James Wan's new horror flick portents...

[moviePig]

From IMDB's 'parents guide' for THE CONJURING, due in July:

"The film is confirmed to be R, but mainly because it is scary."

If only.

(This, btw, is the intelligent argument for R-rated horror, i.e., that
PG-13 is for those movies that won't give Junior nightmares...)

- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com

[nick]

On Jun 10, 11:14 am, moviePig <pwall...@moviepig.com> wrote:
> From IMDB's 'parents guide' for THE CONJURING, due in July:
>
>    "The film is confirmed to be R, but mainly because it is scary."
>
> If only.
>
> (This, btw, is the intelligent argument for R-rated horror, i.e., that
> PG-13 is for those movies that won't give Junior nightmares...)
>

Like Insidious. There's a PG-13 horror for the young 'uns. Mama,
they won't have any problems with that one either. But anyone who
lived through the seventies might have flashback nightmares when they
see what Patrick Wilson and Vera Farmiga look like in The Conjuring.

However scary The Conjuring might be, I bet it won't be as unnerving
as the real life Lorraine Warren's appearance in My Amityville
Horror.

[trotsky]

On 6/10/13 10:14 AM, moviePig wrote:
>
> From IMDB's 'parents guide' for THE CONJURING, due in July:
>
> "The film is confirmed to be R, but mainly because it is scary."
>
> If only.
>
> (This, btw, is the intelligent argument for R-rated horror, i.e., that
> PG-13 is for those movies that won't give Junior nightmares...)

I find this whole line of inquiry to be insidious.


--
Never post something on the internet unless you have a point of
reference. You will look like a moron otherwise.

[trotsky]

Hannibal the prime time TV show is scarier than 99% of the horror movies
I see. I don't care if they're rated X.

[moviePig]

On Jun 10, 12:15 pm, trotsky <gmsi...@email.com> wrote:
> On 6/10/13 10:40 AM, nick wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 10, 11:14 am, moviePig <pwall...@moviepig.com> wrote:
> >>  From IMDB's 'parents guide' for THE CONJURING, due in July:
>
> >>     "The film is confirmed to be R, but mainly because it is scary."
>
> >> If only.
>
> >> (This, btw, is the intelligent argument for R-rated horror, i.e., that
> >> PG-13 is for those movies that won't give Junior nightmares...)
>
> > Like Insidious.  There's a PG-13 horror for the young 'uns.   Mama,
> > they won't have any problems with that one either.   But anyone who
> > lived through the seventies might have flashback nightmares when they
> > see what Patrick Wilson and Vera Farmiga look like in The Conjuring.
>
> > However scary The Conjuring might be, I bet it won't be as unnerving
> > as the real life Lorraine Warren's appearance in My Amityville
> > Horror.
>
> Hannibal the prime time TV show is scarier than 99% of the horror movies
> I see.  I don't care if they're rated X.

I don't know that it's scarier, but it's certainly more 'R'-ratable.
Or it would be if the MPAA were smarter than just a nipple and f-word
tally.

[trotsky]

The interesting thing about Hannibal is, with few exceptions, they don't
show the murders actually taken place, just the aftermath. (This isn't
taking into acct. Will Graham's out of body reliving of the events.)
And the grotesque scenes they come up with hit a home run every time.
Even the most jaded of us can't be creeped out by the visuals, and then
they add an increasingly complex storyline on top of it. Only two
problems: TV shows seem to think a storyline can go on forever, which
they can't, and the back story is already more layered than the books
and movies it originated from--"Red Dragon" and "Silence of the Lambs"
already look like kids' stuff. That's about it, though.

[wlah...@gmail.com]

On Monday, June 10, 2013 1:41:17 PM UTC-4, moviePig wrote:
>
> I don't know that it's scarier, but it's certainly more 'R'-ratable.
> Or it would be if the MPAA were smarter than just a nipple and f-word
> tally.
>

Scary? It's a hoot. It's like serial killers have unionized and are holding their convention in a nearby town. It is at best decorative in its treatment of the results of violence and Will Graham's over-emoting is ridiculous. Best written, well-produced empty mantra of mannerist serial killer nonsense. I gave up on it a while ago.

[moviePig]

I gave up on it, too ...and I came back (...all via on-demand). Not
only is it well-written and -produced, but it has the best (i.e.,
subtlest) scoring on tv: classical backed up with pervasive
electronic "tonalities". *And* it has Mads Mikkelsen (who I sure hope
won't end his career here). Yeah, its hard not to notice such an
improbably unlucky abundance of second-fiddle super-villains, but why
should Marvel have them all?

[wlah...@gmail.com]

On Monday, June 10, 2013 4:24:05 PM UTC-4, moviePig wrote:

> I gave up on it, too ...and I came back (...all via on-demand). Not
> only is it well-written and -produced, but it has the best (i.e.,
> subtlest) scoring on tv: classical backed up with pervasive
> electronic "tonalities". *And* it has Mads Mikkelsen (who I sure hope
> won't end his career here). Yeah, its hard not to notice such an
> improbably unlucky abundance of second-fiddle super-villains, but why
> should Marvel have them all?
>

I was watching it on hulu and would get alerts from them when a new episode is available. At least Marvel knows its content is comic books. It has a lot of production values going for it. Nice wrapping, no toy.

[trotsky]

And yet you have no basis for comparison. What new?

[trotsky]

Fuck you, mpig. Why pander to such a dickhead? Do you REALLY refer to
Eddie Izzard as second fiddle? Unbelievable.

[trotsky]

On 6/10/13 3:38 PM, wlah...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, June 10, 2013 4:24:05 PM UTC-4, moviePig wrote:
>
>> I gave up on it, too ...and I came back (...all via on-demand). Not
>> only is it well-written and -produced, but it has the best (i.e.,
>> subtlest) scoring on tv: classical backed up with pervasive
>> electronic "tonalities". *And* it has Mads Mikkelsen (who I sure hope
>> won't end his career here). Yeah, its hard not to notice such an
>> improbably unlucky abundance of second-fiddle super-villains, but why
>> should Marvel have them all?
>>
> I was watching it on hulu

And we should give a shit why?

[nick]

On Jun 10, 3:36 pm, wlahe...@gmail.com wrote:

I've never seen it. I've never even seen an episode of Dexter. I'm
not much into the super-genius serial killer genre. Admittedly I
watch Bates Motel but the killers on that show aren't terribly bright
and it's more of a teen soap opera than anything else. I liked
Silence of the Lambs until its jokey ending (which ended up setting
the tone for the serial murder is funny in a dark edgy kind of way
mentality) but didn't much care for any of the sequels or even Michael
Mann's Manhunter.

[trotsky]

On 6/11/13 6:59 AM, nick wrote:
> On Jun 10, 3:36 pm, wlahe...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Monday, June 10, 2013 1:41:17 PM UTC-4, moviePig wrote:
>>
>>> I don't know that it's scarier, but it's certainly more 'R'-ratable.
>>> Or it would be if the MPAA were smarter than just a nipple and f-word
>>> tally.
>>
>> Scary? It's a hoot. It's like serial killers have unionized and are holding their convention in a nearby town. It is at best decorative in its treatment of the results of violence and Will Graham's over-emoting is ridiculous. Best written, well-produced empty mantra of mannerist serial killer nonsense. I gave up on it a while ago.
>
> I've never seen it. I've never even seen an episode of Dexter.

Dexter isn't very good, but I've only seen two episodes.

I'm
> not much into the super-genius serial killer genre. Admittedly I
> watch Bates Motel but the killers on that show aren't terribly bright
> and it's more of a teen soap opera than anything else. I liked
> Silence of the Lambs until its jokey ending (which ended up setting
> the tone for the serial murder is funny in a dark edgy kind of way
> mentality) but didn't much care for any of the sequels or even Michael
> Mann's Manhunter.

You should try and watch at least one episode. Then again, you acted
like a dick when I tried to say how good a show "Luther" was, so whatever.

[moviePig]

Do YOU really refer to Eddie Izzard himself as a villain? You don't?
Then perhaps you'll understand that 'second-fiddle' referred to the
show's *characters*, i.e., whose villainous stature is as a foil,
always secondary to that of the title character master villain. Or,
of course, you could stick with the 'fuck you' rant...

[moviePig]

I've watched a bit 'Dexter', and a little less 'Bates', and find
'Hannibal' to be a full notch more sophisticated. Still tv, of
course, once it settles in ...but, for me, Mikkelsen competes well
with Hopkins. (My take on the movies wasn't far from yours.)

[nick]

I'll give it a shot if all the episodes are currently available
somewhere (either on Hulu or Demand), if not I'll have to wait for the
DVD. I lasted less than an episode of Hemlock Grove so I can always
spend the time I've saved passing on Eli Roth's epic and use it for
Hannibal instead.

[Obveeus]

My two cents:

DEXTER: excellent show...and in no way is it about a 'super genius serial
killer'.
THE BATES MOTEL: Much more light hearted than 'serial killer' and a good
show.
HANNIBAL: yuck.
HEMLOCK GROVE: slow moving, like the horror films of the black and white
days, but it has an interesting take/twist on the various monster tropes and
is well worth watching.