Where To Watch
Can you guess what movie these reviews are talking about?
Which film are these reviews talking about?
Reviews are notoriously subjective. Just because something gets a bad review doesn't mean it won't be beloved by the public. Likewise, just because a film gets a shining review doesn't mean that it won't fade from the public's memory within a year. Here, we're supplying the reviews, good and bad, and asking you to tell us what film they're talking about.
-
From The Record: "Stark terror, the frustrated wish to deny that which we are seeing, the feeling that we are on the borderline of insanity — these are some of the effects the movie produces, artfully and effortlessly, in the viewer."
-
From The Philadelphia Inquirer: "What interests [Director's Name] is blood and terror, and if this sort of thing gets your blood flowing, you might find [Movie Title] worth a trip to the theater. However, if your tastes tend toward well-written, well directed, well-acted, suspenseful murder stories, stay home and continue to mourn the passing of Alfred Hitchcock."
-
From the Chicago Tribune: "[Film's name] plays on ancient fears of children being left alone, of babysitters being forced to turn to children as allies in moments of stress, of other people doubting what you are certain you saw in the shadows of the night."
-
From the Courier-Post: "You might call it a slice of life action film if you were particularly gruesome — which, by the way, this film is not — but you'd be wrong."
-
From the Austin American-Statesman: "Grainy and appearing to have been filmed through a Coke bottle, it is hardly the technical achievement of 'The Exorcist.' But in the perverse sensibilities of horror movies, it's a lot more fun."
-
From The Courier Journal: "The scene is set for the entrance of the most hair-raising, mind boggling, stomach churning screen monster to date. The creature is so spectacular, in fact, that after its first attack the suspense lies mainly in seeing how to special effects crew will continue to top itself."
-
From the Clarion-Ledger: "...Suffice it to say the most frightening episodes in [Film's Name] work because they're based on common childhood nightmares. These are not random hobgoblins — they're the boogeymen from under the beds of our childhood come to life."
-
From the Fort Worth Star-Telegram: "If you're addicted to Stephen King or otherwise an adherent of [Book Name] as King wrote it, you're likely to be displeased. If you're unacquainted with King's stylized literary horror or are indifferent to it — well, who knows?"
-
From Hartford Courant: "[Film's name,] an Italian made anything-for-a-scare bloodbath, is fun in a psychotic way."
-
From The L.A Times-Washington Post: "Not literally a remake - it's more of a sequel actually - this handsome, highly imaginative film generates its own implications from Finney's sturdy allegory of dehumanization and manages even to have some fun in the process."
Can you guess what movie these reviews are talking about?
Your Result...
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Pellentesque nec ante ipsum. Mauris viverra, urna et porta sagittis, lorem diam dapibus diam, et lacinia libero quam id risus.
Looney Tunes - Holiday Bugs
$19.95
Scooby Doo - Spooky Doo
$19.95
Garfield - Cat-o-Lantern
$19.95
The Goonies - Flag (Black)
$19.95
Svengoolie® T-Shirt
$19.95
I Love Lucy - Lucy Lines
$19.95
Svengoolie Face Ceramic Mug
$17.99
Women's Svengoolie® T-Shirt
$19.95
Related
Nostalgia
70 Comments
10/10, pretty much all guesses. So that makes me a horror movie expert? No, it makes me a careful reader and/or a good guesser. I do NOT like to be scared!
7/10. I don't care for horror films that much, with the exceptions of "The Exorcist" and "Jaws."
Although: I do remember when the first "Friday the 13th" came out in May 1980 (the late) Gene Siskel of the Chicago Tribune not only crucified the film in his review, he also *gave away the ending* in the hopes everyone would avoid seeing it (I would have anyway).
Siskel also included the addresses of Charles G. Bluhdorn, the Chairman of the Board of Gulf+Western Industries (which owned Paramount, who distributed "Friday the 13th") and Betsy Palmer ("I'm sure a letter addressed to general delivery [in Rowayton, Connecticut] will reach her there"), as well as the *real* reason why the film was rated R rather than X. (I will admit, though: I was *laughing* like crazy while I read Siskel's review, especially when he made the comment regarding where to write Ms. Palmer!)
Anybody with a subscription to Newspapers.com can read Siskel's review of "Friday the 13th" in the Monday, May 15th, 1980 edition of the Chicago Tribune (I don't remember the section it was in and the page it was on. You'll have to look that up).
Although: I do remember when the first "Friday the 13th" came out in May 1980 (the late) Gene Siskel of the Chicago Tribune not only crucified the film in his review, he also *gave away the ending* in the hopes everyone would avoid seeing it (I would have anyway).
Siskel also included the addresses of Charles G. Bluhdorn, the Chairman of the Board of Gulf+Western Industries (which owned Paramount, who distributed "Friday the 13th") and Betsy Palmer ("I'm sure a letter addressed to general delivery [in Rowayton, Connecticut] will reach her there"), as well as the *real* reason why the film was rated R rather than X. (I will admit, though: I was *laughing* like crazy while I read Siskel's review, especially when he made the comment regarding where to write Ms. Palmer!)
Anybody with a subscription to Newspapers.com can read Siskel's review of "Friday the 13th" in the Monday, May 15th, 1980 edition of the Chicago Tribune (I don't remember the section it was in and the page it was on. You'll have to look that up).
Postscript:
Charles G. Bluhdorn was also the one who sweet-talked Lucille Ball out of her Desilu production company in 1967 and turned it into the first incarnation of Paramount Television the following year.
Originally, Bluhdorn promised Lucy Desilu would be a wholly-owned subsidiary of Gulf+Western, but turned right around and used the purchase of Desilu to his own end (one consolation: "Star Trek" still survived under Paramount, who turned it into a string of successful movies during the 80's. Those were good).
Charles G. Bluhdorn was also the one who sweet-talked Lucille Ball out of her Desilu production company in 1967 and turned it into the first incarnation of Paramount Television the following year.
Originally, Bluhdorn promised Lucy Desilu would be a wholly-owned subsidiary of Gulf+Western, but turned right around and used the purchase of Desilu to his own end (one consolation: "Star Trek" still survived under Paramount, who turned it into a string of successful movies during the 80's. Those were good).
One last thing! Two clarifications:
(1) Siskel gave both Bluhdorn and Palmer's addresses for those who wanted to *complain* about "Friday the 13th" (all three, of course, are now deceased); and
(2) The correct date of the edition of the Chicago Tribune Siskel's review of "Friday the 13th" appeared in was Monday, May *16,* 1980 (the 15th was that last Sunday). So for anybody who has access to Newspapers.com and would like to see Siskel's scathing review of the film, May 16, 1980 is the *correct* date (beware the spoiler).
Happy Halloween!
(1) Siskel gave both Bluhdorn and Palmer's addresses for those who wanted to *complain* about "Friday the 13th" (all three, of course, are now deceased); and
(2) The correct date of the edition of the Chicago Tribune Siskel's review of "Friday the 13th" appeared in was Monday, May *16,* 1980 (the 15th was that last Sunday). So for anybody who has access to Newspapers.com and would like to see Siskel's scathing review of the film, May 16, 1980 is the *correct* date (beware the spoiler).
Happy Halloween!
9 out of 10.
You got 9 out of 10
You're a horror movie expert, no extra clues necessary!
You're a horror movie expert, no extra clues necessary!
I got 4/10 correct.
Two comments: they are correct that any Stephen King purist would be unhappy with Kubrick’s The Shining. Even King hated it. Nicholson was great, as always, but the film didn’t follow the book.
Second - my ex husband was a sound guy on Texas Chainsaw Massacre. It was Tobe Hooper’s Master degree film project and my ex was a student in film at UT Austin with him. RIP Tobe.
Second - my ex husband was a sound guy on Texas Chainsaw Massacre. It was Tobe Hooper’s Master degree film project and my ex was a student in film at UT Austin with him. RIP Tobe.
90%. Missed #4. The last one gave it away for me by including the author’s name.
7/10....
8/10
i got 3/10 lol. ive never seen a horror movie and never plan to!!
Why not? Many are terrible but some are truly a masterpiece of film. Bride of Frankenstein is a great classic.
two month late response (my bad!!) but im just a big baby. im scared of most things and then get nightmares even though im an adult lol.
6/10
8/10!
Three out of 10.
Had um all til the last one but i think aliens could work just as well as invasion with that review
7/10 Suspiria tripped me up twice.
7/10
Missed #6 - The Thing - guess I wasn't as blow away as The Courier Journal, "the creature is so spectacular".
Same. I never was into that film.
8 out of 10. Poltergeist and The Shining tripped me up. I should have got The Shining, oh well.
8 out of 10
I hate modern horror. No movie will ever be better than the Killer Shrews.