Which of these should I watch tonight?

Okay, sure, she's a legend in that sense. Thanks for clarifying. Personally I don't think she's a good actress.

Okay I think I get what you meant in parenthesis now. I'm still a little confused about what you're point is though. It kinda sounds like you're saying 80's horror movies are bad and can't be appreciated under high standards, and that a person should lower their standards and enjoy them even though they're bad.

I don't know how I come across to you as having high hopes for NOES3? For the record I did not have high hopes, and I had very low expectations. I just had some hope that it would be more entertaining, but I was perfectly okay with the way it turned out. I bought it expecting it to be that bad, and it was. I didn't lower my standards, and I still enjoyed it. But I still call it how it is the way I see it. I'm not going to turn a blind eye to the bad acting, plot, directing, and filler content just so that I enjoy it a little bit more in blissful ignorance. I actually enjoyed noticing the flaws and appreciating the movie for what it was without pretending it was better than it actually was. For a cheesy slasher it actually did have some interesting elements, like the music, atmosphere, and story, and some of the content was decently entertaining, and some of the acting actually wasn't too bad (although most of the acting was pretty terrible).

When you say you "usually don't place expectations on them," I think I get that. There's nothing wrong with that. But I wonder if it's a bit niave and it kinda seems like you're contradicting yourself a bit when you say, "you can't take a movie like that too seriously or it's simply no fun." It sounds like you expect not to be able to enjoy them if you have high standards. So that makes me think you do expect that low quality, and rightly so because you obviously have a lot of experience with these kind of movies and you generally know going into them what you're going to get. You say "no expectations" but I think what you really mean is "low expectations" or "no high expectations" or something like that. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

Saying the first one is a more legitimate horror movie than the others really isn't saying much. I can't even take the first one seriously, or any of Wes Craven's movies for that matter. He's just not a serious director to me. He's a very low level mainstream director, and he's also very low in the spectrum of talent.

"It's the same basic story being told." I would say the plots are fairly cut and paste, but I've noticed a completely different story behind each of the three I've seen. I mean the stories are connected, they're direct sequels. So I think you're talking about the plot.


I don't think quality is subjective. I think if a person says that a movies sucks just because they didn't like it, then they're basing their assessment of the movie's quality on their feelings. But I think if you don't like a movie, but try to figure out whether it just didn't appeal to you but was still good, or if even though you like a movie you think about whether it was necessarily good or not, then that's being objective. You should examine your feelings, try to understand why you feel that way, and try to understand what was good or bad about the movie apart from your personal feelings. You should assess quality based on well defined and measurable conditions. After all, quality is by definition measurable. If it isn't measurable then it isn't quality.

How can something be better than something else if there is no objective way of measuring it? There has to be consistent standards of measurement or you can't say one thing is better than another thing. The runner who runs fastest wins the race, and the actor who portrays emotion more realistically and can play a broader range of roles is the better actor. Just because those things can be hard to determine for the untrained eye doesn't mean they aren't there. And just because you think a movie is better if you like it more doesn't mean that it necessarily is. Or else why argue? If it's subjective then there is literally no point. You share your oppinion, the other person shares theirs, and they're both equally valid. But I think people tend to argue because it's objective and we want our view to be the right view, or we think we have the correct view. I think we need to constantly change our views, our understanding, and everything about ourselves to constantly grow and improve. I constantly strive to find better movies, and appreciate them more. While I may take the time to enjoy the odd turd for some other redeemable aspect, I get so much more out of exploring the infinite depths of the art of cinema than I think a person can get by being a couch potato and watching movies that aren't that good, that they don't enjoy that much, but that they just choose not to think about and try to enjoy anyway. I think if you shed that arbitrary limitation you would find that you don't even have enough time in your life to watch every mind blowing outstanding phenomenal movie that has been made before you die. So why waste what little precious time you have on mediocrity when there is an abundance of true brilliance and greatness to be discovered? All you have to do is work hard at it, and you'll enjoy not only movies but life itself a whole lot more.

At least that's my philosophy anyway, and that's why I won't compromise. But I still enjoyed NOES3, and I enjoyed it more than the original. I have enjoyed a number of great 80's horror movies, and there are many other decades and genres to explore. So I feel like watching cheesy slashers is mostly a waste of my precious few moments on this Earth.

Heather Langenkamp is WAY better than Jamie Lee Curtis.

What about Patricia Arquette?

Possession