|
Post by Flesh Eater on Sept 16, 2009 15:25:11 GMT -5
Yep, but yet Phantasm II is a great horror movie. It has very little gore (by today's standard's). The only other gory scene I can think of is with the ball-faced mortician.
|
|
|
Post by mirai on Sept 16, 2009 15:27:35 GMT -5
Yep, but yet Phantasm II is a great horror movie. It has very little gore (by today's standard's). The only other gory scene I can think of is with the ball-faced mortician. what about 'Seymore' the creature that comes out of the girls back?
|
|
|
Post by Flesh Eater on Sept 16, 2009 15:29:31 GMT -5
Ah yes, that as well.
Okay, so 3 scenes with mild to tame gore.
Is Seymore the name you gave it? LOL.
|
|
|
Post by mirai on Sept 16, 2009 15:30:30 GMT -5
no, i think it was KNB that dubbed it Seymoure
|
|
|
Post by Flesh Eater on Sept 16, 2009 15:34:38 GMT -5
Hilarious. I haven't heard about it.
|
|
|
Post by Flesh Eater on Sept 16, 2009 15:44:23 GMT -5
Ooops.
Looks like someone doesn't have an argument.
Owned.
|
|
|
Post by Flyboy on Sept 16, 2009 15:44:47 GMT -5
It doesn't matter. The gore in the unrated version is not much either. The fact is, the movie had little to no gore and no nudity, but yet it is still an effective film. It didn't need the over the top gore and sexuality to carry the film. Would half of these neo-horrors be even worth renting without the gratiutous gore and nudity? NO. Extra gore or cut gore, the original My Bloody Valentine is still one of the best slasher movies out there. It proved even with cuts that it was a good slasher overall because of its story & likeable cast of characters. The story itself wasn't too deep but it worked. Plus, slashers don't need to have some deep artful meaning or try to have a deep artful meaning. Take note of that last sentence, Rob Zombie.
|
|
|
Post by mirai on Sept 17, 2009 8:23:55 GMT -5
Hilarious. I haven't heard about it. its mentioned somewhere in the commentary
|
|