Horror Movie Discussion Thread (1 Viewer)

[Paul Vineyard]

INFERNO: my favorite Argento film and one of the great films, period. It's a grower - watch it once and be confused but titillated, watch it again and be transported... It's one of the most dream-like films ever made and I love the fact that it doesn't 'make sense' in so many ways. Think of it as a companion piece to LAST YEAR AT MARIENBAD (with which it shares an actor), a kind of artistic haunted house movie.

 

[Vincent_P]

Regarding this HEAVENLY CREATURES comment:


I've seen this repeating several times over the years that Jackson "prefers" the shorter Miramax edit (which is 10-MINUTES shorter, not 1 1/2 mins), so way back in 1997 or 1998 when Jackson used to post at the long-defunct "The Bastards Have Landed!" website, I actually asked him which version he prefered. His basic answer was sort of a diplomatic middle-of-the-ground non-answer. He said something like, "For big fans of the film, the long version, for casual viewers, the shorter version is probably better". The basic jist of his comment was that he wasn't unhappy with how Miramax trimmed the film, but he certainly didn't say that it was his "prefered" version, and ended his post by saying that he eventually wanted to release a "special edition" of HEAVENLY CREATURES "containing ten minutes that hasn't been seen in any version". Obviously, he got busy with the LORD OF THE RINGS films shortly thereafter and this was put on the back-burner, but if Jackson truly "prefered" the 99-minute Miramax edit, then doesn't it stand to reason that he'd want that version to have beem the one that was released in his home country of New Zealand in the first place?

Myself, I much prefer the longer cut overall, although the Miramax edit does tighten up a couple of sections quite nicely (for example, I prefer the shorter Miramax version of the opening "travelogue" footage).

Regarding INFERNO, it's my favorite Argento film, and I even love Emerson's music.

Vincent

 

[Kevin M]

Well, sorry, the comparisons I made between the short (cable) and long versions (DVD) seemed to be one of slight snippets here & there not 10 min.
I see from visiting The Fourth World what scenes were cut and their length.

(Shrugs shoulders) Oh well, my mistake.

 

[Brook K]

Hmm, I'll have to check out Der Fan, but I thought Audition was great, easily one of the best horror films of the last 15 years or so. I'm just now getting to some of Miike's other films. I also love Kiyoshi Kurosawa's Cure, but otherwise I mostly agree with you on the new Asian horror films.

Devil's Rejects is pretty fantastic, old school hardcore stuff. A couple actually walked out after the semi-truck splattering, that was great!

 

[nickGreenwood]

Poltergiest is the only flick that ever really scared the ever living crap out of me. The Exorcist didn't bother me as much as it bothered a lot of people, maybe it's because I watched it at a much older age than most people see it at.
Blair Witch sort of got me, but I watched it in the middle of the night alone, so I guess nearly anything could get you.
There were a couple of scenes in The Sixth Sense that freaked me out. But nothing since Poltergiest and then before that Psycho and Vertigo did I really get freaked out from a film and/or say WTF?

 

[Kevin M]

Well...there you go! That pretty much sums up my feelings on the film.

 

[Michael Elliott]

I agree with you Kevin. I never for a single second bought the director's comments that the film tries to give people a "message". I guess the director feels the media are worse than cannibals and that's why this group does what they do. The only reason the film is remembered is due to the animal violence. Without that controversy this film would be forgotten like so many of the other cannibal films.

Case in point....CUT AND RUN. This is from the same director, has the same stupid "message" yet there isn't any animal violence. The film is just as boring as CH but without the controversy no one really mentions the film.

MAN FROM DEEP RIVER and JUNGLE HOLOCAUST are a lot better films. There's still animal violence in these but there isn't any "message" but instead we've got fun adventure films.

I did like the score though.


Has anyone here seen CHAOS yet? I've been following the Roger Ebert debate with the director but I really think Roger needs to drop the subject. Ebert's certainly in the right but I think he's bringing more attention to the film that is going to cause people to go out and see it.

I watched Bergman's THE VIRGIN SPRING for the first time last night and I must say I have even less respect now for LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT, HOUSE ON THE EDGE OF THE PARK (from the director of CH) and other ilk.

 

[Joe Karlosi]

Mike, I just wanted to have you on record here if I understand you correctly. Because I know that in many of our various talks over the years you've always maintained that - regardless of what we viewers think - you always go by what the director says regarding the last word as to what his intentions are for his film. Would this be fair to say, that you sometimes doubt the director, too?

 

[Michael Elliott]

The problem is that the director has at least seven different stories so people can pick and select which one they want to believe. Ruggero has changed his story so many times, due to the controversy, that you can't believe a thing he says. When people talk CH, it's for the controversy. Ruggero would be killed if certain people could get their hands on him so he has since lied about who shot and why the animal deaths were shot.

An attempt at a message is certainly there but this is hidden behind the violence, gore, rape, mutilations and so on. It's the same as you killing me to teach people that killing is wrong. It's like me blowing up a building to teach people that blowing up buildings is wrong. This isn't the right "message" to send is it?

 

[Joe Karlosi]

I haven't seen CH yet, but have certainly heard much about it in the way of controversy. I have to see it for myself to fully comment, but I don't think its content would bother me.

 

[EricSchulz]

Has anyone seen either of the following and can give me some feedback?

Dog Soldiers
The Descent

Both are by the same director. "Descent" is out now in the UK and the buzz on it is tremendous. Anyone seen it to give a first-hand account? Any word on a US release?

 

[ChrisBEA]

Dog Soldiers was excellent.
One of the few and far between gems that I was introduced to via Sci-Fi Originals.

I then got the real cut on DVD and loved it. Claustrophobic werewolf flick with some good creature design, good characters and some good blood.
Originally was going to star Jason Statham, but he went to do Ghosts of Mars instead.

 

[Alex Spindler]

Dog Soldiers has generated a bona fide cult following in my view. I think it's a really great combination of action and horror with some nice enthusiastic spirit.

Decent effects, some really fun characters that are like a cross of Cameron and Carpenter, and a good sense of both pressure and suspense with some good darkly comic moments. I'd recommend a view of it to anyone. DVD is pretty nice as well.

Edit:
With regards to CH, I think it's a case of meaning being developed after release. In some cases, the meaning some try to ascribe to a film has a close enough fit to some underlying thought process of a director that they agree although it wasn't a conscious driving force during the writing and making of the film. He was just trying to make an exploitation film, but because he crossed some of those boundaries, he was hounded about the film. Then you've got this whole push-pull of the justifications for certain scenes because he changes his position depending on who is talking to him.

I personally don't think there is any deeper meaning or message in it other than one you try to unearth on your own. Not to say you can't take something out of it, but CH (in my opinion) didn't have anything as high minded put into it. If it had shied away from killing animals, it'd have gone down as another somewhat routine exploitation film.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[Michael Elliott]

The content didn't bother me. It's the fact that someone would kill an animal for no reason other than to start a controversy that would put money in his pockets. That doesn't really bother me either. I just wish the director would be a man and admit this rather than pointing fingers at everyone but himself. His claims that the producer shot this footage is B.S. especially when the director shot the same footage a year earlier in JUNGLE HOLOCAUST.

 

[Joe Karlosi]

"I'll take the director's word for it".

Sound like anyone you know?

 

[Andy Sheets]

I guess I'm in the minority because I was not impressed by Dog Soldiers. It's not a badly made film but I found it numbingly unimaginative.

I'm looking forward to The Descent, however

 

[Amy Mormino]

The Descent is a fabulous movie, only slightly marred by one soap opera-ish reveal. Its a huge step forward from Dog Soldiers (which was pretty good imho) in budget and scope and far, far superior to the somewhat similarly themed The Cave. Big scares and lots of gushing blood. Best horror film of the year and superior in my mind to 28 Days Later and Shaun of the Dead among recent British horror films.

Neil Marshall could become one of the horror greats if he keeps it up. I'd like to see him (or some other Brit) do an updated gothic horror in the Hammer style. But I also read that he's considering a zombie movie soon, so that has to come first!

 

[Kevin M]

Shaun was a horror film?

 

[Amy Mormino]

Sure, I'd say it was a horror film, albeit a horror-comedy hybrid. There were plenty of laughs, but the zombie situation was seen as serious and many of the deaths were not depicted as humorous. Its more of a horror film than, say, Ghostbusters. People count Return of the Living Dead as a horror film, so why not this one?

 

[Matt Stone]

Agreed. It may be comedic, but it's style and infinite riffs on other horror films plant it in the horror genre.