LiquidSky

I'm not sure why some think this movie "sucked". I was in high school when the first wave of slasher movies came out and I saw every one of them. The movie is a throw-back to those days and delivers the goods. It's neither better or worse than most of those original movies.

And for those who thought the acting was "bad'. I thought it was decent. Perhaps you should check out some Disney tween shows to see "bad' acting.

Seantn

If they make a sequel, My Bloody Valentine 2, which I could definitely see happening after having a big opening weekend, I wonder if they'll carry over the 3-D gimmick?

The movie probably made back its entire budget this weekend. (It is estimated to possibly make $24 million for the 4-day weekend)

Scotts35

At the theater I used to work at we'd get this complaint from time to time. Our set up was a switcher that had 3 levels, 3 being for pre-show, 2 for trailers/commercials and 1 for feature. What I was told was that to turn the lights completely off is a serious safety hazard and thus light control 1 will only go to a minimally lit level. The only times we could turn the lights off was for employee screenings cause yes, they'd bother us from time to time too.

However, the film might be missing its light cue set during the digital building process and thus remained at level 2 throughout.

I worked at a Regal, which owns Gallery Place, but I don't know if this is just Regal policy or some government rule. You might be better off at other chains like AMC.

Giles

It's definately not a Regal policy cause at this afternoon's screening of 'Defiance' over at Potomac Yards, the only two light sources in the auditorium was from the screen and the two exit signs. I don't like AMC's Tysons 3D system, it has a lot of kinks and it's light output is set too dark - AMC Georgetown is better between the two.

Giles

I agree there were alot of 80's slasher pics ("The Mutilator" for one) that had worse acting than this.

DJariya

I just got back from seeing it late this afternoon.

I was entertained by it, but I think the only thing that kept it from being another boring slasher flick was being in 3D. I thought the 3D effects were really cool.

I watched the original last night on DVD and I think it spoiled alot of the suspense/story in this version even though alot of plot points were re-written. So, if you plan to see this version, I would skip watching the original if you haven't seen that one.

BTW, I could not believe how many kids were watching it in my theatre. I swear there was at least 20 kids at least under the age of 15.

I sat next to some overweight Granny who came into the movie late and spent 10 minutes digging in her purse for her 3D because she misplaced them. Her Grandson had to run out and get another person. So fricking annoying.

Overall from an entertainment standpoint I would give the film an 8/10. I would only consider getting the DVD if their is a cast commentary and there is a 3D version as well.

onebyone

I just don't see how this disappoints as a slasher. I love 80s slashers and this was right out of that mold, perhaps closer than I had seen in a good long while. I thought it was great fun, but of course I am all about slasher movies.

Another note: a whole lot more females in this one than I usually see in movies of this ilk. In my theater, they outnumbered guys 5 to 1.

Giles

Fixed

DJariya

Agreed Giles, thanks for the fix.

I do have to say that Jaime King did look really hot in the opening scene with her jean mini skirt and her see through white t-shirt exposing her black bra.

Torchur317

It doesn't disappoint as a slasher film at all, I don't know what these people were expecting but this remake was a breath of fresh air to me considering the crap Hollywood has been releasing over the years for the horror genre. Especially considering the fact this was remake & how it turned out I'm shocked how it's a love it or hate it type film already. People expect way too much these days in my opinion, if this was made in the 80s or early 90s it would be embraced by alot more people. I also love the fact it wasn't your typical watered down vision of the original it had a whole new spin on the story with some similar stuff thrown so it wasn't a shot by shot remake like Psycho. I'm sick of this PG-13 dominated world thats ruins so many films so I'm happy they had the balls to make these a full fledged hard rated r film. It had a decent cast for the most part & the acting was better than alot of our favorite slasher films in the past. Are you seriously expecting oscar performances in a slasher flick? It had some great gore fx with some awesome kills plus it had nudity, not the standard boob shot I'm talking about exposed bush which hasn't happened in a horror film in a long time. In the end of day, this film entertained the hell out of me so it gets my respect. I still consider the original better but this version was more entertaining IMO.

kristina

I really LOVED this movie!!! The sequence with the nude chick was hillarious!! Can't wait to get this on DVD.
Oh btw... in New Orelans, unfortinatly .... I went to the AMC Clearview to see this movie. They aren't showing it in 3-D. I called a friend of mine who saw it at the AMC Elmwood last night and she said that there (also) it's not being shown in 3-D. Although while watching it I could've sworn a few times it still looked like the guns and other things were coming out into the audience.
I hope the movie'll be released as 3-D on DVD...with the glasses of course, for those of us who can't seee it in 3-D.
Is there a comprehensive list of cinemas that [I]are[I] showing the movie in 3-D?

DJariya

I have to agree on Torchur's comment about there being way too many PG-13 films being release, especially in the horror genre. It is refreshing to see a hard R rating, especially for something that is not in the torture porn genre like Saw and Hostel.

And I was definitely more entertained by this version than the 1980 version. Even though I thought the 1980 version had a better story.

Giles

except for the fact that some of the dialogue scenes could have been trimmed by ten minutes of so, I generally agree with you.. some black chick was screaming at the screen "bitch, don't run there!" uh, that's the point of a slasher movie, people doing dumb things just waiting and deserving to get slaughtered - really what ARE you expecting??

Zodiac_Speaking

Loved it; great use of 3-D, just fun, mindless fun.

Giles

amen to that. SIDE COMMENT: I felt bad for a friend of mine, who joined for me to see TCM: The Beginning, and even though the theatrical cut was no where as near as gory as the unrated video cut, the blood and carnage was some of the gnarliest for a hard-R, I could tell, he wasn't enjoying it - which as a result made me feel guilty for inflicting the film on him. He generally loved horror films, but this kind of pushed the limits for him, it unnerved and disgusted him. Horror films can be fun, such as this remake and not just nihilistic and joyless or pointless like the J-Horror films that US studios feel compelled to remake.

on a technical note imdb incorrectly (this isn't a surprise) states the film OAR is 2.35, it's not, it's shot and projected flat: 1.85

TomOpus

Which theater is this?

RichC2

Junk food as a movie, I loved this.

LosingMyMind

The dvd is going to use anaglyph glasses, sorry to say. Patrick Lussier talked about it in a new video interview.

mdc3000

sidenote based on Giles story: I took a friend to see The Devils Rejects and he is a big slasher pic fan but this kind of flick just made him sick and disgusted - so much that he made us actually LEAVE the movie with about 30 minutes left (I worked at the theatre at the time, so I could see it again for free anytime)... Oddly enough, when i invited him to see MBV 3D, something came up at the last minute and he bailed... I honestly don't know if he's watched a horror movie of any kind since...hmmmm

redskull

25 minutes!!???!? So you think it should have been 76 minutes long (1 hour, 41 minutes minus 25)? I know attention spans are constantly shrinking, but that seems a little too short.

Torchur317

Very impressed it made $21.9M & it was #3 at the Box Office for being a hard R.
I'm pretty sure the budget was only $20M so we might see a sequel to this....

JPRaup

Co-writer just wrote this review for my website, have to agree with everything he said: http://thefilmstage.com/2009/01/17/m...ody-good-time/

My Bloody Valentine 3D is quite possibly the worst film ever to be shown on the silver screen. Everything about it is horrible. The acting makes a piece of wood look like Marlon Brando and the writing is equivalent to something out of a Steven Seagal straight-to-DVD actioners.

But then that is the whole point of the movie. To be horrible…3-dimensionally. The plot revolves around a small mining town in which a crazed miner named Harry Warden slaughters a slew of people with a pick-axe, finally taken down and killed by a couple of veteran cops.

Ten years later, the killer is back! And that’s pretty much it. Plus the whole 3-D thing. When the killer throws his axe at someone, he’s throwing it at you. The weapon goes through a character’s eye and into your face. And when people are not being slaughtered, select objects are 3-dimensional in the frame and characters who enter midway through a shot seem to walk from off the set into the camera’s view.

My Bloody Valentine is really less of a movie and more an experience, and in that way reminiscent of last January’s big hit Cloverfield. However, Cloverfield was an expertly made film about people the audience cared about with genuine thrills and style. This is the opposite of all of that - a B-movie in every sense of the word. Patrick Lussier, the film’s director, is a frequent collaborator (usually the editor) with Wes Craven, who is a master of finding true scares in the cheese that is the horror genre (see Cursed). This “horror-savvy” is apparent (on some small level) throughout Valentine, and hopefully we will go on to see Lussier make an effective horror film that is not completely dependent on one gimmick. Or just make another one like this, which I would have no problem with.

Gimmicks or not, see the movie with friends and laugh your ass off at the serious parts and get scared when jaw bones and fire flies off the screen and into your personal space. And, for God’s sake, if you’re even thinking about seeing it NOT in 3D, don’t. Go see Last Chance Harvey instead. Or Hotel For Dogs. Anything else really.

8 out of 10 (rating based on theater experience)

Torchur317

This person needs to see more movies in theaters because he's dead wrong....
After seeing this,I stopped reading the review....

benh911

I went to see this Friday, and certainly had a strange experience. After putting on the glasses as directed by the screen, I didn't understand what was going on. Nothing looked 3-D, and when looking at the screen with the glasses on, it was just hurting my eyes, since the screen seemed to have black circles moving around on it. I was pissed, thinking I was gonna be miserable throughout the whole movie, and nothing seemed 3-D. After about 10-15 minutes going into the movie, the screen went green, and finally some of the staff came in, saying there was a problem. I went down to them, and asked them other than the obvious problem with the movie, if there was an issue. They told me the movie wasn't in 3-D, which explained why the screen looked so weird. It took about twenty minutes to resolve. Free tickets were passed out, then they started the movie.
Not a great movie, but it was a fun time.

Gizmo

Gonna see MBV tomorrow afternoon and hope its not packed with kids. Is tomorrow a school holiday for them?