Hey Sup Forums

Hey Sup Forums
Can I get some recs for intelligent horror movies? Ones like Don't look now, Kill list, and The shining.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=998dVSMjbsw
twitter.com/AnonBabble

>recs
I don't think intelligent cinema is really going to appeal to you.

I'm just posting so you know I read your post but decided to largely ignore it.

>He shortened a word so he must be stupid.
Were you born this dumb, or did your mom's boyfriend bang your head into a wall every time he was finished fucking her.

Lazy people are usually stupid. The reason you're so upset right now is because you know I'm right about you.

That fucking cuck cat

>Kill list

:|

No.

Actually lazy people usually find more efficient ways to do things due to their laziness. Also, I'm not upset by your mom at all.

>has to use a Bill Gates' quote to protect himself

>Has never read a bill gates quote, but see that you must like to.

>expect a good Persona game
>get a fucking yokai watch sidekick
Fuck this toned down garbage for kids

Did you even watch the movie?

>lazy people usually find more efficient ways to do things due to their laziness
Lazy people don't actually end up doing anything. It takes a special kind of idiot to not understand lethargy.

Ignore all the hype and all the counter-hype and go see Get Out.

It's good.

For future reference, you don't need the apostrophe in that sentence.

I see by your emotional response that you know I'm right.

True.

I'll check it out, racial horror can be kind of bland though.

>now he's parroting previous replies
If you you're not even smart enough to think up your own responses, there's no way you're ready for intelligent cinema.

It's called irony, maybe if you don't get it I wouldn't want your recs anyway.

>If you your
Lmao

>It's called irony
Irony is the opposite of what is expected. I fully expected you to be stupid.
>he capitalizes lmao
>he doesn't multitask his shitposting
>he plays pile-on because daddy wasn't around to tell him that's gay and unacceptable
get gud, post 2010 fag

Still better than Teddie.

The guy used an abbreviation. How about you shut the fuck up or contribute?

>defines, but doesn't understand irony.
>attacks character and not logic.
Is this the definition of a psuedo-intellectual?

>whiteknighting for another man
Get murdered real soon, OK Suzy?
>How about you shut the fuck up or contribute?
This entire site is for nothing but shitposting, reddit.
>gets rekt on definitions of words
>comes to Sup Forums of all places for logical discourse
If you want to be taken seriously as an intellectual, the next time you make a thread avoid using words in the manner a brain dead californian would.

>intelligent horror movies like Kill list

>he likes to pretend he is Dr. Cox from scrubs.
Gonna get a nice capitalized Lmao for that one. Also ya that other guy should stfu or give a rec.

Explain how it isn't smart.

Repulsion, Inland Empire, The Wailing, The Blair Witch Project (fight me)
Skip it and watch Rosemary's Baby if you haven't.

Oh and The Babadook

I agree 100% on Blair witch. I'll check out the others, thanks man.

OP BTFO

>The Babadook
>intelligent

At least it tries to personify parental abuse, even if it's sloppily done. Rec or http.

Blair Witch 2016 is worth watching if you like the original imo. It's certainly not perfect but I liked a lot of the additions to the Blair Witch lore they came up with.

Dann really? I hated it. I always thought the first one was about two dudes tricking a girl into a forest to murder her, and the witch thing was a convenient hysteria. Just my interpretation though.

That interpretation is wrong, no offense. The original movie is blatantly paranormal.

That couldn't be more incorrect. Name one paranormal thing in it.

Even if you accept that they somehow walked in a circle despite following the creek all day, the house at the end shouldn't be there. It burned down in the 1940s.

Boys take the map. Boys lead the girl from the river. Boys are the ones who propose they are going in circles. Boys lead her to a random house in woods, no evidence it should not be there. One boy is offscreen when she dies.

And that's not even including the stick figures, the cairns, the childrens' laughter they heard outside the tent at night, Josh's disappearance preceded by the weird slime on all of his stuff, etc.

Wrong. Here's the SciFi Channel special that was released alongside the movie back in 1999 that fills in some of the story elements:
youtube.com/watch?v=998dVSMjbsw

The Josh and Mike killed Heather theory is straight up dumb. Don't even bother posting that video because he gets several details wrong right off the bat.

All that stuff is easily explainable given the time tables of the two boys. In the second movie it even nods to this having two people making some incidents occur. The logic of the movie lends itself more to the absence of paranormal activity. Assuming it is a greater burden.

Cure by Kiyoshi Kurosawa

Don't know the video or any Sci-fi special, but I've met Myrick and talked to him about it. Didn't confirm but he did say they based the incident around a similar murder.

No it's completely stupid. Why the fuck would they waste all that time in the woods if they intended to murder Heather? It's seriously one of the dumbest "interpretations" I commonly see on this board.

Why make it seem paranormal when you want to get away with it, and anyone who would investigate it (local police) would arrive to the same conclusions? That seems kind of obvious.

The SciFi special fills in the gap of how their footage was found a year after their disappearance. It was found buried several feet underneath the foundation of the house where the basement would have been. So if you're going with the "no witch" theory, the house at the end would somehow have to go from largely intact to nothing but a ruined foundation in a year's time.

I'm not understanding what you're saying. Also, Josh and Mike were never seen or heard from again and their car was found abandoned where it was parked along the side of the road. What did they do? Walk out of the woods and hitchhike to Mexico or something?

Okay, but movies are taken as works. A work is cannonical only within itself. So why would I as a subjective viewer, reach outside that work to find a less logical ending. In all honestly, a directors intent, or extra content is going to tell you if Mona Lisa is smiling.

Well ya, murderers go on the run. I was saying that if you wanted a murder to be discreet, using a local hysteria would be a good measure to that end.

The logical conclusion given everything you see in the movie is that something supernatural occurred. You have to make a lot of leaps to arrive at the "no witch" theory. It's just stupid. There is absolutely zero evidence to suggest that Josh and Mike were conspiring to commit a murder. How would you even think that?

The convenience of actions taken, adversarial nature, and distinct lack of anything paranormal within the movie itself.

Once again, the house at the end shouldn't be there. They make it blatantly obvious that it's the Rustin Parr house that gets mentioned in the beginning. Also, Mike and Josh must be some Solid Snake tier stealth masters if we're to believe they were sneaking out of the tent to make stick figures and shit without Heather ever hearing a thing. On top of that, would you care to explain the children's voices and pounding on their tent when they were all inside?

Cure

We don't actually know what house it is, you make that assumption. Those things can be done or faked inside a tent. I think she mentioned she was a deep sleeper at some point. Try to justify throwing away a map, or running into a knowingly haunted house?

some serious mental gymnastics you have there

Got it. Thanks

Pounding on the tent from outside can be done or faked from inside the tent. That's really what you're going with?

They ran into the house because they heard what they thought was Josh screaming inside.

Tape recorder for voices, and ya having been in a tent, hitting it while someone isn't looking has that effect.

lmao can't tell if you're arguing just to argue at this point but the "no witch" theory takes some major fucking leaps to arrive at.

Actually only the other guy 'heard him.' And I don't know anyone who would follow that unless say, both your friends went in and you don't want to be alone.

Once again those leaps are less than assuming witches exist, and are surprisingly cheeky about it.

They both hear Josh's screams coming from the forest when they're in the tent at night following his disappearance that morning.

The guy hears it and points it out is the issue.

It's a horror movie dude.

Also how does he know there is a basement before they even visit it?

Babadook isn't as good as the rest I mentioned but I thought the OP might like it as something in the vein of The Shining.

So I shouldn't use a critical analysis, this is kind of what the thread is about.

It's not a large house. Mike runs up to the attic first and then back downstairs to the basement following the sounds of "Josh". You have to admit it's a way overly elaborate murder plot if you honestly believe that to be the case.

Being that it's a horror movie, I'd say supernatural elements are pretty much a given in this case. Hell after BWP was picked up by Artisan, they went back and shot some new endings that were much more blatant. They ended up using the original one because it was still the creepiest.

A little bit, but were does he go once he is there, the only place not taped is behind the girl. I just think people should only be live what a movie shows them, and that we can not extend assumptions based on a genre.

Where*
Believe*
Etc.

Based on what is presented I think the best explanation is that Josh was "possessed" and used to carry out the murders in the same way that Rustin Parr was. And this is all ignoring the 2016 movie which acts as a direct sequel.

Did you honestly come to that conclusion on your own after watching the movie or did you see the Film Theory video on YouTube?