I'd like to see the original version of the film, before it was mostly reshot and recut. I can't be worse than what was released.

I'm sure that I've said this before, but the most unforgivable thing of this movie is that ms Ricci didn't have a TF scene (I mean, fangs, claws, ripping clothes...).

And yes, I'd like to know how was the original idea about the film, before having been redone into that absolutely forgetable nonsense.

WereWolfH wrote:

Soooo WAIT TIME OUT TIME OUT. THE VERSIONS ON DVD (RATED AND UNRATED) AREN'T WHAT WAS IN THE MOVIE THEATERS? The movie theater version is in limbo so if you didn't see it at the theaters, you won't see that version on dvd?

Okay so I GET that it was turned into a PG-13 movie vs the Rated R version b/c most horror movies only make around 30 mill if they're good (exception of late is the Saw Series ) so I guess then is it b/c people arent' watching scary movies these days? It's not as popular as say 80s/90s? (I found a tape of mine and wow, remember when they showed horror movies made for tv late at night! Now you only see old horror movies that came from the theaters)

Anyone wanna respond to my previous comment?


Okay so I got Cursed the unrated version and EVERYONE SHOULD GET THIS AT LEAST FOR THE EXTRAS. I think the guy that plays or played Jason (I've seen him before) plays the werewolf (costume) They show the wolf behind the scenes. To me that's a scary wolf (well minus the legs b/c they CG'd them when they used the full body) There's a makeup shot where they show stages of the werewolf transformation. It's good. They talk about the werewolf heads (animatroinics). I think they also used different edits and maybe even takes vs. what's on tv. The extra 2 minutes just shows gory stuff.

Last edited by WereWolfH (2010-01-25 16:17:56)

Daninsky wrote:

I think a large problem was created when
a) Producers realized that they could market horror directly to the main base (which consists of 12-17y olds) which happened around the time Video became a huge hit
b) When younger directors/script writers came to the market that grew up with a completly different understanding of horror than our parents did

Kevin Williamson and Joss Whedon are main examples of the problem, in a way, both are so conscious in their use of pop culture that it can get mighty annoying.
Also in the 80's we saw a new standard character evolve:
The (Horror) Movie Fan, a character that shows a semi awarness of being part of a (horror) movie (that was funny and effective in "Jason Lives", both the awarness shown and the pop culture references, but is way overdone by now), which further watered down the horror element.

But mainly the problem is that yes, 13y olds are a larger segment  of the audience than 16y or older.
Horror doesn't to do good at boxoffice (in comparison), but it is usually cheap enough to do to always make its money back and create a stable income, that's what kept it popular with producers.


Cursed in special had according to Wes Craven a huge argument going on between the main producers and Williamson/Craven. Craven claims his and Williamsons idea version was aimed at being at least R-Rated but the producers insisted on the movie being cut down to/aimed for PG-13.

Still, Cursed has its highlights:
I love to see Judy Greer playing a real b****, Ricci is cute as always (and her "What smells so good" scene never fails to make me laugh), and there's so many stuff obviously stolen from Werewolf faves that it makes for a fun bit of "name the original".


Oh, and after the dreadful 90's we've seen a shift back to old school horror, so people do still watch real horror movies and they are having a come back. These things just work like the tides.

It's hard to understand why a movie that was supposed to be R rated got changed at the last minute to PG 13 when Jeepers Creepers, Final Destination, and Freddy vs Jason were huge hits. See I liked the movie The Hollow, and that was cut down for tv (i liked that version better than the dvd version) and it worked.

The acting was terrible and I'm not sure if they were trying to "act like 80s horror movies" b/c that's joke but dag I can't think of an 80s horror movie where I thought, boy the director yells cut after she screams, or the actress has just looked at her mark, or etc... Those movies never took me out of the movie. That was my problem with it. I thought the brother and Josh Jackson and the gay dude and his girlfriend are the only ones that got the acting done well. Oh and the female villian. Sorry I thought Christina was trying to act in this and shannon E. and Mya, ummmm they should have looked at the playback.

And the editing was not great either! Like the intro cut to the girls to fast at the carnival so some of the stuff that was wrong with it wasn't the gore being cut out, it was filmlmaking 101.

Again the special features really makes the movie worth buying. I bought mine for 5 bucks anyway since it's 3 yrs old. I might buy the rated version b/c from my memory the cuts were better and the 2 minutes of gore added really wasn't a necessary thing.

Daninsky wrote:

Well, what can I say, it's Craven's excuse that the producers are to fault for the movies lack in quality and most people won't argue that because he's "The Master".

Sure non of his "explanations" explain how a script that was several years in the working and a movie that took way longer to shoot than anticipated could still turn out that bad.

hmmm, yeah I was reading how other actors/tresses were in the movie and they had to quit b/c the movie kept taking so long.

Still great dvd (unrated) b/c of the features, I'm gonna try and finish up watching them tonight. (I watched the Hangover, WHAT A WASTE OF MONEY!!!!)