HorrorMovieFans.com

Tiggnutz wrote:The Babysitter was great I enjoyed the shit outta that

Great fun. Couple fun takes on tropes in horror that bucked the expectations. The knife was a particularly good one.

This movie feels more like a crime of lowlifes and its getting pieced together.

DancesWithWerewolves wrote:

Jigsaw wrote:

DancesWithWerewolves wrote:

showa58taro wrote:

Reign in Blood wrote:

showa58taro wrote:

Reign in Blood wrote:D, throwing down the cloud of Grinch on Halloween. I dig it.

Did seem a bit grumpy. His heart needs to grow three sizes this day.

At least 2 today. 3 by All Saints Day, that miserable fuck needs time.

True dat.

Yeah, fucakall to rules, right? Whatevs.

It's not about rules, it's about logic.

If someone does not recall seeing a movie, even if it was vaguely possible that they have at some point, then to count it as a re-watch doesn't make sense. Unless you can recall seeing a movie/have other proof you've seen it, you can't in good conscious count it as a movie you've seen before.

It does make sense if it rings a bell to count it as a rewatch. I've been disappointed by having to count past ones that way, but I did it.

I think we're talking about different things.

If a movie rings a bell, and a scene or two look familiar, then I agree, it's fair to count it as a re-watch.

If a movie is just something that you vaguely think it's possible you've seen (for instance, someone who watched a lot of television horror films in the 1970's may think they've seen Isn't It Shocking?, but haven't - they only say they've seen it because they've seen a lot of other horror flicks from the same era), then I don't think it's really fair to count it as a re-watch.

All of this is close to pointless, anyway. If Spider thinks she's seen the movie before, even if her recollection is deeply faded, I'm guessing they'd count it as a rewatch. If they literally can't remember a single scene while watching the film, then they should count it as a first-time viewing, even if it's possible they've seen it before.

Just my thoughts.

I'm dropping this movie. It doesn't look like it's going anywhere horror (I was expecting a killer rampage) but apparently it's just a crime thriller. Not even a horror tag on IMDB. A First lie from Shudder. Almost an hour wasted.

Jigsaw wrote:

DancesWithWerewolves wrote:

Jigsaw wrote:

DancesWithWerewolves wrote:

showa58taro wrote:

Reign in Blood wrote:

showa58taro wrote:

Reign in Blood wrote:D, throwing down the cloud of Grinch on Halloween. I dig it.

Did seem a bit grumpy. His heart needs to grow three sizes this day.

At least 2 today. 3 by All Saints Day, that miserable fuck needs time.

True dat.

Yeah, fucakall to rules, right? Whatevs.

It's not about rules, it's about logic.

If someone does not recall seeing a movie, even if it was vaguely possible that they have at some point, then to count it as a re-watch doesn't make sense. Unless you can recall seeing a movie/have other proof you've seen it, you can't in good conscious count it as a movie you've seen before.

It does make sense if it rings a bell to count it as a rewatch. I've been disappointed by having to count past ones that way, but I did it.

I think we're talking about different things.

If a movie rings a bell, and a scene or two look familiar, then I agree, it's fair to count it as a re-watch.

If a movie is just something that you vaguely think it's possible you've seen (for instance, someone who watched a lot of television horror films in the 1970's may think they've seen Isn't It Shocking?, but haven't - they only say they've seen it because they've seen a lot of other horror flicks from the same era), then I don't think it's really fair to count it as a re-watch.

All of this is close to pointless, anyway. If Spider thinks she's seen the movie before, even if her recollection is deeply faded, I'm guessing they'd count it as a rewatch. If they literally can't remember a single scene while watching the film, then they should count it as a first-time viewing, even if it's possible they've seen it before.

Just my thoughts.

Doesn't matter, no one gives a shit anyway, so I'm done. I figured that the moment I spoke up, I'd stand alone as the bad guy on that.

Road Games with Stacy Keach and Jamie Lee Curtis. Please don't disappoint.

DancesWithWerewolves wrote:I'm dropping this movie. It doesn't look like it's going anywhere horror (I was expecting a killer rampage) but apparently it's just a crime thriller. Not even a horror tag on IMDB. A First lie from Shudder. Almost an hour wasted.

What movie's that?

Shudder is mostly horror, but I know they have a few random crime/sci-fi stuff on there I've been avoiding.

Jigsaw wrote:

DancesWithWerewolves wrote:I'm dropping this movie. It doesn't look like it's going anywhere horror (I was expecting a killer rampage) but apparently it's just a crime thriller. Not even a horror tag on IMDB. A First lie from Shudder. Almost an hour wasted.

What movie's that?

Shudder is mostly horror, but I know they have a few random crime/sci-fi stuff on there I've been avoiding.

Let Me Make You A Martyr.

I even saw a Facebook ad promoting it as "Hey, Marylin Manson starred in a horror movie and it's on Shudder!". Not a post, an ad.

Ho hum.

Fair warning, don't watch

But how was Brian Warner?

showa58taro wrote:But how was Brian Warner?

?

DancesWithWerewolves wrote:

showa58taro wrote:But how was Brian Warner?

?

I'm pretty sure that is Marilyn Manson's real name? Maybe I'm confusing him with someone else.

showa58taro wrote:

DancesWithWerewolves wrote:

showa58taro wrote:But how was Brian Warner?

?

I'm pretty sure that is Marilyn Manson's real name? Maybe I'm confusing him with someone else.

Oh. I don't remember his real name. He was fine I guess. His weight makes his turkeyneck look worse

I'm really enjoying Stacy Keach bouncing between his small talk with his dingo (it's in Australia) as he drives the truck, and his paranoia with another person on the road he suspects might be a maniac.

DancesWithWerewolves wrote:

showa58taro wrote:

DancesWithWerewolves wrote:

showa58taro wrote:But how was Brian Warner?

?

I'm pretty sure that is Marilyn Manson's real name? Maybe I'm confusing him with someone else.

Oh. I don't remember his real name. He was fine I guess. His weight makes his turkeyneck look worse

He’s fat now? Ha! I always assumed he stayed heroin thin.

showa58taro wrote:

DancesWithWerewolves wrote:

showa58taro wrote:

DancesWithWerewolves wrote:

showa58taro wrote:But how was Brian Warner?

?

I'm pretty sure that is Marilyn Manson's real name? Maybe I'm confusing him with someone else.

Oh. I don't remember his real name. He was fine I guess. His weight makes his turkeyneck look worse

He’s fat now? Ha! I always assumed he stayed heroin thin.

Eh, a little bit. He's probably more about "average" but his small chin just doesn't hold it well.

This is the same director as Psycho II. Interesting.

It's pretty drawn out, but it's had my attention. Really straddles that thriller/horror fence, but sure a fuck closer than the MM movie was.

Didn't see Prom Night 3 anywhere, but since 2 was nothing like the first, I figure 4 will continue the trend of doing its own thing.

DancesWithWerewolves wrote:

showa58taro wrote:

flyingspider wrote:To be quite honest, I might have watched some of these mid to late 70's movies on television, but that was 40 years ago, and who remembers that?? That is why they are bolded, I am counting them as a first watch.

Seems fair.

Wha? Not really. There have been SO many over the years that I haven't seen since I was a kid that I revisited but couldn't count because I had already seen it. No.

Seems to me she's saying she doesn't know if she's seen them because they were on TV 40 years ago and has no recollection of seeing them.

I'm aware of how everyone else interpreted her statement. However, when I see the admission of "might have watched"...



But I get it, no one gives a shit, so I dropped it.

showa58taro wrote:

Jigsaw wrote:

showa58taro wrote:

Jigsaw wrote:

showa58taro wrote:

Jigsaw wrote:

showa58taro wrote:

Jigsaw wrote:Hell House LLC was solid all-around.

LLC as in a corporation?

I would indeed guess so, as it's the name of the company which, in the film, runs annual haunted houses during the Halloween season.

What liability were they limiting? Haunted houses don’t strike me as financed by debt excessively.

Can't answer that, homeboy. Sorry.

Are you suggesting corporate organizational structure to minimize tax was not core to this horror film? Well that is sad.

I know, it lost a potential fan in you.

I should pioneer my brand of corporativist horror.

Considering their are three major types of companies and you just demonstrated zero knowledge of them, you might want to reconsider.