PDA

View Full Version : Valentine


DopeChamberX
01-26-2001, 09:09 PM
I was wondering what are some people's pre-thoughts of this film. I know Warner is hoping to start a franchise with this, so they can start releasing them on or around Valentine's Day (duh). I, of course, have a huge desire to see this, but my hopes aren't very high, but I do expect it to be fun and a good way to spend a couple of hours. Also, the soundtrack has a bunch of artists I like, another plus. Oh and lets not forget the beautiful Denise Richards and Bride of Chucky's Katherine Heigl. So what are everyone else thoguhts?

------------------
"It's not who you come with, it's who you take home." - Prom Night 4

"...find something you love doing and do it for the rest of your life..." - Rushmore

My Collection (http://www.dvdprofiler.com/mycollection.asp?alias=Rasmith)

AceRimRat
01-26-2001, 11:28 PM
The cast seems cute, between DR and Heigl and the girl from Road Trip (also in the Feb. Maxim). I think I caught a teaser on TV that looked nice.

mutleyhyde
01-27-2001, 08:30 AM
Now, you guys KNOW how I feel about Denise. I'll be seeing this for sure!

------------------
"When I go to confession, I don't offer God small sins - petty squables, jealousies - I offer him sins worth forgiving!"

May the Hammer eternally bleed!
M. Hyde

DopeChamberX
01-29-2001, 09:13 PM
I came across this at Dark Horizons (http://www.darkhorizons.com) and I wasn't too happy after reading it:

Valentine & Jamie Blanks' Next: Smilin' Jack Ruby talked with Aussie Director Jamie Blanks about his new film "Valentine" and what's been happening with it. Asked about actress Katherine Heigl's statement that her opening scene was 'trimmed', Blanks says: " A lot of the deaths were trimmed. I submitted my director’s cut to the MPAA and received an "R" rating with the violence intact. Warners was leery of all the blood because of the political climate at the time so we did some digital clean-up and removed a lot of the blood. In one of the later kills, when a girl is thrust down on broken glass, ironically the blood pooled out into the shape of a heart. We had to cut that". Sadly the foreign versions will suffer from the same cuts as well, though "there may be scenes added on the DVD". His next project will likely be more in the supernatural thriller vein (ala "The Fog"), but in the meantime he may direct one or two episodes of the "Escape from New York" TV series, especially if it's shot in Sydney as has been considered. Damn, he'd be a great director to helm "The Mist" if Frank Darabont gives it up.

God, I hope they add the stuff back into the DVD. Also, what "politcal climate"?? I haven't heard much about anything regarding violence in cinema lately, so I figured that as long as some morons don't go killing people, everyone would be fine with what violence there is in the film. I hate all this crap http://www.horrordvds.com/forum/mad.gif.

------------------
"It's not who you come with, it's who you take home." - Prom Night 4

"...find something you love doing and do it for the rest of your life..." - Rushmore

My Collection (http://www.dvdprofiler.com/mycollection.asp?alias=Rasmith)

mutleyhyde
01-30-2001, 02:49 AM
Originally posted this in the Shadow of the Vampire thread, but it fits here.

"Yeah, let's hope for a better version on dvd. But I'd hate to see a trend of holding back material in theatrical releases just to ensure a successful dvd/video release. We're already seeing that a little now, although no examples come readilly to mind (okay, maybe Road Trip,lol!). I know the trend probably has less to do with any coniving after-market merchandising strategy than with production/studio differences, but it's just the that the end effect it has on the consumer is that we get rooked somewhere along the way."

I reaaalllly don't like what's going on...


------------------
"When I go to confession, I don't offer God small sins - petty squables, jealousies - I offer him sins worth forgiving!"

May the Hammer eternally bleed!
M. Hyde

Django
02-03-2001, 11:49 AM
The problem with today's horror flicks is no one making them has any balls.

I mean think about it. We got Raimi making lame ass Hitchcock rip-offs or superhero flicks, not to mention wishing he could take back all that nasty Evil Dead tree business. Then we have Craven saying he wants to do drama and that he could never do something as half as rough as Last House. Everyone seems bored with the genre.

Save for these new uberhacks like Banks who claim to mimic the masters they grew up with yet continually fail to deliver the goods.

Until somebody steps up with some good old fashioned bloodlust, I'm refusing to go see any horror movie.

I don't care how cute the WB starlet they get to star is...

mutleyhyde
02-03-2001, 04:06 PM
:eek: YIKES! That's pretty pessimistic there Django, but I have to admit that I'm pretty much with you. It's like there's some unspoken, across-the-board concensus of self-censorship. In the case of Valentine, that was a clear case of wanting to get the film released by a studio who has a rep for not going with strong content. Maybe the directors and production companies out there are just tired of fighting the powerful studios and are toning down there efforts. I dunno, just guessing. In defense of Raimi however, I've really enjoyed seeing him try new stuff. I don't think he's a hack. I think he either doesn't want to get typecast or just wants to do new stuff. I personally hated A Simple Plan, but I'm really glad he made it because it shows that he's not a one trick pony. I really liked HIS WORK on The Gift. I think the acting was great (sure, give the actors credit, but somebody has to direct them) and the cinematography just beautiful. It's not his fault that the story was a little predictable. (Now, although I hate to say it, that Billy Bob IS turning into a one trick pony.) What with Raimi's recent achievements , I'm very suspicious of him taking on the Spiderman project. I'll wait to see it before making a judgement, but I just didn't think that was the right direction for him to make. I'd personally like to see him make more suspense films, but if he keeps taking these diverse projects, I think I'll enjoy seeing how he handles that as well.
:)

jeffschmidt
02-04-2001, 12:26 AM
Well, this movie's out now; has anyone seen it? I'd be more willing to go see it if someone here says they liked it...

mutleyhyde
02-04-2001, 01:41 PM
I'm gonna go take in a double feature next weekend with Hannibal and Valentine. I would've seen it this weekend, but I opted for Oh Brother Where Art Thou and Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, two incredibly beautifully done movies. I'll be seeing them again I'm sure. Anyway, I'll have a verdict on Valentine next weekend.

Dave
02-04-2001, 03:08 PM
I think I'm going to catch Hannibal and Shadow of the Vampire next weekend. I'm tempted to go see Shadow today but I'm going to hold out. :)

rhett
02-05-2001, 12:39 AM
I slipped into Valentine after work (I work at the local cineplex) and it looks really good. I saw a couple of the kills and they are nice and gory. The mask is also really cool, a lot like the Michael Myers mask. For the 15 or so minutes I saw I was pretty impressed. I might go watch it tonight, and if so, I will give you my two cents about it.

Jason25
02-05-2001, 01:06 AM
Nice and gory kill scenes? - sure you slipped into Valentine?

I saw this today. It was average at best. It was obvious to me that there was some potential here, but it was wasted. I only remember seeing blood like once or twice, not counting the bloody nose we see throughout the film.
The acting drove me crazy, especially Denise Richards. She is a joke, as was the plot in this movie. The only scene I found even remotely entertaining was the scene at the morgue. If I were you, I'd save the money, although you won't, so don't blame me when you feel ripped off.

Cujo108
02-05-2001, 01:13 AM
I saw Valentine just earlier today, and loved it. It is a huge step up from that piece of crap, Urban Legend by the same director. This film also blows away Scream and all of those other slashers of late. It is just so excellent. And of course, there is the ultimately hot Denise Richards and Jessica Cauffiel. :D I recommnd this great film!

rhett
02-05-2001, 06:35 AM
Jason, the scene I saw is when the girl was hurtled through the glass and then finished off by the killer. Some nice make up effects and quite a bit of blood, not so much gore though...

evileye
02-05-2001, 06:51 AM
Hey. The film is just average but slickly made and has some cool scenes (even if the script is non-existant).

And for the record, Denise Richard's death was a classic genre moment. Very cool use of a hot tub!

mutleyhyde
02-05-2001, 07:25 AM
Du-ude :eek: , shut-uuup!! Some of us haven't seen it yet. Tellin' us what happens to Denise... what-ah you, nuts??

Django
02-05-2001, 11:31 AM
In my weekly ritual, I headed over to www.themoviespoiler.com (http://www.themoviespoiler.com) and read the plots of both Valentine and Shadow of the Vampire.

And now I ain't paying to see either one. Not even on video.

What amazes me about Valentine is that I was right all along as to who the killer was. Anybody who's seen two promos on TV can guess who it is and that along makes me weep for the genre. There just any sense of style or creativity in any of these movies anymore.

Not only that, but wasn't this plot used in an episode of Married With Children where Bud Bundy helped a former geek turned "Stud" played by Casper Van Dien get payback on Kelly and her friends? And I swear Denise Richards was one of the friends.

Boreanaz and Heigl should know better than this. I expect this crap from Richards and the others, but I would think they could do a lot better.

At the rate this year is going, I may stay home all year... :mad:

David666
02-10-2001, 12:33 AM
Valentine is not that bad! :cool: Its the best slasher film I've seen since Urban Legend. Yes, I liked Urban Legend! :D I even liked its sequel. What I think is a true downer for the genre is something like Cherry Falls. Now, that movie was badly done. :mad:

JOHN DOE
02-11-2001, 08:56 PM
I saw it the other day, I thought it was okay, not much violence, I've seen worse on the X files, I thought is was boring at times, But I would see it again.

DopeChamberX
02-19-2001, 08:58 AM
I'm pretty positive everyone has all but forgot about this film, but I finally got a free chance to see it tonight, plus I think it's the last week my theater is going to have it. I thought it was an decent film, but it totally lost me at the end. My cousin and I were discussing it, and we both couldn't figure out how everything went down. I really enjoyed the fact that the killer "motive" speech was omitted from the film, and that there was some pretty interesting death sequences (the iron and the hot tub imeddiately come to mind). I really liked this and it's a shame more people didn't discvoer this before heading off to Hannibal (stupid move on Warner's part to leave it's release so close to that film). I can't wait for the DVD, hopefully with all of the gore re-inserted, which I think will definately help elevate some of the murders even more.

horrorboy101
02-19-2001, 03:06 PM
I liked VALENTINE better than SCREAM. Liked the Jacuzzi death too. :)

dwatts
06-10-2005, 05:31 AM
I caught up with this last night - hey, it was under $5 in a secondhand store :D

Anyway, it's not a bad way to spend 90 minutes, in a 90120 kind of way. Pretty girls getting oft, that's about it. It never get raunchier than a swim suit, and there's no gore. It's a by the number slasher, with some TV personalities.

Not great, not bad. It's $5 good though.

maskull
06-16-2005, 06:38 AM
I kind of wish they'd play this on The Movie Network or something. I didn't like it when I first saw it, but lately I've been wanting to watch it again to see if I enjoy it more. I just don't want to pay to see it.

othervoice1
06-16-2005, 08:51 AM
I enjoyed it- original? plot? great gore? no no and no- but for like 5 bucks for teh dvd it had its moments- kinda of a just lay back and enjoy movie- you can get popcorn or hit the restroom without needing to pause the movie- im a fan of david boreanz from buffy and angel and the girls are all great looking which makes it easy on the eyes- but i can see how some could find it boring

Erick H.
06-16-2005, 10:06 AM
I may be in a minority but I thought it was a pretty good film.It moved quickly and had some solid murder set ups.A pretty decent cast too.It was doomed to be compared to SCREAM when it came out,but my guess is that in 10 years a lot of folks might look back on it with some nostagia,as I tend to do with some of the lesser 80s slashers that I didn't exactly love when they first came out.

Katatonia
06-16-2005, 09:10 PM
I really hated the movie, and truly had a difficult time watching it until the end. It just seemed incredibly clichéd, had a boring unoriginal script, and annoying characters. $5 is too much to torture me into watching it again.

WesReviews
06-16-2005, 09:15 PM
I love Valentine.

Everything about it screams "early 80's slasher". The opening titles montage...the film's poster...the musical score...the killings...the killer's mask...it's just such a neat throwback to the golden age of the sub-genre. Much moreso than Scream, in my honest opinion.

About it being cliched...it's a slasher. They're ALL cliched. :)

I've said it before, and I'll say it again...had this EXACT same movie been released in 1982, people would be scouring eBay for used VHS copies of it, and it would be looked back upon as a fun, beloved little entry in the sub-genre.

But that's just my $.02. :)

Hellbilly
06-16-2005, 10:09 PM
What Wes said :)

I also enjoyed this movie. A little more gore would have been nice but I'm not really complaining.

_pi_
06-17-2005, 12:30 AM
I agree with the last few guys here. Love Valentine and have since I saw it. I also adore the teaser-trailer. "He loves me ... loves me not ... he loves me ... he loves me ... NOT!" hehehe, way cool!

This, for me, was much better than most of the post-scream teen-slashers. I would have liked to see it uncut though. It wasn't even cut because the MPAA wanted to, but because Warner Bros. insisted that more gore would be cut AFTER the MPAA granted an R-rating because of the anti-violence-in-movies-thing at that period's political climate. Did that sentance make any sense? Úje! :p

Mattster
06-17-2005, 12:36 AM
Not a bad film I thought. Nice score, teaser, poster, and killer... BUT...

The book is infinitely better. It's more mature and focuses on characters in their early 30s. I really don't understand why the rights to the book were even bought when hardly anything from it was used in the script.

I'm not a big fan of the photography in the film. I thought it was a pretty ugly movie, but it was okay.

eric_angelus
06-17-2005, 01:57 PM
Proud supporter of Valentine! I agree the book was better, but I still think this is one of the best 90s slasher movies and one of the few to remain true to the slasher mold of the 80s, and much better than other movies at the time (like Scream 3 or Urban Legends Final Cut). I know that this post does not say much, but I just felt like keeping this thread alive...I pretty much though no one ever talked about this movie anymore.

legnadibrom
06-18-2005, 11:09 AM
piece of shit movie,
i don't remember how i saw it but i hope it was for free

It's me, Billy
06-22-2005, 06:47 AM
Valentine is indeed a wonderful horror film. The killer's mask is a perfect example of what "creepy" is. I think Wes is right. If this exact same film had been released in the 1980s a lot more people would be praising it. Look at My Bloody Valentine from 1981. Many horror fans love it despite the fact that it was butchered by the MPAA. There are a whole lot of people who verbally bash the more modern horror films just because "they're not classics" and there are a whole lot of other people who verbally bash the horror classics from yesteryear because "they're too old." I like horror films from both eras. Whereas I have great horror classics like Black Christmas, The Texas Chain Saw Massacre (1974), and Halloween in my DVD collection, I also have great modern horror films like Valentine, I Know What You Did Last Summer, Scream, Urban Legend, and The Faculty in my DVD collection too. I find it amusing that so many dump on Scream, I Know What You Did Last Summer, Valentine, etc. whenever they get the chance, but rarely ever dump on the horror films that really deserve to be dumped on. There are plenty of pieces of shit that fall into this category: Troll 2, Children of the Corn 2-7, Exorcist II: The Heretic, Exorcist IV: The Beginning, Jaws 3, Jaws 4: The Revenge, Jason X, Psycho (1998), Leatherface: Texas Chainsaw Massacre III, The Return of the Texas Chainsaw Massacre 4: The Next Generation, Halloween III: Season of the Witch, Howling 2-whatever, Piranha II: The Spawning, most of those DTV horror flicks that star whoever's hot (career-wise) at the time (think Paris Hilton)

IGotsNewShoes
06-22-2005, 08:39 AM
I have to agree with those who say the book is better even though I love the movie. I read the book after seeing the movie and was genuinely surprised by the plot twist in the book.

Mattster
06-22-2005, 09:28 AM
I have to agree with those who say the book is better even though I love the movie. I read the book after seeing the movie and was genuinely surprised by the plot twist in the book.

The thing is...

Savage did such a good job covering his tracks. I suspected the boyfriend character early in the book and even Jillian did, but the author set it up in such a way that we were almost certain he wasn't the killer. Very bleak ending. With some tweaking the book would have made an excellent script.

spawningblue
01-27-2009, 05:00 PM
So I picked this up for $3 the other day and watched it last night. I have heard lots of negative things about this movie, although reading over the two threads on it, it seemed like some did like it, but either way I wasn't expecting much. Anyways, I hate to say it as I am not a fan of post Scream teen horror movies, but I enjoyed this one quite a bit! The whole movie had that 80s slasher feel to it, especially the opening to the movie. The acting and directing was pretty good for a horror movie, and the killer was quite cool. I loved his creepy Cupid mask. And although I have been reading the kills were cut to hell, they were still pretty good and bloody. Highlights being the hot tub kill, the iron kill, and the shower room kill. Although it will never happen, I would totally be down with seeing this uncut! I will go as far to say that it is one of the best mainstream slashers to come out in the past 10 years, it's definitely better then all the PG I Know What You Did Last Summers and Scream sequels.

JIMX1975
01-27-2009, 05:08 PM
Love this movie too. Seen it in the theater when it first came out...bought it on dvd as soon as it was released.

_pi_
01-27-2009, 06:54 PM
I think this got the bad publicity mainly because people were getting sick and tired of the endless run of post-Scream slashers and because it had Denise Richards + that Angel guy in it.

Katatonia
01-28-2009, 12:30 AM
I look back to what I posted back in 2005, and found myself watching it again with a group of friends and surprisingly enjoyed it! No, I don't love it now...but I no longer hate it either.

Cujo108
01-28-2009, 01:10 AM
For all the talk of something like Hatchet being a throwback to the slashers of the 80's (really?), this one is the true throwback.

bloodthrill
01-28-2009, 03:22 AM
Valentine was another example of a film that was literally ruined by the lack of gore,(this time at the hands of the studio-when will these idiots learn?!)...Marley Shelton's acting could've sunk it alone,but really,nary a drop of the sweet red stuff in a love letter to 80s slash-fests?Unforgivable.Give me the unrated version.

othervoice1
01-28-2009, 04:08 AM
Valentine was another example of a film that was literally ruined by the lack of gore,(this time at the hands of the studio-when will these idiots learn?!)...Marley Shelton's acting could've sunk it alone,but really,nary a drop of the sweet red stuff in a love letter to 80s slash-fests?Unforgivable.Give me the unrated version.
Was there gore filmed but cut from the movie where there could be an unrated version or was the movie simply made with no really gory scenes? I myself always kinda liked this film- it isnt going to win any originality contests nor will it ever be one of my top horror movies but Ive enjoyed it nonetheless. And the dvd only cost me like 3 or 4 bucks at best buy when I purchased it.

Kolpitz
01-28-2009, 05:10 AM
Was there gore filmed but cut from the movie where there could be an unrated version or was the movie simply made with no really gory scenes? I myself always kinda liked this film- it isnt going to win any originality contests nor will it ever be one of my top horror movies but Ive enjoyed it nonetheless. And the dvd only cost me like 3 or 4 bucks at best buy when I purchased it.

Yeah, most of the death scenes were edited by Warner Bros. (not the MPAA this time). Rumor has it that WB felt the film glorified violence too much in a time when America was still trying to get over the Columbine shootings (despite it being two years after that incident). The original cut actually received an "R" rating. Chances of an uncut version surfacing are slim, due to the film's box office failure and subsequent quiet splash on home video. I, for one, have always loved this film. It actually made my Top Films list back in 2001 and I try to watch it annually on Valentine's Day (along with My Bloody Valentine, of course). As others have mentioned, this film feels a lot like an 80's slasher film, and less like the post-Scream slashers of the time. Plus, I have a soft spot in my heart for director Jamie Blanks. Despite Urban Legend being of the post-Scream ilk (and it's stupid ending), I still really dig that movie along with his belated follow-up to Valentine, Storm Warning (which is just awesome).

maybrick
01-28-2009, 06:37 AM
Sackashit. Can't believe that this thread is older than I am. On this board, at least.

Erick H.
01-28-2009, 07:51 AM
Whether you like it or hate it the director's comm. track by Jamie Blanks is a good listen.He discusses many of the cuts in detail,what the studio objected to and how he was forced to trim the film.He also talks about some of the films that influenced him (the original ALONE IN THE DARK for one).Informative track.

WesReviews
01-28-2009, 04:30 PM
I think the added gore could've helped the film, but it's just fine as it is. I don't think it was a severely bloody gorefest to start with.

What I really like about the Cherub...yeah, Cupid uses a bow and arrow and yes there is one kill like that in the film, however, the killer uses a multitude of various weapons. There is variety. Unlike the upcoming F13 remake, where it appears most deaths will be by machete. Zzzzzzzz.

Also, I'm glad to see more and more of you are warming up to Valentine over the years. :)

maybrick
01-28-2009, 04:52 PM
I think the added gore could've helped the film, but it's just fine as it is.

I think the opposite. For me, gore was never the issue. It was the characters I despised. No amount of extra blood could ever cover up the cast's complete suckitude.

WesReviews
01-28-2009, 04:56 PM
I think the opposite. For me, gore was never the issue. It was the characters I despised. No amount of extra blood could ever cover up the cast's complete suckitude.

There are plenty of enjoyable slashers with bad characters. Part of the fun is getting to see them meet their ends. :)

spawningblue
01-28-2009, 05:02 PM
There are plenty of enjoyable slashers with bad characters. Part of the fun is getting to see them meet their ends. :)

Agreed.

maybrick
01-28-2009, 05:04 PM
There are plenty of enjoyable slashers with bad characters. Part of the fun is getting to see them meet their ends. :)

I agree, but there's usually at least one person that's okay. I hated every single person in Valentine and their death scenes didn't even come close to compensating for the pure torture in watching up until that point.

Matt89
01-28-2009, 05:12 PM
Yeah, Valentine's a total piece of crap. It's one of those crappy late '90s/early '00s slashers that has almost no redeeming value. (Much like Urban Legend)

~Matt

maybrick
01-28-2009, 05:22 PM
Yeah, Valentine's a total piece of crap. It's one of those crappy late '90s/early '00s slashers that has almost no redeeming value. (Much like Urban Legend)

~Matt

Now, Urban Legend is one that I actually do like. Yeah, it's pretty cheesy and teenybopperish, but I think it succeeds in being suspenseful better than a lot of slasher films.

bigdaddyhorse
01-28-2009, 09:41 PM
Now, Urban Legend is one that I actually do like. Yeah, it's pretty cheesy and teenybopperish, but I think it succeeds in being suspenseful better than a lot of slasher films.


Urban Legend worked for me too, I have nothing bad to say about that. Way better than the crap it gets grouped in with.

Valentine, I'll have to try again. I didn't much care for it when I did see it.

vampyr789
01-28-2009, 09:56 PM
Urban Legend worked for me too, I have nothing bad to say about that. Way better than the crap it gets grouped in with.

I agree, Urban Legend is pretty good, i think its a clever '90s slasher.
Valentine was simply okay, i did like that one death where the girl is killed in the hot tub.

WesReviews
01-29-2009, 05:48 PM
I've never really understood the criticism of Scream and the post-Scream slashers for trying to appeal to the "teenybopper" crowd. Pretty much every slasher ever made has targeted that crowd. Yes, even classics like Halloween and Friday the 13th. Like it or not, without teenagers going to see movies, there would pretty much be no horror genre.

Casting TV stars in horror movies has been going on for a while, too. John Travolta was famous for "Welcome Back Kotter", prior to his casting in Carrie. But you never see it or similar films criticized for the same things as modern films.

spawningblue
01-29-2009, 06:51 PM
I've never really understood the criticism of Scream and the post-Scream slashers for trying to appeal to the "teenybopper" crowd. Pretty much every slasher ever made has targeted that crowd. Yes, even classics like Halloween and Friday the 13th. Like it or not, without teenagers going to see movies, there would pretty much be no horror genre.

Casting TV stars in horror movies has been going on for a while, too. John Travolta was famous for "Welcome Back Kotter", prior to his casting in Carrie. But you never see it or similar films criticized for the same things as modern films.

The difference is that Friday the 13th and a lot of the slasher films were more targeted for the young adult crowd (early to mid 20s), different then the teen crowd (14-18). They were Rated R, so you had to be 18 to get in them, and had nudity and gorey kills, and a lot of other things for that young adult age group. The slasher films post Scream like the horrible I know What You Did... franchise were targeted for the young teen group, ie. 14-18. They took out the nudity and gore so they could attract a bigger crowd, and it turn, made what was so fun about the 80s slashers not so fun.

snowbeast323
01-29-2009, 07:01 PM
OK weirdly enough I think that Valentine is one of the better modern day slasher films.....

One of the best things was the score for me and I also thought that the killer's outfit was a teuly scary original....

Odd casting choices though....

Kolpitz
01-29-2009, 07:27 PM
The difference is that Friday the 13th and a lot of the slasher films were more targeted for the young adult crowd (early to mid 20s), different then the teen crowd (14-18). They were Rated R, so you had to be 18 to get in them, and had nudity and gorey kills, and a lot of other things for that young adult age group. The slasher films post Scream like the horrible I know What You Did... franchise were targeted for the young teen group, ie. 14-18. They took out the nudity and gore so they could attract a bigger crowd, and it turn, made what was so fun about the 80s slashers not so fun.

But, all of the 90's / early 00's slasher movies were R-rated. All three Scream films, both I Know What You Did ... films, both Urban Legend films, the Halloween sequels, Valentine, etc., etc. Now, that doesn't mean that they were good. Scream 3, I Still Know What You Did Last Summer and Urban Legends: Final Cut were garbage but they were all "R." It wasn't until the Prom Night and When a Stranger Calls remakes that we got PG-13 slashers.

spawningblue
01-29-2009, 07:56 PM
But, all of the 90's / early 00's slasher movies were R-rated. All three Scream films, both I Know What You Did ... films, both Urban Legend films, the Halloween sequels, Valentine, etc., etc. Now, that doesn't mean that they were good. Scream 3, I Still Know What You Did Last Summer and Urban Legends: Final Cut were garbage but they were all "R." It wasn't until the Prom Night and When a Stranger Calls remakes that we got PG-13 slashers.

I Know What You Did Last Summer was rated R? I swear it was only PG. Then again, in Canada our ratings are a lot different then in the US. Most movies rated R in the US are only PG, or AA in Canada. I'm pretty sure here only Scream was rated R, the rest were AA. Don't quote me on that, but I'm like 90%.

And most importantly, it still doesn't make up for the fact that they have next to no gore or nudity in them, 80s slasher staples. So why they were rated R is beyond me, and again why I think they were only AA in Canada. Don't get me wrong, I have enjoyed some of them, Valentine being a recent example, but a lot of them (I Know What You Did... I'm looking at you!) don't really have that feel to them that made 80s slashers so damn good!

Kolpitz
01-29-2009, 08:01 PM
I Know What You Did Last Summer was rated R? I swear it was only PG. Then again, in Canada our ratings are a lot different then in the US. Most movies rated R in the US are only PG, or AA in Canada. I'm pretty sure here only Scream was rated R, the rest were AA. Don't quote me on that, but I'm like 90%.

It was rated "R" for strong horror violence and language. I'm not sure about Canada but, here in the States, the hook through the bottom of the chin and the fisherman getting his hand severed off pretty much guaranteed an R-rating.

Matt89
01-29-2009, 08:23 PM
Nah, Friday the 13th movies were definitely targeted towards teenagers. Sure the movies were rated-R, but they KNEW kids were gonna be somehow getting into these movies. (And remember, R is only 17 in the states) so yeah, Friday movies were definitely targeted towards teens.

~Matt

maybrick
01-29-2009, 08:41 PM
Sure the movies were rated-R, but they KNEW kids were gonna be somehow getting into these movies.

~Matt

Definitely. Movie theaters were much more lenient back then than they are today. I saw a ton of R rated films in theaters without adult supervision in the early 80s (Amityville II, Boogens, F13-3D, and The Entity to name only a few) and I wasn't even 10 years old at that point. They were far more concerned with sexual content than in the amount of violence.

DVD-fanatic-9
01-30-2009, 12:02 AM
Yeah, Valentine's a total piece of crap. It's one of those crappy late '90s/early '00s slashers that has almost no redeeming value. (Much like Urban Legend)
The train just stopped in its' tracks.

"No redeeming value"? You're talking about Saw, clearly. Not Urban Legend.

Urban Legend was one of the only post-Scream slasher films that actually retained the hard-edge of Scream's razor-sharp humor and dark satire of teen culture at that time. For example, the film's more recklessly dumb and irritating characters were not only bumped off in creative ways, but every scene that you'd assume was playing them for humor was brilliantly giving the character enough rope to hang themselves. It was a set-up to make their death scenes pay off, to make us almost want to see them killed. Every victim was a callous or obnoxious or loose character. All of which had their roots in actual social types from teen / high school and college culture of the time. I'm here to say - I was there. I would know.

The film is utterly hilarious. And I'm shocked, again, that you missed something that was so obvious. At the same time, feels a little bit more brutal without going into gore than the I Know films and Scream 3, to mention a couple. I actually felt dread and, I think that means I have to agree with Maybrick (FOR WHICH I will immediately be taking a boiling hot shower afterward! My skin crawls just thinking about it!) about it being very suspenseful. The film also deserves a lot of credit for Alicia Witt as a very untypical heroine. She didn't emote well, but apart from that- she was the most natural and sophisticated of the post-Scream "Sidney Prescot"s / women in jeopardy.


As for Valentine... Basically, it feels like the soap opera version of a slasher film. If The In-Crowd had been a horror movie, Valentine would be it. Its' number one flaw was being unaware that the slasher genre had maxed itself out. All their ideas had already been done before and there was nothing new to watch. Just new faces, slightly new death scenes. I don't want to watch the same thing a hundred times and they were beating an already dead horse, long past the point of bloating.

othervoice1
01-30-2009, 12:10 AM
I enjoyed Urban Legends and Valentine although they arent gonna win any awards. But SAW to me is just awful!!!! Cant stand that movie and I wont bother with the sequals since I hear they are even worse. I still cannot figure out how those made money and keep getting sequals- something Ill never understand I guess- but I can understand those that did not enjoy urban legends and moreso valentine - I like them but I can see why others dont since they are a bit generic and by the numbers for movies coming out at that time

DVD-fanatic-9
01-30-2009, 12:15 AM
I enjoyed Urban Legends and Valentine although they arent gonna win any awards. But SAW to me is just awful!!!! Cant stand that movie and I wont bother with the sequals since I hear they are even worse. I still cannot figure out how those made money and keep getting sequals- something Ill never understand I guess
Apparently I LIVE for taking things off-topic, but I feel like I should do an embarrassing celebratory dance every time a brave soul has the guts to call the Saw series for what it really is! Thank you for at least that much.

Angelman
01-30-2009, 12:19 AM
Definitely. Movie theaters were much more lenient back then than they are today. I saw a ton of R rated films in theaters without adult supervision in the early 80s (Amityville II, Boogens, F13-3D, and The Entity to name only a few) and I wasn't even 10 years old at that point. They were far more concerned with sexual content than in the amount of violence.

Me too. My sis and I saw all the Fridays/Elm Streets and so on in the theater and no one blinked. We bought our own tickets too. Just a different, less overly-protective time I guess.

_pi_
01-31-2009, 01:27 PM
Apparently I LIVE for taking things off-topic, but I feel like I should do an embarrassing celebratory dance every time a brave soul has the guts to call the Saw series for what it really is! Thank you for at least that much.

I used to feel the same way. I kinda enjoyed the first Saw (actually, I really enjoyed it at the time of its release but then the anti-hype caught up with me and I started to dislike it more and more), but the two first sequels I hated.

Then, for some bizarre reason, I didn't hate them anymore and actually started to enjoy them for what they are: cheesy, gory nu-splatter movies. Had they been made in the 80s, we'd all be gushing about the glory days of Saw-esque horror, all the while totally forgetting just how awfully written they are/were/whatever.

maybrick
01-31-2009, 04:32 PM
We bought our own tickets too.

Sometimes we did, but there was always a 50/50 chance that there would be some old biddy at the window who wouldn't let us pass. But in that case it was pretty easy to get my or some else's parent to pay for the tickets and they would let us pass. The only time that didn't work for me is when a group of us tried to enter Porky's 2. They wouldn't let us in under any condition due to the well hyped sexual content of the first film, but they allowed us into the cinema next door to watch The Entity.

bloodthrill
02-02-2009, 07:34 PM
I admit to liking Saw 2..this installment seemed less "torture-porn",more survival-of-the-fittest,what with the larger, diverse group of characters.I also enjoyed Amanda's(Shawnee Smith) involvement,and the amped-up level of gore that would have existed in the first shitty film,had the budget allowed it.With the "one every few minutes" approach the flick chose,playing on the truth that everyone's body chemistry(and immunity) are different,there was almost a body count feel to the proceedings,even without the hulking masked stalker we want to see doing the cast-trimming.Not a perfect piece of film-making by any stretch,but gratuity is always appreciated on my end,and in my opinion,that was more than present.

Luki
02-02-2009, 08:26 PM
I hated Valentine when I first saw it. But it grew up on me same goes for Urban Legend.

bloodthrill
02-03-2009, 02:11 AM
Valentine deserves to be re-visited with an unrated SE DVD.Cast retrospectives on the making/fan reaction would be nice.You listening,Warner Bros?

Franco
11-10-2013, 02:21 AM
Do you know if there are any plans to release Valentine (2001) soon in Blu-Ray format? For what I know, there's an HD version already somewhere out there for TV.

othervoice1
11-10-2013, 04:18 AM
An unrated Blu-ray release would be awesome

Franco
11-10-2013, 08:17 AM
An unrated Blu-ray release would be awesome

You mean for skin or gore?

othervoice1
11-10-2013, 06:11 PM
Here is all I know about - so no skin unfortunately:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0242998/alternateversions

CPT HOOK
11-10-2013, 06:51 PM
An unrated Blu-ray release would be awesome

Owned by Warner, so Unrated is not going to happen.

They didn't even keep the DVD in print, so I imagine the only way we'll see a blu-ray is through Warner Archive unfortunately.