Guest Lethargic Report post Posted April 21, 2003 You told me what? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest TheZsaszHorsemen Report post Posted April 21, 2003 You told me what? That Ho1KC would be surely make back it's budget and most likely be a modest hit. We were arguing about it before and you said it would totally bomb, remember? Good times. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Lethargic Report post Posted April 21, 2003 I don't think I said it wouldn't make it's budget back, I didn't know it was made so cheap. Knowing what it is now, it would be pretty bad if it couldn't make 10 million. It probably will but I still think it'll be close. It hasn't done it yet, so don't count your chickens before they hatch. And unless something drastic happens, even calling it a modest hit is impossible and I don't think it's time to start celebrating yet. Look at the numbers, it expanded by 250 screens last week but it's business dropped by 30 percent. If it drops like that again this week, it'll be on it's last legs and mostly be down to 100 screens or less. Maybe that's more of a hit than Strangeland, but that's not much of a hit at all. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest NoCalMike Report post Posted April 22, 2003 Spoiler (Highlight to Read): I figured the whole opening sequence was just to swerve the crowd into thinking those 2 store owners were evil, when in reality they were just two old perverted farts looking to get some cheap thrills. I could be wrong though, since for one, I am not absolutely sure myself. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Lethargic Report post Posted April 22, 2003 Spoiler (Highlight to Read): I figured the whole opening sequence was just to swerve the crowd into thinking those 2 store owners were evil, when in reality they were just two old perverted farts looking to get some cheap thrills. Spoiler (Highlight to Read): Um, hello? How were the store clerks NOT in on it? 1. They set up the whole thing. 2. The bodies of the two guys that tried to rob the store were in the family's house, that showed that those guys were connected to the family halfway through the movie before we even get to... 3. The ending in the car. How could anybody watch it and know that they were involved? If they weren't supposed to be involved, somebody has a LOT of explaining to do. I'd like to know how the corpses of the crooks got into the house for one. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest RedJed Report post Posted April 22, 2003 Gore to me would at least have to be some blood. I only remember two scenes in Corpses where I saw blood and those scenes only lasted a few seconds long. One was the razor scene and one was the cop shooting. Besides that, I truly don't remember anything else. You must be very forgetful then........there was more than two cases of bloodshed in the movie, I can think of two more off the top of my head even.......the Dr Satan scene with Hardwick near the end, as well as when the evil hot chick (I'm dont know names) and the other broad that continuously fight throughout the film have their little meeting near the end of the film. There is even more other stuff beyond this, but I digress. It's not like I'm saying this is the best horror movie or anything, but I still have not see this much shock-type gore before in any R-rated horror movie, thats all I'm saying.........shooting people and etc ala Robocop isn't really what I was thinking when drawing comparisons to this, BTW. Unless I was watching an uncut version of the film from the download, I still cant understand why someone can say there isnt ANY gore in this movie, much less not enough for their tastes. And IMO gore never really makes a movie scary, but thats just me. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Lethargic Report post Posted April 22, 2003 And IMO gore never really makes a movie scary, but thats just me. I totally agree. It's not like I even wanted gore. The facts are that the movie is completely built around the fact that it's the goriest movie in years and that studios dropped it because it's so gory and blah blah blah. So that's what I expected to see but I didn't. But I don't think the movie is bad because of the lack of gore, it's bad anyway. It's bad because it's not all that gory and it doesn't have the scares and tension to make you forget about that lack of gore. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest NoCalMike Report post Posted April 22, 2003 This movie seems to be more on the shocking/disturbing level, rather than scary level. I thought the movie was pretty good and entertaining until the clusterfucked third act of the film. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest RedJed Report post Posted April 22, 2003 This movie seems to be more on the shocking/disturbing level, rather than scary level. I agree..........they were more trying to get people freaked out by visual elements, and the unorthodox characters (ex: whatever the freaky sons name was). Things like Spoiler (Highlight to Read): the whole razor scene, dismembering the one guy, having the one chick hanging in the room with a ton of bodies, Dr Satan drilling into the one guys head, etc ....it's all about the shock. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest mach7 Report post Posted April 22, 2003 Officially one of the worst... movies... ever. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Youth N Asia Report post Posted April 22, 2003 Officially one of the worst... movies... ever. Worst movie I've seen in a solid year anyway. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Smell the ratings!!! Report post Posted April 22, 2003 Spoiler (Highlight to Read): This movie absolutely sucks ass Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Downhome Report post Posted April 22, 2003 Spoiler (Highlight to Read): This movie absolutely sucks ass OMG~!@ Personally, this film is one of my least favorites of all time, one of the worst I've ever seen, but it isn't THE worst. It's horrid though, and not worth the film it's on. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Youth N Asia Report post Posted April 22, 2003 Spoiler (Highlight to Read): This movie absolutely sucks ass OMG~!@ Personally, this film is one of my least favorites of all time, one of the worst I've ever seen, but it isn't THE worst. It's horrid though, and not worth the film it's on. I'd put it in my top 10...cause when I think back to a movie I usually don't toss out a "Oh man I fucking hated that one!" But HO1KC? I fucking hated that one. And I was going on and on and on here on the board about wanting to see the damn thing. Wished it would have came out a few years ago so it would only be a distant memory now. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Downhome Report post Posted April 22, 2003 Spoiler (Highlight to Read): This movie absolutely sucks ass OMG~!@ Personally, this film is one of my least favorites of all time, one of the worst I've ever seen, but it isn't THE worst. It's horrid though, and not worth the film it's on. I'd put it in my top 10...cause when I think back to a movie I usually don't toss out a "Oh man I fucking hated that one!" But HO1KC? I fucking hated that one. And I was going on and on and on here on the board about wanting to see the damn thing. Wished it would have came out a few years ago so it would only be a distant memory now. I agree, it's in my top ten also, it was just plain out bad. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest NoCalMike Report post Posted April 22, 2003 Due to the 2 years worth of hype surrounding it, I'd say that made the OVERALL experience worse. However if I went into it knowing NOTHING but it is a horror flick, it would be simply "underwhelming" Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest C.H.U.D. Report post Posted April 23, 2003 Man, some people are never happy. I always hear people bitching that no one makes hardcore, psycho horror movies anymore. All we see are tame, PG-13 Scream rip-offs. So we get House of 1000 Corpses, which is by no means a great film, but is certainly a throwback to the 80's stuff, and a homage to Texas Chainsaw Massacre, and everyone whines because it "wasn't gory" and "wasn't scary" and "had no storyline or character development". Hello? These movies are never about storylines of character development. They're about fucked up characters doing fucked up things and that's what this movie had. Plus, horror movies stopped being scary when I was like 13. If a horror movie "sucks" because it isn't scary, then every horror movie I have seen since I was a kid must suck. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Youth N Asia Report post Posted April 23, 2003 Sure it's a throwback. But I wasn't entertained or scared...and with a horror movie I should be one if not both of those. Final Destination 2 sucked...but I laughed my ass off the whole way through. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest NoCalMike Report post Posted April 23, 2003 I definately was ENTERTAINED by House of 1000 corpses. I didn't go into it thinking it would be the new masterpiece of horror, and for this to be someone's FIRST FILM, I'd say it was a decent effort. There elements I liked and disliked about the movie, however overall I found the movie enjoyable. A lot more than a "Scream 4" could do for me. As far as plotline and character development, it has no less then say, F13th 2-8, however I know a lot of you liked those sequels. I dunno, I just didn't HATE the movie as much as all of you did. Am I also alone in assuming I am one of the few horror buffs here that enjoyed Jason X? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest El Satanico Report post Posted April 23, 2003 Am I also alone in assuming I am one of the few horror buffs here that enjoyed Jason X? nope...I did as well Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Youth N Asia Report post Posted April 23, 2003 Jason X at least got a couple laughs out of me. There was also a little action. I didn't think it was as boring. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Downhome Report post Posted April 23, 2003 My problem is that it was just a bad film, period. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest El Satanico Report post Posted April 23, 2003 Strange that every negative thing I hear actually makes me want to see the movie more. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LaParkaYourCar 0 Report post Posted April 23, 2003 Final Destination 2 and Jason X were more horror comedy to me. Hoa1KC was just plain dumb. It tried to be all artsy in places. Big overuse of the photo negative look, stupid use of random images being flashed on screen, and just plain rediculous characters. Only thing that made me laugh was: Spoiler (Highlight to Read): When they guy who plays Shane on The Shield gets shot, but the movie is silent for about 30 seconds and has a wide shot while the guy holds the gun to his head....then BLAM! That was pretty funny Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Youth N Asia Report post Posted April 23, 2003 Strange that every negative thing I hear actually makes me want to see the movie more. It's the Nathan Jones of current movies. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Downhome Report post Posted April 23, 2003 Final Destination 2 and Jason X were more horror comedy to me. Hoa1KC was just plain dumb. It tried to be all artsy in places. Big overuse of the photo negative look, stupid use of random images being flashed on screen, and just plain rediculous characters. Only thing that made me laugh was: Spoiler (Highlight to Read): When they guy who plays Shane on The Shield gets shot, but the movie is silent for about 30 seconds and has a wide shot while the guy holds the gun to his head....then BLAM! That was pretty funny I agree 100%, Jason X and the such ARE Comedy/Horror, it's obvious. I mean, Jason X was basicly just a parody of the entire Friday the 13th series itself. The only thing in Ho1kC that made me laugh, was the very first scene, that was just great. This film though wasn't Comedy/Horror, it wasn't Horror, it was just a bad film trying to be something more while it totally failed. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Youth N Asia Report post Posted April 23, 2003 Spoiler (Highlight to Read): When they guy who plays Shane on The Shield gets shot, but the movie is silent for about 30 seconds and has a wide shot while the guy holds the gun to his head....then BLAM! That was pretty funny I thought they could have cut that in half. You didn't need it to be that long, you knew it was going to happen and that took the drama out of it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Downhome Report post Posted April 23, 2003 Spoiler (Highlight to Read): When they guy who plays Shane on The Shield gets shot, but the movie is silent for about 30 seconds and has a wide shot while the guy holds the gun to his head....then BLAM! That was pretty funny I thought they could have cut that in half. You didn't need it to be that long, you knew it was going to happen and that took the drama out of it. Blah, I agree with you also, heh. I actually thought my version "froze" right there. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Lethargic Report post Posted April 23, 2003 Man, some people are never happy. I always hear people bitching that no one makes hardcore, psycho horror movies anymore. All we see are tame, PG-13 Scream rip-offs. So we get House of 1000 Corpses, which is by no means a great film, but is certainly a throwback to the 80's stuff, and a homage to Texas Chainsaw Massacre, and everyone whines because it "wasn't gory" and "wasn't scary" and "had no storyline or character development". Hello? You know what's worse than PG-13 Scream rip offs? A movie like Corpses that pretend it's a throwback to the 80's but turns out in reality to just be a PG-13 Scream rip off underneath it all. Personally, I found a lot more scares and thrills in Scream than I did in Corpses. Hell, I found more in Scary Movie. Why? Because while Scream isn't the greatest thing ever, it is directed by a professional director that has some idea what he's doing. Corpses is directed by a first time hack who had no clue how to make a movie. It's that simple. Gore, scares, story, character...who cares? The fact of the matter is that it's just a terrible movie directed by a musician who thinks the ability to make 3 minute music videos would translate to 90 minutes and it shows in the final product. Rob Zombie is not a director and has no right to be called one. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest NoCalMike Report post Posted April 23, 2003 Ermm....like it or hate, but Corpses was NO PG-13 flick. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
