horror films

sven666 · Post by **sven666** » Sun Feb 12, 2006 10:44 am

i saw saw 2 (hehe) yesterday..and as i expected it was a piece of shit.

i liked the first one tho, it felt original and kinda clever i thought.

cigsthecat · Post by **cigsthecat** » Sun Feb 12, 2006 11:38 am

What's the big deal about The Thing? The Carpenter one is the "classic," right? Total crap and hardly qualifies as a horror film if you ask me.

Wolf Creek was ok, though the guy playing the killer gets a little silly sometimes.

I have to see this Cannibal Holocaust thing now.

Ord · Post by **Ord** » Sun Feb 12, 2006 12:24 pm

cigsthecat wrote:What's the big deal about The Thing? The Carpenter on is the "classic," right? Total crap and hardly qualifies as a horror film if you ask me.

Wolf Creek was ok, though the guy playing the killer gets a little silly sometimes.

The original 50's Howard Hawks film - "The Thing From Another World" was entertaining enough, but it had very comedic dialogue , with perhaps one chilling scene where the creature kills all the dogs, as the men watch helplessly.
Carpenters remake was a lot more faithful to the original sci-fi story - "Who Goes There?" by John W. Campbell Jr. Carpenter succesfully created an incredibly thick atmosphere of dread and paranoia.
Some of the effects are still quite effective, and I loved the downbeat ending.

Wolf Creek actually freaked me out a bit, as I was in Australia a little over a year ago, traveling pretty much how those teenagers were. There are places like that (Tennant Creek etc) that have guys like the those that were in the bar.
Of course there was also the publicity from the recent trial concerning the disaperance of the backpacker Peter Falconi (sp?) in the Northern Territories.
The head on the Stick scene was horrific for me.

Personally i'm a sucker for all those old 60's & 70's Amicus and Hammer horror movies, oh and The Wicker Man is great!!

Neo Rasa · Post by **Neo Rasa** » Sun Feb 12, 2006 2:29 pm

Wicker Man is the best horror drama psychological mystery musical ever made.

professor ganson · Post by **professor ganson** » Sun Feb 12, 2006 3:18 pm

It occurs to me that there are quite a lot of different sorts of horror film:

1 gore - I suppose Frankenstein and zombie movies often fit into this category. I, myself, find that modern Frankenstein movies are creepier and deeper than zombie movies on the whole, but I think a lot of people disagree. I really love Andy Warhol's Frankenstein. Does anyone recall the name of that recent Frankenstein-type movie about an outcast girl that cuts up various people to create a friend? What was the name of that-- it's just a couple years old? Pretty good, I thought.

2 ghost/possession - e.g. Dark Water, which I liked because my wife could handle it. I would put The Shining here as well.

3. slasher - I hear everyone talking about John Carpenter's The Thing, but isn't Halloween his real masterpiece? I mean, what horror film has been more influential in the past 30 years? And it stands up incredibly well today. And like Texas Chainsaw Massacre, it achieves its effects without gore, something I appreciate.

4 monster - I don't think the Frankenstein-type movies I like fit here, because in those it's the creation of the monster that is of interest more than the monster itself. Dracula/Werewolf movies would fit in here, I assume. Does Alien fit in here?

There are many more types, no doubt.

A couple questions:

1. The Saw movies-- which category do they belong to? I haven't seen them yet.
2. Not very important: Do you think of Seven, In The Cut, and other serial killer movies as horror or more psychological thriller/mystery? I don't have clear intuitions about this.

Neo Rasa · Post by **Neo Rasa** » Sun Feb 12, 2006 3:46 pm

I think Seven definitely does. In the Cut fits more in the My-carreer-is-in-the-shitter-time-for-an-image-change genre.

That said, I feel the best "horror" movies out there are ones that don't really fall directly into the genre. Like with Halloween, no real gore in it at all even though it's a "slasher" movie. The Thing is more about paranoia and isolation than it is about alien monsters from another world. The best ones aren't "about" the aspects we consider horror movie traits but use them to further an already set story. Saw 2, as an example, I would say is a pure gore movie. It has a story, but it clearly exists solely to set up more gore. The original somewhat suffered from this also, like when what's his name gives up on cutting his handcuffs with a hacksaw after like two seconds. I mean, it's a hacksaw, it's MADE TO CUT METAL even if it would taken a while. Stupid, should have payed attention to Max Rockatansky and he would have been out of their with all his limbs and in just ten minutes.

professor ganson · Post by **professor ganson** » Sun Feb 12, 2006 9:04 pm

Neo Rasa wrote:In the Cut fits more in the My-carreer-is-in-the-shitter-time-for-an-image-change genre.

Ah, there I would have to disagree. I believe In the Cut is a very smart movie by a very smart director. Although the ending is somewhat disappointing to me, the movie on the whole is very carefully crafted and has some interesting ideas. It only APPEARS to be just another serial killer movie (and perhaps the ending adds to this impression).

I'm disappointed to hear that Saw is at the gore end of the spectrum. Gore is something I'll put up with if there's enough else going on.

Rob · Post by **Rob** » Sun Feb 12, 2006 9:10 pm

professor ganson wrote: 2 ghost/possession - e.g. Dark Water, which I liked because my wife could handle it. I would put The Shining here as well.

The Shining doesn't deserve this category. It's insulting! The Shining is cool because it seems more grounded in reality. It seems more about mental illness than any supernatural events. And the setting (isolated, snowed in) and the fact that it's a familiar person (husband/father) that turns into a killer is all perfect. These possession movies are usually enough in the open that they can call in a priest, and there's the family all by their side. Boring, boring, boring.

1. The Saw movies-- which category do they belong to? I haven't seen them yet.
2. Not very important: Do you think of Seven, In The Cut, and other serial killer movies as horror or more psychological thriller/mystery? I don't have clear intuitions about this.

In Seven most of the time is spent tracking the killer down, right? And not actually watching the people be killed (haven't seen it in awhile, maybe I'm wrong). So there's really only one "horror" moment in the movie. I think for a real horror film the protagonists must have a decent amount of film time being threatened in some way. Saw is very psychological, but involves the horror of the outside victims and the main characters inside the container. Both are about serial killers, but I think Saw is more about constant terror or psychological threat while Seven is a build up, more drama.

Rob · Post by **Rob** » Sun Feb 12, 2006 9:15 pm

Neo Rasa wrote:The original somewhat suffered from this also, like when what's his name gives up on cutting his handcuffs with a hacksaw after like two seconds. I mean, it's a hacksaw, it's MADE TO CUT METAL even if it would taken a while.

Saw is far more about the psychological terror - the choices they are forced to make in bad circumstances (kidnapped, trapped, death or pain/disfigurement). Have you ever cut through a chain with a saw? Note "it would take a while" - they were being watched (so could probably be forced to stop at any time), were also being timed.

cigsthecat · Post by **cigsthecat** » Sun Feb 12, 2006 9:18 pm

Ord wrote:
Wolf Creek actually freaked me out a bit, as I was in Australia a little over a year ago, traveling pretty much how those teenagers were. There are places like that (Tennant Creek etc) that have guys like the those that were in the bar.
Of course there was also the publicity from the recent trial concerning the disaperance of the backpacker Peter Falconi (sp?) in the Northern Territories.
The head on the Stick scene was horrific for me.

The actual case the movie is loosely based on is pretty interesting to read- they should have taken a few more elements from it. For example- there was one guy who actually got away. He ran out into oncoming freeway traffic and managed to stop a car and get in. Luckily for him the woman in the car (with her entire family) drove him out of there. Later during the investigation both the escaped guy and the driver that picked him up called the police hotline for the case. Their info helped put the guy away.

They did the head on a stick scene because most of the bodies were found with knife wounds to the spine. One was found decapitated by a large sword. I'd really like to see a documentary about that case.

And professor- no one under any circumstances should ever pay to see the Saw movies. They are awful, and not in a good way. I'm very disappointed by what crtitics think is violent/gory these days.

Acid King · Post by **Acid King** » Sun Feb 12, 2006 9:38 pm

Ord wrote:
Wolf Creek actually freaked me out a bit, as I was in Australia a little over a year ago, traveling pretty much how those teenagers were. There are places like that (Tennant Creek etc) that have guys like the those that were in the bar.
Of course there was also the publicity from the recent trial concerning the disaperance of the backpacker Peter Falconi (sp?) in the Northern Territories.
The head on the Stick scene was horrific for me.

See, I hated that movie, thought it was utter crap. It's like an Australian version of any number of bad, American crazy hillbilly movies. I liked Saw because of the set up of the movie and the "killer". The acting wasn't too hot but the concept is far more imaginative and interesting. As Rob said, it's more about psychological terror - conscious choices of survival, not simply fleeing for you life in horror. Not to sound like a pretentious film snob, but the concept behind Saw taps in to human notions of life/death and rational/irrational choices in the instinct to stay alive, where stuff like Wolf Creek would be comparable to a dog chasing a rabbit and a natural instinct to survive, something that's been done to death a million times over.

Neo Rasa · Post by **Neo Rasa** » Sun Feb 12, 2006 9:45 pm

I'm really surprised at how many people consider the Saw movies to be psychological in any way at all, I mean the attempt is there, but watch either one a second time and they fall apart.

Plus the most horrid aspect of Saw 1 was Danny Glover's acting.

Cool movies to watch once to see some of the deathtraps but overall I feel no need to own them or otherwise watch them again.

PaCrappa · Post by **PaCrappa** » Sun Feb 12, 2006 9:47 pm

Saw has nothing to do with violence or gore. It has to do with fear and motivation. The first one is very well done and worthwhile. The second has some good stuff but is marred by one guy and the "twist ending". Worst twist ending ever. The first Saw movie is the first "serious" horror film that made it to American movie theaters since 28 Days Later that I didn't feel was asking me to be stupid to buy into it. There's some light gore but nothing my mom would cringe at. It's well acted and well written and even has a sweet twist ending.

BTW, since we've already mentioned details, I'd like to see someone with a crap rusty hacksaw try to cut through a handcuff chain that is attached one end to an ankle and the other end to a bar whereupon the handcuff can slide all willy nilly. It'd be one thing if you had it stretched between two bench vises where it's being kept taut and stable for the cutting. It's a whole 'nother deal trying to hacksaw some hardened steel that you can't keep in one place. Try it some time.

Pa

Neo Rasa · Post by **Neo Rasa** » Sun Feb 12, 2006 9:49 pm

PaCrappa wrote:It'd be one thing if you had it stretched between two bench vises where it's being kept taut and stable for the cutting. It's a whole 'nother deal trying to hacksaw some hardened steel that you can't keep in one place. Try it some time.

It'd be hard, but he barely even TRIED.

PaCrappa · Post by **PaCrappa** » Sun Feb 12, 2006 9:56 pm

Maybe he TRIED it when he was twelve in his daddy's garage and was wise enough to know. Ask the guy that wrote it if you need clarification. Garbage hacksaw from the bathtub vs unstable hardened steel is not exactly rocket science.

Pa

Rob · Post by **Rob** » Sun Feb 12, 2006 9:56 pm

Neo Rasa wrote:I'm really surprised at how many people consider the Saw movies to be psychological in any way at all, I mean the attempt is there, but watch either one a second time and they fall apart.

I'm watching it right now for the second time! The acting and dialogue are both funny bad.

"I went to bed in my shithole apartment and woke up in an actual shithole!"

PaCrappa · Post by **PaCrappa** » Sun Feb 12, 2006 9:59 pm

How is that bad and what would you say instead if it was you?

Pa

Neo Rasa · Post by **Neo Rasa** » Sun Feb 12, 2006 10:47 pm

PaCrappa wrote:How is that bad and what would you say instead if it was you?

Pa

I actually did think this line did a great job of setting the tone even if I wasn't crazy about the movie overall. The premise and inital setup is handled great.

steveovig · Post by **steveovig** » Sun Feb 12, 2006 11:34 pm

One of my favorites not already mentioned is The Entity. It's taken from a real-life situation where a woman was raped by a spirit she couldn't see. Doctors think she's crazy and para-psychologists study her story. The ending is quite cool and the overall product is right up there with a movie like The Exorcist.

CMoon · Post by **CMoon** » Sun Feb 12, 2006 11:35 pm

I don't even know if that list of horror catagories really works. To me the biggest division is betwen those that are up-front trying to shock you and those which work more on atmosphere and dread. The horror movies that exist mostly as a vehicle for gore don't really work for me. I hadn't even mentioned the semi-recent Japanese horror explosion, since Ringu and Dark Water are such good examples of this suspense/atmosphere approach. I feel like this is the biggest division in horror--those directors who want to scare you with what they can show you, and those who want to scare you with what they don't show you.

And sure, Halloween should have been mentioned earlier, but even though the first film is enormously influential, I don't think it accomplishes what The Thing does (but once again, I know this is personal, since a lot of people just see The Thing as a big joke.)

DC906270 · Post by **DC906270** » Mon Feb 13, 2006 12:06 am

what about the new eli roth film, Hostel i believe its called. i read about it in the sunday paper today, and its meant to be sick as 'owt (and this opinion from the big QT himself

)

so should get 2 big thumbs from all you gore-freaks reading this

it290 · Post by **it290** » Mon Feb 13, 2006 12:09 am

Would you guys consider 'Dead Ringers' a horror film? Because that's one of my favorites.

Neo Rasa · Post by **Neo Rasa** » Mon Feb 13, 2006 12:27 am

I heard Hostel had some great gore but doesn't really offer anything beyond that. Some people really connected with the acting and got a lot out of it emotionally though.

http://movie-reviews.colossus.net/movies/h/hostel.html

This review sums up pretty effectively what I heard about it. I'll definitely give it a rent.

Anyone here ever see Eyes of Fire or Eyes Without a Face?

PaCrappa · Post by **PaCrappa** » Mon Feb 13, 2006 12:30 am

No but I have heard Billy Idol's hit song Eyes Without a Face. Is that different?

Pa

Neo Rasa · Post by **Neo Rasa** » Mon Feb 13, 2006 12:32 am

PaCrappa wrote:No but I have heard Billy Idol's hit song Eyes Without a Face. Is that different?

Pa

Quite.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0053459/

Really good stuff.

EDIT: It seems Billy Idol WAS inspired by the film when he made the song, just the song isn't directly about the movie per se.

Rob · Post by **Rob** » Mon Feb 13, 2006 1:16 am

Finished watching Saw and I'm going to stick with "funny bad." The last few scenes with Lawrence and Adam in the container are classic, with Lawrence pale as a ghost and having lost his mind. One obvious flaw I noticed was that Jeb (or whatever) was not convincingly "part of the game." He was acting like the villain instead of an unwilling participant. Entertaining.

eidt: typos, horror rots your brainz

Ord · Post by **Ord** » Mon Feb 13, 2006 2:07 am

Neo Rasa wrote: Eyes of Fire or Eyes Without a Face?

Eyes without a face. Is that the 50's french film concerning plastic surgery(Les Yeux sans visage)? If so then that is superb. Also recommended is Les Diaboliques.

Neo Rasa · Post by **Neo Rasa** » Mon Feb 13, 2006 2:19 am

Yes it is, and hell yes the original Diabolique is great!

That remake with Sharon Stone and Isabelle Adjani was so awful.

umi · Post by **umi** » Mon Feb 13, 2006 12:15 pm

Just torrented myself a copy of Guinea Pig 2 - Flower of Flesh and Blood (as per neorichie's first post). I was really hyping myself up for some sickening, can't-bear-to-watch gore, but it was a surprisingly easy watch. It's still edited like a normal movie mostly, with lots of camera cuts, so that takes away a lot of the realism (though it's necessary for the effects, of course). Still, it's the most realistic I've seen, and not bad at all for a 20 year old film. In any case, I still find the analogy of a woman "blooming" into a red flower by chopping her up into pieces quite beautiful. I'm downloading the others as well, they sound entertaining.

This thread reminded me that I still haven't seen Suicide Club or Ichi the Killer, so I'm downloading them now... really looking forward to the former.

p.s. Interesting how the Saw(s) are such a love/hate film(s). I thought, and still think that they kick much ass :P Hope the third one still gets made, cuz one of the directors (I think) died late last year.

Ord · Post by **Ord** » Mon Feb 13, 2006 4:04 pm

**Possibile spoiler for Suicide Club.**

The beginning of Suicide Club is so over the top. It just had me laughing!