|
|
Post by WahlbergCasket on Nov 15, 2009 19:45:56 GMT -6
A young couple (Linda Hamilton and Peter Horton) find themselves stranded in the rural town of Gatlin, Nebraska, and fall into the sinister hands of a mysterious religious sect of children. Having murdered all of the town's adults at the command of their leader, the children perform bloody sacrifices to their cornfield-dwelling deity (known only as "He Who Walks Behind the Rows"). Their two new visitors are next in line for crucifixion!
what does everyone think of this Stephen King adaptation? I thought it was a pretty good killer-kid movie with two creepy villains. I can't believe it had enough of a following to warrant so many sequels...
|
|
|
|
Post by bobbygory on Nov 15, 2009 22:24:15 GMT -6
I consider this more of a slasher series to be honest. Yes it was pretty good  |
|
|
|
Post by WahlbergCasket on Nov 15, 2009 22:38:11 GMT -6
nothing slasher-like to me, but oh well. I thought it was about a 3/5
|
|
|
|
Post by bobbygory on Nov 15, 2009 22:39:24 GMT -6
Kids killing adults was always slasher to me, and the sequels are very much slasher. LOL I am sure GL will say tomorrow he agrees with you, he loves to say things are not slashers lol
|
|
|
|
Post by WahlbergCasket on Nov 15, 2009 22:42:45 GMT -6
I never saw the sequels so I can't comment on those. This didn't focus on the kills and the fact the kids were murderers to be considered a true slasher. The sequels might have gone a different direction, I don't know
|
|
|
|
Post by bobbygory on Nov 15, 2009 22:44:15 GMT -6
I like the series well enough. This is way better then the remake that came out this year that is a skip. Though a few scenes in the remake were odd and interesting. |
|
|
|
Post by WahlbergCasket on Nov 15, 2009 22:45:24 GMT -6
even the guys from Anchor Bay were saying it was shit haha, I think I will pass for sure
|
|
|
|
Post by bobbygory on Nov 15, 2009 22:46:26 GMT -6
Though it has one odd sex scene 0_0
|
|
|
|
Post by vexer on Nov 15, 2009 22:49:36 GMT -6
Yeah, the remake sounds like crap, i'll be sure to avoid it.
|
|
|
|
Post by bobbygory on Nov 15, 2009 22:50:37 GMT -6
It was originally on sy fy channel...........it was eh. Not crap. But not as good as the original. Kinda an okay watch.
|
|
|
|
Post by GL on Nov 16, 2009 10:30:13 GMT -6
I always saw this and the sequels as a Supernatural; Cult series of films, as though there are slasher moments, the majority of the film concerns the reaction of outsiders to their society, and their cult-like behaviors, rituals and such. Not nearly enough slasher elements for me to call them as slasher films.
And I said all that in the vain effort of holding off talking about the film, which is pretty bad.
|
|
|
|
Post by bobbygory on Nov 16, 2009 10:56:23 GMT -6
I don't really see the sequels as all that supernatural.....more like slashers that are more supernatural then the usual. The kids kill with all weapons, and stalk their victims. Their glossed over slashers in my books.
|
|
|
|
Post by GL on Nov 17, 2009 10:14:17 GMT -6
But what's the focus of the film, the kids killing, or them trying to live according to the rules of their society? To me, it's not the inclusion of such material that makes a film a slasher, but more what aspect is given priority. In these, the society they have constructed together, with their rituals, sacrifices and so on, including "He Who Walks Behind the Rows" is what the film is all about, and since you can claim that all of them contain a source of supernatural (talking to God, controlling objects around you, black magic, etc.) they're cult films.
|
|
|
|
Post by bobbygory on Nov 17, 2009 22:12:46 GMT -6
But how can they be full cult films when there also slashers?
|
|
|
|
Post by GL on Nov 18, 2009 10:17:37 GMT -6
I don't call a film that features a three minute slasher scene as a true slasher when the remainder of the film is based around a cult. It's got to be full-on for me to call it that way, and it wasn't enough for me to call it. There wasn't enough in it.
|
|
|
|
Post by bobbygory on Nov 18, 2009 10:55:25 GMT -6
But what about the sequels? They had way more then 3 minutes worth of slasher in them?
|
|
|
|
Post by GL on Nov 19, 2009 10:05:03 GMT -6
Really, there was? I must've missed it focusing on scenes of scythes, hatchets and knives being thrown through the air at inhuman speeds, force and accuracy without anyone touching them, or the resurrection of a long-dead child, or cornstalks bursting through the concrete floors of basements to really see the slasher scenes in here.
|
|
|
|
Post by bobbygory on Nov 19, 2009 11:36:08 GMT -6
Why can't we just call them supernatural slashers? I think that works best for the film series.
|
|
|
|
Post by phantasmzombie on Nov 19, 2009 19:57:27 GMT -6
Yea I wouldn't call it a slasher either, sorry. All of the kills in this movie were off-screen except for the brief scene in the diner in the beginning where the dude gets his throat slit. I always liked this movie. I've seen some of the sequels, they are hit or miss, some better than others.
|
|
|
|
Post by GL on Nov 20, 2009 10:16:13 GMT -6
Why can't we just call them supernatural slashers? I think that works best for the film series. Sorry, they don't work there either. The slasher aspect here is virtually non-existent in the whole series, and they don't even attempt to mix the two genres. Supernatural Slashers would be the NOES series, or the Final Destination series, here the films are just complete Supernatural: Cult films all the way through. |
|
