|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=foG8zLMWJ_Y Greetings. I am incredibly sick.  Everyone has gaps in their movie viewing experience. In fact, we have a long-running thread meant to motivate people to watch classics they've been putting off. But many horror fans tend to watch an ungodly amount of films every year. Dozens of bootleg tapes of italian knockoffs per month, hundreds of no-budget direct to streaming atrocities per year. So how come so many of us horror goons still haven't seen some of the most important films in the genre? This thread aims to rectify that. Every day for all of January, a new classic horror movie will be assigned as homework. The films will be selected by their essential horror qualities and by polling the horror thread regulars on the most common missing films from the big names out there. How to participate: If you've never seen the assigned film of the day it is your duty to watch it, and you may write a short review. If you have seen the film, you may still watch it and review it, but you have to note that it's not your first viewing. You are encouraged to make your own list of horror films you have been meaning to watch in your first post in this thread.  Those who manage to watch a total of 31 new films this month (either the entire thread list or supplemented by your own personal list) will win a special prize! You don't have to watch a movie immediately when it's assigned, as long as you watch it before the challenge ends on February 2nd. Binging ahead is not breaking the rules, but it is discouraged unless you absolutely cannot clear up time to play along with the thread's schedule. We will be listing where each film is available for streaming when applicable. The fun fellows in the goon horror discord will be streaming some of the films to help the thread along, especially when it comes to certain films that are caught in legal limbo. Important Edit: Don't feel like you can't participate in this thread if you don't have time to watch 31 movies this month! If you can use the thread as an excuse to get even one new horror classic under your belt, then I consider that a success. The prizes are just a fun thing for those who want to take things to the extreme. Now, without further ado, our first Horror Essential: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDGw1MTEe9k The Exorcist William Friedkin's masterpiece is considered by many to be THE horror film against which all others are measured. For decades, "the scariest film since The Exorcist" was the most ambitious quote a horror movie could boast on its poster. While the 70s pace and low stakes may make the film seem quaint to some, by and large it's considered to hold up as a truly intense horror experience. This film has several cuts and releases, but they're all excellent. And yet many younger horror fans haven't actually seen this seminal work. Time to fix that! Available for streaming on Amazon, Hulu and Youtube Lurdiak fucked around with this message at 22:17 on Jan 1, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2019 19:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 17, 2024 00:58 |
|
|
Heads up! The Exorcist is the Theatrical Cut on Amazon, and on Hulu and YouTube it is the Directors Cut. Theatrical run time is 2h2m, Directors Cut is 2h12m.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2019 19:33
|
|
|
For first time viewing I would suggest watching the theatrical cut if possible. Well I can never resist a good horror challenge thread. But I can't count this one for the total so maybe I'll come up with a demon/possession movie that I haven't seen to substitute for it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2019 19:35
|
|
|
I am likely going to do a re-watch of The Exorcist tonight around 9pm (unlikely to change, but will update you guys if it does!). Please join us in Discord for some fun voice and text chat while we watch. My copy is the Directors Cut but I would be willing to grab the Theatrical Cut if there are enough new watchers that want the pure Theatrical Cut experience. Join us!  Here is an extra link to the Discord if you missed it in the text above https://discord.gg/xAkThzd
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2019 19:40
|
|
|
I'm in, even if it means I'll have to watch Friday the 13th. It's been such a long time since I've seen the Exorcist that I'd really love to rewatch it, but where on Amazon is it? Certainly not on Prime?
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2019 19:45
|
|
married but discreet posted:I'm in, even if it means I'll have to watch Friday the 13th. 'Tis on Prime.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2019 19:48
|
|
|
Lurdiak posted:'Tis on Prime. Maybe in Canada. Here it's $3 though for an HD rental so yea if you haven't seen The Exorcist it's worth spending $3.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2019 19:50
|
|
|
Lurdiak posted:'Tis on Prime. I think it’s not-Prime, just available for rent for $2.99. Not quite sure what the difference is because I so very rarely use Amazon to watch things. If you really are struggling to find a stream service or don’t have the (extremely worth it) $2.99 reach out to me via PM I can help.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2019 19:54
|
|
Windows 98 posted:I think it’s not-Prime, just available for rent for $2.99. Not quite sure what the difference is because I so very rarely use Amazon to watch things. If you really are struggling to find a stream service or don’t have the (extremely worth it) $2.99 reach out to me via PM I can help. Yeah I can't tell the difference either, it said Prime somewhere on the page though. https://www.amazon.com/Exorcist-Ellen-McRae/dp/B00124PXW8
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2019 20:23
|
|
|
I'm down to try to fill in some gaps in my horror watching experience. I've seen The Exorcist many times however. Hopefully some of the days this month will be things I haven't seen. In the meantime I guess I have to think of something to fill in for Exorcist per the rules? Hmm. Maybe tonight I'll try to watch Abby finally...
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2019 20:50
|
|
|
I am still adding to this list but so far here are 82 films I haven't seen. If you need inspiration! Some may get removed because they aren't particularly a "classic" and more of a recent film I just missed. https://www.letterboxd.com/jhplexbox/list/january-classics/
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2019 22:04
|
|
|
Windows 98 posted:I am still adding to this list but so far here are 82 films I haven't seen. If you need inspiration! Some may get removed because they aren't particularly a "classic" and more of a recent film I just missed. There are exactly 31 films on this I haven't seen! I have 14 movies left from Slant's Top 100 Horror Movies. So I'll try and participate as much as possible. I'm also going to spend a lot of January watching movies in 2019 I missed, one of which was Unsane, which I just finished watching. I loved it, and I'd consider it a modern classic (though time will tell). It's available on Amazon Prime. It's a paranoid, anxious film. Sawyer is a victim of stalking. She is worried her stalker might be back. She seeks counseling from a local clinic for support and therapy, but unknowingly is assigned involuntary admission. She is soon drugged and held against her will while being "treated". Steven Soderbergh directed this horror psych-thriller. It got a lot of attention for being filmed entirely on an iPhone with a small budget. The film looks great, embracing natural lighting and little make-up and including Soderbergh's love of strong colors, and the iPhone camera allows the film to at times be detached and clinical, and other times claustrophobic. The opening credits take full advantage of this, a simple scene of Sawyer walking to work, filmed far away from her, behind foliage and signs, a voyeuristic perspective. Soderbergh's voice is also strong here, including satire and cynical jabs at for-profit mental health facilities and their victimized patients and his willingness to let the story go to some dark and weird places. The movie, while anxiety-inducing, has with it a dark sense of humor, like the odd stalker victim lifestyle coach, a fun cameo by a well-known actor. The cast is stellar in this. Claire Foy is an excellent lead, supported by a great villain (Joshua Leonard) and a fellow patient (Jay Pharoah), as well as Juno Temple and Amy Irving. They're excellent. Since it's a new movie, I've kept this write-up vague, because this movie is filled with wonderful twists. I hope more people watch this one.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2019 00:00
|
|
|
Franchescanado posted:The film looks great, embracing natural lighting and little make-up and including Soderbergh's love of strong colors, and the iPhone camera allows the film to at times be detached and clinical, and other times claustrophobic. I'll jump in for some new-to-me streams.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2019 01:18
|
|
|
Do I have to post a list, or am I good as long as I watch classics? I’m bad at planning. I’m planning to watch The Birds tonight, since I watched The Exorcist during the October challenge.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2019 02:20
|
|
graventy posted:Do I have to post a list, or am I good as long as I watch classics? I’m bad at planning. Well if you can think of even 5 or 10 horror movies you've been meaning to see, based on their great reputation, that already helps me collate data. But you aren't forced to make a list to participate.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2019 04:24
|
|
|
Here’s a list of movies I haven’t seen that have been recommended by the horror thread, at some point. But I’m hoping to supplement those with your recommendations, of course.
graventy fucked around with this message at 05:05 on Jan 2, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2019 05:02
|
|
|
https://letterboxd.com/basebf555/list/january-horror-watchlist/ Here's the list I'll be working from when I need something to fill in for one of the official selections.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2019 05:10
|
|
|
Watched The Exorcist with some goons, just finished up. I’ve seen it a couple of times but totally forgot huge swaths of the beginning of the film, so it was nice to rewatch it. The visuals for the most part still legitimately hold up, and the soundtrack is still phenomenal. What a great god damned movie (pun intended). I am going to go get a snack and start working on my personal list. I think I’ll be watching The Stepford Wives.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2019 05:50
|
|
|
So, day 1. With a group of youse nuts in the spook-a-doodle discord I watched Exorcist for the umpteenth time tonight. I've seen it many times, but that doesn't stop me from enjoying it each time. It is definitely a victim of what I call "The Citizen Kane Effect" which is where an art piece of whatever caliber invents a bunch of new and interesting things, only for most of the parts that make it interesting to later get stolen piece by piece by derivative works, so that going back and watching it with old experienced eyes, the effect just can't be the same as it was when it was new and fresh. However, it's still a fantastic movie and one everyone should see at least once. It's very much set in its 1973, so the fashions and attitudes and everything are dated to then, but there is zero halfassing anything in this film. Every single shot is deliberate, the nightmares of the film only slowly build up, with the medical trauma Reagan faces before they turn to divine intervention being nightmarish enough that I personally cannot handle watching them due to personal baggage (I am not a well man), but then the more paranormal things start picking up, and they're still very distressing 45 years later to watch. And as the movie goes on, the technical side of things only just ramps up in craftsmanship. The camera angles feel only more important the more you watch. Dick Smith does an absolute masterpiece of makeup effects (and not just on Linda Blair) that I can honestly say has never been topped. I often wonder, looking at the history of reactions to the film, how I would feel watching it if I were Catholic, and if real religious fear would be a thing to me with it. I'm not religious at all, and there's still a real effect the film has on me, so I can only imagine. Everyone should watch this. Meanwhile, as I said, Exorcist is NOT new to me. So I tried to watch a thematically similar film for homework's purpose. I settled on the 1974 movie, Abby. (It's available on Youtube if you want to watch yourself). This movie takes the premise of the Exorcist--Demonic possession, eventual exorcism, and applies it to the blaxploitation mold. It's actually mildly scarce on home video because Warners sued the filmmakers over its supposed similarities to their monster hit. The funny thing is, of all the possession films I've seen (and I've seen a lot), this one really doesn't have a lot of its elements taken from the former movie. The plot has a priest (William Marshall, far out acting the rest of the cast, as usual) take a trip to Nigeria to research ancient Yoruba practices and archaeological sites. Meanwhile his son, also a minister, and his daughter-in-law move into a new house with the help of her brother, a police detective. After opening a box he finds in a site that he believes to be dedicated to a sex-based malevolent Orisha (the gods and goddesses of Yoruba and Santeria (I've done my homework here haha)) it bears a grudge on him and his family, and possesses the daughter-in-law, Abby, turning her from a reserved happy housewife into a philandering woman going from place to place, picking up men, seducing them, and murdering them. Her family must then desperately track her down and use the Yoruba traditions to banish the spirit within her. As far as blaxploitation goes, this isn't a terrible movie. It's small and low budget, with most of the effects being demon faces and people getting thrown across rooms. As I said already, William Marshall acts circles around the rest of the cast, much like in Blacula, but at the same time, the small cast does a fantastic job of making you feel like you're looking a real family within a wholesome community, and I can't help but admire that. Also Abby's transformation is cheesy, but it's gradual as well, with like, her attitude and actions slowly growing in hedonism and disrespect for the church as the film goes. At the end of the day I'd say this isn't a bad movie to turn on while you're doing something else and only want to half pay attention to it. I give it a solid 3 Spook-a-Doodles out of 5.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2019 06:06
|
|
|
 Yeah yeah, I didn't see it until today. Sue me. The Exorcist is a movie that sparks a lot of debate. Not about whether it's good, but about whether it's good today. As revolutionary as it was in horror, it's still over 45 years old. Literally hundreds upon hundreds of horror films have been released in its wake. In 2019, what does that look like? To talk about it in a vacuum, it's a slower burn than you may expect from pop culture. Most of the famous/infamous content is actually in the latter half of the movie, with Regan's possession coming in after quite a few scenes (including a rather long intro in Iraq) and starting out with Pazuzu seeming more like an rear end in a top hat who hates doctors more than anything. As it progresses, it becomes increasingly more gruesome and disturbing. The infamous crucifix scene remains just as shocking today as it was when the film was new. But when it comes to how the film has aged, I find it in a weird place. In terms of "aging badly", it hasn't. It's still a great horror movie and Pazuzu is a surprisingly humorous and well-written villain. But a lot of what was special about it in 1973 isn't as special today. It's been copied to death by every film and TV show that's ever had an exorcism, either just trying to copy the formula or making jokes about it. It's hard to find "The power of Christ compels you!" very....well, compelling when you've heard it a dozen times as a joke. In the end, watching it is sort of like watching an old sitcom that used to be edgy and funny but is now old hat. You'll still get enjoyment out of it, but if you lack the context of what the genre was like at the time you'll wonder just why everyone calls it one of the greatest films of all time. And scariest? Not even close.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2019 06:15
|
|
|
I enjoyed The Stepford Wives, it was really good. Watching it in 2019 I can see some parts that may have influenced Get Out to some degree. It was a slower burn than I was expecting but I think when the payoff finally happened it was worth the wait. Some of the editing was a little weird and it would make cuts to a new scene in a manner that seemed like poorly done segues, though it’s a minor gripe. I think it perfectly predicted exactly what happens when humans can make lifelike robots. We will gently caress them and turn them into slaves. Stepford Wives has a lot to say about society, gender roles, and the willingness of old white men to feel entitled to pampering and whatever they so desire (when asked why the men are doing this the answer is quite literally “because we can”). It’s overt themes actually seem quite revolutionary considering when it came out. Less special today because of where we are now, but at the time far more unique. I have a sneaking suspicion that the things that make this movie so great we’re probably forgotten entirely in the reboot I have not seen, it’s it’s probably a much more straight forward horror. Just speculating but I would be surprised if I was wrong. The idea that essentially a random guy at Disneyland who used to make animatronics pulled this off doesn’t seem so crazy knowing what we know about robot tech today. Obviously the 70s didn’t have the tech, but now we have fake skin that seems real, and robots that can talk to us like real humans. Give it 10-20 more years and this movie may have an even greater appeal because it very well could “happen”. The main character Joanna is 1000% gorgeous. I think I am in love with her. She seriously is blindly beautiful. Or maybe I am just distracted by her nipples poking through her shirts in every single outfit she wears. It’s hard to tell. Anyway I found her address and I’m driving there now bye.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2019 07:56
|
|
|
Windows 98 posted:I have a sneaking suspicion that the things that make this movie so great we’re probably forgotten entirely in the reboot I have not seen, it’s it’s probably a much more straight forward horror. Just speculating but I would be surprised if I was wrong. It's much worse than that; the remake isn't a bad horror film, it's a bad comedy. It's actually almost worth watching in a "you have to see this poo poo to believe it" kind of way - there's a robot dog who looks like it's made from play-doh and a remote control that makes the wives' boobs grow - but its themes and personality are absolutely loving odious if you're the kind of person who agrees with the politics of the original. It comes from a very lovely place, culturally.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2019 09:45
|
|
|
Windows 98 posted:Stepford Wives has a lot to say about society, gender roles, and the willingness of old white men to feel entitled to pampering and whatever they so desire Windows 98 posted:The main character Joanna is 1000% gorgeous. I think I am in love with her. She seriously is blindly beautiful. Or maybe I am just distracted by her nipples poking through her shirts in every single outfit she wears. It’s hard to tell. Anyway I found her address and I’m driving there now bye. Heh.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2019 14:40
|
|
|
 Night of the Demons As far as classic 80's horror goes, this might've been the biggest one still out there that I'd somehow missed. And I can certainly see why it's a beloved cult film. Right from the opening credits I could tell I was going to like it, that animation is probably a great mood setter during Halloween season. Then you've got a pretty big role for Linnea Quigley, some impressively convincing special effects, and a nice cast of characters similar to(but not as good as) Return of the Living Dead. The first third of movies like this with the character intros and all the pieces kinda coming together before the poo poo hits the fan is actually pretty crucial for me. If you can make that stuff entertaining then it's probably a winner and that's what happened here. My only criticism is that it kinda lost steam at the end, as the group gets whittled down and there's only a few left. But I'll definitely be revisiting it in future Octobers, and the version available on Shudder/Prime is very good quality. My plan for the rest of the month is to keep these reviews short and very casual, and I expect to get up to around 15-20 films by the end.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2019 15:37
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2019 16:30
|
|
|
Windows 98 posted:It’s overt themes actually seem quite revolutionary considering when it came out. Less special today because of where we are now, but at the time far more unique. I have a sneaking suspicion that the things that make this movie so great we’re probably forgotten entirely in the reboot I have not seen, it’s it’s probably a much more straight forward horror. Just speculating but I would be surprised if I was wrong. You gotta remember the prominence of second wave feminism during the early 1970's. It was just as pronounced then as it is today, it was only in the early 80's that the movement went into a recession until it was revived in the 90's with the third wave (and most now say we're currently in the fourth wave in the internet era). So topics like the patriarchy, "women's work" and the role of housewives, sexual liberation were all topical and very much of the time. Simone de Beauvoir's work was highly influential during this time and many films from the late 60's and early 70's dealt with feminist themes, both approvingly and mockingly. For a comedy example, check out Bob and Carol and Ted and Alice. Also, as a kind of unintentional companion piece to The Stepford Wives check out Martha Rosler's short Semiotics of the Kitchen, which was made in 1975 and is a pure expression of pent up anger and rage against the dominating "women belong in the kitchen" narrative. The same year Chantal Akerman made Jeanne Dielman, 23 Commerce Quay, 1080 Bruxelles. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZuZympOIGC0 Side note about The Stepford Wives: You ever notice in films from this era how everyone has kids but they almost completely ignore them? No wonder Gen X is so hosed up and listless.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2019 16:47
|
|
|
The only time anyone gives a poo poo about the kids is when they can’t find them! You can always tell a Milford man. Children should be neither seen nor heard.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2019 16:57
|
|
|
Here is today's horror essential: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lCxR7dlavwg The Birds While Hitchcock's most famous entry into the horror genre is a certain black and white film, The Birds is an important demonstration of the power of good cinematography and use of sound to create true tension. The events of the film are bizarre and unexplained (and perhaps unexplainable), but the characters are so strong that the desperation of their absurd situation creates a true sense of creeping dread. A lot of people skip this film because of its simple and silly premise (after all, a complete synopsis of the plot would take less than one paragraph), but anyone who knows anything about Hitchcock knows the devil's in the details. Available for streaming on Amazon, Youtube, Vudu, Google Play, Microsoft and iTunes Lurdiak fucked around with this message at 18:06 on Jan 2, 2019 |
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2019 17:55
|
|
|
The Birds might be my favorite Hitchcock, and I've seen them all. I like to look at it as a postmodern film, it's as if the characters believe they're in a standard Hollywood romance movie, caught up in a small island town love triangle with an ever-predictable plot. But instead it's co-opted and invaded by this absurdist horror, and the characters can't believe it. They try to keep the romantic plot moving as long as they can, until they are overpowered by the force of the birds. By the end the film has firmly transitioned into horror, even recreating the shower scene from Psycho. The final scenes feel like a dry run for Night of the Living Dead, locked up and afraid of the merciless mass outside. If any of y'all are watching for the first time, consider how the bird attacks relate to feminine jealousy and the romantic plot. The two are tightly interwoven.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2019 18:09
|
|
|
Question about The Birds, for those that may know: How much of a surprise was the central plot of birds killing people prior to the release? I know the story of Hitchcock's Psycho, where Hitchcock made prints of the novel would be hard to find (by purchasing a lot of them himself), and wouldn't allow people to enter the theater once the projector started rolling, etc. Did he do something similar with The Birds? As mentioned, the movie is set up like a little romantic mystery and the first act involves a woman purchasing two birds to give as a present, and the title "The Birds" could easily be construed as a play on "The Love Birds". So did people go into The Birds knowing there would be terror delivered by feathered fowl, or was it a bait-and-switch shock that birds are pecking away at people? I've only seen about half of The Birds before I fell asleep. So I guess I'll be watching this one.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2019 18:55
|
|
|
I don't know for sure, but given that this was the original poster: I think it's fair to say that most people had a rough idea on what to expect.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2019 19:08
|
|
|
Hitchcock's reputation was so entrenched in suspense and the macabre by that point him trying to do a traditional romance would have raised eyebrows that something is up from the get go.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2019 19:08
|
|
|
I don't think there was a bait-and-switch, unfortunately, but here's the trailer and it's pretty great. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZjaVdJt59U It's basically just Hitch telling everyone why we deserve a good bird attack. Edit: I'm going to save my writeup for tomorrow, to not spoil anything for anyone watching it tonight. graventy fucked around with this message at 19:18 on Jan 2, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2019 19:12
|
|
|
I firmly believe the best way to sell a slow burn horror where it “devolves” into the horror is to sell it not as a horror movie and shock the audience. If I ever made a horror movie that’s what I would do. I fell asleep during The Birds too, right around the birthday party bit. Never came back to it. I will be watching it tonight too! Will try and organize a group watch in discord I think, like we did last night with The Exorcist.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2019 19:15
|
|
|
I think the marketing made it clear that The Birds would eventually attack. But Hitchcock was going for a different kind of suspense than in Psycho. The Birds is about knowing what's going to happen but not exactly when or where. There are a lot of shots in it that I think would have to be said to have been an influence on It Follows, because the first half of the movie had a lot of ominous birds in the background. Sometimes the characters take note of them, sometimes not, but Hitchcock of course makes sure that the audience notices. Psycho's marketing was more subtle I guess, it seemed to be more focused on the hotel, like "something really bad goes down here at this hotel but you have to see the movie to find out!" Then the movie itself goes on for a pretty long time before Norman is introduced so its easy to forget that the movie you're watching is even called Psycho(or I imagine it would've been if you saw it before it was so iconic). The Birds is a little more clear about it's intentions early on.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2019 19:17
|
|
|
Windows 98 posted:I firmly believe the best way to sell a slow burn horror where it “devolves” into the horror is to sell it not as a horror movie and shock the audience. If I ever made a horror movie that’s what I would do. It's a cool idea from an artistic viewpoint, but probably a terrible one in terms of commercial success because theatre-goers absolutely hate not getting the experience they expected.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2019 19:24
|
|
|
Samuel Clemens posted:It's a cool idea from an artistic viewpoint, but probably a terrible one in terms of commercial success because theatre-goers absolutely hate not getting the experience they expected. I know I am in the extreme minority but if I went to a movie I expected to be a romantic comedy and it turned into a horror I would be absolutely overflowing with joy. I love getting an experience I didn’t expect, if the film is good of course. I do agree it would make it a commercial flop for mainstream audiences.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2019 19:36
|
|
|
Windows 98 posted:I know I am in the extreme minority but if I went to a movie I expected to be a romantic comedy and it turned into a horror I would be absolutely overflowing with joy. I love getting an experience I didn’t expect, if the film is good of course. I do agree it would make it a commercial flop for mainstream audiences. You should absolutely watch Something Wild, directed by Jonathan Demme.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2019 19:37
|
|
|
Windows 98 posted:I fell asleep during The Birds too, right around the birthday party bit. Never came back to it. I will be watching it tonight too! Will try and organize a group watch in discord I think, like we did last night with The Exorcist. That's literally the scene where it pops off. Basebf555 posted:Psycho's marketing was more subtle I guess, it seemed to be more focused on the hotel, like "something really bad goes down here at this hotel but you have to see the movie to find out!" Then the movie itself goes on for a pretty long time before Norman is introduced so its easy to forget that the movie you're watching is even called Psycho(or I imagine it would've been if you saw it before it was so iconic). The Birds is a little more clear about it's intentions early on. It helps that the movie is called "Psycho" so you're kinda gonna go in and expect a psycho of some sort to appear. But like The Birds with the romance genre, Psycho is a film noir where the protagonist takes a literal wrong turn into a horror movie. The movie is basically what you'd get if Detour was a slasher. Franchescanado posted:You should absolutely watch Something Wild, directed by Jonathan Demme. YES.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2019 20:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 17, 2024 00:58 |
|
|
Which day are we watching Salò, or the 120 Days of Sodom?
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2019 22:42
|
|