Classics or modern, discuss your picks for the sickest flicks.
User avatar
By Raven
Has anyone seen this yet? I have not seen it yet, but have such high hopes for it.

The book is a really good, quick read. It's a great things that go bump in the night kind of story. That's where I'm hoping the movie will follow the book and not try to change the haunting by over using special effects or adding more to then haunting then what happened in the book.

Hopefully I will see it soon, but if anyone else has seen it or read the book I'd like to hear what you thought of it.
User avatar
By zombombie
I wanted to read it before I saw it but never had a chance as I saw it on Monday night. Personally, I really liked it. Very atmospheric and intense, no overuse of CGI or Special effects. Just a lot of effective sound effects, great lighting and fantastic make-up. I think most on here would enjoy it :)
By Ajax
It's Hammer Time. It was pretty great. Very short 80-90 min but just the right amount of atmosphere. Not really sure why they went with the japanese horror style with the ghost but it had a very high creep factor and worked. i'd give it 3/5 stars.


Great atmosphere and creep factor.
Awesome actors


Length :( very short.
User avatar
By zombombie
Interesting that your thought that it was too short Ajax, I've found too many movies spoiled by their length - being too long. I'm struggling to think of an example but there are plenty movies I've seen where the logical ending could be 20 or 30 minutes from the actual end and that extra time has spoiled my enjoyment. Personally I was glad that The Woman in Black was the length it was, just right for me :)
By Ajax
I Guess I just feel when i'm paying weekend prices for a ticket that I should be rewarded with a two hour movie. I have never been a big fan of the 90 min formula and more a fan of the 120 mins. Always feels like a bit of a rip off. I find the 120 mins gives the director more time to flesh out the characters and in some cases may have made a good movie into a true classic. I know the book is short as well and i'm not saying it doesn't work for this movie I just think there was more story to flesh out and it should be more then just the length of an extended tv episode. It was such as interesting setting an atmosphere that I wanted to see more of it. I did really enjoy it though and it's the best horror movie i've seen in a long time.

My dream is that Hammer will continue it's relationship with Daniel Radcliffe and make more movies like this. I can see Daniel as a modern day Peter Cushings. Dare I say, I would love to see a remake (gasp) of Frankenstein with Daniel as Dr Frankenstien or a remake of dracula with Daniel as Jonathan Harker and Ciarán Hinds as Dracula or Frankenstien i think he is a great actor and would be amazing as either. I thought these two worked really well together and I think they should continue this.
User avatar
By monstermash
Im with you all the way EZ. I thoroughly enjoyed The Woman In Black. (can't believe I didnt think to come here and talk about it before now).
I dont think that a quality film has to be two or more hours long, infact some of the best horrors ever made have been under two hours. Its about what you do with the time your given.
I was pleased that the film harked backed to the old Hammer films in some ways. Obviously the special effects and camera quality have greatly improved but the film had all of the aspect required to make a good Hammer film. Checklist as follows:
1. Fog ... tick
2. Isolated village complete with strange, hostile villagers... tick
3. Haunted house ... tick
4. Handsome lead (usually widowed)... tick
5. Creepy kids/ kids voices ... tick
6. Bloody scary ghost ... TICK

I could go on but you get the idea. For me all of the above go a long way to making a great ghost story. Of course the story itself needs to be good and this one had just enough for me. It was easy enough to follow, maybe a tad predictable but in a way I liked that it was. I gets annoying when ghost stories get too far fetched.
I was really glad that they didn't rely totally on CGI, I like to see the actors getting dirty and bloody and maybe a little bit singed in the film making process. :twisted:

I would leave the classics as they are though. For me Dracula, Frankenstein, wolfan etc have been remade too many times although I urge anyone to try and see Danny Boyles Frankenstien on stage, that is well worth a gander.

I was sceptical to say the least about Daniel Radcliffe but I actuall thought he was pretty darn good. He seemed to have shaken off the annoying traits that Harry P had (heaving breathing through the mouth when scared springs to mind). His acting has greatly improved and I hope he does well in the future. Im hoping Hammer keeps going in the right direction too!
The Woman In Black: for what it was i'd give it 4/5

User avatar
By zombombie
monstermash wrote: I would leave the classics as they are though. For me Dracula, Frankenstein, wolfan etc have been remade too many times although I urge anyone to try and see Danny Boyles Frankenstien on stage, that is well worth a gander.
That stage show is fantastic! :D :twisted:
User avatar
By staticfurball
From what you are al posting i'm gonna have to check out this flic....sooon. :twisted:
User avatar
By Raven
I finally got to see this and loved it! The ending was completely different from the book, and I really prefer the book ending, but overall thought the movie was good. It was a little hard imagining Daniel Radcliffe being old enough to have a wife and child.

I went to see this in the local dollar theater, which is actually $2.50, but I do remember the days when it was only a dollar. It was the middle of the afternoon on a Wednesday, and the only other person in the theater was a lady who appeared to be around 80 years old. I ran into her in the bathroom after the movie and she told me she was going to have to sleep with her light on that night! I hardly ever see older folks watching scary movies, but I know one day I will be the 80 year old sleeping with the lights on. :)