Haute Tension (High Tension) - American release (1 Viewer)

[Rich Malloy]

I agree with Benson. While the twist is somewhat distasteful and certainly un-"PC" - and suffers from the same psychological reductivism that made alot of Hitchcock's works out to be laughers in this regard (Spellbound, Marnie, even Psycho, at least when Dr. Explication arrives on the scene) - it doesn't "cheat" in that there's an explanation for everything you see/don't see depending upon...

who's reality your seeing the events filtered through

...but I understand why it bugs people. First, it's unnecessary. This film needn't be anything more than a marauding killer and his unlucky victims. It did this part so well, so much better than anything we've seen in so long, with such a masterful use of editing and sound scoring, far above average acting, blah blah, that it didn't need the added weight of some sort of psychological insight. And the insight itself? Well, it's not exactly PhD material. In fact, it's not really even defensible. At best, it would suggest that the director is not exactly an enlightened individual, who perhaps has some issues with female sexuality in general and his own in particular.

Yes, we are much more informed, sensitive and moral than he. And our sensibilities are offended both by his retrograde views and for foisting them upon us after pulling the rug out from beneath us.

But, on the other hand, it's only a genre film and for an hour and a half we relished some of the most suspenseful stalk-and-kill we've seen since the heyday of 1970s American horror and some of the goriest, most unflinching slayings since Fulci and Argento were in their primes. So, I tend to dismiss that last-minute twist the same way I dismiss the good doctor in "Psycho". A poor choice, almost laughable (if not quite as distasteful as the one in "Tension"), but nothing so bad as to ruin all that came before. A minor fault, at worst.

 

[Brook K]

Well, if I had thought that way about the film than I'm sure the twist wouldn't have bothered me so much either, but I wasn't close to affected by the movie, thus the twist came off as extra cheesy, a last gasp effort at getting a rise out of the audience.

I would place it well behind a number of recent horror films both in effectiveness and gore (though that's without seeing the uncut version) and it has nothing on, say Audition for flinchiness.

 

[Rich Malloy]

It's kinda funny that Miike, so often accused of mysogyny (and rightly so, I 'spose) could make a film that not only posits the female character as ruthless avenger, but that also takes care to show her great delectation in the slow torture of basically an ordinary schlub who's worst crime is that he happens to embody some of the mildest, least objectionable male traits of Japan's modern patriarchal society... and yet still have us sympathize with the female avenger!

It's nothing akin to the distastefully un-PC characterization of Asa's depiction (trying to avoid spoilerizing without being too specific here). So much so, in fact, that "Audition" is nearly an enlightening experience by comparison. And where "HT" ends with a certain thudding finality, with an unclean feeling of having been in the company of someone who's views you find both primitive and repellant (but you only just realized it in the last few moments), "Audition" allows one the opportunity to reconsider whether perhaps we've been in the company of someone who's both enlightened and sympathetic to the historically oppressed, in a way that we might not have expected or appreciated until the very end. But Miike always seems to side with the oppressed, the weak, the outsider.

But "Haute Tension" is only a very good genre film, IMO, whereas "Audition" is a masterpiece that transcends genre. You'll certainly get no argument from as to which is the superior film!

 

[Rich Malloy]

But I disagree with you on the notion that "Haute Tension" lags "well behind a number of recent horror films both in effectiveness and gore". I don't think it's fair to compare it to "Audition", which is not really a genre film at all, but I also don't mean to limit the comparison only to traditional stalk-and-kill horror films in the "Hills Have Eyes"/"Tx Chainsaw"/"Friday the 13th" tradition. But even casting that net a bit wider, I'm hardpressed to think of any recent (genre) horror films that are as impressive as "Haute Tension".

 

[Brook K]

Since I agree with you on Audition, I realize I was stacking the deck with a comparison, I just didn't have time to list movies I was thinking of.

Now I may be in a group of 1 on this, even if the film was popular, but I thought the Dawn of the Dead remake was excellent, far, far better than I ever thought it could be. While not trying to approach the original thematically, I thought it worked great on a simpler horror/zombie level. It made my top 10 of last year and I thought it was the best American horror film since Larry Fessenden's gritty, "real-life" vampire riff Habit.

A few others that come to mind: Shaun Of The Dead, House Of 1,000 Corpses, Cabin Fever, 28 Days Later (I wasn't the fan of this many were, but still preferred it to High Tension), Freddy v Jason, He Loves Me He Loves Me Not, the middle section of the fantastic Red Lights.

I won't mention some of Kiyoshi Kurosawa's films since, like Miike, they're kind of a genre unto themselves.

 

[Malcolm R]

The local theater kicked this film to the curb after only 5 days.

I don't recall any film ever playing for less than one full week before. Even "Gigli" got at least seven days.

 

[Rich Malloy]

Here's an edited-down-for-HTF version of an LA TIMES story on the decision to dub "Haute Tension" for American audiences (full story requires registration, but I've tried to keep all the parts about LGF's decision, trimming sections dealing with the process of dubbing and some of the reaction to the dubbed version):

I hope this is, in fact, recognized as a failed experiment.

 

[BennyD]

Thought I'd throw my 2 cents in...

Take this with a grain of salt, because I'm not a huge fan of the genre, but I found this film to be horrendously bad. In fact, about the only thing that elicited fear in me was the realization that half-way through there was still another half to sit through. I can understand that we are seeing the movie from Marie's perspective, but having her character then interact with someone in her imagination
doesn't work. Films that have tried this gimic and had some success, for instance Identity, work because the mental characters are seperate from the real characters.

The plot holes seem to be many and the only thing I can think of that would somewhat tie them together, we're seeing a replay of what happened from within Marie's mind up until we see her in the psyche ward
, is a very thin and insulting plot device.

Overall, I rated this film 1/2 / :star::star::star::star: and that was probably being generous.

 

[Rich Malloy]

There's one other (IMO) quite brilliant shot/sequence that works especially well on a second viewing: the shot of Marie in the gas station bathroom looking into the mirror. Aja manipulates the viewer's expectations that the killer's face will suddenly appear looming behind Marie in that mirror when she looks up again... only it doesn't. The first time through, I appreciated the subversion of this cliche. The second time through, I appreciated it for doing just the opposite.

 

[Simon Massey]

Finally got to see this. It was the uncut version.

Thought it was a very effective horror film, and whilst the twist didnt bother me, I did feel it was unnecessary and the film was working perfectly well enough without it.

 

[Christopher B]

I have had the uncut version for a while and loved it from the first viewing. I am surprised at how many people hate the "twist" at the end.

If you listen to the commentary track on the Switchblade Romance DVD, the director talks about how the whole story is being told by Marie in the hospital. I don't think that it is made very clear, but it is supposed to be her version of what happened. She wants to be the hero and save Alex. In order to be the hero there needs to be a bad guy. If what has happened is all coming from her, she can say whatever she wants. None of the details are really important because we don't really know exactly what happened except that she was doing the killing all along. People talk about where the truck came from and things like that, but there probably was no truck at all. Marie just created the most vile and digusting looking killer she could in her mind. He is more of a caricature than a real person. I do think that the reactions of Alex's family when they are being killed is supposed to give us a clue of what is happening, but you don't actually realize that until the twist is revealed. Watching it a second time gives you a different perspective. When the mother turns to Marie and asks "why", takes on a whole new meaning when you know the truth.



Even if you don't like the twist, I personally think that the level of gore and the feeling of despair is a throw back to those old late 70's and early 80's movies, and that alone made it a fun movie to watch.

 

[Seth Paxton]

Okay, WTF is the deal with Dean Koontz not getting ANY writing credit despite this flick being an extremely faithful adaptation of the first 5/6ths of "Intensity"?

Honestly these remakes and adaptations without credit are starting to really tick me off. It's one thing to say "there's only so many stories that can be told" when 2 films are a little similar, it's quite another when you know what scene is next because you already read the book.

They didn't even bother to hide the fact with the title - High TENSIon vs ITENSIty. Yeah, intensity and high tension are 2 totally different things. :rolleyes


I can't recall some of the other recent films like this, but I've commented on it before when I did see them. Shouldn't there be more lawsuits going on.

And in the case of this film it pissed me off because most of what is good about it are the Koontz ideas. The filmmaking itself is not much stronger than what was used for the US TV version of the same film (but with amped up gore).


edit - another example of a uncredited remake: The Deep was remade as Into the Blue with no WGA credit given or open advert acknowledgement of the fact.

 

[Andy Sheets]

I thought this movie had two of the most unintentionally funny murders in recent memory: the decapitation in the stair rail and the one involving the very unwieldy power-tool used on the guy in the car

 

[Seth Paxton]

Obviously my experience with this film ran a tad negative.


Argh, I just looked at their other credits and this hack Alexandre Aja also has "written" and directed The Hills Have Eyes remake (Craven got credit on that one) and the upcoming Piranha remake (no other credit for that listed so far). I guess Robinson and Sayles in no way wrote a similar story and exact same named film back in 77-78.

From IMDB
Piranha 78 - When flesh-eating piranhas are accidently released into a summer resort's rivers

Piranha 08 - In Lake Havasu, Arizona, a tremor causes the lake's floor to open, setting free scores of prehistoric piranhas.

Get a freaking original idea already hackboy. 3 films he's made are remakes now. One wasn't credited in any way at all and still isn't listed as a remake or adaptation.

 

[Rich Malloy]

I've never read "Intensity" (nor even seen the made-for-TV movie), but I did hear about the minor hubbub this caused. I've read two Dean Koontz novels in my lifetime, both when I was stuck at a shitty "beachside" motel in Mobile Alabama where the take-a-book-leave-a-book library stocked nothing but cheap horror and romance novels. Of the two Koontz's, the one I recall most was the one about some guy who took up residence in a rural house and has the scary put to him by an extraterriestrial shape-shifting creature in the woods. The other was even less memorable.

It's impossible to say without reading the novel (and I don't plan to find myself in a place like Mobile ever again without something worthwhile to pass the time), but I'm surprised Koontz hasn't attempted to enforce his copyright. I'm not familiar with the law in this area, but certainly more power (and money) to him if he's obliged to bring an action for infringement against the filmmakers.

None of which impacts my enjoyment (or lack thereof) when viewing the film. And so far as I know, Aja may have improved upon Koontz's novel, as he improved on Wes Craven's wildly overrated "The Hills Have Eyes" (a filmmaker who'd be more highly regarded today if he'd simply stop making anymore films). I guess I may be the only who thought Aja's remake of "Hills" was worth seeing, much less better than the original. I won't argue that point. But I'd wager you'll have a better time watching Aja's remake than Craven's own sequel to "Hills". In fact, watch all three, back-to-back, and then tell me that Aja doesn't do more justice to the original than Craven himself. Aja's remake honors the first film and the spirit in which it was shot, taking itself utterly seriously and absolutely going for it in every respect. Compare that to Craven's a dull and uninspired attempt to cash-in on past glory, slapped together by a director who - at least at this point in his career - didn't give two shits about making an effective film or preserving (much less adding to) his legacy.

That's why Aja's significant, at least to me and to the extent he is. Likewise Zach Snyder, who remade "Dawn of the Dead". And Neil Marshall, while we're on the subject. New guys who are making damn good horror films, old school and without apology. It's a damn good thing we don't have to rely on Craven to deliver the gory goods.

 

[Seth Paxton]

I haven't seen the Eyes remake and was interested in it before knowing that he was involved. I'm still interested because I can certainly agree that the original was an interesting idea done pretty cheaply.

My rant on him isn't that but simply that he is getting writing credits on this stuff and apparently posing as the sole creator (with co-writer) in the case of High Tension. That really ticks me off. Couple that with the fact that his body of work is basically remakes and I lose some respect for him, even if the films are glossy and tight.


Zach Snyder got it, and he also altered it in an interesting and productive way. He actually improved on the THEME running underneath which the original handled a bit lightly to be honest.

Imagine if Dawn still started with a police assault on some militant group in an old high rise, featured them going to the mall via helicopter, and so on but was called Deadly Dawn and gave no credits to the original at all.

Oh, and then halfway through it turns out THEY are the zombies and are locked in a zombie hospital for public protection, not holed up at the mall. Wow, dude blew my mind.

I love a great remake. First, have a thematic reason, not just "we gots better FX now". Key on a theme of the film that moved you, retell that story to bring that out in your own voice. Don't tweek just to tweek, but change to enhance your theme, even if its similar to the original theme.

Second, give credit, acknowledge the film/story that inspired you. That's why you are making the new film after all.


Aja would have done far better to just buy the rights to Intensity, credit it, keep the same plot and film it that way, going beyond what TV could do with it.

 

[Rich Malloy]

I'd like to say it'd make absolutely no difference to me, except I might not have seen it had Koontz's name been attached. And that would've been my loss!

I've seen a slew of old-school horror films since "Haute Tension", some good and some really bad, but IMO none except possibly "The Descent" that's as impressive a bit of film-making as this. The "Dawn of the Dead" remake certainly ranks, as well. Like those others, the editing of "Haute Tension" is perma-tight, and I love the way Aja plays around with the grammar of the horror film, for scares or yuks or as a wink to the audience that's subtle enough to not break the tension (the gas station bathroom "mirror shot" being one of my favorites, as I related way back when this thread was current). Fantastic sound-scoring as well. Better acting than per usual for a stalk-and-kill flick, and I've never been less than completely creeped out by every character I've ever seen Philippe Nahon play.

Not a milestone of modern cinema, but that's OK by me. As a fan of genre cinema who's often turned off by the more slapdash, goofy elements that tend to mar this particular type of film (see, e.g., Wes Craven's sequel to "Hills"), I do appreciate it when something like this comes along that gives me a jolt, more than a few thrills, and finally a flick I don't feel the need to condescend to in order to enjoy.