the Haunting of Molly Hartley

[MoonSylver]

*WARNING* this is getting ready to turn into a rant...

Anyone see the promo's for this? Thought it looked good...and then... RATED PG-13!!!!! :rant: :mad: :annoyed:

WTF!!! Anyone know how to make an "R" rated HORROR movie anymore?!?!?!

Any one ever been scared by a PG-13 horror movie??!?!

Ever seen one that DIDN'T turn out to be CRAP?!?!

Yes I'm looking at YOU "Darkness", "Boogeyman" and any number of other movies that looked cool over the years because of the way the promo was cut (the guys who cut those should win oscars all their own based on how crap the movie is & how great they make it look.)

ARRGGGHHH!!!! Now when I see a cool looking promo for a horror flick, first thing I do is wait for the rating. PG-13? PASS! :mad: :rant: :annoyed: :moon: :barf:

(Am I overreacting? Don't know why this annoys me so much...)

[Bub666]

I know,this bugs me too.Why can't they make an R rated movie anymore?These PG-13 movies don't scare anyone.

[Mike70]

PG-13 horror movies are the diet coke of the genre in my opinion. mostly greasy kids stuff without any real shocks or creepy moments.

[EvilNed]

While I don't think a rating should determine wether a film is good or bad, I do have to agree that when you see a PG-13 staple on a nu-age horrorfilm, then you pretty much know what to expect... In this day and age, at least.

[Publius]

Any one ever been scared by a PG-13 horror movie??!?!

Ever seen one that DIDN'T turn out to be CRAP?!?!

I thought The Ring, The Grudge, and The Others were decent. The sequels to the first two pretty much sucked, though.

[Tricky]

I reckon the whole reason they do it is to rake more money in because everybody can go see it,therefore more ticket sales,rather than an R (or "18" in the UK) that only those above the age can see.It blows dogs knobs,but thats the way it is these days,all about the money :rant:

[clanglee]

I thought The Ring, The Grudge, and The Others were decent. The sequels to the first two pretty much sucked, though.

Exactly what I was gonna say. Completely agree. But for the most part, the PG-13 thing can be done right, it just usually isn't.

[MoonSylver]

Exactly what I was gonna say. Completely agree. But for the most part, the PG-13 thing can be done right, it just usually isn't.

Yeah, after I blew my stack I went digging to see if I could find some that WEREN'T crap, just to refute my own claim & those 3 were what I found. I was a bit surprised too. So I'll recant in part. Not an automatic kiss of death, but pretty damn close. Guess I've just bee burned too many times by trailers that look great & movies that suck. An R isn't a guarantee of quality mind you, but somehow w/ horror it sets my mind a little a rest that there has to be SOME kind of content that isn't kiddie-fied.

[MikePizzoff]

Thought it looked good

Uh, you thought The Haunting Of Molly Hartley looked good? :confused:

[clanglee]

What about Poltergeist? One of the best horror movies ever(IMO)!! Granted it was originally tagged with an R rating, but that was argued down to a PG(this was before PG13) In todays world, it would have scored PG13 easy. It's a very effective and scary movie!!

[Bub666]

Poltergeist was a good movie.I wouldn't say it's one of the best horror movies ever made,but it was good.I can't believe it was only rated PG.

[Doc]

What about Poltergeist? One of the best horror movies ever(IMO)!! Granted it was originally tagged with an R rating, but that was argued down to a PG(this was before PG13) In todays world, it would have scored PG13 easy. It's a very effective and scary movie!!
Hey the sequels worth seeing? I've only seen the original.

[clanglee]

Hey the sequels worth seeing? I've only seen the original.

No, well maybe part 2. . but avoid the third

[Bub666]

No, well maybe part 2. . but avoid the third

I thought part 2 and 3 were both horrible.

[Danny]

how are people not getting this .

its the norm now.


cheap horror flicks are aimed at teenagers with disposable income, who has the most disposable?, the 12 to 15 demographic. films in the horror genre actively, on the whole, aim for a lower rating for more punters for more money. simple as. and im not making this up, this was part of my film studies curriculum THREE YEARS AGO, yet it still gets people fuming like its some outrageous heresy against cinema. its not. its a business, and most people are just in it to make money. remove all but one or two f words, you got a 15, remove them altogether and only suggestive scenes that might be construed as nudity and you've got a 12a. it doesn't alter the plot any, its just removing a small amount of seconds here and there thats all.it just so happens a lot of **** horror flicks are made with this in mind, not just lowered to gain a bigger audience, but on the other hand it doesn't mean adding 5 f words, a humping screen and a bit more gore is going to elevate a mediocre movie to a cult classic.
its the short film rule, if you cant grab your audience in ten minutes your not doing your job. a little here and there wont change a bad movie. it just makes a longer bad movie.

[MoonSylver]

Uh, you thought The Haunting Of Molly Hartley looked good? :confused:

Well...good-ish? I dug some of the creepy imagery...thought the story sounded mildly interesting....now, all the teenagers...meh....


how are people not getting this

It's not that I don't get it. I'm perfectly aware of the business side of film making & that the decisions that are being made are for the purposes of marketing said films to the widest possible audience to yield the highest possible profit, content or quality be damned.

It's that I don't agree with it. Big difference. ;)

I guess the main point of my rant was I hate it when you see a promo for a new horror movie & think "ooh cool!" & then see "PG-13..awww..."

Every one pointed out a few good exceptions, so I'll stand somewhat corrected. Just seems like these days PG-13=kids movie.