:loco: :nurse: :D

You may as well call the men in white coats for me too, as I agree with him. :D

Go on, why?

It always seems less bloody than other slashers, less exploitative all round, poorer acting too. and the big reveal is hardly mind altering. In fact it almost seems cliched.

I actually prefer the two sequels to the original.

Simply put: It's more unusual and interesting to me, really. This in turn makes it more enjoyable and rewatchable. For me, slashers don't necessarily have to be bloody or exploitative (although this does often help), they just have to break the mold a little, be a bit unique/unconventional to prick my interest more.

I also really like the first two SC sequels (again more so than The Burning or F13th).

As hinted at above, my favourite slasher films tend to be the more 'off-the-wall' kind, and this is probably the reason I don't really like many of the franchise slasher films too much (F13th, Elm Street, Child's Play). Maybe if I grew up with them and watched them as and when they were released it may have been a different story, but give me stuff like Stagefright, Pieces and Maniac over any of the heralded slasher franchises any day. :)

We both agree on Elm St, it's one of the few things we've sided on in the past. :nod:

I still haven't seen any of the original Childs Play films. The first one i saw was the excellent Bride of Chucky then the fairly abysmal Seed of Chucky. I adored the recent Curse of Chucky though. A brilliant modern Gothic slasher.

I like both F13 and The Burning -- mainly because of the FX work of Tom Savini. Cropsey is the better slasher villain of the two movies IMO. I do remember the ending of F13 gave me quite a jolt on my first viewing of it on video, years ago. :)

It probably woke you up. ;) :tongue1:

Would 'The Burning' have existed if 'Friday 13th' hadn't been made?

I do recall finding the old "You're all doomed" bloke on the bicycle quite comical back when I first watched F13. :lol:

He was right though. :lol: