|
|
 |
|
 |
 |
07-17-2005, 11:46 PM
|
#1201 of 2004 
|
|
Member
Join Date: Mar 2001
Local Time: 09:56 AM
Local Date: 11-18-2008
Posts: 14,313
|
Well just to be clear about a couple of points. Regardless of definition of horror, and whether or not I'm a horror fan, I'm certainly not a horror fanatic. I realize that fan is derived from fanatic, but I don't think in modern usage they mean quite the same thing. I think any horror fanatic would seek out and like a number of the b-movies. And even if I don't qualify as a horror fan, that's a far cry from being a horror hater. I don't think anyone who only hates the b-films of any genre can be a hater of said genre. I dislike bad b westerns, bad b musicals, bad b sci-fi films, bad b action movies, bad b mysteries, bad b dramas, etc., etc., but I love many films from those genres and am in no way a hater of those genres. On the other hand, while I think the word hate would be far too strong, I'm clearly much closer to that on the anime genre and various subgenres (including melodramas, slasher films, Vivien Leigh movies, etc.)
As far as this thread, this isn't a horror thread (like the aforementioned zombie thread). Yes, you and some others are passing back and forth recommendations about certain films, but many are commenting about various films they've watched this year. For myself, I'm only doing so when I have something to say, and most of my films are added to my list without comment. I don't think I even said anything about my fairly recent rewatching of Frankenstein, though I do know I got into a discussion in some thread with Brook about Bride of Frankenstein, but I don't think it was this one.
Finally if one doesn't think a film like Psycho or Time after Time or Aliens or Jaws is a horror film, then there's got to be a definition of horror film that leaves them out, and what it is, is beyond me, if it's not something along the lines of "post-Psycho, slasher or monster film, with lots of gore, so long as there is no science fiction element to it, and the monster can't be real". Which frankly, is simply not a definition I would ever agree with, even though many, if not most of the b-movies, would probably fit into said category.
"Movies should be like amusement parks. People should go to them to have fun." - Billy Wilder
"Subtitles good. Hollywood bad." - Tarzan, Sight & Sound 2012 voter.
"My films are not slices of life, they are pieces of cake." - Alfred Hitchcock
"My great humility is just one of the many reasons that I am vastly superior to everyone else." - Ramrod Clerk
|
|
|
 |
 |
|
07-18-2005, 06:22 AM
|
#1202 of 2004
|
|
Member
Join Date: Nov 2003
Local Time: 10:56 AM
Local Date: 11-18-2008
Posts: 4,608
|
Mike - I'd probably rate PLAN 9  , but I haven't seen it in a while. 
No time now - be back later ... |
|
|
|
|
07-18-2005, 08:27 AM
|
#1203 of 2004
|
|
Member
Join Date: Apr 2000
Local Time: 09:56 AM
Local Date: 11-18-2008
Posts: 8,528
|
The Collection (Blu-Ray High Definition/DVD)
Pre-orders - BLU-RAY: Akira, The Dark Knight, The Day the Earth Stood Still, Death Proof, King Kong, La Femme Nikita, Planet Terror, Raging Bull, Ronin, The Third Man DVD: .................
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
07-18-2005, 09:09 AM
|
#1204 of 2004
|
|
Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Local Time: 04:56 PM
Local Date: 11-18-2008
Posts: 1,602
|
Mike, Joe and...ahem...George,
You've started a very interesting discussion regarding what constitutes a "horror" film or, indeed, a horror film "fan" to which, naturally, I'd like to contribute. Unfortunately, I don't have time right now but, hopefully, I'll try to get something written down 5 hours from now  ! |
|
|
|
|
|
07-18-2005, 02:38 PM
|
#1206 of 2004
|
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2003
Local Time: 11:56 AM
Local Date: 11-18-2008
Posts: 4,206
|
Another great thing about horror. I just had the worst day of my life when it comes to work. Almost walked out three times but stuck through to the end. Not that I love the job or anything but I've got too many DVDs to buy next week. 
Anywho, I get home and there's two big boxes the mailman left and inside are:
Maciste in Hell (1925), Curucu—Beast of the Amazon, Dante’s Inferno (1924), Frankenstein vs. The Space Monster, Invasion of the Animal People (w/Carradine), Manfish (w/Chaney Jr.), Mockery (Chaney), Mr. Wu (Chaney), Murder in the Blue Room, Night of Terror (w/Lugosi), Revenge of the Zombies (w/Carradine), Sh-The Octopus, Thirteenth Chair, The (Browning/Lugosi), The Black Cat (1941-Lugosi), Man Made Monster (Chaney Jr.), Captive Wild Women (w/Carradine), Jungle Woman, Jungle Captive and The Monster and the Girl (first film noir/horror film).
Makes me feel all warm inside. 
Going back to what we said about bad horror films. With the exception of the silents, most of these aren't too well known and a couple are considered some of the worst films ever made. Why watch something with a bad reputation? It's simple. I'm hoping to find one that's bad enough, campy enough and silly enough for it to entertain me and become one of my favorites. I might end up hating some of these but there's always hope one will be entertaining.
Quote:
|
Finally if one doesn't think a film like Psycho or Time after Time or Aliens or Jaws is a horror film, then there's got to be a definition of horror film that leaves them out, and what it is, is beyond me, if it's not something along the lines of "post-Psycho, slasher or monster film, with lots of gore, so long as there is no science fiction element to it, and the monster can't be real". Which frankly, is simply not a definition I would ever agree with, even though many, if not most of the b-movies, would probably fit into said category.
|
In some ways, I personally feel a horror film needs to be fake. If something could possibly happen then I'd put it down as a thriller. SILENCE OF THE LAMBS, SEVEN, PSYCHO, REAR WINDOW, COPYCAT, JAWS and others like it are "thrillers" to me. There's always exceptions to this rule of mine. Something like TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE but I think that goes back to the execution of the director. Stuff like FRANKENSTEIN, BRIDE OF FRANK, WOLF MAN are more "horror" to me because it isn't real.
I also use this with "science fiction" after reading an interview with Spielberg back when JP was released. He said stuff like E.T., CLOSE ENCOUNTERS and THE DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL were "science fact" because no alien had ever attacked us. If aliens really have come to this planet they haven't done us any harm so if a movie shows a friendly alien then it's "fact". Something like THE THING, ALIEN and various other "attack" films are the science fiction because it's fiction that an alien has ever attacked us.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
07-18-2005, 03:06 PM
|
#1207 of 2004
|
|
Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Local Time: 04:56 PM
Local Date: 11-18-2008
Posts: 1,602
|
Mike,
I completely empathize with your work situation - the fact that I need the dough to keep adding films to my DVD collection is the only reason I stuck to it for the last 10 years but, I have to tell you, it's an everyday uphill struggle... !
But enough of that self-pitying shit: how do you ever manage to get all that "rare" stuff? I know I won't be revealing any secrets when I tell you that I'm interested in many of those titles myself: DANTE'S INFERNO (1924), MACISTE IN HELL (1925), MOCKERY (1927), THE THIRTEENTH CHAIR (1929), MAN MADE MONSTER (1940), THE BLACK CAT (1941), THE MONSTER AND THE GIRL (1941), etc. |
|
|
|
|
07-18-2005, 04:25 PM
|
#1208 of 2004
|
|
Member
Join Date: Nov 2003
Local Time: 10:56 AM
Local Date: 11-18-2008
Posts: 4,608
|
Million Dollar Baby
Only pretty good at best, mostly because it was entirely cliche: The struggling underdog who wants a shot at boxing; the old creaky manager who may never get another chance, so takes said underdog on and teaches her; and then, while I admit I never saw the ending coming, it was again spun a thousand times before in other types of films. I didn't buy for one moment that Miss Swank's tough and determined character would choose the approach she did. It totally under-valued all she strove for prior to that. This is certainly a better than average film, but there's nothing fresh here, and it didn't deserve the Academy Award, IMO. The best thing about it were indeed the performances of Swank, Eastwood and Morgan Freeman -- and their interaction toward one another.
|
|
|
|
|
07-18-2005, 07:13 PM
|
#1209 of 2004
|
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2003
Local Time: 11:56 AM
Local Date: 11-18-2008
Posts: 4,206
|
Quote:
|
(and once again, there were more interruptions than in any movie theatre experience I ever had, for all you anti-theatre folks!
|
Perhaps that's why you missed the point of the ending.
I'm trying to do a bit more research on this title but none of my movie books have this listed. The print I got is 66 minutes so I'm not sure if it's complete or not. The IMDB lists a longer runtim | |
