That's true. It still suprised me in the end.warparty666 said:Not as good as the first one but still worth watching.
you mean Dirk Diggler?TacoBellJunkie said:I'm just glad it was donnie Whalberg, not marky fuckin' mark.
DarrellDethSDMF said:That's true. It still suprised me in the end.
Drokk said:Well it sure looks like a steaming pile of dung
Agreed; most horror movies really are dung. Hitchcock could do it, and that's not even what people consider "horror". Less is more, as the cliche goes. Carpenter's The Thing: sure, tons of f/x, but Carpenter understands that atmosphere and tension are vital. I haven't seen Saw II, but it sounds to me like preposterous brutality simply for the sake of brutality. Like Chaos. That's not horror, that's exploitation.Thrillho said:I think that horror movies as a whole just suck. Not scary enough, too predictable. I liked the new Dawn of the Dead, bacause the first 20 minutes were just non stop and they didn't waste any time getting down to it. Plus it didn't have this victorious ending. Everyone's dead! A true zombie apocolypse.
Devil's Rejects was pretty good, but it was not really a "horror" movie.
Saw 2 was ok, don't get me wrong. I was just sorry I payed for it. That's no big shocker though, I am sorry I pay for most movies after I see them.
Best movies of '05 I thought were;
Crash
History of Violence
Waiting