain it is that Curry felt like a creepy clown pretending to be a Monster. Skarsgård felt like a Monster pretending to be a creepy clown. And I liked that better somehow.

You know you just like him better because he's Swedish.

Jason wrote:You know you just like him better because he's Swedish.

Probably.

Went and saw IT again tonight. My niece is a pretty big horror fan, so I took her and her boyfriend to see it. What the fuck? I enjoyed it WAY more this time around. It's weird. I just absorbed it all and got completely locked in this time. I appreciated everything a little more. A lot of the CGI didn't bother me as much as last time, I appreciated the brutality a little more and even the new Pennywise scored more points. The way Pennywise behaved in the opening scene still bugs me, but I was still feeling that shit for some reason. I was locked in pretty good until it cut away from Georgie and Pennywise's conversation to show the lady walking outside.

Overall, I'm changing my grade a whole point from 7/10 to 8/10, That video that Reign posted of Pennywise dancing to random shit ruined that scene for me forever, though. :p

I might go see it a second time if nothing else works out tomorrow.

showa58taro wrote:The best I can come to explain it is that Curry felt like a creepy clown pretending to be a Monster. Skarsgård felt like a Monster pretending to be a creepy clown. And I liked that better somehow.

That was exactly the feeling I and the friend I watched IT with had. I kept an open mind but didn't expect to be blown away by the new movie. I plan to see it again soon to really take it in.

The very first horror movie I ever saw was IT. I was 9 and staying over at the 2 neighbor boys place up the street. After IT was over I wound up outside my parents house (of course its locked) crying in the dark scared to death. My crying eventually woke mom and she came and let me in. As bad as that sounds that was still one of the most awesome horror movie viewings I've ever fucking had.

I wasn't blown away by the new one but I thoroughly enjoyed it. I think if my 9 year old self saw this I'd have gone into catatonic shock.

Why did they make it a point to tie into the original with the "27 years" thing, Skarsgard being born in 1990 etc, but the movie taking place in 1989. Why not make it 1990?

We were kids in the 80s. We definitely said rude things.

Jason wrote:Why did they make it a point to tie into the original with the "27 years" thing, Skarsgard being born in 1990 etc, but the movie taking place in 1989. Why not make it 1990?

80's has nostalgia, so saying set in the 80's means something. Nobody gives a fuck about 1990.

Reign in Blood wrote:

Jason wrote:Why did they make it a point to tie into the original with the "27 years" thing, Skarsgard being born in 1990 etc, but the movie taking place in 1989. Why not make it 1990?

80's has nostalgia, so saying set in the 80's means something. Nobody gives a fuck about 1990.

Pretty much this.

Foo wrote:

zombie wrote:what do you consider first tier and second tier, in terms of actual numbers?

I think to move into the first tier you would need to be at least in the neighborhood of top 100 adjusted. The Exorcist and Jaws and 7 and 9 respectively. Top tier is tentpole type of business.

Tier 2 I would look around the $200 million adjusted mark. This would be the area where studios would bring it up in investor conference calls, still actively similar properties to develop, etc.

according to boxoffice mojo, it is #68 of rated r movies, adjusted.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/do ... 017&p=.htm

so that would be tier 1? i haven't found a list for just horror though.

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote:

zombie wrote:what do you consider first tier and second tier, in terms of actual numbers?

I think to move into the first tier you would need to be at least in the neighborhood of top 100 adjusted. The Exorcist and Jaws and 7 and 9 respectively. Top tier is tentpole type of business.

Tier 2 I would look around the $200 million adjusted mark. This would be the area where studios would bring it up in investor conference calls, still actively similar properties to develop, etc.

according to boxoffice mojo, it is #68 of rated r movies, adjusted.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/do ... 017&p=.htm

so that would be tier 1? i haven't found a list for just horror though.

Unless the Kingsman movie does really well this weekend, It can keep up it's pace and wind up in the top 20 (I'm guessing low end near Deadpool).

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote:

zombie wrote:what do you consider first tier and second tier, in terms of actual numbers?

I think to move into the first tier you would need to be at least in the neighborhood of top 100 adjusted. The Exorcist and Jaws and 7 and 9 respectively. Top tier is tentpole type of business.

Tier 2 I would look around the $200 million adjusted mark. This would be the area where studios would bring it up in investor conference calls, still actively similar properties to develop, etc.

according to boxoffice mojo, it is #68 of rated r movies, adjusted.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/do ... 017&p=.htm

so that would be tier 1? i haven't found a list for just horror though.

I officially award IT status as "Tier 1 Industry Influencer".

Hundreds of scripts were reviewed and re-evaluated immediately after the huge opening, I am sure.