Most overated horror movies...

[bassman]

She's purddy. Although her eyes kinda freak me out a bit. It's like she's looking into my soul!! Blair Witch 2 left no mark on me at all. I saw it once or twice and I can't remember a damn thing about it. However, the first film is still memorable. I guess it came along at just the right time or something, because I really liked it and that's kind of carried on. Although it's easy for me to see how it's 50/50 and that negative 50% really hate it. I can understand that. Maybe my liking it has something to do with camping a lot as a child? I dunno...

[LouCipherr]

She's purddy. Although her eyes kinda freak me out a bit. It's like she's looking into my soul!! .... Maybe my liking it has something to do with camping a lot as a child? I dunno... Yeah, her eyes are creepy, aren't they? Something about blue eyes and dark/black hair really makes them stand out and feel like they can burn you just by staring at you. I dunno, I'm an avid camper from youth 'till today - still didn't find BW scary. *shrugs shoulders* It's just "one of those movies" I guess. That 50/50 thing.

[bassman]

Kind of ironic that Joblo.com posted THIS article today while we're talking about this.

[Mr.G]

Kind of ironic that Joblo.com posted THIS article today while we're talking about this. This clarifies my position much better. I'm also glad I'm not alone!

[Neil]

The Shining... I just never got it!

[bassman]

Redrum...what's not to get? Seriously though.....I don't hear much negative talk about that one. You're referring to the Kurbick film with Jack Nicholson and not the TV version made years later, right? That film scared the hell out of me as a kid and still does to this day.

[AcesandEights]

That film scared the hell out of me as a kid and still does to this day. Yeah, that film can still make me shudder under the right circumstances.

[LouCipherr]

The Shining... I just never got it! I never did either - the movie that is. While I think Jack Nicholson makes a FANTASTIC Jack Torrance (I can't stress that enough), I think Kubrick's version missed most of the point of the book. It's a decent movie, but the book was way better as it let you "in" on a lot of the shit Kubrick decided to leave out - ie: intergal parts of the story that help make it make some kind of sense. Redrum...what's not to get? Seriously though.....I don't hear much negative talk about that one. You're referring to the Kurbick film with Jack Nicholson and not the TV version made years later, right? What's sad is, King's miniseries followed the book much better than Kubrick's, however, not having Nicholson as Jack kinda just ruined it for me. If King had put Nicholson in there, his miniseries would've blown the movie out of the water - that is, if you're looking for something that follows the novel. King's miniseries = better telling of the story vs. the book Kubrick's movie = better actors, but much more of an incoherent story

[DubiousComforts]

I personally love it and think it's a great work of film-making (the documentary filmed along with it on the DVD where they interview 'family' members, etc., should be watched along with the film as I think it goes along with it for a more complete story). One of the main reasons I love "Blair" so much is because it is open-ended -- was it a bunch of pissed-off rednecks that did them in? The "documentary" footage which ended up in the MTV special was actually part of the film until the filmmakers got cold feet and removed all of it. I agree that it's very effective and furthers the creepy In Search Of... atmosphere they were shooting for. The ending isn't entirely open-ended. The main characters wind up in serial killer Rustin Parr's house which had been burned down many years earlier, so obviously there is an element of the supernatural at play.

[bassman]

Lou - le'ts be real here. NOTHING is better than Stanley Kubrick. I only saw part of that miniseries, but what I did see of it was pretty awful...

[Trin]

King's miniseries = better telling of the story vs. the book Kubrick's movie = better actors, but much more of an incoherent story That's a failing of King. He's great with the book but his translation to screenplay is rigid and formulaic. He sticks very closely to his plot which makes it very true to the original but his cinematic skills and pacing are weak. He portrays events well but does poorly conveying mood. I'm not a huge fan of The Shining movie, but if you weigh Kubrick's sense of place, score, and casting... that movie is just good. He builds an immense sense of isolation and dread through visuals and music. Was it better than the miniseries? Better than the book? No. It was just better in different ways.

[LouCipherr]

Lou - le'ts be real here. NOTHING is better than Stanley Kubrick. I dunno about that, the guy is pretty fucked in the head. One read of The Shining then a view of his movie version will make that perfectly clear. I saw part of that miniseries, but what I did see of it was pretty awful... Well, I think it depends on what you want out of the movie. What I personally wanted was a telling of the book in movie form. Kubrick got the "main points" of the book (Torrance watching over the Overlook, the 'shining' aspect) but missed so many things that made the story coherent. The movie is just all over the place compared to the book. It sucks I'm such a fan of King and his novels 'cause as far as I'm concerned, the only movies that are based on King stories that turn out good are either done by Darabont or King himself. Otherwise they all suck.

[Danny]

I didn't care too much for the 2nd Blair Witch, it was much better than the first.

[bassman]

Oh my god you just posted a picture of Robby Rotten from Lazy Town. How do you even know about that show?!?

[darth los]

I saw it once or twice and I can't remember a damn thing about it. All I can remember is the naked redhead. But in the end that's all i need.