IGN Film Force Top 25's (1 Viewer)

[Joe Karlosi]

Many horror films are a "mystery". Isn't FRIDAY THE 13th a mystery as to who's doing the murders? And what about SCREAM? It's absolutely a whodunit, yet it's a horror film.

 

[george kaplan]

I've only seen Halloween a couple of times, so maybe I'm fuzzy about it, but you're telling me that Jamie Lee Curtis' character knows who the killer is the whole time? It's no mystery to her as to who's following her and why? That's not how I remember it, but I'll have to chalk it up to my misrecalling the film.

You miss the point though. You guys keep pulling out reasons why Psycho isn't horror and these other films are, and in most of those cases, the same reasoning can apply across the films. These attempts to somehow exclude Psycho from the horror genre really are requiring you guys to engage in some serious definitional gymnastics. Yes, Psycho has a knife-weilding murderer whose crazy, and yes, there's nothing supernatural about the killer in Halloween, and yes there's people getting killed who are engaging in illicit sex in both films, and yes, there's there's this similarity, and yes, there's that similarity, BUT [convuluted logic I can't follow] and so of course Halloween is horror and Psycho isn't.

 

[Michael Elliott]

Which is why I asked you why PSYCHO was a horror film and any other Hitchcock film (within reason) wasn't. Are you saying PSYCHO had more in common with the horror films of its day than previous Hitchcock movies? Does PSYCHO have more in common with the exploitation or slashers from the 70s/80s rather than previous Hitchcock films?

I think the point I'm trying to make is that PSYCHO is very much in common with every other Hitchcock film made up to that point. Hitchcock was mystery and suspense and shocks. That's what PSYCHO was. The only difference is the murder weapon. As for "monsters", I'd say killing a pregnant woman was more monsterous than anything in PSYCHO. Norman couldn't help what he was doing but killing for the fun of it in ROPE was a tad bit more monsterous. The build up to the ending of PSYCHO even plays it very much the same was as SUSPICION, although Grant didn't ruin this film.

 

[Ruz-El]

Nope, I'm saying there is no mystery because it doesn;t matter a bit who, or what is killing these kids. There is no who-done it, there is no big reveal, just a "monster on a rampage". That's a horror movie.

"Psycho" is all about the mystery, Michael is absolutely right. the "Psycho is horror" opinion is a as streached as the suppsed "Die hard horror fans" that I'm supposedly a subscriber to. Yes, all films are mutli-genre, all films have many facits to them that can place them in many parts of the video store. I don't begrudge anyone for thinking Psycho is a horror film. I just can't believe how it's so hard to think that it's not!

 

[george kaplan]

I keep trying to explain, it's all atmosphere. Much of Rear Window is humor and lighthearted. The same is true of Rope. Yes there's been a murder, but there's also a party at which a lot of lighthearted banter is being thrown about. It's nothing like a horror film.

Psycho plays much differently. It is dark the entire way through. There's nary a bit of humor, except for black humor. The whole film is, how can I say it?, a horror film.

Now, Vertigo is certainly a serious, and dark film. But while there's a murderer in the film, you don't even know that til late in the film, and the film is very much a mystery - it just turns out that the solution to the mystery was a murder.

Look at the Arbogast character going up the stairs in Psycho. This is very much in the typical horror vein where the audience is saying "don't go up there", and you know something scary is going to happen. This doesn't exist in other Hitchcock films (except the Birds which is also horror).

I mean take Rear Window, and the end when Jimmy Stewart is waiting in the dark. Yes it's suspenseful, but it's not really horror. You know what's coming, and you know he's not going to get away with killing Jimmy Stewart.

The truth is that you'd have an easier time getting me to agree that other Hitchcock films (such as Dial M for Murder) are horror, than you will getting me to agree that Psycho isn't.

I don't want to give IMDB too much credit, but it is telling that if you look up Psycho you see Horror/Thriller. If you look up Halloween you see Horror/Thriller. If you look up Friday the 13th, you see Horror/Mystery/Thriller. If you look up Rope you see Crime/Drama/Thriller.

I tread into dangerous territory here, but I'm trying to make an analogy that I hope is informative, and is only accidently about taboo subjects. There are lots of different types of Christians, but one particular subgroup - Evangelical Christians, have basically attempted to coopt the name for themselves. They call themselves Christians, but they mean it to exclude other Christian groups.

Gore fans seems to have done the same thing with horror. Basically they call themselves horror fans, and if you like horror films, but not gory ones, you aren't considered a horror fan, and many films liked by those other horror denominations are attacked as not being real horror.

I've already mentioned this, but it is remarkably similar to arguments from hardcore sci-fi fans, who will exclaim even more strongly than you guys do that Psycho isn't a horror film, that Star Wars isn't sci-fi.

Well, that's fine - you guys can define horror the way you want and exclude Psycho, and those guys can define science fiction the way they want and exclude Star Wars, but all of the mainstream definitions and books include Psycho as horror and Star Wars as science fiction, and you can argue that all those mainstream people are wrong, and that the minority you are in is right, but I will stand happily with the majority and call Psycho horror and Star Wars sci-fi. I believe that majority includes not only most people, but also most film fans, as well as most sci-fi fans and horror fans. Now, it may not include the majority of self-proclaimed hardcore sci-fi fans who consider themselves the "only true sci-fi fans", nor the majority of gore-loving horror fans who consider themselves the "only true horror fans", but I don't believe those subgroups are the "only" sci-fi or horror fans anymore than I believe fundamentalist Christians are the only Christians in the world.

I don't think I've actually brought religion into this except as a contemporary statistical example, but if a mod disagrees, I'm sure this will get deleted and I will be appropriately reprimanded.

 

[Joe Karlosi]

What he said.

 

[Joe Karlosi]

In THE MOST DANGEROUS GAME, the man who hunts his prey is like a monster on a rampage. Yet it's not a horror film.

And once again, there are PLENTY of bonafide horror films that also have mystery to them. They're still horror if the proper mood and atmosphere/elements are there. I once more bring on FRIDAY THE 13th... it's a straight and gory horror movie, but the killer's ID is a mystery. Same with many, many other horror films.

In FRIDAY THE 13th PART 5 (A NEW BEGINNING) the entire film's goal is in making us wonder who is now the killer? Jason has been killed for good in the last film, and the question is "so who's the killer now?" - But guess what? This is still a Horror film.

 

[george kaplan]

Just to follow up what I was saying earlier - my dad grew up watching and loving all of the Universal monster films. I may like a couple of the best ones, but he likes all of them, including all of the cheesy B ones. He doesn't like the gore films of recent years however. But I don't think it would be fair to say he's not a horror fan. I also have a colleague at work I was talking to last night. Turns out he loves all those gore-fests you guys love, though he hates pretty much any film (not just horror, but any film) before the 70s. Now, leaving aside what I think of that, is he not a horror fan because of all the horror films he doesn't like? No, he and my dad are both horror fans, they just have strong denominational differences.

Usually in these arguments I'm getting attacked for my belief that Young Frankenstein qualifies as horror. Though I strongly disagree with those who deny YF is horror, at least I can understand where that argument is coming from. I just can't believe I'm having to defend Psycho as horror. What's next? The Sound of Music isn't a musical? High Noon isn't a western? Deep Throat isn't porn? Smokey & the Bandit Part 3 isn't a pile of crap?

Joe,

Needless to say, you make some excellent points!

 

[Raasean Asaad]

Seems like its the Pacino/DeNiro list. I don't know why those guys love GoodFellas so much that its always rated higher than the Godfather movies, I just don't see it. I like GoodFellas, a lot but neither it nor Casino ever moved me more than Coppola's work. I did love the inclusion of City of God though, damn fine movie that is.

 

[Ruz-El]

I've made about as good an argument as I can (and have noticed how my break down of "Psycho" and "Halloween" have been largly ignored ) about how the drive of the picture should dictate the genre it should be labeled with. These arguements seem to be twisted to somehow prove "Psycho" is deffinately a horror film. I don't get it.

I'm confused to the point that I'm bowing out of the discussion until I see "Psycho" again. I know in the past, I've never seen it as a horror picture, and I've never had any of my friends and family talk about as a horror picture. It's inclusion in horror books, in my opinion, is a calculated way of elevating the horror genre by including Alfred Hitchcock, a director who seems rarely recieves cristism. Give Hitchcock a page so you don't look like a schmuck talking up Hershel Gordon Lewis. "Alien" has always played as a scary, intenese Sci-Fi movie to me, I've never seen it in the horror section of a video store. I'm going to watch it again with fresh eyes, to try to see it as a horror film instead of a Hitchcock suspense film.

As far as the Crime list goes, I agree that I'm somewhat stummped by "Goodfellas" all of a sudden topping every best film list. Didn't it top "Empires" top 100 movies of all time list or some such? I like the movie, I think it's pretty great, and insanely re-watchable, but I can't say it's the greatest, ever, or that it's Scorses's best (Taxi Driver get's that, IMHO).

 

[Ruz-El]

I guess I'm not done:b

I'd argue this, you're putting way too much credit on something that isn't really there.

Show me a scene in "Friday The 13th" where the characters are trying to track down who the killer is. I don't remember it, I just remember kids getting killed, being led to believe it's Jason, and than having a twist at the end. That's not a mystery, that a cheap, easy pop. An effective pop, but cheap all the same.

My memory is more hazy on part 5, but again, I don't seem to remember any sleuthing or attempts to solve who the killer is in this one either. Just a disturbed kid, which again is used for a cheap pop at the end of the movie. Now I know your chomping at the bit to hit me with a "Normans disturbed too! You just proved "Psycho" is a horror film." I'd like to remind you: The drive of F13P5 is: Kill kids on camera, use whatever premise you can to kill kids on camera, but kill kids on camera. You don't kill kids on camera, and F13P5 falls apart, because what you call a mystery, isn't really a mystery, but a cheap excuse to kill kids on camera. I have shown how "Psycho" completely works, with out any killing, without any horror trappings, or horror elements. At it's core, it is a suspense/mystery film (like most of Hitch's films), that uses horror elements to build mood, and shock the audience. It is not a horror movie.

"Scream" is a horror movie. It's actually one of those special movies that has out and out horror elements that deconstruct horror films, while still being a horror film. The mystery in this is very important to the film, but the horror aspects are front and center. I don't think anyone has ever questioned this film though, so I'm not sure how it proves the "Psycho in horror and nothing but horror" argument.

Of course, when I get to watching "Psycho" again (I plan on watching both Warners Hitchcock Signiture collection and Universals Masterpiece collection in cronological order, so it well probably take a couple weeks to get to it, depending on my schedual) I might have an epiphany and think it's the greatest horror of all time.

 

[Joe Karlosi]

I don't mind waiting. However, as you yourself said earlier, you've explained your points many times already. I feel I have also exhausted this at the present time with my points.

I don't know that we can ever convince each other differently.

 

[Michael Elliott]

Can I buy you a Jess Franco film?


Again, this debate is just a matter of opinions because you'd put YF as a horror film while I'd put ROPE as a horror film. As for the religious angel you put in here, re-read that and you'll see why I don't consider ROSEMARY'S BABY or THE EXORCIST a horror film. At least with those I have the director's on my side.

 

[Ruz-El]

OHH you guys!! You pick the littlest thing...!! DOH YOU ...GOD!


What is the classic deffinition of a mystery? I don't know! But I think it's trying to solve something, isn't it? Something is happening, and someones trying to find out why? Isn't a character trying to figure something out? I don't see this happening in the F13, other than trying to figure out how to survive. Not really a mystery in my book.

"Psycho" has way more mystery elements than horror, with all sorts of people sleuthing around trying to find out what happened to the missing person. Not much of a mystery, it's still a suspense/thriller.

A note on "Psycho"
If you read the following:
Amazon.ca editorial review
All Movie Guide Review and synopsis
Roger Eberts review on the Psycho remake (I could not find an Ebert review on the original, but he does reference it.)

Not once is it described, or called a horror film. I don't think the word Horror even appears in any of the reviews. It does however call one of the greatest suspens/thriller films.

 

[Ruz-El]

This is pretty dangerous advice Michael, I think a mind could snap doing this.

I plan on picking one of these up in the next horror challenge!

 

[george kaplan]

I'm certainly not a horror fanatic, but that doesn't mean I hate horror, nor does it mean that the horror films I do like (Psycho, Jaws, Frankenstein, etc.) aren't horror films.

Michael, as far as your Hitchcock comparisons, obviously Psycho and The Birds are going to be similar in many ways to other Hitchcock films. That in no way means that Psycho and the Birds aren't horror, nor that Rear Window is horror.

I have Ebert's review of the original. Here's some relevant quotes:

"Hitchcock deliberately wanted Psycho to look like a cheap exploitation film."

"Psycho was promoted like a William Castle exploitation thriller"

"Unlike modern horror films, Psycho never shows the knife striking flesh...this remains the most effective slashing in movie history, suggesting that situation and artistry are more important than graphic details."

And for every site you list that doesn't call Psycho horror I can find two that do. I did a quick google search typing in just "Psycho Hitchcock". The first site to come up? www.houseofhorrors.com. From that site "Psycho is and always will be one of the most influential horror films in history."

From the second site, www.brightlightsfilm.com "Hitchcock found with Psycho that Paramount was unwilling to put its money into a horror film that would brutally kill off its main character halfway through the film and substitute a psychotic as the main object of interest."

From the third site, www.imdb.com "genre: Horror"

From the fouth site, www.studyworld.com "Hitchcock's brilliance as a director
has consolidated Psycho's place among the most reputable
and profound horror films ever made."

I could go on and on, but the point is, that the vast majority see Psycho as a horror film, and vastly different in important ways than his earlier films. I will simply remain puzzled by the minority that do not.

 

[Joe Karlosi]

You keep throwing in the directors, but that doesn't mean a thing since they consider themselves auteurs who may be "above" that sort of thing and as you've always said yourself, "horror" tends to be looked down upon. Secondly, just because a director didn't set out to make a horror film does not mean that's not what wound up emerging in the end. And if anyone here has to convince you that THE EXORCIST and ROSEMARY'S BABY are bonafide horror films, there's little point in us wondering about your opinion of PSYCHO!

 

[Joe Karlosi]

Oh - so Ebert DOES consider PSYCHO to be horror? Bravo, George! (sorry, Roger) .

 

[george kaplan]

Hmm. Let me respond to these points.

It is true that there are some, quite large, groups of horror films that I don't care for. That would include:

a - ones that tend to have a lot of gore and/or graphic violence, even if they are well-made

b - ones that are essentially B-movies, even if they have no gore or graphic violence at all.

Now, I'll be the first to admit, that this eliminates a HUGE number of horror films. And if I were a true Horror fanatic, then I'd so love the idea of horror, that it wouldn't matter that the film was bad, etc. Obviously you guys who watch all those cheesy B horror films are that type of horror fanatic, and like I said, I'm not.

But that doesn't mean I don't like a third category of horror film: really well-made film, not bogged down by too much violence.

In other words, no I'm not a horror fanatic, but neither am I someone who hates horror, I only hate either bad horror films, or ones that are marred for me by too much gore (though that's not necessarily the right word - I don't have the right words, but I know what I mean).

You know I do consider myself to be much more of a science fiction fan in general, having grown up reading tons of sci-fi books (and I still do), and watching lots of tv shows and movies. However, I have the same problem with sci-fi films as with horror. All those old cheesy B sci-fi films - I don't like them. But not because I don't like science fiction.

The bottom line is - there is no genre (not even my favorite - comedy) that I like more than I dislike bad B movies.

And just a clarification. I am perfectly willing to put a film into more than one genre, but that doesn't mean that I think the film is equally those things. So, would I include Blade in a list of horror films - yes. Do I think that Blade is mostly a horror film - no. If I had to choose just one genre for Blade it wouldn't be horror, it would be action/adventure.

Other films I think qualify as horror, but I'd list primarily in another genre:

Frequency - sci-fi
Abbott & Costello Meet Frankenstein - comedy
The Silence of the Lambs - mystery
The Burbs - comedy
Time After Time - sci-fi
Blow Out - mystery
The Ghost & Mr. Chicken - comedy
Deliverance - action/adventure
Dressed to Kill - mystery
Sphere - sci-fi
Westworld - sci-fi
Young Frankenstein - comedy

So when I include films like those as horror, it's not because they are first and foremost horror films, but rather I think they qualify as more than one thing, with horror being a secondary, but legitimate classification.

Similarly there are films I do think of primarily as horror films, that also I would not hesitate to place in other genres, though secondarily, such as Alien (sci-fi), Duel (action/adventure), Wait Until Dark (crime), Frankenstein (sci-fi), etc.

 

[Michael Elliott]

Having watched it in a packed theater with some who hadn't seen it, PSYCHO still packs one hell of a punch especially on those who don't know all the secrets. I know you aren't overly fond of the film due to all the rip offs but there's no way anyone could argue that the film wouldn't hit those unaware of the secrets.

One last thing about the PSYCHO debate. In 2005 PSYCHO is a horror film because of the countless imitations that have followed in the past 45 years. However, in 1960 I don't think PSYCHO is anywhere near a horror film. Just look at the films out around the same time. You can't compare PSYCHO to any of them but you can certainly compare them to previous Hitch movies.

If PSYCHO is the one film that most "influenced" future horror films then THE VIRGIN SPRING by Bergman would have to be #2 due to the countless rip offs like NIGHT TRAIN MURDERS, I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE, HOUSE ON THE EDGE OF THE PARK, LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT, THE CANDY SNATCHERS and dozens more. Just because these horror/exploitation films were influenced by Bergman's film doesn't make THE VIRGIN SPRING a horror movie. I feel the same about PSYCHO. It might be looked at as that today but when it was released I doubt it. In fact, I really can't remember any older review that called it a horror film.

However, to take this to a different level of how people see films. In another thread about this very topic someone said PSYCHO was a black comedy. This was backed up by Hitchcock who said it was a black comedy during an interview. I hadn't thought of this but it brought back memories of me seeing this in a theater with 2000 people and there were A LOT of laughs. At the time I said they weren't laughing "at" the movie and thinking back they very well could have been laughing with the movie.

The biggest laugh? The expression on Perkins face when he comes in the basement at the end. Surely this wasn't the look on his face when he attacked Janet or she wouldn't have screamed.