|
|
Post by Ol' John Brown on Sept 27, 2003 1:01:46 GMT -5
Good, new horror films are hard to come by these days. I search for them, but, I haven't really seen a truly frightening film since "The Exorcist." (sp? -- one thing about me you will find, is that I openly admit that I do not have the knack for spelling.) The closest thing to a really scary film that I have seen in years was "In the Mouth of Madness" with Sam Neil. It didn't get a hot reception at the box office perhaps because of the time it was released or maybe it wasn't advertised as it should have been but it was one of the best. Sure, there's been a lot of gore and macabre stuff like Hellraiser (another good one) but a real horror flick that really evokes terror, is hard to come by. So, what's the diff? Well, for one, I think subtlety has something to do with it combined with "the build up." But, this also has to be combined in just the right way with the truly horrific, psychological, unnerving and the at least almost believable to work. I've heard it said that also there has to be some type of invasion into what we as viewers feel to be either "private space" or a "safe/comfort zone." Let's look at "The Exorcist" a bit closer. Cover your eyes and/or ears if you have to . . . First there is "The Voice." something about this voice has, to my knowledge never been quite matched. The fact that it comes from what has been portrayed as an innocent, average little girl, makes it even more effective. Second, we have the aforementioned little girl. This is where the safe zone gets violated. An average, innocent little girl isn't something that we normally associate with "evil" though some authors have tried to use the idea less effectively. Third, let's look at the "almost believable" aspect. Except for the part with the spinning head, if you are superstitious, religious or you believe in the least but in the "supernatural," this film has some aspect made to chill you. The girl does transform but subtly and doesn't "morph" beyond all belief. The aspect of "believable" is pushed but not ignored. Another "safe zone" that is violated in the film is of "the person" of maybe even of "the soul." The child is possessed: her soul, her conscienceless, pushed out of her body and taken over, controlled. Her will no longer in the picture . . . except for the fact that we are left wondering where she (the real child that belonged to the body) is. Next, we have religion. Our beliefs often have something to do with what scares us. The folks that put this film together were obviously well aware of this. Another "safe zone" invaded! Not only do we have a priest (played by The Great Max VonSydow) who, believe it or not, FAILS, we have the horrid, blasphemous desecration of a church and some of the most blasphemous dialog ever to cross the screen, coming form a child. Last but not least, we have the subtlety and the "build up." At first, something a little weird happens, then, something, still explainable, but stranger happens, then we build to a point that each time someone climbs the stairs to enter the child's room, we are holding our breath to find out what new horror entering her room will hold! I digress . . . I'll bet that there are some of you out there saying "that movie didn't scare me at all but (fill in the blank) really did!" Well, what the hell is wrong with you anyway?? -- No, I'm just kidding!  The fact is, different things scare different people. I know a few people that were not scared by "The Exorcist" that found "The Blair Witch Project" to be the most frightening thing they had ever seen -- though I viewed it as the most lame film that I have ever seen. So, what scares YOU? Have you seen a film lately that really frightened you? Share it with us! Ol' John Brown |
|
|
|
Post by The Folks @ TanneryWhistle.com on Sept 27, 2003 10:51:46 GMT -5
Okay, I'll check out "The Mouth of Madness." In general, I prefer psychological horror. Now, I don't intend to get all prissy and "literary" and start ranting about splatter films, and how the "truly imaginative" doesn't have to resort to the gross. I like the gross, too, but I tend to be less frightened by it. Growing up with radio and listening to things like "The Inner Sanctum," I learned to associate terror with atmosphere. I still get the same response from modern film like "The Ninth Session" that uses atmosphere (sounds, shadows, open doors, etc. to build some quality tension. However, I am also a fan of Dario Argento and that is at the other end of the spectrum! Decapitations, fountains of blood, impalements, axes, swords, etc. It is strange that I don't care for the majority of "splatter film," but I truly like Argento. He doesn't make sense, but he can create a scene that looks like a nightmarish painting. It hangs there for a moment in a wondrous blend of light, color and harmony and then disolves into chaos. "Opera," for example, makes no sense at all as a story, but it is filled with terrifying and enthralling images.
We probably need a whole category to talk about vamplire film. For me, the modern releases run from trashy, offensive dreck to masterful, slick productions filled with billowing, black overcoats, special effects and fantastic musical scores. What about "The Ring" and the Japanese original, "Ringu"? What about the Japanese film, "The Audition" which frightened me more than any film in recent memory (but only during the last twenty minutes!) What about classic film like 'The Night of the Hunter" which have nothing to do with horror, but are masterful evocations of terror?
Well, maybe we are off and running. Let's see what happens here.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ol' John Brown on Sept 28, 2003 6:41:56 GMT -5
I agree, I prefer psychological horror too.
It's much more effective for me. I too can't say that I don't enjoy the gore films, I like them too -- as you said, they just don't give me a scare like the psychological horror.
Yes! True terror has a lot to do with atmosphere and less to do with splatter (tough splatter has its place and I enjoy that aspect too.)
Another classic, "The Shining" plays more on atmosphere than splatter. This is fortunately true of both versions of the film. The classic, original Kubrick (sp?) version is unsurpassed though King wasn't happy with it, Jack Nicholson gave us an unforgettable performance and Kubrick gave us an unforgettable film.
The ABC-TV remake, I approached with skepticism; but, was delighted with the results. King was happier with this one as it followed the book more closely and to me, it was almost an entirely new film.
I have to say, it was well done and the emphasis was effectively shifted more to the child -- giving the film a creepy-in-a-different-way feel.
Another thing that I found interesting was that the original was rated "R" mostly (I guess) because of the language and the time that it was released. However, the made for TV remake, had less in the way of language but was far more graphic in many scenes.
Hmmm, their was more "gore" but less language in the remake -- but it was still almost as frightening as the original. . . why? . . . as we have mentioned before, it was the atmosphere!
So you might ask, which was better? The Kubrick version or the ABC-TV remake? Well, that may be a matter for the individual opinion. As for me, a classic is a classic. Kubrick and Nickolson can't be argued with; but, the remake was not only outstanding, but it had the author's blessing. . .
Which was better?
Was it a tie maybe?
No and yes maybe?
The two films are so different from one another that comparing them may just be an outright mistake.
Still, if I were pinned to the wall, forced to pick one over the other, I would have to pick the original. . .
Why?
A. ) Kubrick!
B.) Nicholson!
C.) Last but not least -- THE SCATMAN!!!
If you don't know who The Scatman is, well, he was the dude in the Snowcat. He was the one that knew about The Shining. He was in so many movies, so many TV shows -- Sanford and Son, Chico and the Man, and even cartoons (such as the voice of Hong Kong Phooey) that there isn't space to mention here. . . .
Anyhow, a classic is still a classic and a remake is still a remake . . .
--olJB
|
|
|
|
Post by Neal on Sept 29, 2003 9:36:30 GMT -5
Well, I havn't seen the new Shining but I LOVE Kubrick's movie. And it is Kubrick's movie of course, not King's book, which I really appreciated in that I really didn't have to weigh the film against the book but could still love the both. I know I was really disappointed in... I think it was Rose Madder? the TV mini-series written by King, so I really avoided the other TV remakes that followed. Sounds like I missed a good one though.
|
|
|
|
Post by Neal on Sept 29, 2003 9:44:53 GMT -5
...somehow, I got booted off just then, but I'm still yapping. I love this subject, grew up on horror flicks, especially the straight to video type. In The Mouth of Madness, I liked that one too. It combined the psychological with some tried and true trucks, sudden noises and things that jump out at you. Th Ring frightened me, although other people have told me that they thought it was lame. Its the imagery that hangs with you... On the Blair Witch Project, I did find that one to be scary and unnerving, but I don't know anyone else who did--I think its really about what you can't see, past the corners of the frame, that's frightening; it kind of depends on what's lurking in your imagination at that particular moment perhaps. One truly frightening movie to me is Rosemary's Baby. And on the other side, the goriest movie I have seen in years, Final Destination 2 (my wife made me go) was absolutely hilarious and I highly recommend it for a good time.
thanks for this subject
-Neal
|
|
|
|
Post by Ol' John Brown on Sept 30, 2003 4:15:00 GMT -5
Yes! I'm so glad to find someone else who got to see and appreciated "In the Mouth of Maddness!" Some folks, such as my wife (I'm sorry to admit) didn't like it because of the ending . . . it wasn't sewn up and pretty. but to me that was one of its major attributes. As for "The Blair Witch Project" I have to say that I am among those who think it was lame. However, I think it had great potential, could have really been frightening, but didn't make it for me. . . but I have a friend that it really scared sh**less, as he was in the middle of an extended camping trip at the time. Different things scare different folks I suppose, OlJB |
|
|
|
Post by The Folks @ TanneryWhistle.com on Sept 30, 2003 10:24:15 GMT -5
Well, last night, Jack and I pigged out on a lazanga from Food Lion and watched "Final Destination 2." It was wonderful. I love to see pretty people die in bizarre ways. I sometimes felt tht they checked their makeup just before the axe, barbed wire guillitene (sp), impaling object, hurtling truck hit. Had a lot in common with "The Ring"...a hapless herd of sheep running pell=mell before the approach of inexhortable Death. Wheeeeeee. I listened carefully and I didn't hear a single socially redeemable message and when the slaughter was over, not a single scene could have represented art or integrity without smirking. My night was marred only by the fact that I didn't get to see the final five minutes. My DVD had been attacked by an irate viewer, I reckon. It had so many scrratche on it, the player rejected it. I tried again for a dozen times, too. That is the third one this month. I take them back and demand the VHS version. Maybe hey all go to some hot tub orgy at WCU before I get them
Which reminds me, Neal, if you haven't seen it, you need to see the first five minutes of "Ghost Ship." The guy in "Final Destination 2" that got reduced to chops by the barbed wire made me think of it. Now mind you, don't watch more than five minutes. After that, you will be seized by alternate fits of retching and narcolepsis. Honest.
Gary
|
|
|
|
Post by Ol' John Brown on Oct 1, 2003 1:57:56 GMT -5
"Final Destination 2?"
I'll check that one out! Was there a part one? If so, was it good as well?
Has anyone seen "Event Horizon" another horror film with Sam Neil?
This is a good one that takes place in space. This film scared and disturbed a lot of folks. Many people that I have spoken to about the film put it in their top 5 scariest movies.
It's bizzare, somewhat macabre and has a great twist.
Check it out and let me know what you think,
Ol' John Brown
|
|
|
|
Post by Neal on Oct 1, 2003 13:26:46 GMT -5
Sorry for the late post - hope you're still following this string.
Glad you liked FD2; yeah, it's totally non-pretentious fun. The first Final Destination is good too, it plays with expectations and is pretty clever, but it doesn't have the over-the-top free-for-all quality of the second. The Scream movies were supposed to be clever, but to me they were average, every one. Jeepers Ceepers is pretty good too, but ultimately disappointing.
I had hoped that Ghost Ship would be a good rental, so I'm disappointed to hear that its over in five.
One of my favorite scary movie series is The Evil Dead series. The first one is to me one of the scariest movies of all time, but there are some ironic touches - like a band-aid box floating in a pool of blood. The second one has the FD2 qualities - campy, over the top, gory as hell and fun. The third one, called Army of Darkness is all campy fun - not as good as the others but still worth watching. Each movie begins exactly where the last one left off. The only beef I have about that series is that there are inconsistencies between the stories that could have just as easily been consistencies. Oh well. These are Sam Raimi's claim to fame - he later directed A Perfect Plan and Spiderman, among others.
Neal
|
|
|
|
Post by The Folks @ TanneryWhistle.com on Oct 1, 2003 13:46:40 GMT -5
Yeah, Ghost Ship is over in five minutes, but it is a great five minutes. Other, than having some problems with the "willing suspension of dis elief," the first five minutes will live in the memory of fans of excessive gore. The instant slaughter of several hundred folks is impressive.
Tell me this. Have you ever seen "Night of the Hunter"? it is an oldie and probably dates back to 1939-1940 or so. Robert Mitchum is magnificent as the preacher. I guess this one is admirably qualified for the "psychological" terror category since Mitchum spends much of the time riding a mule in the dark along a river bank (the Mississippi?) and singing "Leaning On the Everlasting Arms." There are admirable touches like the scene that is filled from the bottom of the lake where Shelley Winers sits with her throat cut behind the steering wheel of an A-model, her hands tied to the wheel and her hair floating around her face. A couple of fishermen are up above in a boat and we see the fishhook snapped in the windshield. If I'm not mistaken, Charles Laughton had something to do with the picture. I have it someplace up in the attic.
Gary
|
|
|
|
Post by anyone on Oct 1, 2003 14:41:29 GMT -5
I know this has nothing to do with what you are chatting about right now but I was wondering if anyone could point me in the right direction on what to look for in a story that my grandfather told me before he past away.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Folks @ TanneryWhistle.com on Oct 1, 2003 14:58:28 GMT -5
Well, I would have to have more information. What do you mean by "what to look for"? What kind of story? Sounds like we need a new category...like "Storytelling."
Gary
|
|
|
|
Post by Neal on Oct 1, 2003 22:18:55 GMT -5
Gary, believe it or not I have seen Night of the Hunter several times. You're absolutely right, Charles Laughton directed it. He may not have ever directed anything else, I don't know. And that scene with Shelly Winters corpse - kee-rist! That must be one of the all-time great images in the history of film! Of course, there are nice touches throughout, it's quite subversive in its way, and you can see its influence in a zillion other films, most notably in Scorcese's Cape Fear. Good call on "Night". Also, as you must recall, Lillian Gish plays the tough old lady who stands up to Robert Mitchum.
Can you think of any other films of the era?
Neal
|
|
|
|
Post by The Folks @ TanneryWhistle.com on Oct 1, 2003 23:50:41 GMT -5
Well, that was a peak year. I guess "Grapes of Wrath" came out about then, which -like "Night of the Hunter" - is filled with gothic images, sentimenality and memorable eccentrics. I became a fixture at the Ritz Theatre during WWII and immediately after, and some wonderful stuff came out then. "The Treasure of Sierra Madre" isn't a horror movie, but it had some remarkable moments - none as tension-ridden as Bogart's encounter with the Mexican bandits. Then, there is Ridhard Widmark in ... is it 'The Kiss of Death" when he rolls the old lady in the wheelchair down the flight of steps and giggles....A movie that gave me nightmares was "Reap the Wild Wind." This was my first octupus movie and when John Wayne or John Payne went down in the diving suit and found the woman stowaway in the big wicker basket...her hair came floating up when he removed the lid...and the tenacles came sneaking down.....
I tried to watch it recently, and went to sleep.
Gary
|
|
Neal
Greenhorn
Posts: 18
|
Post by Neal on Oct 7, 2003 9:11:05 GMT -5
I have always liked The Haunting, the adaptation of The Haunting of Hill House (the Wiseman film, not the recent one). It frightened me a little, even. I told someone it was scary and they watched it. It put them to sleep.
A truly unnerving film is Roman Polanski's Repulsion, made in the 60's I guess.
There was one that used to really shake me up when I was a kid, it used to be on TV late at night and Sunday matinees, called "Let's Scare Jessica To Death." It still haunts me, but its probably a terrible movie.
Neal
|
|
