What are some kino horror after 2000? Pic unrelated

>The only issue I really had was the CG.
That and a stupid script, copying almost everything great about the original and adapting it terribly.

It was a poor attempt to give the dog at the beginning of the Kurt Russell movie an origin. Which nobody fucking needed. Some things are best left unexplained.

Unless you're a fucking millennial that needs every fucking thing laid out in front of you.

...

I honestly don't agree with these posts at all, both because the claim that the monster does not have the same M.O. between both films is simply false (objective fact), and because I liked the slight-yet-familiar story changes done for the 2011 film (subjective opinion). In a word, Fuck You I Liked It.

The central defect is of course replacing the practical effects with CG due to a very stupid focus group. However I am able to get past this, to recognize the 2011 film as an interesting and above all /consistent/ companion piece. The creature in 2011 does so behave in a manner that is /consistent/ with what is presented in 1982. This is to be expected exactly because /the fundamentals of plot progression are much the same as the 1982 film/, just being cute variations on a theme. Furthermore, any inconsistencies where they do exist can be readily explained away by the simple fact that in the first encounter, the organism had never encountered humans before, and so was a fish out of water. Therefore the mayhem in this case spanned about two days. By the time it had made its way to Outpost 31, it knew that humans weren't suckers, (and it had also lost its Plan A - get back to the saucer), so it had to be more careful for multiple reasons. Thus Carpenter's "Chess Match" as metaphor for the whole film, and the longer interval of time which plays out in the 1982 film.

The prequel lacked the paranoia element of the first movie. In the prequel, when the monster infects somone, it transforms behind the victim in the most loudliest way possible. Why does it do that? Why doesn't it sneak around and infect people silently? There is never any tension of who might be a Thing or not., wich is a big part of what made the original so great.

So the Thing was smart enough to imitate humans perfectly but thought that the humans wouldn't notice if it turned into a squealing monster that left scratches and blood all over the walls?

Wouldn't it have made more sense for the Thing to act sneaky right from the start? Like any normal predator?

>There is never any tension of who might be a Thing or not.

Again, this is simply false, both for factual reasons and also because of a defensible (although unpopular) positive opinion of the movie.

For example, in the transition from the first act to the second act, it is very strongly implied that the minor character Olav has been assimilated, and is the Thing that is about to escape into civilization. This is very clearly set up in four ways: Olav is splattered by blood when Henrik is killed by the Original thing, which strongly suggests that he might have gotten thing-cells into his body. Second, Olav is shown as appearing to be sickly (possibly eaten away from the inside?), third Olav is "suspected" in a camera shot as he is leaving the base, and fourth, it is Olav who appears to be extremely nervous and starts quaking in the helicopter. All of this is a set-up for the fake-out, that it is in fact Griggs who has been the Thing this whole time. That the Griggs thing reveal is given away in the trailer (we were expecting Thing-carnage anyway) does not change the established tension in the film proper.

Your complaint about the Thing's noise is also disingenuous because The Thing is plenty noisy in the 1982 movie. You can't like the 1982 movie and then complain when the creature acts in a /consistent/ manner in 2011, although you can honestly reject 2011 on other grounds, which would just be a fair (and popular) disagreement with my opinion. But the point is that you're getting factual stuff wrong as well. The big Shit Just Got Real moment in 1982 is when the dog's face splits open, and the subsequent shots. It is still a very shocking sequence of images, especially when juxtaposed with the established normalcy of the camp.

Further, there is consistent tension that Carter and/or Jameson might have been Things. This is admittedly parallel with the suspicion of Macready, and in both cases suspecting the pilot kicks the third acts into high gear.

It only gets noisy in the original when it's trapped (couch scene) or when it get's startled (shocked by the doctor). Or when it is caught red handed. Like in the Kennel or when they find George Bennings in the snow. In any other case in the original, it is silent and infects people in the dark. You can see an example of this, at the end of the movie when Wilford Brimley sticks his fingers in Garrys face.

I actually kind of liked it. the ending seemed terribly rushed though

Also why did The Thing crash the helicopter? Wouldn't it want to reach civilization? And how did the survivors of the crash not get infected?

>mfw Devil's Pass was taken off Netflix and isn't on TPB
Welp.

In other words, as you've just admitted (many times!), The Thing gets noisy on many occasions, so you've conceded this point, contradicting what had been said in . Got it.

Signs

-Griggs-Thing Things out in direct response to the chopper being flagged down by Kate, and Carter making the positive decision to land the bird. It was backed into a corner at this point, and didn't feel like playing cat-and-mouse with the base any more than it has to. It has already taken multiple victims who are still on-site, and so it it would prefer to "multiply its options" by at least trying to get control of the chopper, or otherwise taking some more humans with it.

You can also think of it in terms of material (on a chessboard, say, not to stretch the analogy too far). If you can take out three of his pieces sacrificing only one of yours, while at the same time keeping two or three of your pieces intact (and not outed) then this might make sense as a tactic.

-Yes, of course it wants to reach civilization.

-It Is A Mystery. :^) And there is a distinct possibility that they /were/ infected.

As Kate herself correctly observes, "It /IS/ hard to believe that you walked away from that crash.":^) Just as Blair was never given the blood-test (we have to go out to the shed and finish checking everybody), Carter and Jameson (the guys out in the shed) were never actually given the filling-check as such. It is possible that Carter-thing had the presence of mind to replace its earring before walking back to the camp, only "shedding" it for whatever reason while in the saucer - rather than being taken by Sander-Thing (which latter is more strongly implied, and the more likely story). Still the point is that we don't actually know how it went down, just as we don't actually know whether it was Norris or Palmer who was infected first.

I hate it when netflix pulls that shit. hulu too. went to watch some masters of horror eps and their gone >:(

Everyone hates it, but conversely I love it when they upload shit that's relevant to upcoming sequels or reboots.

>see ads for shitty Lethal Weapon tv show. it looks shitty and is probably shit.
>mfw all four Gibson movies magically appear on Netflix

>The Innkeepers
was pretty cozy i need more hotelkinos

As someone who really, unironically likes both the 82 film and the prequel, please stop.

You're preaching to a void, son.

he said kino

"No." I enjoy discussing the movies and holding/defending a contrarian opinion regarding the prequel.

However at the moment it seems that no one wants to fite me.

holy shit it's been a while since i had to make use of this pic but goddamnit man
the original is close to perfect but the remake was alright too, get over it

As the guy you replied to: alright, man, whatever.

Like I enjoy both films but I'm not going to shout into an empty room and expect to get anything back.

You have fun, kiddo.

Calm yourself.

So by "the original" (film) and "the remake" you were referring to the 1951 film and the 1982 film in that order, yes? :^)

Protip: Although it does make use of very similar sets and plot structure (which is understandable since the events of the one are supposed to be contemporaneous with the events of the other), the 2011 film is not a "remake" of the 1982 film in the strict, literal sense of the word. It is first and foremost a prequel.

The Innkeepers is one of my favorite recent horror films, but it's weird that when I've showed it to people some really hated it and were angry with me for showing it. I don't get why it's divisive, to me it's just a classic horror movie with great ghost moments and a main character that is delightfully cute and real. Having had some ghost experiences and working at a hotel that had a haunted room, it was one of the most realistic portrayals of ghosts I've ever seen (shout out to The Changeling with George C. Scott, it's fantastic, watch it).

The Borderlands
>literally nothing fucking happens the entire movie.
oh but the ending user...the fucking ending couldn't even redeem the hour and a half wasted to get to the tales from the dark side episode ending.

Lots of people love slow burn horror movies, user. I really enjoyed The Borderlands, but each to their own I guess.

op here. kek