Lick Ness Monster
Dennis Stamp
From the eerie, eerie depths of Lake Okabena
Posts: 4,874
|
Post by Lick Ness Monster on Nov 14, 2009 15:39:54 GMT -5
I never post in this thread, I do read it a lot however, I just don't feel I'd be up to the caliber of posters in here. This is just a notice for people from the UK who read this thread: As part of it's 3D week next week Channel 4 is showing two 3D horror movies in Red/Blue 3D: Flesh For Frankenstein on Wednesday Evening/Thursday Morning at 12:40am And Friday The 13th Part 3 at 10PM on Friday. You can get free 3D glasses at most Sainsburys. Just thought I'd throw this out there for those with any intrest. Don't let the extreme nerdiness of several of us in here scare you off. ;D We need all the posters we can get. Also, I mis-read your post the first time and thought that by "Red/Blue 3D" you were referring to Krystov Kieslowski's (sp?) 1994 films named for the colors on the French flag.
|
|
|
Post by tap on Nov 14, 2009 16:25:33 GMT -5
Also, I mis-read your post the first time and thought that by "Red/Blue 3D" you were referring to Krystov Kieslowski's (sp?) 1994 films named for the colors on the French flag. I remember going up to my first year film prof who showed us Three Colours: Blue after it was done and saying the movie would have been 10x better had Juliette Binoche went crazy and killed everyone. He just looked at me like I was strange. Mind you, this was AFTER I gave him Friday the 13th, Part VII as a Christmas gift. Seriously.
|
|
|
Post by Rorschach on Nov 15, 2009 3:25:22 GMT -5
Also, I mis-read your post the first time and thought that by "Red/Blue 3D" you were referring to Krystov Kieslowski's (sp?) 1994 films named for the colors on the French flag. I remember going up to my first year film prof who showed us Three Colours: Blue after it was done and saying the movie would have been 10x better had Juliette Binoche went crazy and killed everyone. He just looked at me like I was strange. Mind you, this was AFTER I gave him Friday the 13th, Part VII as a Christmas gift. Seriously. That is AWESOME. Allow me to get this thread going again (hopefully) with a quote from horror icon (and one of my favorite directors), Clive Barker. This quote comes from the book ULTRA VIOLENT MOVIES by Laurent Bouzereau. In an interview done by Bouzereau in the book, Barker is asked what he thinks of the way horror movies are percieved by critics. Here is his answer: Barker: One of the reasons I take issue with reviewers on their disparagement of horror movies is that they don't look deep enough into the subtext of horror movies. Obviously, horror movies work on some subconscious or primal level which requires decoding. One of our problems is that we don't have a far enough sight historically. The world in the nineteenth century was extremely violent; public executions took place. Sure, today we have access to all this imagery through TV and movies, but less than a hundred years ago, this same imagery would have been within walking distance of us at any given time. I think that saying that our society has become violent because of movies doesn't really work. We are a violent species. We are attracted to, excited and aroused by, acts of violence. When we watch violent movies, we know it's fiction; we have a safety net....We know that Pinhead [one of the Cenobites from the HELLRAISER series] or Candyman are actors.This quote intrigues me, because as a horror fan, I think if more films were as nasty with their violence as MARTYRS was....as dirty and in-your-face with their scenes of brutality as IRREVERSIBLE was....people would quickly lose their stomach for it. The SAW and HOSTEL films have taken violence to such cartoonish extremes that people laugh at the "deathtraps" now...it's become a game to see just bow much bigger and badder they can make these Rube Goldberg contraptions before the fans stand as one and collectively call "bulls***" on them. A merry-go-round of DOOM? Really, Sharon? REALLY? I mean, let's change the way death and violence are shown in cinemas; let's show people how gunshot victims actually die. Not many of them do so silently. Many scream until their last breath. I say if the death is more effective...the death scene more powerful, then the audience will react to it more. Mock the series all you will, but Jada Pinkett's death in SCREAM 2 was pretty accurate to how a severely stabbed person would go out. Make more of Jason, and Michael Meyer's kills THAT graphic, and people might not be so quick to root for the killer anymore. I also have to take issue with the MPAA's reluctance to allow films to target children. In a day and age when we get about a story a week of children being murdered, kidnapped, and tortured on the morning and evening news, why is it taboo for our horror films to reflect that? Surely the death of a child still has enough impact that showing it, as a last resort, would allow us to TRULY villify characters that have become almost folk heroes, characters like Freddy and Jason and Michael.
|
|
|
Post by Maidpool w/ Cleaning Action on Nov 15, 2009 3:29:53 GMT -5
You know I can't remember if I said it before or not, but this year to me has been pretty good for theatrical horror movies. Lately horror movies have been shitty, but this year we've had My Bloody Valentine 3-D, Orphan, Zombieland, Pandorum, Drag Me To Hell which were all between good to great IMO.
Sure we've had some major stinkers like Halloween 2, but still, to have that many decent to great horror movies in one year is rare now-a-days.
|
|
|
Post by Rorschach on Nov 15, 2009 3:42:41 GMT -5
You know I can't remember if I said it before or not, but this year to me has been pretty good for theatrical horror movies. Lately horror movies have been s***ty, but this year we've had My Bloody Valentine 3-D, Orphan, Zombieland, Pandorum, Drag Me To Hell which were all between good to great IMO. Sure we've had some major stinkers like Halloween 2, but still, to have that many decent to great horror movies in one year is rare now-a-days. You forgot PARANORMAL ACTIVITY, LET THE RIGHT ONE IN (technically 2008 but found it's way to these shores early this year in wide release direct to video) and TRICK R TREAT. Especially TRICK R TREAT, which was a gem in a year filled with disappointing remakes, sequels, and knock offs.
|
|
|
Post by YellowJacketY2J on Nov 15, 2009 9:47:50 GMT -5
You know I can't remember if I said it before or not, but this year to me has been pretty good for theatrical horror movies. Lately horror movies have been s***ty, but this year we've had My Bloody Valentine 3-D, Orphan, Zombieland, Pandorum, Drag Me To Hell which were all between good to great IMO. Sure we've had some major stinkers like Halloween 2, but still, to have that many decent to great horror movies in one year is rare now-a-days. You forgot PARANORMAL ACTIVITY, LET THE RIGHT ONE IN (technically 2008 but found it's way to these shores early this year in wide release direct to video) and TRICK R TREAT. Especially TRICK R TREAT, which was a gem in a year filled with disappointing remakes, sequels, and knock offs. I was just about to mention Trick R Treat.
|
|
|
Post by thwak is T.hawk on Nov 15, 2009 10:07:31 GMT -5
|
|
Lick Ness Monster
Dennis Stamp
From the eerie, eerie depths of Lake Okabena
Posts: 4,874
|
Post by Lick Ness Monster on Nov 15, 2009 11:20:43 GMT -5
Scorsese definitely likes his B&W "classical" horror movies, and hates those reproachable early-'80s slasher flicks that took audiences away from Raging Bull ;D. No Halloween? I call bulls***. *sigh* It's pretty apparent that really, really old-school horror movies aren't my thing - but hey, it's his list. Allow me to get this thread going again (hopefully) with a quote from horror icon (and one of my favorite directors), Clive Barker. This quote comes from the book ULTRA VIOLENT MOVIES by Laurent Bouzereau. In an interview done by Bouzereau in the book, Barker is asked what he thinks of the way horror movies are percieved by critics. Here is his answer: Barker: One of the reasons I take issue with reviewers on their disparagement of horror movies is that they don't look deep enough into the subtext of horror movies. Obviously, horror movies work on some subconscious or primal level which requires decoding. One of our problems is that we don't have a far enough sight historically. The world in the nineteenth century was extremely violent; public executions took place. Sure, today we have access to all this imagery through TV and movies, but less than a hundred years ago, this same imagery would have been within walking distance of us at any given time. I think that saying that our society has become violent because of movies doesn't really work. We are a violent species. We are attracted to, excited and aroused by, acts of violence. When we watch violent movies, we know it's fiction; we have a safety net....We know that Pinhead [one of the Cenobites from the HELLRAISER series] or Candyman are actors.This quote intrigues me, because as a horror fan, I think if more films were as nasty with their violence as MARTYRS was....as dirty and in-your-face with their scenes of brutality as IRREVERSIBLE was....people would quickly lose their stomach for it. The SAW and HOSTEL films have taken violence to such cartoonish extremes that people laugh at the "deathtraps" now...it's become a game to see just bow much bigger and badder they can make these Rube Goldberg contraptions before the fans stand as one and collectively call "bulls***" on them. A merry-go-round of DOOM? Really, Sharon? REALLY? I mean, let's change the way death and violence are shown in cinemas; let's show people how gunshot victims actually die. Not many of them do so silently. Many scream until their last breath. I say if the death is more effective...the death scene more powerful, then the audience will react to it more. Mock the series all you will, but Jada Pinkett's death in SCREAM 2 was pretty accurate to how a severely stabbed person would go out. Make more of Jason, and Michael Meyer's kills THAT graphic, and people might not be so quick to root for the killer anymore. I also have to take issue with the MPAA's reluctance to allow films to target children. In a day and age when we get about a story a week of children being murdered, kidnapped, and tortured on the morning and evening news, why is it taboo for our horror films to reflect that? Surely the death of a child still has enough impact that showing it, as a last resort, would allow us to TRULY villify characters that have become almost folk heroes, characters like Freddy and Jason and Michael. I gotta be honest here, Ror - I'm searching for some other suggestion to add to make horror films more meaningful in the eyes of critics and casual audiences, and I'm drawing a complete blank. I, like yourself, would love it if these movies were given a little bit more due, but the truth is that I just don't think it's going to happen anytime soon. That's not to say that your suggestions aren't awesome - I especially agree with the notion of making horror villains, you know, VILLAINS again instead of just cool anti-heroes. Barker, IMO, seems a bit too concerned with being seen as a "legitimate" artist. News flash, Clive. You're seen as a horror writer. Thus, you will never be seen as legitimate to the countless horror-bashing automatons (both critics and casual movie watchers alike) who harp in with ignorant "all horror movies are the same!" comments constantly and never care to back those quotes up with any sort of evidence.
|
|
|
Post by thwak is T.hawk on Nov 15, 2009 11:55:29 GMT -5
Scorsese definitely likes his B&W "classical" horror movies, and hates those reproachable early-'80s slasher flicks that took audiences away from Raging Bull ;D. No Halloween? I call bulls***. *sigh* It's pretty apparent that really, really old-school horror movies aren't my thing - but hey, it's his list. I'll take an oldschool horror movie over a slasher any day of the week. Even a bad oldschool horror movie over any slasher really, yes even halloween. I just think back then they focused more on mood than they did on gore and shock value. I'd rather see people set up atmosphere than blood and guts I guess.
|
|
|
Post by Rorschach on Nov 16, 2009 2:04:53 GMT -5
Scorsese definitely likes his B&W "classical" horror movies, and hates those reproachable early-'80s slasher flicks that took audiences away from Raging Bull ;D. No Halloween? I call bulls***. *sigh* It's pretty apparent that really, really old-school horror movies aren't my thing - but hey, it's his list. I'll take an oldschool horror movie over a slasher any day of the week. Even a bad oldschool horror movie over any slasher really, yes even halloween. I just think back then they focused more on mood than they did on gore and shock value. I'd rather see people set up atmosphere than blood and guts I guess. I'm right there with you, though I love slasher films as well. I think what really makes a terrifying horror film is a "less is more" approach. Some of the genre's greatest hits have been movies that really don't have a lot of blood and gore. Movies like HALLOWEEN, TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE, PSYCHO, THE BIRDS, and JAWS. Psychologically, what we DON'T see is much more terrifying than what we do. If we hear certain actions, but don't see them, our mind will, 9 times out of 10 conjure up images that are far more disturbing than the director intended. Some audience members SWEAR they see the hook pop out the front of the actresses chest in the infamous meathook scene in TEXAS CHAINSAW. But you don't. You really don't see much at all in that scene, and it is unnerving and effective because of it. Another example could be contrasting the violence in MISERY or AUDITION with the violence in your average HOSTEL movie. We really don't see a whole lot of the details of what's happening in either of the infamous scenes from MISERY or AUDITION...we see just enough to let us know that what's happening is horrible, painful, and awful to behold. Whereas with Roth's HOSTEL films, we get upclose, fetishistic shots of blowtorches to the eye, sawed-into ankles, and other nasty stuff. He shows us so much, it crosses the line from horrifying, to hokey. I mean, it goes on for so long, and goes so far past the point of reality that we're taken out of the moment. When the hideous violence happens in AUDITION, it truly is shocking, and effective, and it challenges the viewer to accept what they just saw. Again, it would go a long ways towards rectifying the problem of "horror villain hero worship" if we had PROTAGONISTS that we care about. TR can attest to the fact that anymore, in horror films, the main characters are reduced to mere shades, while the villain is given all the charisma, all the personality, and all the traits, quirks, and memorable moments you could want. Therefore, we percieve the villain as cooler (and more worthwhile) than the supposed heroes. I mean, when you have Busty Girl #1, Busty Redhead, and Busty Girl #2, along with The Jock, The Geek, The Nerd and The Black Guy, all being chased by Jason goddamn Voorhees (who has a character, who has a story, and who has LIKEABLE qualities for goodness sake!) who are you going to root for? Now, if we're given clear, identifiable characters (like Nancy from NOES, or Ginny in F13 Part 2) who we can root for, and whom we care about, then it's a different story, and we react more as we're supposed to when one of them dies.
|
|
|
Post by DSR on Nov 16, 2009 3:26:07 GMT -5
I'll take an oldschool horror movie over a slasher any day of the week. Even a bad oldschool horror movie over any slasher really, yes even halloween. I just think back then they focused more on mood than they did on gore and shock value. I'd rather see people set up atmosphere than blood and guts I guess. I'm right there with you, though I love slasher films as well. I think what really makes a terrifying horror film is a "less is more" approach. Some of the genre's greatest hits have been movies that really don't have a lot of blood and gore. Movies like HALLOWEEN, TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE, PSYCHO, THE BIRDS, and JAWS. Psychologically, what we DON'T see is much more terrifying than what we do. If we hear certain actions, but don't see them, our mind will, 9 times out of 10 conjure up images that are far more disturbing than the director intended. Some audience members SWEAR they see the hook pop out the front of the actresses chest in the infamous meathook scene in TEXAS CHAINSAW. But you don't. You really don't see much at all in that scene, and it is unnerving and effective because of it. Another example could be contrasting the violence in MISERY or AUDITION with the violence in your average HOSTEL movie. We really don't see a whole lot of the details of what's happening in either of the infamous scenes from MISERY or AUDITION...we see just enough to let us know that what's happening is horrible, painful, and awful to behold. Whereas with Roth's HOSTEL films, we get upclose, fetishistic shots of blowtorches to the eye, sawed-into ankles, and other nasty stuff. He shows us so much, it crosses the line from horrifying, to hokey. I mean, it goes on for so long, and goes so far past the point of reality that we're taken out of the moment. When the hideous violence happens in AUDITION, it truly is shocking, and effective, and it challenges the viewer to accept what they just saw. Again, it would go a long ways towards rectifying the problem of "horror villain hero worship" if we had PROTAGONISTS that we care about. TR can attest to the fact that anymore, in horror films, the main characters are reduced to mere shades, while the villain is given all the charisma, all the personality, and all the traits, quirks, and memorable moments you could want. Therefore, we percieve the villain as cooler (and more worthwhile) than the supposed heroes. I mean, when you have Busty Girl #1, Busty Redhead, and Busty Girl #2, along with The Jock, The Geek, The Nerd and The Black Guy, all being chased by Jason goddamn Voorhees (who has a character, who has a story, and who has LIKEABLE qualities for goodness sake!) who are you going to root for? Now, if we're given clear, identifiable characters (like Nancy from NOES, or Ginny in F13 Part 2) who we can root for, and whom we care about, then it's a different story, and we react more as we're supposed to when one of them dies. Firstly, a minor point: I've seen it mentioned in regards to HOSTEL before, but I've never gotten the idea that what Roth was doing was fetishistic. I sorta thought that his "face it unflinchingly" approach to the torture in the film was at least an attempt at the point you were making in your earlier post, changing the way people look at violence in movies. I just think Roth isn't anywhere near talented enough as a director (or maybe his background as a huge fan of some of those goofy 80s horror/unintentional comedies makes it difficult for him to transition to a more serious form of horror) to pull off the sort of thing he was going for. That's just how I viewed it, though. Okay, now on to my main points: I agree that building moods and tension and suspense are a more important factor to creating a good horror movie than the visual effects/blood-and-gore, but I don't think gore is really the detriment to the filmmaking process that people lament it as. There's always gonna be hacks who use it as a crutch when they don't know how to bulid tension, but considering the fantasy elements that are so prevalent in horror (vampires, werewolves, etc.) I see no reason why that blood and gore can't be used effectively in ways that build the mood and create a nightmarish feeling in the viewer despite how unrealistic the events are. Of the films you listed above, only THE BIRDS seems like an event that would be truly impossible to happen. The rest of the films generally fall into the categories of true-crime (PSYCHO, TEXAS CHAIN SAW, AUDITION) or animal horror (JAWS...yeah, THE BIRDS is animal horror, but the idea of a united attack is admittedly far-fetched). I don't mean to diminish the impact of those genres (hell, one lone writer on an internet forum couldn't diminish their significant cultural impacts, anyway). What I mean to suggest is that, while these films take a relatively realistic approach to horror cinema and are successful at it, that doesn't mean it'll work for everybody. The careers of Lucio Fulci and Dario Argento would attest to that. Sure, they're not as commonly known names as Hitchcock or Spielberg (few directors reach that level, in any genre). But their works are considered artistically significant within horror, and their films feature at least the amount of blood and gore that would be offensive by normal standards. But Fulci and Argento could/can build mood incredibly, and used gore less as a crutch, and more to accentuate the mood they were building, or as a way to release tension. As I've said in reviews earlier in this thread, Fulci in particular tried his hand at blood and gore films when he didn't have it in him to build up an overall sense of dread (in TOUCH OF DEATH) and he tried his hand at the less-is-more approach, and it felt like the balloon being blown up for 90 minutes, with no pin to pop it (in MANHATTAN BABY). I don't consider these two less than stellar works to mean that Fulci fails as a horror director because he couldn't pull them off. Not every artist paints pictures the same way, but there's merit in their differences. All of this is just my (usually long-winded) way of saying that either the less-is-more or the over-the-top-crescendo-of-violence can be used AND be effective in creating a lasting work of artistic merit. It's more of a matter of the context in which they are presented. And, while a great deal of gorey films feature the red stuff gratuitously, I don't feel like the form as a whole should be written off in favor of its diametric opposite. I've spoken before of my love for oldschool horror, but I'm more than willing to admit that lousy filmmaking existed even before color filmmaking, and for every picture that legitimately builds suspense without showing anything graphic, there are plenty of films of the era that feature lousy actors showing their best "scared face" while nothing happens.
|
|
|
Post by Rorschach on Nov 16, 2009 5:12:51 GMT -5
An excellent counterpoint, DSR, and well taken! I love these little back and forths we sometimes get in here, because it's not just spitting vitriol and name calling like you get on OTHER boards I won't mention. It's actual, honest to God exchange of ideas. This place is so much the richer for having that type of discussion too.
So we've touched on the "gore vs. suspense" aspect of horror...how do you feel about the violence levels? I mean, does it make a film more horrific to have balls to the wall carnage, or is less really more, as in the case of a movie like MARTYRS, or AUDITION? The reason I ask is, the other day, I was in Hollywood Video and noticed a couple trying to make up their mind which movie to rent: RAMBO or Rob Zombie's HALLOWEEN. The wife was going on about how if she had to watch a "guy" movie, she'd rather watch something other than a horror movie, and she told him to get RAMBO. Now, having seen both films, I can attest that while Zombie's film IS violent and bloody (moreso than Carpenter's original by a mile) it doesn't hold a candle to the bodycount orgy that is RAMBO. I actually think RAMBO kind of qualifies as a horror movie myself. Though it's more of a "real world" horror than a slasher film, in that one movie alone, I think Rambo's kill count more than doubles Myers' totals for all of his movies combined! Not to mention the gross out kills and graphic deaths in Stallone's war opus. I dunno...I guess, as you stated earlier, it can go both ways. Myself, I think that for the most part, less IS more, as that way, it's more shocking when it happens. After a while, you kind of get numbed to the violence, if it happens too often, or too unrelentingly.
|
|
Ken Ivory
Hank Scorpio
This sorta thing IS my bag, baby.
Posts: 5,282
|
Post by Ken Ivory on Nov 16, 2009 9:24:20 GMT -5
I never post in this thread, I do read it a lot however, I just don't feel I'd be up to the caliber of posters in here. This is just a notice for people from the UK who read this thread: As part of it's 3D week next week Channel 4 is showing two 3D horror movies in Red/Blue 3D: Flesh For Frankenstein on Wednesday Evening/Thursday Morning at 12:40am And Friday The 13th Part 3 at 10PM on Friday. You can get free 3D glasses at most Sainsburys. Just thought I'd throw this out there for those with any intrest. Dang, it's extremely rare that they show a Friday The 13th film on terrestrial TV. Same goes for the NOES series.
|
|
|
Post by YellowJacketY2J on Nov 16, 2009 9:34:51 GMT -5
Plot (courtesy of Netflix): When three geeky college guys get caught spying on a sorority ritual, they're forced to accompany the pledges on their next assignment: stealing a trophy from the neighborhood bowling alley. Unfortunately, the token they pinch contains a devilish imp (played by a rubber puppet) who makes their lives a living hell. This B-movie, horror classic includes performances by "scream queen" Linnea Quigley and adult-film star Michelle Bauer. Review: I would like to start out by stating that I was surprised to find out this is a Full Moon movie, not a Troma flick. Judging by the plot, cover and title, I thought it was a given that Troma green-lit this. Instead, Full Moon is the one releasing the film, which is surprising since there are no dolls to be found (though there is a puppet imp and black magic, which is up Full Moon's alley). This withstanding, Sorority Babes is an adequate fun romp. It doesn't take itself too seriously, and opts to have some fun with the cheesy plot. The acting isn't as bad as expected, though Andras Jones doesn't even attempt to act. The imp doesn't look half bad for a puppet, though it is shrouded in darkness for the most part. Sorority Babes does only run for an hour and twenty minutes (an hour and fifteen if you take out the credits), which is actually my main problem. It could have easily ran for another ten minutes. Instead, the ending felt rushed. Overall, this isn't a perfect film (then again, what Full Moon movie is?). Hell, it's not even that good of a film to begin with. But, it is a quick, fun way to kill an hour and a quarter. If you don't like cheesy horror movies, stay away. If you do, it's worth a look. Final Rating: C+
|
|
Lick Ness Monster
Dennis Stamp
From the eerie, eerie depths of Lake Okabena
Posts: 4,874
|
Post by Lick Ness Monster on Nov 16, 2009 11:04:08 GMT -5
Well, I'm searching for something meaningful to say in our latest round of civil debate, but the truth is that violence is something that I really don't feel strongly about one way or the other. My own prejudice when it comes to horror movies is (and people SHOULD notice this recurring theme if they read my reviews, as it's usually the primary reason why I do or don't enjoy a horror movie) whether or not I give a s*** about what's happening onscreen. Mr./Ms. Film-maker, if you want to go all minimalist and slow burn, fine. If you want to show me the most gruesome eviscerations imaginable, also fine. But just give me, at the very least, one or two characters that I can actually hop on the bandwagon of for the duration of the film's running time. The reason? If I feel something for the character/characters that the awful things are happening to, it truly makes it a horrifying experience for me. If not, it's just masturbation. And therein lies the reason why I can't really get into older (read: pre-1975 or so) horror films. There ARE exceptions, of course ( Psycho and Tod Browning's Freaks come immediately to mind), but for whatever strange chemical reason I just find it extremely difficult to become emotionally invested in classical monster/horror films. Plot (courtesy of Netflix): When three geeky college guys get caught spying on a sorority ritual, they're forced to accompany the pledges on their next assignment: stealing a trophy from the neighborhood bowling alley. Unfortunately, the token they pinch contains a devilish imp (played by a rubber puppet) who makes their lives a living hell. This B-movie, horror classic includes performances by "scream queen" Linnea Quigley and adult-film star Michelle Bauer. Review: I would like to start out by stating that I was surprised to find out this is a Full Moon movie, not a Troma flick. Judging by the plot, cover and title, I thought it was a given that Troma green-lit this. Instead, Full Moon is the one releasing the film, which is surprising since there are no dolls to be found (though there is a puppet imp and black magic, which is up Full Moon's alley). This withstanding, Sorority Babes is an adequate fun romp. It doesn't take itself too seriously, and opts to have some fun with the cheesy plot. The acting isn't as bad as expected, though Andras Jones doesn't even attempt to act. The imp doesn't look half bad for a puppet, though it is shrouded in darkness for the most part. Sorority Babes does only run for an hour and twenty minutes (an hour and fifteen if you take out the credits), which is actually my main problem. It could have easily ran for another ten minutes. Instead, the ending felt rushed. Overall, this isn't a perfect film (then again, what Full Moon movie is?). Hell, it's not even that good of a film to begin with. But, it is a quick, fun way to kill an hour and a quarter. If you don't like cheesy horror movies, stay away. If you do, it's worth a look. Final Rating: C+ Ah, yet another movie that Joe Bob Briggs introduced me to. Good times. ;D
|
|
theryno665
Grimlock
wants a title underneath the stars
Kinda Homeless
Posts: 13,571
|
Post by theryno665 on Nov 16, 2009 11:40:28 GMT -5
I too can't get into older horror movies, unless they're the cheesy MST3K-type and even then I have trouble. But that doesn't go just for horror movies but most older movies in general. I've found that black-and-white has sort of a calming, soothing effect on me that makes me tired. To date, the only black-and-white movies that I can think of watching the whole way through are Clerks and Seven Samurai (both of which are among my favorite movies ever). And as much as I love it, I've fallen asleep during Seven Samurai a few times.
|
|
|
Post by DSR on Nov 16, 2009 13:52:33 GMT -5
An excellent counterpoint, DSR, and well taken! I love these little back and forths we sometimes get in here, because it's not just spitting vitriol and name calling like you get on OTHER boards I won't mention. It's actual, honest to God exchange of ideas. This place is so much the richer for having that type of discussion too. So we've touched on the "gore vs. suspense" aspect of horror...how do you feel about the violence levels? I mean, does it make a film more horrific to have balls to the wall carnage, or is less really more, as in the case of a movie like MARTYRS, or AUDITION? The reason I ask is, the other day, I was in Hollywood Video and noticed a couple trying to make up their mind which movie to rent: RAMBO or Rob Zombie's HALLOWEEN. The wife was going on about how if she had to watch a "guy" movie, she'd rather watch something other than a horror movie, and she told him to get RAMBO. Now, having seen both films, I can attest that while Zombie's film IS violent and bloody (moreso than Carpenter's original by a mile) it doesn't hold a candle to the bodycount orgy that is RAMBO. I actually think RAMBO kind of qualifies as a horror movie myself. Though it's more of a "real world" horror than a slasher film, in that one movie alone, I think Rambo's kill count more than doubles Myers' totals for all of his movies combined! Not to mention the gross out kills and graphic deaths in Stallone's war opus. I dunno...I guess, as you stated earlier, it can go both ways. Myself, I think that for the most part, less IS more, as that way, it's more shocking when it happens. After a while, you kind of get numbed to the violence, if it happens too often, or too unrelentingly. I don't really consider the debate to be "gore versus suspense", as I've said previously that there are gorey films that are suspenseful. I consider the debate to fall more along the lines of "tell vs. show" the idea, as you said, to either describe an action and let the audience fill in the blank, or to show the action as a means of releasing tension (though there are some films where it can just as easily increase tension). And in that regard, I don't really think one side of the coin is superior to the other. As I said before, the context in which either form is used is what's really important. I share TR's view, that when I care about the characters, the circumstances they find themselves in become scarier as a result of that empathy. John Carpenter is a good example here. Its been said many times that he used the less-is-more approach to HALLOWEEN, and it was incredibly effective. He also used a ton of gorey, grotesque setpieces in THE THING, and although that film was initially panned by critics, its gained a strong following as well. But HALLOWEEN is effective because we care about Laurie Strode and her friends, and THE THING is effective because we care about RJ MacReady and the rest of the crew. Carpenter can use the show or the tell approach effectively because he gets us invested in the characters in the first place, and then unleashes terror upon them. I think that's what really matters, the emotional investment.
|
|
|
Post by Young Game on Nov 16, 2009 14:26:31 GMT -5
An excellent counterpoint, DSR, and well taken! I love these little back and forths we sometimes get in here, because it's not just spitting vitriol and name calling like you get on OTHER boards I won't mention. It's actual, honest to God exchange of ideas. This place is so much the richer for having that type of discussion too. So we've touched on the "gore vs. suspense" aspect of horror...how do you feel about the violence levels? I mean, does it make a film more horrific to have balls to the wall carnage, or is less really more, as in the case of a movie like MARTYRS, or AUDITION? The reason I ask is, the other day, I was in Hollywood Video and noticed a couple trying to make up their mind which movie to rent: RAMBO or Rob Zombie's HALLOWEEN. The wife was going on about how if she had to watch a "guy" movie, she'd rather watch something other than a horror movie, and she told him to get RAMBO. Now, having seen both films, I can attest that while Zombie's film IS violent and bloody (moreso than Carpenter's original by a mile) it doesn't hold a candle to the bodycount orgy that is RAMBO. I actually think RAMBO kind of qualifies as a horror movie myself. Though it's more of a "real world" horror than a slasher film, in that one movie alone, I think Rambo's kill count more than doubles Myers' totals for all of his movies combined! Not to mention the gross out kills and graphic deaths in Stallone's war opus. I dunno...I guess, as you stated earlier, it can go both ways. Myself, I think that for the most part, less IS more, as that way, it's more shocking when it happens. After a while, you kind of get numbed to the violence, if it happens too often, or too unrelentingly. Out of curiousity, does your Hollywood Video edit their more violent or explicit movies? I only ask because I've purchased used copies of "Citizen Toxie: The Toxic Avenger IV" and "The Legend Of Ron Jeremy" from Hollywood Video and found them both to be HEAVILY edited.
|
|
Lick Ness Monster
Dennis Stamp
From the eerie, eerie depths of Lake Okabena
Posts: 4,874
|
Post by Lick Ness Monster on Nov 16, 2009 18:08:48 GMT -5
I don't really consider the debate to be "gore versus suspense", as I've said previously that there are gorey films that are suspenseful. I consider the debate to fall more along the lines of "tell vs. show" the idea, as you said, to either describe an action and let the audience fill in the blank, or to show the action as a means of releasing tension (though there are some films where it can just as easily increase tension). And in that regard, I don't really think one side of the coin is superior to the other. As I said before, the context in which either form is used is what's really important. I share TR's view, that when I care about the characters, the circumstances they find themselves in become scarier as a result of that empathy. John Carpenter is a good example here. Its been said many times that he used the less-is-more approach to HALLOWEEN, and it was incredibly effective. He also used a ton of gorey, grotesque setpieces in THE THING, and although that film was initially panned by critics, its gained a strong following as well. But HALLOWEEN is effective because we care about Laurie Strode and her friends, and THE THING is effective because we care about RJ MacReady and the rest of the crew. Carpenter can use the show or the tell approach effectively because he gets us invested in the characters in the first place, and then unleashes terror upon them. I think that's what really matters, the emotional investment. I agree and approve of this post 100%. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Maidpool w/ Cleaning Action on Nov 16, 2009 18:14:14 GMT -5
That was a good point DSR.
|
|