FrightFest

fd wrote:If this was only half as clever or enjoyable as Leslie Vernon then fair play, but it got nowhere near being the alleged great commentary on this as it thought it was. The "let's stay in the city as only bad things happen in the woods" monologue, "the cell phones don't work" nod and all that stuff was not hlaf as clever as it appearred to think it was

But it was because it was the gun and the phone that got those two characters killed when it came down to it... the items that should have saved them going off that piece of dialogue.

Satans Puppy wrote:

fd wrote:If this was only half as clever or enjoyable as Leslie Vernon then fair play, but it got nowhere near being the alleged great commentary on this as it thought it was. The "let's stay in the city as only bad things happen in the woods" monologue, "the cell phones don't work" nod and all that stuff was not hlaf as clever as it appearred to think it was

But it was because it was the gun and the phone that got those two characters killed when it came down to it... the items that should have saved them going off that piece of dialogue.

I meant when they were in the car and the guy who was the main guy's mate saying "People who live in the city should stay there because when they go to remote woods bad things happen". I can't remember the exact dialogue.

I completely get that's why how they could have been saved, it was just a bit too much like they should have looked directly at the camera and winked when they said those things. Again, Leslie Vernon did this superbly.

Actually, in this day and age of internet downloads and stuff is it actually relatable that people search for rare films that they can't get ? I must admit my first thought was "bit-torrent ?" when he was watching footage rather than sleeping with his girlfriend.

I seemed to like this movie a lot more than some people. Some of the character development was ropey, but I enjoyed it. It was nicely brutal toward the end, the "original trailer" was incredibly authentic looking, and the Babyface mask was a great design. Always good to see Sadler in a genre pic as well.

It was fun and I say that as a fan of the slasher sub genre. Not the best film I have ever seen but it was enjoyable and the idea of hunting down a rare film and finding out what happenned was a good reason for the story to exist as opposed to let's just go to the woods where we know bad things happen.

I love babyface!

giles edwards wrote:It makes sense if her daddy's still shooting the film and, therefore, her "acting" of the terrified victim.

Good stuff from, Parker. Liked this a lot, even if it was a trimmed R Rated version. Roll on his next splatterpunk opus! Was it Skipp ort Specter?

It was Skipp 'The Long Last Call'.

Loved this movie a nice slasher movie with a rediculously hot blonde, a nasty killer and clever lines. What's not to love.

Also helps that the director was so nervous about his film being shown, so I know he had a lot riding on it. Made me look at it more fondly, maybe.

Still really enjoyed.

The "original" footage and trailer evoked the time really well and was pretty slickly done, and the babyface design was cool but wasn't keen on the overall film personally. Found the characters all pretty unlikeable and the nudity and particularly rape scene unnecessary - am not a fan of nudity in films in general but if you're going to put it in make it relevant and consistent - it wasn't characters, it was actors with their kit off, and not in the way the film intended!

Didn't like the huge age-related cop-out or the "twist" ending, which I don't think justifies the shoehorned-in rape - what about the cheating with the best friend she did at the start of the film as a cause for the pregnancy, or was that supposed to be entirely pointless?

Found this quote from the director ... seems like we got a heavily cut version ... the actress did mention something when she was onstage, but I thought they did censor themselves ... seems like Warner was the one responsible for "toning" down the movie ...
Director statement on the upcoming US-DVD release:
"The simple answer as to why, at this time, there is no unrated release of The Hills Run Red is that there was, from my understanding, a policy change at Warner Brothers, and that they were no longer going to release unrated versions of their movies. [...] The material that was taken out was very strong and graphic, but so far the reaction from those that have seen the film has been 'That was the R-rated cut?' so I hope that for people that don't know what was taken out, they won't notice. As far as the sticker, I can only guess that it was put on the DVD as further caution to parents to let them know clearly that this is not for kids - personally I can only take it as a compliment that we delivered a horror film extreme enough to warrant it, even in it's R-rated form."

(the sticker he mentions is on the US DVD and it reads Contains Graphic Violence, Sexual Content and Nudity; Not Suitable For Minors ... which is kinda redundant imo (the movie is rated R isn't it), but anyway)

Yeah but even with an R.. can't parents take their kids in to see R Rated films in the US? It's kinda like our 12a but you gotta be an adult to take a kid in.

Soooooo kids may get to see this stuff if parents are anything like my sister

What are Warner playing at though with no more unrated cuts... or maybe it's just a policy change for a year as they seem to have a lot of horror on their books and then can fleece the consumer later on.

Darkly Noon wrote:Unbelievably, the BBFC have given this a '15' certificate.

Sheesh, when did this turn in to the Daily Mail forums?

orlovsky wrote:

Darkly Noon wrote:Unbelievably, the BBFC have given this a '15' certificate.

Sheesh, when did this turn in to the Daily Mail forums?

As if that makes me a Daily Mail reader! I'm just surprised it got that certificate instead of an 18 given it's quite a nasty film, it's not like I called for it to be banned or anything

If you had actually taken the time to read the site properly you would find that the 15 rating is actually for additonal material contained on the disc. The film itself is rated an 18.

And yes that statement did make you sound like a Daily Hate reader.

Darkly Noon wrote:

orlovsky wrote:

Darkly Noon wrote:Unbelievably, the BBFC have given this a '15' certificate.

Sheesh, when did this turn in to the Daily Mail forums?

As if that makes me a Daily Mail reader! I'm just surprised it got that certificate instead of an 18 given it's quite a nasty film, it's not like I called for it to be banned or anything

Granted, it's difficult to judge the tone of a conversation when you can't hear the other party, but the use of the "Unbelievably" made it sound like you were perhaps concerned that it had been rated 15 (which is hasn't, had you actually read the report correctly)
Also, no need for the eye roll, m'kay? (and let's leave it at that, shall we?)