/horror/ general megathread - Let's talk about movies and shit.

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
Watched Fright Night part 2 and that was a waste of time. Pretty much everything about it is worse than the first film. Worse villains, worse effects, worse sets, the humor falls flat. It was completely phoned in. The climax is them standing around in an elevator shaft. Riveting stuff.
The only saving grace was how cute Traci Lind was. Also she has a topless scene even though it kind of seems like a PG13 film, it's kind of bizarre. If that's what you wanted to go for maybe you should have filled your film with tits and blood. Especially the villain who's supposed to be a seductive female vampire? Just a thought.
Really it should just be another forgotten shitty sequel but for some reason I see a lot of people pretend it's good and that it's an underrated sequel. I don't know what they're smoking.
 
What are your opinions on the Smile series?
a waste of time.
only thing I got out of watching both back to back is wanting the story to lean towards funny, than whatever they did with both movies.
take the same premise, and have the demon thing be stuck with someone too stupid to be traumatized.
call it smirk, and have the main character either be mr magoo, or a literal retard.
 
Last edited:
the thing kicks ass
If I've made a new friend and they say they like horror, I ask their opinion on The Thing. If they don't like it, I don't take their opinion on media seriously ever again. If they haven't seen it, I cook them dinner and have them over to my house and show them The Thing. Then back to step 1.

I saw Final Destination: Bloodlines. I'm not even sure it's a horror movie, but you know what it was? Fucking fun. Actually entertaining. Not irritating. It even had a couple of unexpected "twists" that were funny.
I'll check it out. I like fun horror where you are meant to laugh at the people dying.

I finally got around to watching In A Violent Nature and really liked it. The lack of soundtrack, the low amount of dialogue through most of the movie, and the long cuts were a nice change of pace from typical horror movie fare. Didn't like the third act as much but I guess they realized it would be hard to convey what was happening from the killer's POV at that point.
 
Well I watched the new Conjuring for some reason, and I have to ask, how come all the scary people in movies smile all the time now? I am tired of creepy grins. What do they have to smile about anyway? They should carry out their business stoically or possibly with a grimace. Well, the movie is based on true events, so maybe that's just how it happened in real life.
The Terrifier and it's consequences have been a disaster for the horror genre.
 
If I've made a new friend and they say they like horror, I ask their opinion on The Thing. If they don't like it, I don't take their opinion on media seriously ever again. If they haven't seen it, I cook them dinner and have them over to my house and show them The Thing. Then back to step 1.

The Thing and The Fly are some of my favorite movies just for their practical effects.

The Terrifier and it's consequences have been a disaster for the horror genre.

I know that being a faggy, bitter little doomer is what's in right now, but sometimes I do wonder what do people like this want out of a horror movie.
 
The cope for The Long Walk's performance has begun.
https://www.slashfilm.com/1968998/stephen-king-the-long-walk-box-office/
Stephen King's The Long Walk Isn't A Big Box Office Hit, But It Didn't Need To Be
BY RYAN SCOTT SEPT. 15, 2025 8:45 PM EST

This past weekend proved to be much bigger than just about anyone expected at the box office. "Demon Slayer: Infinity Castle" led the way with a record-breaking $70 million opening. Everything else was gunning for second place. Well, technically third, given that "The Conjuring: Last Rites" ($25.6 million) landed in the number two spot following its own massive opening last week. In the case of "The Long Walk," it was a case of having to settle for a fairly distant fourth place, though that's not as bad as it may sound on the surface.

Lionsgate's "The Long Walk," which is based on the Stephen King book of the same name, opened to $11.7 million domestically. It also finished behind "Downton Abbey: The Grand Finale" ($18.1 million), which was admittedly going for a very different crowd. In any case, it seems like a disappointing result on the surface. But diving deeper into the numbers, it's one of those "good enough" situations that we could actually use more of in the modern marketplace.

Directed by Francis Lawrence, of "The Hunger Games" fame, this King adaptation carries a very modest budget of just $20 million before marketing. So while a sub-$12 million opening isn't exactly huge, it's fine for a very responsibly budgeted movie such as this. It also helps that "The Long Walk" has been met with stellar reviews thus far, which may help it in the weeks to come. There are also overseas grosses, which haven't yet been tallied yet, to consider.

The film takes place in a dystopian version of the United States where one boy from each state is selected to take part in an annual contest. The winner will be awarded whatever he wants. To win, they have to walk at a pace of three miles per hour without stopping. Fall below that speed, you get a warning. Get three warnings, and you're out — dispassionately shot in the head by the military envoy traveling with the group. The cast includes Cooper Hoffman ("Saturday Night"), David Jonsson ("Alien: Romulus"), and Mark Hamill ("Star Wars").

The Long Walk was a low risk, high reward prospect

In terms of comparisons, this isn't far off from 2023's "The Boogeyman," which legged out to $82.3 million after opening to $12.3 million that summer. Depending on how things shake out, there's still plenty of hope that this one could make it to over/under $50 million globally, which would probably be enough to turn a profit.

Lionsgate was extremely thrifty here, and that's the key. Had this movie cost $50 million, we'd be having a very different conversation about how disappointing it is that such an acclaimed movie is being ignored by audiences. Would it be nice if more people turned up for what now ranks as the highest-rated Stephen King movie of all time? Sure, but this is a bleak tale that was never going to have the same mass appeal as something like "It," for example.

This is a project that's been in and out of development for decades, with various filmmakers coming and going. The fact that Lawrence and Lionsgate finally got it made at all is nothing shy of a minor miracle. That it happens to be a very good movie, by most accounts, is also great. Between VOD, streaming, overseas box office, and eventual Blu-ray/DVD sales, this one will be just fine. It will find its audience over time and it will make money. It won't be a big hit, but not everything needs to be.

The box office is still struggling mightily to recover from the pandemic. One thing that helps is having a higher volume of product available in theaters. Having reasonably budgeted, low risk/high reward movies like this in theaters more regularly as counter-programming is something we could use more of. A modest hit, in the end, is still a hit — money is money, after all — and this one can easily become a modest hit. That can and should be enough more frequently than it is now, and we hope other studios are paying attention.

"The Long Walk" is in theaters now.
 
Why even cope? Lionsgate has been eating shit for years and because they co-finance everything can't even sell to a real studio. This isn't a stunning flop of something that could have been a hit like a M3GAN sequel.
 
The Long Walk was generally alright but I really did not like the movie's ending compared to the book's. King gets shit for his finales (rightfully so, more often than not), but for whatever reason how The Long Walk ended always stuck with me. Even beyond the 'dark figure' aspect, the visual of Garraty just continuing on - beginning to run, even - was really chilling and cutting to me.

The movie's ending is so underwhelming and for whatever reason decides abruptly to just disregard what McVries (who, to me, was a more sympathetic character than Garraty in the movie) stood for, and actively undermines the point of the book. They could have done something to really cement the brutality and bleakness and inescapability of the whole thing, regardless of who the last one standing was, but I guess doing something that isn't the "bad guy is dead, okay bye" way out would require some degree of subtlety and restraint, which, of course, is anathema to Current Year moviemaking.

It's unfortunate because they nail the tone and overall look, and there are some great performances (sans Hamill who I thought was miscast) but the ending fumbles so much of that.
 
Watched Fright Night part 2 and that was a waste of time. Pretty much everything about it is worse than the first film. Worse villains, worse effects, worse sets, the humor falls flat. It was completely phoned in. The climax is them standing around in an elevator shaft. Riveting stuff.
Saw it as a kid immediately after watching the first one (which I loved). It certainly was a letdown, but I vaguely recall still enjoying a few scenes, like when Brewster's girlfriend has to kill her psychology professor but fails to ram the piece of wood deep enough into him, so the guy ends up therapy-talking his way through his own execution.

From what I recall, my biggest gripe with the movie was the group of villains who felt more like a ragtag pack of spooky cartoon characters assembled from completely different franchises. The "sexy vampire seduction" scenes were also way too long.
 
If it has legs, the opening isn't bad for a $20 million budget. If it doesn't have legs and also bombs on VoD, then it's just another Lionsgate flop.

Despite its poor reception, The Strangers Chapter 1 opened to $13 million and reach a final gross of $48 million wolrd wide. So interesting how The Long Walks legs will compare to that Lionsgate movie.
 
Does Stephen King's name have value any more? Seems more of a Gen X celebrity and once people got access to the internet he became a weirdo. Kids fucking in books and weird political retardation make him a hands off classic rather than a respected author.
 
The Long Walk was generally alright but I really did not like the movie's ending compared to the book's. King gets shit for his finales (rightfully so, more often than not), but for whatever reason how The Long Walk ended always stuck with me. Even beyond the 'dark figure' aspect, the visual of Garraty just continuing on - beginning to run, even - was really chilling and cutting to me.

The movie's ending is so underwhelming and for whatever reason decides abruptly to just disregard what McVries (who, to me, was a more sympathetic character than Garraty in the movie) stood for, and actively undermines the point of the book. They could have done something to really cement the brutality and bleakness and inescapability of the whole thing, regardless of who the last one standing was, but I guess doing something that isn't the "bad guy is dead, okay bye" way out would require some degree of subtlety and restraint, which, of course, is anathema to Current Year moviemaking.

It's unfortunate because they nail the tone and overall look, and there are some great performances (sans Hamill who I thought was miscast) but the ending fumbles so much of that.
I love the book's ending, and I don't usually like it when adaptations alter the source material's story. But I don't see how you convey the original ending visually. Part of what makes that a hard book to adapt is because so much of it is about the main character's internal state, something a book is good at exploring but a movie isn't.

I'm okay with the change because it's very nearly the same ending: it's Peter instead of Ray, but he inadvertently "wins" like Ray does in the book, and he (arguably) does not survive the ending anyway.

And the new ending ties into the story's themes well. Peter, who urges Ray to "choose love," is established not to have any family or close attachments, so the significance is heightened of the friendships he builds in the film. Garraty's sacrifice to save him (which happens when it happens because Ray realizes Peter is close to exhaustion and will have to try it again soon) pushes him into a moral dilemma the audience understands: he wants to avoid violence, but his friend who died to save his life had a very good reason to want violence, and only Peter knows about that... and 48 other boys (including the Major's own son) died horribly only because the Major choses to run this satanic, manipulative competition every year.

There's no true "winning" for Peter (or anyone on the walk) no matter what, so the Major's death is almost not the point at all. (And, IIRC, the camera does not focus on him for very long after he's shot.) A military dictatorship means someone else in the chain of command will stand up and take the Major's place... and the fact that a mere Major is dictator indicates this has probably happened before. The point is what Peter chooses to do, why he's doing it, and what he's giving up when he does it. Again, it's unlikely he survives the assassination.


And the new ending allows for dramatic tension where there wouldn't have been much in the original ending. You can't end that movie with Ray hallucinating and running away.
 
where the horror isn't being a maladjusted weird terrified of the circus.
Evil clowns can be funny but they aren't scary. Pennywise works in IT because (iirc) ITs trying to lure in children, IT just can't make a 100% believable imitation. Even then I don't find Pennywise scary and no adult should. Adults who are afraid of clowns are stunted.

Does Stephen King's name have value any more? Seems more of a Gen X celebrity and once people got access to the internet he became a weirdo. Kids fucking in books and weird political retardation make him a hands off classic rather than a respected author.
He's still one of the top 10, if not the top 5, most successful and popular authors rn. Normies love him. A lot of horror writers I know also respect him which is... interesting. I mean he has a good work ethic.
 
I find it funny that with the new good boy movie coming out people refuse to see it because they are worried or scared to see a dog hurt or distress. Hell they even had to come out and say the dog does not get hurt.

But when weapons came out a month ago. Nobody was worried or scared about kids being hurt or in distress and nobody came out in early screenings to warn about child abuse.
 
I find it funny that with the new good boy movie coming out people refuse to see it because they are worried or scared to see a dog hurt or distress. Hell they even had to come out and say the dog does not get hurt.

But when weapons came out a month ago. Nobody was worried or scared about kids being hurt or in distress and nobody came out in early screenings to warn about child abuse.
people, kids in particular mostly suck
dogs (outside of shitbulls) mostly are good
 
Back
Top Bottom