The 90's VS The 00's

Discussion in 'Reader Polls' started by Ash28M, Feb 17, 2009.

?

Pick your decade.

  1. 90's

    30.9%
  2. 00's

    69.1%
  1. dave13

    dave13 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2008
    Messages:
    5,467
    Likes Received:
    415
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Toronto, Canada
    I agree that they're both phenomenal films, but i think the combined weight of deniro and pacino's performances push part II onto the top.

    but Rope? thats curious. why? most people see it as an interesting experiment that didn't quite pan out.
     
  2. Paff

    Paff Super Moderator

    Joined:
    May 14, 2000
    Messages:
    8,054
    Likes Received:
    379
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    SoCal
    Purposely not voting in this poll. And not to take the piss or anything, or to make a "they both suck" comment, 'cause that's far from the truth.

    You see, while it's convenient to lock things into calendar eras, it's not really true, is it? It's not like on January 1 2001 (the TRUE beginning of the decade...this is not a computer, we do not start counting at zero, we start at one), all the filmmakers said, "well, let's completely change it around now". No, changes happen subtly over time. And it's not always fair to compare films made in the same decade. Roger Corman's Poe films were the same decade as Night of the Living Dead. Similar in feel? hell no. Gialli, demonic possession, and Fulci's Zombi film were all 70s. Similar? No.

    Anyway, when I look at the 90s, the lowest point is the influx of "teen horror" beginning with Scream. Kinda ran from 96-98, wouldn't you say? Remakes certainly dominate the new decade, although the "torture" movies are there too. Both began around 04.

    My favorites in horror from the 90s and 00s are the atmospheric ghost stories (The Others), and the Asian horror. Even some of the Asian remakes (well, The Ring at least) were not bad. And when I look at the cream of those movies, they fit in a range of '98-'03. Therefore, the movies I like truly straddle the decades.

    Thus, long winded reply aside, I don't have a preference, unless you make '98-'03 an option!
     
  3. DVD-fanatic-9

    DVD-fanatic-9 And the Next Morning, When the Campers Woke Up...

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2007
    Messages:
    5,079
    Likes Received:
    411
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Horror
    Not for music - the 90's were one of the greatest and most rich times for music.



    I disagree. I think the lowpoint was around '93 to '95. When made-for-TV and direct-to-video horror started becoming a big thing. Or perhaps, the first of two. The second was- 1999. The year of "Ghost horror." Bad ghost horror.



    So few and SO far between the films, that it's absurd to stand up enough to make that statement. The truth contracts the words so much that, it's like trying to use a toothpick-umbrella to fully protect you in a hurricane - no chance of making it work.

    There was much more quality in the 1990's. But people ignore it because it's easy to get away with saying 00's are better, simply for the extreme glut of titles, and of course the rise in marketability of horror. Like many things in life, the more attention it got, the cheaper it got, the quicker and less carefully it's been mass-produced, and the poorer the overall quality.

    Now, I can only imagine what this must sound like to you. So I'll toss you a bone here - I know horror has changed. I'm not saying it's actually a poor version of what it used to be. I'm saying the "New Version" of it is completely lacking satisfaction for a horror fan who kind of lived for the best of the 70's and 80's and 90's.

    I'm never going to agree with anyone who voted for 00's. Because I think they've lowered their standards. Significantly. May sound like crazy-talk, but it's the truth and it's coming from me. So remember- it's how I feel.

    The 1990's spawned several outright masterpieces (Silence of the Lambs, Misery, Dead Alive, Scream). And there was probably more garbage in the 90's than in the 80's. But at least the format lead to some very smart films even if they skimped on gore and nudity a lot. The 00's have more gore but not more intelligence. Not even close. And yes, they did basically give birth to the bad cliches of this current decade. But most of the filmmakers worked through them and delivered better films.

    Even the lesser films from the 1990's are better than the crap being shown today. I'll also say that the 00's started off okay and delivered a lot of interesting ideas - Ginger Snaps, American Psycho, Bones, Wendigo, Final Destination, Jeepers Creepers, May, 28 Days Later, Dahmer. However, as many good horror films came out in the early 1990's. And yet, the decade managed to continue delivering smart horror films (Wes Craven's New Nightmare, Tales from the Hood, Scream, Bride of Chucky, and though I don't like it, I won't deny its' head on its' shoulders- The Sixth Sense).

    But when 2003 rolled around, when the internet Saw campaign started, and The Texas Chainsaw Massacre '03 scored a making-of special on E! - the shit hit the fan. The success of those 2 films destroyed horror. Because not only were those 2 films total and utter shit, but every film copied them. Just short of Shaun of the Dead and House of 1,000 Corpses - two overrated movies which may have broken the chain but suddenly spawned gluts of films all their own.

    Whenever any film becomes a hit (or gets too much internet attention), it mass-produces! From Wrong Turn to The Ring to 28 Days Later to Joyride. Whenever ANY single horror film becomes a hit, all we get are copies. That may have started in the 90's, but it didn't stop some of the copies from being good. Scream didn't hurt Bride of Chucky. Though it may have influenced it a little bit, Bride of Chucky was its' own movie. Even the makers of Urban Legend swear they never heard of or watched Scream before making their film. And since they're not idiots who ever jumped on the remake bandwagon(!), and actually delivered a fun film - I'm inclined to believe them.



    You have a point. When do you think that started? I notice that that may have something to do with something like Misery, where the threat is right in front of you all the time. In the form of hospitality and manners, where you ignore the little problems until the situation's intensity has elevated. Also- Tremors took place mostly during the day. Gremlins 2 was a big budget studio film. Arachnophobia may have been taking its' inspiration from much older films, but I'm going with the "big studio film" on that one.

    As for the 00's, I've also noticed that the "grittiest" movies look too clean cinematographically. I know, not a word. But I hope you know what I mean. Wrong Turn does not look like a 70's movie. Hell there're scenes in that movie that feel like Jurassic Park (the scene where they take refuge in the treehouse). Devil's Rejects doesn't either. The Saw movies look like episodes of C.S.I. And, atmosphere... Well, because of the ultra-clean photography, I guess you feel like you're in dark caves and cold woods and dirty crackhouses when you watch these movies. Big whoop. Who wants to be there? I think you'll find the atmospheres of many 70's and 80's horror films had a very attractive quality to them. Phantasm and Suspiria were very dreamlike and that's attractive. The music to something like The Fog or A Nightmare on Elm Street is very exhilirating and is almost charming. It's heady and it makes you want to follow the images to see where they lead. They actually had balance to them. Balance between the slightly real and the fantastically unreal. The gruesome extraordinary and familiar places.

    With the 70's and 80's movies, it wasn't always so obvious what was going to happen. There's nothing about today's movie that I've actually been surprised by or haven't seen coming from a mile away. Because I know what horror used to be and what it lacks today. So much for effective atmosphere! Nobody's using it to full advantage. Because the filmmakers are slaves to the trends and comformity of popular films. To make money. And to keep a career as a director going, to get steady jobs. To continue being part of the industry. Which has changed horror forever.



    Another excellent point. I can't argue with you there either. I've never seen Species, have no interest in seeing it, and I think Anaconda is a piece of crap. So, you've sold me on one thing - the 90's overall wasn't as good a decade in horror as the 80's. :D



    Funny you should bring up those examples. Because I can't watch The Mist without thinking of Storm of the Century. And you mentioned CGI, so that hurts The Mist as well. Sweeny Todd makes me think of Sleepy Hollow, from the 90's. Haven't seen it yet, but that's because I hate musicals. And I've seen clips on YouTube, so I can safely say it suffers from the same thing that hurt Sleepy Hollow - the same death scene over and over again. Decapitations only become throat-slittings this time around. The Descent is overrated. And the manic, super-fast spring-like attack of the creatures strikes me as a mix of 28 Days Later and Dog Soldiers. Cloverfield... someone else attacked that one on this board I'm 90% sure, so I'll simply say- I agree with that person. And that movie clearly gets a lot of attention just because of 9/11, but also the images of monuments exploding is so ripped off from the already stupid Independence Day and/or Armageddon - take your pick. Enough people have taken Land of the Dead apart, so since I believe you like to reference the Status-Quo, I don't need to touch it. Safe to say- it was a huge disappointment. Saw is total shit. And... are you, I'm sure this is presumptious... are you trying to tell me that you thought The Oprhanage was a good horror movie? In any way? Wow...

    Haven't seen Fido yet. May decide to. Probably won't.



    That's a good fucking reason to be bothered.



    I never watched most of those movies anyway. Saw was not really even a torture movie. It features torture devices. But it's weak on violence and torture. Not that that makes any difference in terms of quality. The key here is- credibility or lack thereof, lack of originality, and lack of gore and violence used as a last resort to enhance entertainment quality. It thought it was being psychological and had ingenious plot-twists. When actually, it was simply a festival of stupidity and seeing how many ideas from other movies they could rip-off. Like everything else about this decade, it was done better in the 90's. Case in point: both Silence of the Lambs, and Cube. It couldn't be clever, and it couldn't even be bothered to deliver on the promise of "blood." It was too devoted to kissing its' own ass for being smart enough to know what movies to rip-off. Because they were all better than Saw.

    As for Hostel, Wolf Creek, and The Devil's Rejects furthering the "torture" genre, well at least they were all better than Saw. But only Hostel, in my very twisted take on it, could be defended as having an actual purpose for its' bloodshed. A sociological approach to the "story" (or lack thereof). Of course, I don't honestly think Eli Roth was this enterprising, but I will say I think he managed to fool me the first time just because I hadn't seen Cabin Fever or really read up on him as a filmmaker. I have since seeing Hostel and retract my official statement on Hostel being intentionally ambitious. Because, and this is another huge problem with this decade in horror - Roth sees himself as his most obnoxious characters! As he says about Cabin Fever, he has them do bad things but he always goes out of his way to come up with reasons to defend them. But I'll give him one solid compliment- at least he's not afraid of basing films around characters the audience will hate.

    The torture genre simply lacks redeeming social values. Almost all the films are posing to get hardcore-horror credit. But have nothing substancial to offer.



    Well I've been criticized for being too picky. But that means I notice a lot of details. I'm not great at communicating them back to people who are content with the rot that is accepted as "horror" for the past 6 years. Almost none of the horror films this decade have what I want to see in them. Or even what I was used to settling on (the only thing that got me through 1999 to 2002). And there's a long list of problems.

    They very much have the same approach to them. I've noticed huge similarities and if I needed to be depressed, I would watch them all and take long lists just to embarrass you. Sorry, that was a bit forward. But so many people are so proud to say they think this is a good decade for horror. It's single-handedly the worst decade in horror history. I've watched the genre from every angle, seen all the promise squandered, gotten to know the mentality of the horror filmmaker producing efforts this decade very well, and... The genre is dying FAST. In fact, it may already be dead-dead. There'll probably never be another true piece of great horror filmmaking (unless it comes from Asia). At best, we'll get some more inventive gore FX, but all of it will be encased within shitty movies.

    Overall, this decade is a failure in every way I mentioned before. It lacks trends that would boast great: music, lighting, camerawork, acting / casting, photography, and mood / tone. The films lack ambition, smart writing, interesting characters, and instead they copy and rip-off, and take the easy way out every single time.

    And when I see people defending so many of these shitty films, I don't see that they've paid as much attention to them as I have. I see way too many instances of one death scene or one twist in the story eclipsing nearly the whole rest of the movie for them. Case in point- the "truck" scene in The Devil's Rejects. Another example- the "revelation" at the end of Saw. Another example- the "liquid nitrogen" scene in Jason X. The showy, over the top nature of a few scenes of FX seems to lead many people to defend the films they come from when the films hardly have that much quality to them or ambition about them. And it's not fair to deny all the great horror films from the 60's, 70's, 80's, and 90's of their intelligence and ambition just because they didn't have more state of the art gore FX and blood that looked more dark red and less like melted crayon. It didn't used-to matter so much how bad the FX were. The movies were just better. Now, people pay more attention to the FX. And of course, whether or not Bill Moseley or Bruce Campbell are in it or not.

    In fact, when people discuss the 90's vs. the 00's, they never bring up as many films from the 90's as evidence as they do of this decade. Leading me to think, again, many horror fans who would say that pay less attention to the movies as I do. I looked directly at the responses on this thread and they're very inconsistent and hazy on posters' opinions of the 90's. Like Ash before this thread coming up with that long list of movies. Most of them were garbage but then it all comes down to taste. And right... I still go back and say, I believe firmly people have lowered their standards. I refuse. I don't think I'm better, but I think I see what's really going on.



    FUCK! Finally someone has the guts, other than me on this board, to say Scream is a good horror movie (it's actually a full-on masterpiece), and you poison it by dumping on the decade itself. Not a big fan of Peter Jackson's Dead Alive- I take it. Missed out on Candyman, did you? And Dust Devil. And Misery. And Silence of the Lambs. And, since you said "halfway decent," I'll namedrop Sleepy Hollow. Tales from the Hood is incredibly underrated- it's a very good film. That's better than halfway decent. IT is one of the best made-for-TV horror films ever made. Tremors was very good. That's 9 so far. Did you just forget them all?? Bram Stoker's Dracula - I know it started a trend that continued with garbage like Interview with a Vampire and Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, but it was a good horror movie. And I also want to mention: Mary Reilly. Another underrated entry in 90's horror. Gremlins 2 (it counts, bitches!). Arachnophobia (DON'T challenge me on this, it's scary as hell!). Wes Craven's New Nightmare (I didn't like it, but it still worked very well). That's 14. I'll never know what people have against this one- Sleepwalkers. A lot of people don't like it. However, I wonder if any of those people were thinking about how bad Thinner was at the time they were lashing out at it. But it's a very well acted movie that is good entertainment if not very edgy. Some bad morphing FX and an incest sub-sub-subplot are not enough to hurt the movie. Neither is 1 Enya song- get it together, people!

    Then, I would go so far as to call Cemetery Man a half-way decent movie. And then - have you all got amnesia (Misery reference, naturally!), or did you completely forget Álex de la Iglesia's Day of the Beast? I haven't seen it yet, but everyone raves about it. And it's 1995- eat that! There's Nothing Out There was great. Bride of Chucky, again (I'll never let anyone get away with saying that's not at least a halfway decent movie). Def by Temptation - which anyone who's seen it knows it's an amazing film. At least half of From Dusk Till Dawn was good. John Landis's Innocent Blood is incredible. Maybe it's too funny. But so what? Everyone here raves about Army of Darkness - and that film isn't scary at all. I'm counting Innocent Blood! A very clever turn of the vampire subgenre. Argento's The Stendhal Syndrome was very good in my opinion. And I'd go out on a ledge and call Trauma at least halfway decent. Because I'd say just because the guy was boring doesn't mean I wasn't fascinated with Aura's character and her family life.

    That's 24 (unless someone can legitimately prove Sleepwalkers is poorly acted!). And I'm not even counting the Asian films! Because their films are so friggin' good at drama and comedy, that they don't even feel like horror films anymore - especially Tell Me Something and Audition.



    You're giving them too much credit there, Matt. That's almost like admitting to thinking they can hurt the audience. Like they have that much power. Like the films they're making are actually effective. If they are, maybe I'm criticizing the wrong people. Instead of the filmmakers being clueless, I should be ragging on the audiences.



    The Descent is overrated. So, I disagree with you there. Haven't seen The Strangers yet, but I'll make a point to check it out. And the Dawn of the Dead remake was bad. So... this is really hard for me, but... you're wrong.

    Wait, I've done this before- haven't I?
     
    Last edited: Feb 19, 2009
  4. maybrick

    maybrick Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2001
    Messages:
    10,748
    Likes Received:
    636
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Keene, NH
    Man, some people sure can ramble. You don't seriously expect us to read all of that, do you?
     
  5. Matt89

    Matt89 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2004
    Messages:
    5,639
    Likes Received:
    914
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Toronto
    *Not gonna lie, I didn't read it all.

    But yeah, I forgot about Misery, but I don't think Silence of the Lambs completely qualifies as horror (much like I don't think that Psycho does either). There are horror elements - much like Close Encounters of the Third Kind has horror elements - but I wouldn't call either of them horror films.

    But either way, both decades were fucking terrible for horror. It's like picking your favorite piece of shit. And most of the movies you mentioned there are debatable. (A lot of people really hate Coppola's Dracula considering how much it deviates from the original novel. It's not without its flaws.) The Descent trumps almost anything made in the '90s IMO, I really don't see how it's overrated. It really is an extremely well-constructed film. It deserves all the praise it gets. The Strangers was effective as well, and Dawn of the Dead was perfectly transformed for this generation, and IMO works very well.

    I do think Scream is a fairly good film, but I wouldn't call it a masterpiece. It only looks better than average because of all the crap it was up against in the 1990s. (Then again, it kindof needed for the '80s to have happened for the film to have even been possible.)

    And it's not that anybody really "forgot" all these '90s movies, but...oh wait....I guess people kinda did. I guess it's because most of the stuff you mentioned is QUITE forgettable.

    ~Matt
     
  6. DVD-fanatic-9

    DVD-fanatic-9 And the Next Morning, When the Campers Woke Up...

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2007
    Messages:
    5,079
    Likes Received:
    411
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Horror
    Not if it hurts your little head.
     
  7. Matt89

    Matt89 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2004
    Messages:
    5,639
    Likes Received:
    914
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Toronto
    *Oh and the '90s was one of the worst times for music. Doesn't even compare to stuff that came out in the '60s, '70s and even the '80s. Sure some stuff was great, but the decade was so hit-and-miss with everything. Personally, I think one of, if not the best movies to come out of the '90s was Thelma & Louise, but hey, what do I know? ;)

    ~Matt
     
  8. Ash28M

    Ash28M Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    6,064
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Mississauga, ON, Canada

    I got to tell you that after reading all that. This is the only statement I agreed with you on. Even then only the first half of the 90's. I will conceded and I always have that the 90's do have it's fair amount of hidden gems. There is no way though that it's as good as this decade. I guess it is all a matter of taste. Saying that by looking at the numbers you are in the vast minority on this one.

    Also just to add to the 70's 80's poll. While most early parts of decades resemble the prior decade. The late 90's films are an exception. Audition, Blair Witch, Sixth Sense, Ringu, Ravenous All feel like 2000 films to me.
     
    Last edited: Feb 19, 2009
  9. Grim

    Grim Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2002
    Messages:
    7,660
    Likes Received:
    104
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Baltimore, MD
    I can count the 90's horror films that were faves of mine on two hands, I've lost count of how many faves I have from this decade. Crazy to think it'll be over next year.
     
  10. DVD-fanatic-9

    DVD-fanatic-9 And the Next Morning, When the Campers Woke Up...

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2007
    Messages:
    5,079
    Likes Received:
    411
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Horror
    That's probably a good thing.



    My whole opinion on this is that - all horror made before the 70's doesn't feel "completely like horror." In a way, all genres bled into each other. Fantasy films were dramatic and funny. Dramas were funny and romantic. Comedies were often sad and contained a lot of action. Musicals were action-packed and funny and sad and tragic and scary. And horror films were seriously diluted by comedy and science fiction and drama and romance and noir and other thriller conventions. Much the way some thrillers were like horror films in certain aspects - Spiral Staircase, Portrait of Jennie, Double Indemnity, Sorry Wrong Number. And Hitchcock's films. The Birds is technically his only horror film, if you consider technically any kind of consideration. Only because it's got a little gore in it and it's slightly supernatural. Horror films back then had to have supernatural occurences or a monster in them to be horror films.

    I think Silence fits very well into the same genre of serial killer horror films as Henry, Deranged, Psycho, and several others. But is set apart from them by its' broodingly gothic quality. It's a superficial difference at best. But I think it's worth noting all the same.



    Another Spielberg reference, eh? You must really like him.

    I haven't seen E.T. and I haven't seen Close Encounters. I don't think I ever will either.



    The films I mentioned are NOT pieces of shit. And I'll remind you to pre-face absurd statements like that as "In My Opinion." Or, post-script it if you prefer.

    I'll admit, right here right now - I was being a brat when we had our "Musicals" debate. I was being dismissive and I didn't care and I was painting them all as crap just because I hate the genre and didn't feel like giving them any credit or looking at them specifically. You're undoubtedly doing the same thing here. If you think horror magically turned to crap and all the 90's films were bad - I have overestimated you yet again. You just don't want to give the credit that the better films of the 1990's are due because of selfish personal reasons.

    Or because you haven't seen them.



    All films are debatable, Matt. In the past 2 years, I've had knockdown/drag out fights about the following films, where I was defending them: The Howling (1981), The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974) being better than The Hills Have Eyes (1977), Phantasm being good at all, Candyman being good at all, Silence of the Lambs being better than Saw, Deep Red being good at all, the 70's being good as a decade in horror, Squirm being better than Satan's Little Helper, Creepshow being better than the sequel, Maniac being bad, Dawn of the Dead being better than Day of the Dead. Just a few examples.



    If you go to a movie wanting to see a novel, how are you going to be surprised by anything you see?

    That's the most original way I can come up with to say - who cares? I've never been impressed by a horror movie's ability to not deviate from the original novel it may or may not have been based on. If a movie is good - why do I care how it is or isn't faithful to a book??



    Keanu Reeves. I know. But I see flaws in almost every horror film I've ever watched. So I can't imagine why I would choose to be harder on this film than I would be on... oh, say: The Exorcist. Or Dawn of the Dead. Or It's Alive. Or anything else. It's a good movie. Flaws or not.



    So you're probably going to be even more shocked when you hear this: I really don't see how most people don't agree it's overrated.



    This generation = crap. Going by the product, not the people.



    Yeah that's exactly what I was thinking too. :rolleyes:

    I don't think I have the strength to re-gush over this movie, but I've written a lot about this movie on this forum. I simply dare you to find a serious flaw within its' structure. And if you actually try to answer that, keep the attitude about what you may or may not assume of Kevin Williamson as a horror fan out of it. Many people who try to take-down Scream make that mistake.



    Like Dawn of the Dead '04 won't be in 10 years? When the novelty of its' technology and trends have evaporated... :rolleyes: :cool:
     
  11. Matt89

    Matt89 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2004
    Messages:
    5,639
    Likes Received:
    914
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Toronto
    Oh wow, dude...really? Is it really worth getting into an argument over fucking '90s HORROR? Seriously. I'm not even gonna bother to read all that. Fuck it, I'm outta here. Jesus Christ.

    ~Matt
     
  12. DVD-fanatic-9

    DVD-fanatic-9 And the Next Morning, When the Campers Woke Up...

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2007
    Messages:
    5,079
    Likes Received:
    411
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Horror
    You are so fucking spoiled. Piss off.



    Fuck the majority. They're not even trying to see my point of view. Look at Matt and his bullshit digs about "forgettable" movies. I didn't fucking say they were memorable. In fact - what I've said so far about this current decade backs up what I said. Horror has more marketability and gets more press time, ad time, face time in the media. That makes a lot of people think in the back of their minds, the newer is better somehow. This prevades a certain amount (I think a lot personally) of what everyone here is saying on behalf of the 00's in horror.

    Memorability hasn't got SHIT to do with quality.
     
  13. Ash28M

    Ash28M Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    6,064
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Mississauga, ON, Canada
    I would agree if this were an election where most people aren't even educated on what they are voting on. This a horror message board though were 90% of us have more knowledge on the topic then we want to admit. So in this circumstance majority does count.

    Except when any of you assholes disagree with me on The Blair Witch Project of course:)
     
  14. DVD-fanatic-9

    DVD-fanatic-9 And the Next Morning, When the Campers Woke Up...

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2007
    Messages:
    5,079
    Likes Received:
    411
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Horror
    Well, I'm not changing in any way for any so-called majority. So I stand firm on: Fuck the Majority.

    And what Matt's been saying the best 3 replies - there's no knowledge anywhere in there. Just a bunch of bullshit.
     
  15. Grim

    Grim Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2002
    Messages:
    7,660
    Likes Received:
    104
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Baltimore, MD
    One thing I can say about the 90's is that despite the lack of great horror, what an amazing decade for sci-fi. Some real gems there.
     
  16. Ash28M

    Ash28M Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    6,064
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Mississauga, ON, Canada
    Of course you shouldn't change because your in the Minority. I'm just saying you are in the Minority. Doesn't mean your wrong. Take from it what you will.
     
  17. spawningblue

    spawningblue Deadite

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2004
    Messages:
    5,069
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
    Half those movies you mentioned are either terrible or only okay. Come on, are you really serious with that list? I'm guessing you must be to write that much about them. Maybe you are just insane, that's the only explanation. Overall, the 00's have had a lot more better films then the 90s.

    Wes Craven's new Nightmare - Good idea that wasn't done very well.
    Bride of Chucky - Really?
    Braindead - Great gore, not a great movie. The first half is terrible and the comedy doesn't work at all.
    Silence of the Lambs - If it's considered horror I'll give you that one.
    Scream - Good movie as well.
    Misery - Haven't seen, but heard good things.
    Bram Stoker's Dracula - Keanue Reeves, nuff said. Actually I like it but even I can admit there are a lot of things wrong with it besides Keanu Reeves acting.
    Sixth Sense - Great ghost story. Smartly written, great acting, I'll give you that one.
    Tremors, Tales from the Hood, Sleepy Hollow - Fun movies, nothing more.
    Dust Devil - Haven't seen, but heard it's very flawed.
    Sleepwalkers - :lol:
    Arachnophobia - See Bride of Chucky.
    Candy Man - I didn't really like it, but it is a well made film so I'll give you that one.
    Mary Reilly - Haven't seen.

    K, I'm bored now. A couple you forgot that I thought were really good: Exorcist 3, Jacob's Ladder, Blair Witch Project, In the Mouth of Madness.

    Good/ Great movies from 00s.

    American Psycho
    Final Destination
    Ginger Snaps
    Devil's Backbone
    Jeepers Creepers
    The Others
    Session 9
    28 Days Later
    Dog Soldiers
    Frailty
    May
    The Ring
    Haute Tension
    House of 1000 Corpses
    Devil's Rejects
    Wrong Turn
    Texas Chainsaw Massacre
    Dawn of the Dead
    Saw
    Shaun of the Dead
    The Descent
    Hostel
    Wolf Creek
    Fido
    Hills Have Eyes
    30 Days of Night
    The Mist
    Grindhouse
    Hatchet
    The Orphanage
    The Signal
    The Strangers
    Cloverfield
    Eden Lake
    Let the Right One In
    Martyrs
    The Ruins

    And yes DVDFanatic, I expect you to try and insult this movies, but when you are saying Sleepwalkers, Arachnophobia, and Bride of Chucky are great movies... Don't know how you can watch something like The Orphanage or Descent and say they are shit, and then defend those movies.
     
    Last edited: Feb 19, 2009
  18. Grim

    Grim Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2002
    Messages:
    7,660
    Likes Received:
    104
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Baltimore, MD
    Count me in as one who really digs the 1992 version of Dracula. Reeve's role in the film never really bothered me. Yeah his accent isn't the best and his delivery is sometimes a little off, but I think he actually showed more range as an actor in that film than usual. A key example is when he is witnessing Dracula giving the brides the baby top feed on.

    Although, if one is going to criticize the film for wooden performances, I think the whole thing is kind of wooden. The only actors that really go all out in their roles are Hopkins, Waits, Frost, and Oldman. And still, Waits is the only one who is through and through, every scene, just balls to the walls out there. Despite all that, I really think the stiffness of the performances actually helps the film, it kind of reminds me of an old silent film, except in color and with sound, if that makes sense.
     
  19. othervoice1

    othervoice1 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2004
    Messages:
    4,436
    Likes Received:
    283
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Indiana
    Well just to correct myself, I guess Audition actually came out 1999 - I thought it was 2000 or 2001 so that ones goes under the 90's - so that is a big mark up for the 90's but I still give the edge in most "quality" horror flicks to the 00's- and yes i know there is a loooot of crap but when you dig down to the good stuff there are more original and quality horror flicks thus far in the 00's IMO and we aint even done yet. But Blair Witch and Audition give the 90's a major boost, and funny enough I didnt like Scream much (except the opening sequence with Drew) but I did like I Know What you Did Last Summer and Urban Legend a lot although neither was very original or mind blowing. Course it is funny too how the major ones I found great in the 00's off the top of my head only one was a U.S. film - and and indie film at that- figures.....
     
    Last edited: Feb 19, 2009
  20. SickNick89

    SickNick89 Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2003
    Messages:
    505
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    West Chester, PA
    00's better movies
    90's better music
     

Share This Page