Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us $3,400 per month for bandwidth bills alone, and since we don't believe in shoving popup ads to our registered users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
«22 »
  • Locked thread
CopywrightMMXI
Jun 1, 2011

One time a guy stole some downhill skis out of my jeep and I was so mad I punched a mailbox. I'm against crime, and I'm not ashamed to admit it.


Samuel Clemens posted:

It took me until the spoiler to realise that you were talking about Them and not Them!

I haven't seen Them, and I read the spoiler and I was racking my brain trying to figure out what that had to do with Them!

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Franchescanado
Feb 23, 2013

If it wasn't for disappointment,
I wouldn't have any appointment.


Grimey Drawer

My new girlfriend is really into horror movies, but hasn't seen a lot, so this will be a fun season.

1. She had never seen Creepshow, so we watched that last night. This viewing I really had fun watching the lighting, mixing blues and reds. She loved it. Her favorite segment was The Crate, which is still my favorite.


Now we're watching Cat People, which is a first time for both of us, and so far it's great.

All this slasher talk makes me want to watch the entire Chucky series. I've only seen the original.

SomeJazzyRat
Nov 2, 2012

Hmmm...


The List

Proto-Slasher
1. The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari (1920)
2. Fritz Lang's M (1931)
3. The Old Dark House



I'll admit, I probably wasn't in the best state of mind while watching this. As a horror comedy, I just couldn't find much humor in the film. I'm uncertain on whether to call it a product of it's time, it's place in popular culture, or maybe me not being an attentive enough viewer. I'm likely to say the latter, as reading some reviews afterwards reveals some fairly funny lines that flew over my head. I'm also inclined to say that it's labled as such due to it's levety it maintains for the most part. As a horror, it's perfectly serviceable among some of it's contemporaries like Frankenstein and the Invisible Man. Which makes sense as it is a Universal Picture in the time of their Golden Age of Horror Pictures, and as a James Whale picture released right between the two. The actor with the top billing is Karloff, whose imposing figure will probably be maintained as the most iconic image of the feature. And his performance earns that right, despite his only line being a gruff grunt introducing the horror elements of the feature. Though that is probably a reflection of the casting of the film, which is the film's real strong point. Between the charming leading man Melvyn Douglas and his equally charming romantic interest played by Lillian Bonds, the jovial yet equally troubled Porterhouse played by Charles Laughton, and the bizarrely sinister family all wonderfully portrayed by Ernest Thesiger, who acts as the nervous brother to Eva Moore, the faith filled sister who proclaims blasphemy at any thing that moves in spite of her helplessness, and most bizarrely 'Sir Roderick', a pseudonym of Elspeth Dudgeon. She portrays a 102 year old patriarch who ends up feeling less decrepit and more androgynous. And even though this list of names is near worthless to most people, I use this to emphasize that the cast of this film is really where the heart of this films is. And frankly, their interactions are perhaps the most entertaining part of the film. It's not exactly a surprise that it's a step down, especially after two of the greatest films of all time, but I do think there is some worth to the film. Especially after when it was nearly lost until being reintroduced in the late 60's. So I won't say you have to see, but if you're curious then I say it's probably worth a shot.

Plus, super easy to find on YouTube.

Thirsty Girl
Dec 5, 2015



SomeJazzyRat posted:

The List

Proto-Slasher
1. The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari (1920)
2. Fritz Lang's M (1931)
3. The Old Dark House



I'll admit, I probably wasn't in the best state of mind while watching this. As a horror comedy, I just couldn't find much humor in the film. I'm uncertain on whether to call it a product of it's time, it's place in popular culture, or maybe me not being an attentive enough viewer. I'm likely to say the latter, as reading some reviews afterwards reveals some fairly funny lines that flew over my head. I'm also inclined to say that it's labled as such due to it's levety it maintains for the most part. As a horror, it's perfectly serviceable among some of it's contemporaries like Frankenstein and the Invisible Man. Which makes sense as it is a Universal Picture in the time of their Golden Age of Horror Pictures, and as a James Whale picture released right between the two. The actor with the top billing is Karloff, whose imposing figure will probably be maintained as the most iconic image of the feature. And his performance earns that right, despite his only line being a gruff grunt introducing the horror elements of the feature. Though that is probably a reflection of the casting of the film, which is the film's real strong point. Between the charming leading man Melvyn Douglas and his equally charming romantic interest played by Lillian Bonds, the jovial yet equally troubled Porterhouse played by Charles Laughton, and the bizarrely sinister family all wonderfully portrayed by Ernest Thesiger, who acts as the nervous brother to Eva Moore, the faith filled sister who proclaims blasphemy at any thing that moves in spite of her helplessness, and most bizarrely 'Sir Roderick', a pseudonym of Elspeth Dudgeon. She portrays a 102 year old patriarch who ends up feeling less decrepit and more androgynous. And even though this list of names is near worthless to most people, I use this to emphasize that the cast of this film is really where the heart of this films is. And frankly, their interactions are perhaps the most entertaining part of the film. It's not exactly a surprise that it's a step down, especially after two of the greatest films of all time, but I do think there is some worth to the film. Especially after when it was nearly lost until being reintroduced in the late 60's. So I won't say you have to see, but if you're curious then I say it's probably worth a shot.

Plus, super easy to find on YouTube.

The sister is so wonderfully droll in her gloomy doom-speaking I can't help but think of Cold Comfort Farm when I watch Old Dark House.

Choco1980
Feb 22, 2013

I fell in love with a Video Nasty


Have a potato!

Thirsty Girl
Dec 5, 2015



Choco1980 posted:

Have a potato!

Have a potato!

TrixRabbi
Aug 20, 2010

Time for a little robot chauvinism!


If any of y'all want to diversify your directors this year here's a good resource.

http://flavorwire.com/483888/50-mus...-women/view-all

Random Stranger
Nov 27, 2009



TrixRabbi posted:

If any of y'all want to diversify your directors this year here's a good resource.

http://flavorwire.com/483888/50-mus...-women/view-all

There's some films I liked on there and some films I hated (recommending Boxing Helena? Seriously?!), but it's a good overview.

I've signed a purity pledge to not start my viewing until October and have a special ring and everything for it. However, I decided to look up a few different lists of "essential" horror films to see if I could find 31 on those that I haven't seen and really go for that. The list you provided is definitely getting added to the mix.

Choco1980
Feb 22, 2013

I fell in love with a Video Nasty


Hey, I liked Boxing Helena!

VROOM VROOM
Jun 8, 2005

goongratulations to forum user vroom vroom for winning the avatar contest. his casual confidence in easily claiming the twenty-first post is an inspiration to myself and others. warmest regards, wolfsheim




alansmithee posted:

Just wondering, why would you put Noroi with the other two? I don't recall it being super-gruesome or nearly as dark as the other two.

Also if you're ever going to do a triple-header, The thing/prince of darkness/in the mouth of madness seems natural as they're carpenter's pseudo-trilogy.

Thought someone might mention that about Noroi. I started to watch it one time and for some reason it really got into my soul like other horrors never have; I think the clever use of the found-footage format with the convincingly-produced TV specials, in-universe editing of footage, etc. gave it an air of authenticity that really sucked me in, and it's all executed and paced so well. I turned it off a half hour in when they revealed the ghosts that had been edited out of the tapes of the graveyard? scene because I was already spooked to the core

I did make sure to include the entire "Apocalypse trilogy" because I love me some Carpenter, so I'll probably pair the two I haven't seen and make it a triple-header in spirit as The Thing will always be with me.

Ambitious Spider
Feb 13, 2012




Lipstick Apathy

6-The Last Slumber Party] I really liked it. It's so lo-fi that it almost feels like watching a real video, and the house feels small and claustrophobic, the kids feel real. It definitely worked for me.

SomeJazzyRat
Nov 2, 2012

Hmmm...


The List

Proto-Slasher
1. The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari (1920)
2. Fritz Lang's M (1931)
3. The Old Dark House (1932)
4. And Then There Were None (1945)



I do want to note the time gap between the previous film and this one. I can't say I'm able fully explain it, but I can figure a couple of possible causes. One being the Hays Code, which stripped most salacious content that drew audiences in before. Before hand, you had Frankenstein, Dracula, The Mummy, and the Invisible Man as the top box office draws for Universal. Afterwards, well, it's hard to have an undead monster go on a rampage when 'Brutality and Possible Gruesomeness' and 'Technique of committing murder by any method' must be done in good taste without vulgarity or suggestiveness. Then there's WWII, which to put it lightly, wiped out a generation abroad. and the folks who made back home to America probably didn't find a fanged bloodsucker as horrendous as blind orders of men to march into the fire and bombs of enemy combatants. Plus, the film culture back then made Shirley Temple one of the biggest stars in Film. Point being, horror had to be done with a deft hand, and the culture that spawned the slasher craze was not particularly subtle or restrained.

And that brings us to this film. Crafted by the very talented hands of René Clair, one of film's first auteurs, and based on the novel of Agatha Christie. It definitely has that vibe that a lot of horror films are inherently imbued with. A creeping tension with a mix uncertainty and inevitability, creeping into a unwatchable trainwreck that you can't look away from. Well to be fair to horror, that's what I'd say most films are aiming for. And much like horror, it actually does manage to mix in some dark one-liners while keeping up the tension. It's hard to call it a horror though. While the film makes death both unwanted and inevitable to it's characters, for the most part the cast remain detached from the fear of finality. While most of them are very evidently fearful of that death and reaching the inevitable conclusion that their next, their focus from scene to scene is much more focused on the discovery and uncovering the mystery of their gathering. They seem to gloss over the fact that a familiar face has unexpectedly dropped dead, and that the same end is likely for them. To reiterate in a more blunt manner, most horror films go 'Oh no, they're dead! I could be next too', but in this film they go 'Oh no, their dead! Buy why?'. And I think that distinction, of separating themselves from gruesome consequences is what helped this film get made when it did. And the funny thing is that it is gruesome, most of the murders are implied to have happened in a very gory manner. But keep everything but the feet offscreen, and punctuate with a joke, and the censors wouldn't even think twice. In any case, it's interesting that other films have taken this film's conceit, like The Thing and Hateful Eight, and treat it with the gravitas that you would expect from such a film.

That said, it is a very good film. That central question of 'But why?' is what makes the film so engaging from the secret recorded message to the final kill. It is very twisty, filled with red herrings and subtle hints, and smartly navigates it all in a way that never feels deceptive. Like most of the best mysteries, it invites you in to solve it from minute one. Worst I can say is that it isn't the subtlest film, anytime a mite of symbolism enters the frame our protagonist is forced to hold it up to the light and muse out loud 'Much like these murders that are happening'. And it is of note that René Clair comes from a fairly lengthy career, both in France and the US. Making a start in the silent era, his style of filmmaking can seem of an era that's less than contemporary. He wasn't exactly pushing the medium like Orson Wells, but that isn't to say that it's practically a filmed stage play ala Caligari. It's just that many of his shots are creative and workman like. And it stands out after watching M a few nights ago. That film has shots that will still turns heads today. And to be 15 years out from that and watch a major film film that doesn't compete, it's a little disappointing. Though it does play with lighting in fun ways in the last third, to at least give the filmmakers some credit. All in all, I recommend the film as a very engaging and interesting viewing experience. And like all of the film's I've written up, very easy to find on Youtube.

Next up House of Wax

Franchescanado
Feb 23, 2013

If it wasn't for disappointment,
I wouldn't have any appointment.


Grimey Drawer

1. Creepshow

2. Cat People

I don't think the horror thread can go any more than two days before this gets brought up, and my library had a copy with this and Curse of Cat People on a single disk. None of the characters are inherently likeable. The four major players all have deep issues, and most of the drama is based around their disfunctional relationships and selfish desires. The sense of dread changes throughout the movie, because the inevitable horror at first appears to be out of jealousy and paranoia, but soon develop into "justifiable" jealously from heartache. This was a lot more human than I was expecting. I loved it. My girlfriend also loved it, despite being initially distrustful of the title. We will watch the sequel soon, but I can't imagine where the story can go from here.

/5


3. Chopping Mall

I asked the horror thread for an 80's-as-gently caress movie, and this came up a few times. Finally found it on a DVD with 7 other movies for $5, so I bought it immediately.

It is 80's-as-gently caress. I admit that I was working while watching it, but I enjoyed the cheese.

Thank you...Have a nice day...

/5


4. Hush

Home Invasion Slasher with Deaf Girl!

Not bad! Not great! Loose threads! Weird third act!

Harder to rank, because the movie isn't the best thing ever, even in it's own subgenre, but it kept me watching and rooting for the character despite its flaws. It never fully embraces it's premise, and the third act contradicts some of the things we know about the character (i.e. - She claims the only voice she hears in her head is her mom, but then she imagines herself talking to her). There's some good stuff in here, just needed more polishing. Still, at an hour and a half, it doesn't wear out it's welcome.

/5


I usually don't watch this many before the challenge becomes proper, but I'm going to be traveling a lot in October, and won't be able to consistently watch movies while I'm away.

Basebf555
Feb 29, 2008

The greatest sensual pleasure there is is to know the desires of another!


Fun Shoe

4. Southbound

I love anthologies and I have a few new ones to watch so I thought I'd throw in Southbound as well. I thought it was just ok, and maybe that's being generous because sitting here two days later I can't even remember much about it. The stories are all variations on a similar theme, and none of them are particularly interesting. There's the typical wrap -around where the first story ends up connecting with the last, but its done in an incredibly predictable way and its treated like a twist, but I wasn't surprised whatsoever.. It has one nice little visual touch with Reaper things and how they just hang there ominously in the desert, but it never really even goes anywhere with it. I probably wouldn't recommend this to anyone but serious horror anthology fans like myself who want to see them all, I suppose not too many of them are made these days and we take what we can get.

On a much more positive note, I'd saved two Vincent Price anthologies from a box-set I bought earlier this year, and they were both predictably fantastic.

5. Twice Told Tales

I really do love Technicolor. This anthology was just beautiful to look at from beginning to end. Its got it all, ominous lightning storms, foggy crypts, lush gardens, gothic mansions, and several flavors of Vincent Price facial hair. All three segments are extremely entertaining, although the first and last are probably a step above the second, Rappaccini's Daughter. Price is especially amazing in the third segment, where he acts out the climactic scene with a disembodied prop skeleton hand as an acting partner. I just had a hell of a lot of fun watching this movie, and it had a great trailer too :https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6h_D39i6UQE

6.Tales of Terror

A lot of what I said about Twice Told Tales applies to this as well, its Price delivering three awesome Poe adaptations and two of them feature particularly famous co-stars. Lorre is particularly good in the first segment, he's an extremely convincing drunk rear end in a top hat, and Rathbone is a lot of fun as a pervy mesmerist. Again, the Technicolor makes everything really pop, its so perfect for these kind of short horror stories. The colored candles, the stained glass lamp used for hypnosis, there's all kinds of color in almost every scene. Price is particularly good in the first segment, where he plays a self-hating, guilt-ridden man who hates his own daughter.

In conclusion, everyone should probably get some more Vincent Price into their October plans. Even if you already have a lot of Vincent Price planned, you should probably add some more.

Choco1980
Feb 22, 2013

I fell in love with a Video Nasty


Franchescanado posted:

1. Creepshow

2. Cat People

I don't think the horror thread can go any more than two days before this gets brought up, and my library had a copy with this and Curse of Cat People on a single disk. None of the characters are inherently likeable. The four major players all have deep issues, and most of the drama is based around their disfunctional relationships and selfish desires. The sense of dread changes throughout the movie, because the inevitable horror at first appears to be out of jealousy and paranoia, but soon develop into "justifiable" jealously from heartache. This was a lot more human than I was expecting. I loved it. My girlfriend also loved it, despite being initially distrustful of the title. We will watch the sequel soon, but I can't imagine where the story can go from here.

/5


The remake is also good, despite removing literally all the subtext and just making it text.

Watrick
Mar 15, 2007

C:enter:###

Yay! I missed this thread. So far I only have Halloween day planned out:


Tales of Hallowwen
Dust devil (directors cut)
Eyes without a face
Invasion of the body snatchers ('78)
Necromantik
Night of the creeps
Phantasm
The witch
The Hunger
Hausu

I have a list of poo poo I'm going to watch through the month, but I'm going to pick as the days progress

Franchescanado
Feb 23, 2013

If it wasn't for disappointment,
I wouldn't have any appointment.


Grimey Drawer

Watrick posted:

Yay! I missed this thread. So far I only have Halloween day planned out:


Tales of Hallowwen
Dust devil (directors cut)
Eyes without a face
Invasion of the body snatchers ('78)
Necromantik
Night of the creeps
Phantasm
The witch
The Hunger
Hausu

I have a list of poo poo I'm going to watch through the month, but I'm going to pick as the days progress

Are these all going to be first time viewings for you?

Watrick
Mar 15, 2007

C:enter:###

Franchescanado posted:

Are these all going to be first time viewings for you?

No. I've seen Phantasm, Night of the creeps, Invasion, and Hausu. I always watch a few I've seen before on Halloween day. I'm planning the rest of the month to be first times.

Franchescanado
Feb 23, 2013

If it wasn't for disappointment,
I wouldn't have any appointment.


Grimey Drawer

Watrick posted:

No. I've seen Phantasm, Night of the creeps, Invasion, and Hausu. I always watch a few I've seen before on Halloween day. I'm planning the rest of the month to be first times.

Haha, that's what I figured. You were in for a hell of a fun day, otherwise.

SomeJazzyRat
Nov 2, 2012

Hmmm...


The List

Proto-Slasher
1. The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari (1920)
2. Fritz Lang's M (1931)
3. The Old Dark House (1932)
4. And Then There Were None (1945)
5. House of Wax 1953


I'm actually going to include a couple posters here, as they all are strangely amazing while also not conveying the film's tone at all.


This last one was for a 1981 re-release, and I can not imagine an 80's audience responding well to this film.

So, unlike most of these features, this is the most that actually feels like a horror movie in the modern sense. Pretty much all of them up to this point have been focused on a mystery to be solved, with death used as measurement of failure. And while that conceit is there to drive the protagonist's plot, for the audience it's pretty easy to guess what is going on pretty early in the film. And from there, the tension comes from the dramatic irony as the characters draw themselves closer and closer to those who mean their end. Though saying that, it's not like the film is imbued with that tension throughout. A lot of the film has a levity in it's run time, especially as most of the film is set within an operating Wax Museum. And for most of those scenes, the film is carried by the grim charm of Vincent Price, whose lines all seem to end in dark punchlines lost on the extras. And when he isn't playing a charming host of the titular wax museum, he plays the sinister killer, whose disfigured face is hidden behind a wide brim hat. While I imagine that the look was very much inspired by the look of the vigilante The Shadow, Price's character is very much an influence on other villains, namely the similarly disfigured killer with a wide brimmed hat Freddy Krueger.
And though it is certainly more ambitious and extravagant than And Then There Were None, it doesn't have the story and cast that overshadows it's predecessor. It's certainly not a bad film, it's fun and well made, but the best that there is to say about it is Vincent Price, the man who practically carried the film on his back. He's charming, sinister, and can convey total innocence when need to be. So at the very least, it's well worth it just to watch it just Price's performance alone. Unfortunately, unlike the rest of the film's I've been covering, Warner Bros has been fairly protective of this film so it's a lot harder to find in territories of grayer legality. So... good luck I guess.

Next Up Night of the Hunter

Ambitious Spider
Feb 13, 2012




Lipstick Apathy

7Vampyr I liked it. super atmospheric and had some really awesome shots

Lurdiak
Feb 25, 2006



Scream Stream thread is up for those of you who want to supplement their viewing this October.

Basebf555
Feb 29, 2008

The greatest sensual pleasure there is is to know the desires of another!


Fun Shoe

7. Body Bags

This is a fun anthology that was made for Showtime as a light little project for John Carpenter to work on in between features. He decided to get as many horror legends in for a day or two at a time for little bit parts, and its a lot of fun to pay attention and try to notice them all. The best is probably Sam Raimi, who plays a gas station attendant who's already dead by the time the story begins, so all we ever see is his corpse. Carpenter himself plays the host, and he's surprisingly good. The first two segments are really good, and are both directed by Carpenter, with the third by Tobe Hooper.

For me the best segment is The Hair, starring Stacey Keach, who carries it on his back. He's hilarious as a guy who is somehow just realizing that his hair is thinning, even though he's basically 95% bald already. Its over with buddy, give it up!

The worse segment is probably Hooper's, because on paper its super dark and there's some disturbing ideas in it, but Mark Hamill doesn't quite pull it off. I watched this last year and I think I felt differently about Hamill here, but watching it again he's pretty amateurish compared to the rest of the cast.

Tiny Lowtax
May 16, 2003

Happy is the one who takes your babies and smashes them against the rocks!
Psalm 137:9


I cheated and started a little early but who cares.

The Boy - a girl takes a job as a nanny but finds out she will actually be caring for a doll instead of a real boy. The movie was decent, a few tense moments and a few scares. Some of the storyline was pretty predictable, but the ending came out of nowhere.
.5/5

It Follows - the premise for this movie sounded dumb as hell. Someone/something follows you everywhere to kill you, until you have sex with someone else to "pass it on" like an STD. Ended up being a pretty drat good movie that the wife and I both enjoyed watching.
.5/5

Conjuring 2 - I really liked the first Conjuring. Kept me in the edge of my seat throughout and had several really good scares. One of my favorite horror movies. However, The Conjuring 2 was terrible. The non demon thing was creepy as hell just standing there, but once it started moving and it's teeth came out it was just lame as hell. Every scary thing that happened early in the house was accompanied by a sound that sounded like an old man trying to push out a huge turd, it was dumb af. Sequels are generally bad, so I wasn't expecting a lot, but I was expecting more than this.
/5

Tiny Lowtax fucked around with this message at Sep 27, 2016 around 22:00

Watrick
Mar 15, 2007

C:enter:###

Basebf555 posted:

7. Body Bags

This is a fun anthology that was made for Showtime as a light little project for John Carpenter to work on in between features. He decided to get as many horror legends in for a day or two at a time for little bit parts, and its a lot of fun to pay attention and try to notice them all. The best is probably Sam Raimi, who plays a gas station attendant who's already dead by the time the story begins, so all we ever see is his corpse. Carpenter himself plays the host, and he's surprisingly good. The first two segments are really good, and are both directed by Carpenter, with the third by Tobe Hooper.

For me the best segment is The Hair, starring Stacey Keach, who carries it on his back. He's hilarious as a guy who is somehow just realizing that his hair is thinning, even though he's basically 95% bald already. Its over with buddy, give it up!

The worse segment is probably Hooper's, because on paper its super dark and there's some disturbing ideas in it, but Mark Hamill doesn't quite pull it off. I watched this last year and I think I felt differently about Hamill here, but watching it again he's pretty amateurish compared to the rest of the cast.

I love body bags. The fact that David Warner and Debbie Harry are both in The Hair makes it even cooler.

SomeJazzyRat
Nov 2, 2012

Hmmm...


The List

Proto-Slasher
1. The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari (1920)
2. Fritz Lang's M (1931)
3. The Old Dark House (1932)
4. And Then There Were None (1945)
5. House of Wax 1953
6. Night of the Hunter


I'd also like to include the poster for the BFI 2014 re-release, as it's just so friggin gourgeous.

And the 1999 BFI re-release, which makes it look like a low--rent Tarentino knock-off.


Wow, that was a film. Certainly one of the best, and the one that ties the most to Caligari out of all of the ones in this series. Though it is of note that it's first half and end are both fairly conventional, though there's the chunk in the middle that has immortalized it as one of the best films made. The bookmarking segments set the film in a fairly conventional rural setting, as you would expect from most films of the era. As far as it matters, most of the shots look like they could be from the Andy Griffith Show. Though as Rev. Powell, portrayed by Robert Mitchum in the starring role, comes to invade the world of Johnny and Pearl Harper, the film starts taking on a more stylized look inspired by German Expressionism. However, Caligari achived it's look by painting fake shadows and shapes to create a surreal quality to the story. But this film does the opposite, using light and shadow to create not necessarily an unreal atmosphere, but one that is colored by perception and memory. It uses it to present a truth about the point of view of children and their perceptions. Take for example, these two shots:


The first shot is when the relation with German Expressionism clicked with me. It's not in the way they use the sets or the shots, but in the way that they're using the light to create something that's off-kilter. A feeling that's introduced with the Reverend's invasion of the children's home. And then there's the second, where it's use of negative space outside the built set is incredibly inspired and foreboding. And as the Reverend's pursuit starts to control their lives more and more, the film starts taking a more artificial, and thus impressionistic, tone. The best example comes from the 2014 BFI poster just up above. Admittedly it's created out of a composite of scenes from one segment the film, but the style and tone of the film is still there. It ends up creating a fairy tale-esq epicness to the feature. Like a harsher version of Wizard of Oz.

As for it's relation to horror, I can imagine that a lot of filmmakers took the films sinister pursuit by a foreboding character. Even the subtler, metaphorical pursuit by an authority figure that no one but the protagonist believes has evil intentions. Though, as much as the divide can be quite thin, there is a divide between horror and thriller. And while the film may jump that line from time to time, the film is distinctly a thriller. Though I say that, I don't think I have much of the vocabulary to pin point why. It just doesn't have that hopeless feeling that many have, or that fetishistic linger on peril or interpersonal destruction. Maybe it's just because I consider the film a type of epic, and that epics generally hold my tones and genres to them, and thus it would be unfair to label it as such. Anyways, the film phenomenally well crafted and interesting, and I would like to hear other's thought on it. Seek it out if you can, though somebody is fairly protective of it (and for good reason) so it is hard to find outside of purchasing it outright.

Next Up Eyes Without A Face

Lurdiak
Feb 25, 2006



Any plans to watch Blood Shack? It predates Halloween by quite a bit and contains a lot of slasher elements.

Samuel Clemens
Oct 4, 2013

I think we should call the Avengers.



The Night of the Hunter really is a tremendous film; part film noir, part Grimm fairy tale, part Depression-era period piece, and part Christian allegory. The fact that it manages to form a cohesive unit is a testament to Laughton's skill as a director. It's a real shame he never directed another project.

SomeJazzyRat
Nov 2, 2012

Hmmm...


The List

Proto-Slasher
1. The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari (1920)
2. Fritz Lang's M (1931)
3. The Old Dark House (1932)
4. And Then There Were None (1945)
5. House of Wax (1953)
6. Night of the Hunter (1955)
7. Eyes Without a Face (1960)



I'm not entirely certain if there's much I can say about this one. Or at least, much that I can say that isn't said much more intelligently by people who are much more intelligent than I. It's not one I feel the need to shout from the rooftops about how good it is, or to stand up on a soap box about it's relevancy to culture or to film. It's a very well made one. One that feels like it's above me in a way. What I can say is that, for a horror film, it's incredibly sad. A very quiet, internal sadness. Everything in the film feels telegraphed in a way where you know the inevitability of it all. It is both very quick to get to the point, but it takes a lot of time getting to it. I guess it's most representative in the way the film opens, where we watch a very impatient, worried woman drive around in relative silence for three minutes, and then dumps a body in the river. It's possibly just a reaction to the film's simple enough story, featuring very few players with a clear a-to-b-to-c story structure. In a way, I feel like I got everything I needed out of the film, yet I don't have those faculties to realize and express the ways it is a great film. It is though, I can tell it is, and it's feeling and imagery will probably haunt me. I have to conflicting feelings to tell you that you should probably watch it, but you also probably don't need to watch it. It's a weird feeling to witness something that probably is a masterpiece, realize it's having an effect on you, and yet have a sort of apathy that makes you kinda shirk away from it.

Anyways, it's certainly left a mark on another generation of horror directors. The common anecdote is that the film's featureless mask was the inspiration for The Mask from Halloween. A depersonifying feature that inspired countless knock-offs, most notably Jason Voorhees. Plus, it has an inherent philosophy that women, in a patriarchcal society, an completely vulnerable to the wants and desires of men. It's a variation of a theme that also runs subtly in the other films I've watched, most overtly in House of Wax. The other films generally couch it in other themes, such as the vulnerability of Children, or the trust of a authoritative being who knows the rules, or even women's ability to further men's goals. Though this film magnifies the desire of men, making it text, that they desire the beauty of women. Even if that search for ultimate beauty means the destruction of it. I pointed out House of Wax specifically, as both of these films share this theme. Though Wax hides it's philosophy on the happenstance of the universe. It says that the female characters of it's film die not because of the fact that they're women, but because of their closeness to epicenter, just like the men that have died for the titular wax museum. But the film also makes a subtext that the women's beauty is what makes them targets over others. Eyes Without a Face makes it text, that all of the women in this film die for the pursuit of that beauty. And it doesn't matter who they are, just that they are women. And because of this unattainable goal, it result in the destruction of the gender. And horror continues to run along this theme, though not that overtly, in the theme of a mixed group of co-eds being picked off until one woman remains, a pinacle of her gender in the eyes of patriarchy. To say it another way, it wasn't the first film to introduce gender as a major factor of horror movie deaths, nor is it the one that influenced the rest of them, but it is one that made it the most explicit the role of women as victims over the whims of others.

To step away from the film criticism, I may have to skip a film on my list. Unfortunately, I can't find a copy to watch up here in Canada. It's not streaming up here, it's not for rental or purchase online except for prohibitively expensive imported copies, and I'm not going to put in the effort to spoof some US residency to rent a US copy, or to , so it's not happening. Now...

Next up: Psycho

Hollismason
Jun 30, 2007

Goodness no, now that wouldn't do at all!


SomeJazzyRat posted:

The List

Proto-Slasher
1. The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari (1920)
2. Fritz Lang's M (1931)
3. The Old Dark House (1932)
4. And Then There Were None (1945)
5. House of Wax 1953
6. Night of the Hunter


I'd also like to include the poster for the BFI 2014 re-release, as it's just so friggin gourgeous.

And the 1999 BFI re-release, which makes it look like a low--rent Tarentino knock-off.


Wow, that was a film. Certainly one of the best, and the one that ties the most to Caligari out of all of the ones in this series. Though it is of note that it's first half and end are both fairly conventional, though there's the chunk in the middle that has immortalized it as one of the best films made. The bookmarking segments set the film in a fairly conventional rural setting, as you would expect from most films of the era. As far as it matters, most of the shots look like they could be from the Andy Griffith Show. Though as Rev. Powell, portrayed by Robert Mitchum in the starring role, comes to invade the world of Johnny and Pearl Harper, the film starts taking on a more stylized look inspired by German Expressionism. However, Caligari achived it's look by painting fake shadows and shapes to create a surreal quality to the story. But this film does the opposite, using light and shadow to create not necessarily an unreal atmosphere, but one that is colored by perception and memory. It uses it to present a truth about the point of view of children and their perceptions. Take for example, these two shots:


The first shot is when the relation with German Expressionism clicked with me. It's not in the way they use the sets or the shots, but in the way that they're using the light to create something that's off-kilter. A feeling that's introduced with the Reverend's invasion of the children's home. And then there's the second, where it's use of negative space outside the built set is incredibly inspired and foreboding. And as the Reverend's pursuit starts to control their lives more and more, the film starts taking a more artificial, and thus impressionistic, tone. The best example comes from the 2014 BFI poster just up above. Admittedly it's created out of a composite of scenes from one segment the film, but the style and tone of the film is still there. It ends up creating a fairy tale-esq epicness to the feature. Like a harsher version of Wizard of Oz.

As for it's relation to horror, I can imagine that a lot of filmmakers took the films sinister pursuit by a foreboding character. Even the subtler, metaphorical pursuit by an authority figure that no one but the protagonist believes has evil intentions. Though, as much as the divide can be quite thin, there is a divide between horror and thriller. And while the film may jump that line from time to time, the film is distinctly a thriller. Though I say that, I don't think I have much of the vocabulary to pin point why. It just doesn't have that hopeless feeling that many have, or that fetishistic linger on peril or interpersonal destruction. Maybe it's just because I consider the film a type of epic, and that epics generally hold my tones and genres to them, and thus it would be unfair to label it as such. Anyways, the film phenomenally well crafted and interesting, and I would like to hear other's thought on it. Seek it out if you can, though somebody is fairly protective of it (and for good reason) so it is hard to find outside of purchasing it outright.

Next Up Eyes Without A Face

A very interesting thing about Night of the Hunter is the fact that it is directed really like a play and the sets are designed in such a way. Very fascinating. Once you realize this it will click, but many of the images and the stark photography with deep shadows. All of that is very theater based. Even the silhouette shots. It makes sense when you realize the director of the film was a theatrical director.

These shots are straight out of a play with a set:







https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mvxswLT9rwI#t=114s

This video I think best demonstrates it. Look at how far away you are when they are going down into the cellar. In fact "depth" in the film is almost judged as in the theater seats. The viewpoint is literally from that of a audience member. That's why the buildings etc.. inside they're super elongated. Etc..

Ambitious Spider
Feb 13, 2012




Lipstick Apathy

8 Jigoku trippy jazzy 60's visuals and a morality play with some cool gore effects? Hell yea!

pun not intended

Spatulater bro!
Aug 19, 2003



With a full time job and a one year old, I doubt I'll be able to watch 31 movies, so my goal is simply to watch as many movies that I haven't see as possible from the following pool.

EDIT: I've come up with a better method for picking what to watch. I'll use a random number generator to pick one at random.

1 The Bird with the Crystal Plumage (1970)
2 Phantom of the Opera (1925)
3 Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1931)
4 Fright Night (1985)
5 Theater of Blood (1973)
6 Martin (1977)
7 Dead of Night (1945)
8 The Fly (1958)
9 Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1978)
10 What Ever Happened to Baby Jane? (1960)
11 Silent Night, Bloody Night (1974)
12 When a Stranger Calls (1979)
13 Salem’s Lot (1979)
14 The Tenant (1976)
15 The Devils (1971)
16 Kwaidan (1964)
17 Night of the Demon (1957)
18 The Old Dark House (1932)
19 Angel Heart (1987)
20 Pulse (2001)
21 Society (1989)
22 Let's Scare Jessica to Death (1971)
23 The Black Cat (1934)
24 Daughters of Darkness (1970)
25 The Fog (1979)
26 Threads (1984)
27 God Told Me To (1976)
28 Cronos (1993)
29 Flesh for Frankenstein (1973)
30 Come and See (1985)
31 Deathdream (1972)
32 Onibaba (1964)
33 Halloween II (2009)
34 Yabu no naka no kuroneko (1968)
35 Witchfinder General (1968)
36 Trouble Every Day (2001)
37 They Live (1988)
38 The Addiction (1995)
39 The Howling (1981)
40 Alice, Sweet Alice (1976)
41 The Masque of the Red Death (1964)
42 Bigger Than Life (1956)
43 The Church (1989)
44 Sisters (1973)
45 And Soon the Darkness (1970)
46 The Lords of Salem (2012)
47 The Hands of Orlac (1924)
48 The Hands of Orlac (1935)
49 The Cure (1997)
50 L'Age d'Or (1930)
51 Day of Wrath (1943)
52 The Fury (1978)
53 The Last House on Dead End Street (1977)
54 Tourist Trap (1979)
55 It's Alive (1974)
56 Targets (1968)
57 Wake in Fright (1971)
58 The Entity (1982)
59 Prince of Darkness (1987)
60 The Unknown(1927)
61 Paperhouse (1988)
62 Shock Corridor (1963)
63 Island of the Damned (1976)
64 The Blob (1988)
65 Ms. 45 (1981)
66 Leviathan (1989)
67 Daughters of Darkness(1977)
68 The Lair of the White Worm (1988)
69 The Fearless Vampire Killers (1967)
70 Phantom Lady (1944)
71 Shock Waves (1977)
72 Strait-Jacket (1964)
73 A Bucket of Blood (1959)
74 House on the Edge of the Park (1980)
75 Shiver of the Vampires (1971)
76 The Blood Spattered Bride (1972)
77 Hands of the Ripper (1971)

First up... Angel Heart (1987)

Spatulater bro! fucked around with this message at Sep 29, 2016 around 02:45

joylessdivision
Jun 15, 2013



Got my list ready, no idea how I'm going to end up breaking it down, but Saturday it begins.

Gave myself a couple of rules to abide by:
1. Has to be free (I either own it, it's on Amazon/Netflix/Youtube)
2. I've never seen it
3. If I've seen the movie before, it has to have been at least 3 years ago since I last watched it.


Night of the Demon
May
High Tension
Magic
Let the Right One In
The Legend of Hell House
Excision
Ginger Snaps
The Haunting
The Vampires Coffin
The Prowler
Tales From the Crypt/Vault of Horror
Spanish Dracula
Bride of Frankenstein
The Invisible Man
Creature from the Black Lagoon
Baskin
Burn Witch Burn
Stir of Echoes
Horror of Dracula
Don't Look Now
Boo
Def by Temptation
The House on Haunted Hill (1959)
Little Witches
The House on Sorority Row
House of Seven Corpses
Invasion of the Body Snatchers (original)
Marianne
Don't Torture a Duckling
Tombs of the Blind Dead

SomeJazzyRat
Nov 2, 2012

Hmmm...


The List

Proto-Slasher
1. The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari (1920)
2. Fritz Lang's M (1931)
3. The Old Dark House (1932)
4. And Then There Were None (1945)
5. House of Wax (1953)
6. Night of the Hunter (1955)
7. Eyes Without a Face (1960)
8. Psycho (1960)



Now I'm starting to retread films that I've already seen. Though admittedly it's been probably been about eight or so years, so it definitely time to revisit. And as much as I felt inadequate to talk about Eyes without a Face, I know there's nothing I can say that isn't already said possibly a million times before. That said, what occurred to me on this viewing was how much this film is it's twist. It built to be watched without knowledge of what's coming next around the corner. And it's kinda sad that it's become even less likely that there are audience members that are going in blind as they first did in 1960. It's still very good, and I was kinda impressed with how Anthony Perkins played his character's introduction a little differently with each group who comes to him. With Janet Leigh, he's very cordial yet awkward with her. Like he's legitimately glad to meet her but unsure how to speak to a woman. Then with the detective, he's very professional and easy going. More natural with somebody he doesn't really care about, but still polite like his mother raised him. And with Sam Loomis and Lila Crane he's trying not to seem unwelcome but is also very terse in his responses. Which is reasonable, as the last two people who stopped by ended up murdered. It's a very remarkable performance, and it's kinda sad that all he ever got widespread recognition was from this role. Still a fine film, and if I weren't trying to get through the rest of this list I'd probably binge on a few more Hitchcock films.

Next up: Dr. Phibes

Random Stranger
Nov 27, 2009



Ambitious Spider posted:

8 Jigoku trippy jazzy 60's visuals and a morality play with some cool gore effects? Hell yea!

pun not intended

Watch Nakagawa's Tokaido Yotsuya Kaidan as well. It's got a lot of that same visual flare applied to a traditional ghost story.

Basebf555
Feb 29, 2008

The greatest sensual pleasure there is is to know the desires of another!


Fun Shoe

SomeJazzyRat posted:


Now I'm starting to retread films that I've already seen. Though admittedly it's been probably been about eight or so years, so it definitely time to revisit. And as much as I felt inadequate to talk about Eyes without a Face, I know there's nothing I can say that isn't already said possibly a million times before. That said, what occurred to me on this viewing was how much this film is it's twist. It built to be watched without knowledge of what's coming next around the corner. And it's kinda sad that it's become even less likely that there are audience members that are going in blind as they first did in 1960. It's still very good, and I was kinda impressed with how Anthony Perkins played his character's introduction a little differently with each group who comes to him. With Janet Leigh, he's very cordial yet awkward with her. Like he's legitimately glad to meet her but unsure how to speak to a woman. Then with the detective, he's very professional and easy going. More natural with somebody he doesn't really care about, but still polite like his mother raised him. And with Sam Loomis and Lila Crane he's trying not to seem unwelcome but is also very terse in his responses. Which is reasonable, as the last two people who stopped by ended up murdered. It's a very remarkable performance, and it's kinda sad that all he ever got widespread recognition was from this role. Still a fine film, and if I weren't trying to get through the rest of this list I'd probably binge on a few more Hitchcock films.


When I really sat down and watched Psycho for the first time, what struck me was how expertly Hitchcock had crafted the first third of the film to fool the audience into thinking it was going to be one of his more standard thrillers. Its a woman who's having an affair with a man who won't marry her, and in her desperation she steals a bunch of money and you think its going the traditional route where her plans will go awry somehow and maybe there will be some mistaken identity along the way but she'll bumble and stumble her way out of it like the guy from Foreign Correspondent. I can place myself in a theatre in 1960 as people were seeing Psycho for the first time, and the shock of the shower scene is so much more powerful when you realize how completely set-up the audience was to expect something totally different.

Choco1980
Feb 22, 2013

I fell in love with a Video Nasty


Basebf555 posted:

When I really sat down and watched Psycho for the first time, what struck me was how expertly Hitchcock had crafted the first third of the film to fool the audience into thinking it was going to be one of his more standard thrillers. Its a woman who's having an affair with a man who won't marry her, and in her desperation she steals a bunch of money and you think its going the traditional route where her plans will go awry somehow and maybe there will be some mistaken identity along the way but she'll bumble and stumble her way out of it like the guy from Foreign Correspondent. I can place myself in a theatre in 1960 as people were seeing Psycho for the first time, and the shock of the shower scene is so much more powerful when you realize how completely set-up the audience was to expect something totally different.

Even knowing the twist, it's still so drat amazing that it happens. There's next to no suggestion that Leigh will be anything but our focus for the whole movie, and even knowing she gets offed you still end up being pulled into her personal plot and wondering where it's going to go. Hell, the scene with the cop pulling her over is as tense as anything else in the film.

Basebf555
Feb 29, 2008

The greatest sensual pleasure there is is to know the desires of another!


Fun Shoe

8.Black Sabbath

This is a great anthology by Mario Bava, I'd say that all three stories were consistently good. The first segment is a lot less Bava than the other two, it takes place in a nice, brightly lit apartment and you could probably watch it without realizing who the director is. Not so for the next two segments. The second story features Boris Karloff and its full of a lot of the awesome gothic stuff that Bava is so great at. Cold, foggy nights at country house in the middle of nowhere, dogs howling at the moon, and a slightly unusual take on the typical vampire myths.

The third story is what most people consider the best, and its also got Bava written all over it. Whacked out lighting and an unbelievably creepy prop of a dead woman make it a very unsettling story, and the ending is really great. All in all this is probably one of the most consistent anthologies out there in terms of quality, maybe matched only by Creepshow.

Ambitious Spider
Feb 13, 2012




Lipstick Apathy

Random Stranger posted:

Watch Nakagawa's Tokaido Yotsuya Kaidan as well. It's got a lot of that same visual flare applied to a traditional ghost story.

I googled it and it's also on Hulu. Not that I would know because searching/browsing Hulu is terrible. I really hope filmstruck's is better

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

joylessdivision
Jun 15, 2013



Basebf555 posted:

8.Black Sabbath

This is a great anthology by Mario Bava, I'd say that all three stories were consistently good. The first segment is a lot less Bava than the other two, it takes place in a nice, brightly lit apartment and you could probably watch it without realizing who the director is. Not so for the next two segments. The second story features Boris Karloff and its full of a lot of the awesome gothic stuff that Bava is so great at. Cold, foggy nights at country house in the middle of nowhere, dogs howling at the moon, and a slightly unusual take on the typical vampire myths.

The third story is what most people consider the best, and its also got Bava written all over it. Whacked out lighting and an unbelievably creepy prop of a dead woman make it a very unsettling story, and the ending is really great. All in all this is probably one of the most consistent anthologies out there in terms of quality, maybe matched only by Creepshow.

Did you watch the American dub or the original Italian cut? They are arranged differently and I believe it ends with the Karloff story with the creepy faucet story in the middle.

gently caress that movie is so good. The faucet story legit made me run around my house tightening every leaky faucet for a week.

  • Locked thread
«22 »