Subject: Re: THE QUIET ONES (no spoilers)
On 11/5/2017 3:19 PM, moviePig wrote:
> On 11/5/2017 3:38 PM, trotsky wrote:
>> On 11/5/2017 2:23 PM, moviePig wrote:
>>> Though I liked its performers and even its tone well enough, I can
>>> give it some respect for only its alleged authenticity. But those
>>> neither engaged nor scared me. Meanwhile, for me, this flick was
>>> doubly hurt by its PG-13 rating: first, I knew there'd be no
>>> seriously horrific stuff despite how the aforementioned 'tone' seemed
>>> to promise some, and second, there *was* no seriously horrific
>>> stuff. And I don't understand those decisions, as tQO's themes were
>>> decidedly non-juvenile...
>> You are so full of shit. Have you never seen a Robert Wise movie?
>> Both the original "The Haunting" and "The Andromeda Strain" were
>> fantastic. How about a James Whale movie? How about "Nosferatu"?
>> Most of the scariest movies I can name weren't rated "R". That's a
>> cop out for your minimally recommended review.
> Yes, your views on PG-13 horror are well known to most bipeds. But
> *this* movie would've been better to watch even if *only* its rating
> were changed. And, if Robert Wise made THE HAUNTING today, I'm
> reasonably certain it'd be 'R' -- if only to keep the kids home.
Address the larger point: are classic horror films such as
"Frankenstein" and "Nosferatu" scary or not? Why not give an example of
similar movies where one was better because of the "R" rating, or even
the same movie that "better" because of the unrated version? Do you
have any logic or reasoning attached to this opinion at all?