So I was reading a review on imdb....

I was reading some review of Friday the 13th (1980), and this is how it ended:

The movie itself isn't that great. Technically it's boring. To get the most out of the film you have to watch it uncut. Friday the 13th was designed around Savini's gory set pieces. Watching them with out it is like drinking a mayonnaise soda.



...what the f%ck does that mean!?

A mayonnaise soda would be pretty awful I'd imagine.

Well, for starters this individual is wrong, "Friday the 13th" was not boring. I suppose there is disappointment for some viewers when they find out that some middle aged woman in that of Betsy Palmer had been killing all of the counselors. This generation also has issues with A.D.D./A.D.H.D., so if a character isn't getting killed every two minutes, then they find the movie boring. Like most bad Friday the 13th reviewers they always talk about Tom Savini's makeup work as the thing which made this installment bearable. Tom Savini is/was great, but they need to get off that soapbox. The only "Uncut" footage that I know about which people wanted included in the first film, was Pamela Voorhees beheading. The uncut version was more gruesome, but this is splitting hairs as it pertains to the movie succeeding. The funny thing about these people, they hold much of what happened post V as great stuff, which just isn't the case... The dialogue got really bad after IV, the actors went from a "B" level to around a "D" or "F" level. One could go on all day about the Friday franchise and the reasons why it became a laughing stock. The mayonnaise soda thing is just plain stupid. There really should be someone sitting their at Amazon or IMDB critiquing reviews, and if something like this review pops up, it should immediately be deleted.

The original Friday The 13th never gets the credit it deserves as a horror classic IMO. It seems more defined by the sequels and all the movies it inspired rather than the great individual movie it is. Even today Jason coming out of the lake still gets me to jump. Outside of a few seconds of extra holding on some of the gore I could never see any difference overall between the two cuts.

And you just know the guy that wrote that review thought his "mayonnaise soda" analogy was genius.

jstate wrote:

And you just know the guy that wrote that review thought his "mayonnaise soda" analogy was genius.

Ha, exactly! That comment took away what little credibility he had left. It has got to be the most retarded comparison I've ever read.

jstate wrote:

The original Friday The 13th never gets the credit it deserves as a horror classic IMO. It seems more defined by the sequels and all the movies it inspired rather than the great individual movie it is.

It's the same as Nightmare on Elm Street. Both these movies are great horror movies (especially for american horror that usually runs behind asian and european horror in terms of atmosphere and horror). The sequels dragged both series down (though i really like Nightmare on Elm Street 3 and the seventh one) they became to cheesy to "MTV Style" and most people then think that's what those movie series are about: Cheesy horror crap for teens.

Also overall i have the impression that younger people don't like real Horror movies, they want their gory trash like Saw or Hostel, where somthing happens every 30 seconds. They can't get into the atmosphere, they can get captured by it so they think it's lame.

Actually, i think Nightmare on Elm Street has an Even movie curse, where the odd numbered ones are considered the superior ones (though your mileage may vary with 5), while the even numbered ones are considered the "bad" ones (cant argue there, the video game scene in freddys dead is especially bad, and the power glove reference dates the movie big time).

ShadowAngel wrote:

jstate wrote:

The original Friday The 13th never gets the credit it deserves as a horror classic IMO. It seems more defined by the sequels and all the movies it inspired rather than the great individual movie it is.

It's the same as Nightmare on Elm Street. Both these movies are great horror movies (especially for american horror that usually runs behind asian and european horror in terms of atmosphere and horror). The sequels dragged both series down (though i really like Nightmare on Elm Street 3 and the seventh one) they became to cheesy to "MTV Style" and most people then think that's what those movie series are about: Cheesy horror crap for teens.

Also overall i have the impression that younger people don't like real Horror movies, they want their gory trash like Saw or Hostel, where somthing happens every 30 seconds. They can't get into the atmosphere, they can get captured by it so they think it's lame.

I definitely like Asian and European horror movies more than most American horror movies but I think Saw gets a bad rap. Name the last horror movie franchise where a story arc spanned all the entries in the franchise. In other words, after the original Saw, if you didn't see the rest of the series IN ORDER you were pretty much lost because each subsequent entry built on the previous one; they weren't just mindless sequels with "more of the same". I enjoyed the hell out of the Saw series once it got rolling and I realized they weren't just reprising the concept of the original, they were building on it and expanding on plot points.

I saw the first Saw back then and what i saw was a million of plotholes, bad acting, dumb dialogues and nothing of interest. Saw 2 was just more of the same basic fomula, more crap. I really don't understand why this is so popular.

I mean it's the same with video games that want to be horror. You have F.E.A.R. which is just like SAW a mainstream pseudoshocker product that doesn't work. Than something like Amnesia - The Dark Descent comes around and it scares you to death. Just like Silent Hill did 14 years before (and it did with horrible pixelated graphics but the sound, fog and overall atmosphere worked perfectly)

I think Horror and Splatter just became too mainstream over the past 10 years (it's astonishing how many 14-18 year old girls name SAW, Hostel and other such movies as their favourite) but that means also they became a lot more "non-horror". I mean show those people who think SAW is a shocking horror movie something like Cannibal Holocaust with real animal slaughter and brutal scenes - they would cry like little girls. Show them something like "I spit on your grave" and Hostel is kiddycrap.
All the while those people don't understand what atmosphere is, Suspiria has awesome atmosphere, it sucks you in and it's creepy. A Tale of two Sisters is even more disturbing than Ringu. I thin The Omen is one of the best pure horror movies (as in unsettling ,disturbing and evil) of all time (the remake from a couple of years ago on the other hand was lame and didn't work)
Even Jaws is a better horror movie than 90% of what you see today, because instead of some unrealistic psychopath or some unnatural fantasy monster you have a shark that terrorizes a beach, after watching this movie you don't wanna step into the sea. It works perfectly even though the shark still looks fake in 2015

ShadowAngel wrote:

I saw the first Saw back then and what i saw was a million of plotholes, bad acting, dumb dialogues and nothing of interest. Saw 2 was just more of the same basic fomula, more crap. I really don't understand why this is so popular.

I mean it's the same with video games that want to be horror. You have F.E.A.R. which is just like SAW a mainstream pseudoshocker product that doesn't work. Than something like Amnesia - The Dark Descent comes around and it scares you to death. Just like Silent Hill did 14 years before (and it did with horrible pixelated graphics but the sound, fog and overall atmosphere worked perfectly)

I think Horror and Splatter just became too mainstream over the past 10 years (it's astonishing how many 14-18 year old girls name SAW, Hostel and other such movies as their favourite) but that means also they became a lot more "non-horror". I mean show those people who think SAW is a shocking horror movie something like Cannibal Holocaust with real animal slaughter and brutal scenes - they would cry like little girls. Show them something like "I spit on your grave" and Hostel is kiddycrap.
All the while those people don't understand what atmosphere is, Suspiria has awesome atmosphere, it sucks you in and it's creepy. A Tale of two Sisters is even more disturbing than Ringu. I thin The Omen is one of the best pure horror movies (as in unsettling ,disturbing and evil) of all time (the remake from a couple of years ago on the other hand was lame and didn't work)
Even Jaws is a better horror movie than 90% of what you see today, because instead of some unrealistic psychopath or some unnatural fantasy monster you have a shark that terrorizes a beach, after watching this movie you don't wanna step into the sea. It works perfectly even though the shark still looks fake in 2015

I'm not big on Saw or Hostel either. However, that's because I have no interests seeing innocent idiots get tortured. I always prefer movies that don't have to resort to over the top gore that is more gross than scary. As for video games, one of the creepiest ones I ever saw was Eternal Darkness on Game Cube. They had a sanity meter that when depleted enough caused you character to hallucinate and sometimes caused funny fake game glitches.

ShadowAngel wrote:

I saw the first Saw back then and what i saw was a million of plotholes, bad acting, dumb dialogues and nothing of interest. Saw 2 was just more of the same basic fomula, more crap. I really don't understand why this is so popular.

I mean it's the same with video games that want to be horror. You have F.E.A.R. which is just like SAW a mainstream pseudoshocker product that doesn't work. Than something like Amnesia - The Dark Descent comes around and it scares you to death. Just like Silent Hill did 14 years before (and it did with horrible pixelated graphics but the sound, fog and overall atmosphere worked perfectly)

I think Horror and Splatter just became too mainstream over the past 10 years (it's astonishing how many 14-18 year old girls name SAW, Hostel and other such movies as their favourite) but that means also they became a lot more "non-horror". I mean show those people who think SAW is a shocking horror movie something like Cannibal Holocaust with real animal slaughter and brutal scenes - they would cry like little girls. Show them something like "I spit on your grave" and Hostel is kiddycrap.
All the while those people don't understand what atmosphere is, Suspiria has awesome atmosphere, it sucks you in and it's creepy. A Tale of two Sisters is even more disturbing than Ringu. I thin The Omen is one of the best pure horror movies (as in unsettling ,disturbing and evil) of all time (the remake from a couple of years ago on the other hand was lame and didn't work)
Even Jaws is a better horror movie than 90% of what you see today, because instead of some unrealistic psychopath or some unnatural fantasy monster you have a shark that terrorizes a beach, after watching this movie you don't wanna step into the sea. It works perfectly even though the shark still looks fake in 2015

Wanna see a good horror movie from the US (OK, actually, it's from the UK). Check out "The Descent".