Horror

[Dr. Ensatsu-ken]

Anybody know any good Japanese horror flicks to recommend? I'm kind of in the mood for that sort of stuff right now. To be specific I don't mind if its gory but I'd rather have one of the more psychological horror films to watch than something that's really just brutal for the sake of being violent, if that's possible.

[Foggle]

Have you seen Kairo (the Japanese version of Pulse)? A lot of people have called it "boring" or whatever, but I personally think it's pretty damn good. One of the few films to have actually scared me, though that could have been due to the conditions under which I watched it.

Another J-horror movie I particularly enjoyed is Noroi: The Curse. It might be kind of hard to find, though. (EDIT: It's on YouTube, so you should be good to go there).

[Dr. Ensatsu-ken]

I haven't seen either of those films. I'll definitely keep my eye out for both of them now that you've mentioned them, though. I actually heard good things about Kairo before, so maybe not everyone thinks its boring (I remember seeing it somewhere on a list of top 10-20-ish J-Horror films at one point in time, but I can't remember exactly where).

Is Ichi the Killer also a Japanese horror film? I've seen it labeled as such, though some people tell me that its not really a horror movie, though I do generally hear that its good, so I might check that film out as well, regardless of its genre. All that I know is that it has to do with the Yakuza and some psychopathic killer.

[Foggle]

Ichi The Killer is one of my favorite movies of all time (feel free to draw whatever conclusions about me you want to from that statement), but I wouldn't call it a horror film at all. It has a couple of fairly disturbing scenes involving torture and rape, but honestly, it's more of a really fucked up Yakuza comedy than anything else. The uncut version is extremely gory; don't bother with the R rated cut.

I must warn you that most of Miike's "horror" films are similarly mislabeled. Gozu is more of a David Lynch tribute piece than anything, Audition is basically a romantic drama with a grotesque twist near the end, and anyone who refers to Happiness Of The Katakuris as a horror film has clearly never seen it. All three of these titles are brilliant, though, and I highly recommend them. His Masters of Horror episode, Imprint, is an amazing accomplishment on the horror front, though. Check it out.

[Dr. Ensatsu-ken]

I actually have seen Audition, though it was a long time ago. The ending is definitely a shocker but other than that its not really a horror film at all. In fact what makes the ending shocking is how the movie plays out like a romance up until the last 10-20 minutes. Though, I will say that those last 10-20 minutes are some of the most disturbing that I've personally ever seen in a film, and its usually really hard to make me ever find anything disturbing.

I'll definitely keep an eye out for the other films that you mentioned, though. I guess part of my sudden interest in J-Horror is how dry the horror genre well is here for modern American horror flicks, and while there are some good and classic ones that I haven't seen yet, I've already seen a number of good ones so I was running out of stuff to watch.

[Avaitor]

Our very own No-Personality is making a top 100 horror list of his own,

Check it out so far. Some interesting choices already.

[talonmalon333]

So I thought I'd try to list my top 10 favorite horror films. I chose not to count certain ones (for example, Jaws and Rosemary's Baby are more thrillers, though both could've easily topped this list, and then there's the Evil Dead movies which are heavily comedies). But anyway...

1. The Exorcist
2. Nosferatu (1979 remake)
3. Dawn of the Dead
4. Nosferatu (1922 original)
5. An American Werewolf in London
6. Night of the Living Dead
7. The Bride of Frankenstein
8. Frankenstein
9. Halloween
10. Ring

Subject to change.

[gunswordfist]

Really, just like with any other genre, I like the films that are well-done respective in this genre in regards to what makes them truly scary, which in this case is the atmosphere. Let me just say that aside from some cheese value to be had, all slasher films aside from the first 2 Halloween movies are pretty much garbage, IMO. That doesn't mean that I don't have some fun watching some good old action from Freddy from the Nightmare on Elm Street films, but those are the types of films that I watch with my friends knowing that they are bad (even the original hasn't aged well at all), but my friends and I still enjoy watching them just to point out how hilarious some of those films can be with various problems, such as overacting or some of the death scenes being so bizarre that its nearly just impossible to take it seriously.

Anyways, my favorite types of horror movies are the ones that are very creepy due to a brilliantly-executed atmosphere rather than just simple jump scares. Some of my favorite horror movies that fit the bill are The Shining (my personal favorite horror film of all-time), The Omen (2nd favorite), Alien, and John Carpenter's The Thing; the last 2 are especially great for combining both sci-fi and horror, with the first Alien film being the only one in the series to also be a horror film in many ways, and as far as John Carpenter's take on The Thing goes, I'll be honest and say that the original film, while a classic, wasn't the least bit scary. In John Carpenter's remake, its true that it has a lot of gore (but you have to admit whether you love or hate gore, that the effects done in the movie are simply brilliant, and have aged surprisingly well), but that's not what makes it a good horror film as much as it is the overall execution of the idea of not knowing who can be trusted and who cannot besides yourself.

Yeah, I know, I'm late on this quote but it ties in with why I peeked at this thread. I want some horror recs for Halloween, horror movies where there's creatures of some sort who are disguised as humans being my favorite kind. John Carpenter's The Thing and Invasion Of The Body Snatchers (original and the Sutherland/Nimoy/Goldblum remake) being my favorites. I'm not specifically asking for scifi horror, it;s just those happen to be my favorite of this kind. Also, any other kind of horror movie recommendation is welcome.

[talonmalon333]

I'm not sure if that post is accurate to your views anymore, EK. But if so...

Let me just say that aside from some cheese value to be had, all slasher films aside from the first 2 Halloween movies are pretty much garbage, IMO.

Why list Halloween II as an exception? I thought it was lame and was really no different than all the cheap sequels/ripoffs of its predecessor. Actually, maybe it wasn't bad, but it was far from good. I would rather watch Friday the 13th, A Nightmare on Elm Street, Wes Craven's New Nightmare, Black Christmas, all of which were superior films. And I think Black Christmas is on par with the original Halloween.

[Dr. Ensatsu-ken]

Why list Halloween II as an exception? I thought it was lame and was really no different than all the cheap sequels/ripoffs of its predecessor. Actually, maybe it wasn't bad, but it was far from good. I would rather watch Friday the 13th, A Nightmare on Elm Street, Wes Craven's New Nightmare, Black Christmas, all of which were superior films. And I think Black Christmas is on par with the original Halloween.

Halloween II is a far stretch from great, but it still has a creepy atmosphere about it and it does an interesting job of fleshing out the back-story of both Michael and Laurie.

Why list Friday the 13th as a film that you'd rather watch? Its a piece of crap film that only has a fan-base due to nostalgia. Honestly, there is nothing original about the movie, the characters are all crap (I mean, you don't even have one that you can single out as the protagonist unless you just count the one that lives at the end), the atmosphere is not built up at all (which is a shame because the camp setting is perfect, but it feels so underutilized throughout the entire movie in terms of building up effective scares), and the killer just looks fucking lame with a sack over her head. The movie just doesn't manage to build up any tension, and I have always found it highly overrated. I believe that people like to convince themselves that its good just because its the original movie in a long-running series, one which was never any good to begin with.

Frankly, I find it laughable that you would consider the original Friday the 13th a superior film. As for A Nightmare on Elm Street, I respect the film well enough, but I never really enjoyed it that much myself. I haven't seen Black Christmas, so I can't comment on that one.

Overall, though, I'd say that I easily enjoyed Halloween II more than any of the films from the other 2 big slasher franchises of the 80's. It is indeed a very flawed film, I'd never deny that, but I at least enjoy it for what it is. If that's a problem for you (since you clearly think your opinion is fact based on the usual obnoxious tone of your post), then just go watch those other films that you like so much more.

[Dr. Ensatsu-ken]

**AHEM**

OK, so I probably overreacted there, but really you might as well have made your post say: Why do you have a different opinion than mine when mine is clearly right and yours is clearly wrong?

That's just the way it came off to me, anyways, and to be fair that's usually how you seem to think of things.

[talonmalon333]

Why list Halloween II as an exception? I thought it was lame and was really no different than all the cheap sequels/ripoffs of its predecessor. Actually, maybe it wasn't bad, but it was far from good. I would rather watch Friday the 13th, A Nightmare on Elm Street, Wes Craven's New Nightmare, Black Christmas, all of which were superior films. And I think Black Christmas is on par with the original Halloween.

Halloween II is a far stretch from great, but it still has a creepy atmosphere about it and it does an interesting job of fleshing out the back-story of both Michael and Laurie.

Why list Friday the 13th as a film that you'd rather watch? Its a piece of crap film that only has a fan-base due to nostalgia. Honestly, there is nothing original about the movie, the characters are all crap (I mean, you don't even have one that you can single out as the protagonist unless you just count the one that lives at the end), the atmosphere is not built up at all (which is a shame because the camp setting is perfect, but it feels so underutilized throughout the entire movie in terms of building up effective scares), and the killer just looks fucking lame with a sack over her head. The movie just doesn't manage to build up any tension, and I have always found it highly overrated. I believe that people like to convince themselves that its good just because its the original movie in a long-running series, one which was never any good to begin with.

Frankly, I find it laughable that you would consider the original Friday the 13th a superior film. As for A Nightmare on Elm Street, I respect the film well enough, but I never really enjoyed it that much myself. I haven't seen Black Christmas, so I can't comment on that one.

Overall, though, I'd say that I easily enjoyed Halloween II more than any of the films from the other 2 big slasher franchises of the 80's. It is indeed a very flawed film, I'd never deny that, but I at least enjoy it for what it is. If that's a problem for you (since you clearly think your opinion is fact based on the usual obnoxious tone of your post), then just go watch those other films like like so much more.

I was just asking a question looking for some reasoning, and I hoped you'd know it's all entirely opinion-based. No harm meant.

Having said that, I do agree with you that Friday the 13th isn't a good movie, by any standards. But like Halloween II, it had its moments. I just think it had a few more of those. I also kind of think it would've been more interesting to leave the fate of Michael Myers as a mystery, like they did at the end of the 1st film. You're definitely right that Halloween II wins at atmosphere. No contest there.

I'll also mention that I don't think the difference in quality is much. On another site I recently linked here, I gave Halloween II a 60%, and Friday the 13th a 65%. Both are just slasher fun, not necessarily great movies.

EDIT:

**AHEM**

OK, so I probably overreacted there, but really you might as well have made your post say: Why do you have a different opinion than mine when mine is clearly right and yours is clearly wrong?

That's just the way it came off to me, anyways, and to be fair that's usually how you seem to think of things.

I do apologize, then. That's not how I meant for my post to sound, or any of my previous ones. I have a tendency to bash things I don't like, but I try to keep it in good fun. But I do think that I've become far less hot-headed here than I was a few years ago.

[No-Personality]

Halloween II is a far stretch from great, but it still has a creepy atmosphere about it and it does an interesting job of fleshing out the back-story of both Michael and Laurie.

Ha... only at the expense of who the characters were in the first film and what Michael Myers represented. There was never supposed to be a sequel. John Carpenter did it for the money. Universal paid Compass International for the rights to produce a sequel and they were going to do it whether Carpenter was given any say in what they actually did with the story or not. They offered him money, he took it and has described the entire process with an extreme amount of cynicism and outright disdain. And so... he wrote in a backstory that has nothing to do with the characters, and more to do with how popular soap operas were at the time (since this just wreaks of a tv drama twist), and literally flies in the face of everything he was trying to do in the first film. Note the presence of graphic violence and the high bodycount. These elements weren't in the first film. They were from Friday the 13th. He knew why Universal bothered to try and make this a franchise. Because Friday the 13th was raking it in and producing a sequel - which also made a ton in comparison to how much it cost - for next to nothing.

Why list Friday the 13th as a film that you'd rather watch?

Well, I don't plan to rewatch the Friday the 13th films this October season and yet will be rewatching as many Halloweens (up to H20) as I can. This year. So, that's a matter of random planning.

But... let's say: why do I have the Friday the 13th franchise on my Top 100 list while (there are 62 movies left to countdown, but I'm going to spoil the ending for a second) there isn't a single Halloween sequel to be found? Easily. In the world of franchises, studios ruin everything if there's something sacred in the original to ruin. For the first 6 films in this particular, very unique (and of course I'll tell you why in a second), franchise- Paramount kept their hands off the creative people they hired to helm this thing. They bought the first film, had nothing to do with its' production. And for the first five sequels, they basically just signed checks to whoever would make sure there was a script, actors, some place to shoot it- etc. This means, the filmmakers could run the show their way. This is why Part IV is so unbelievably sleazy, because screenwriter Barney Cohen writes his movies that way, and the murders were all sexually invasive and exploitative- because that's the way Joe Zito does his movies. Steve Miner made his 2 sequels extremely technically flashy, that was his thing. Tom McLoughlin likes gothic style and wanted to make his dopey and humorous. Paramount said: fine. Danny Steinmann wanted to make a surreal film where you couldn't tell whether characters were awake or asleep. Paramount said: fine.

This is not the same way New Line ran Nightmare on Elm Street. New Line loved to give their employees the opportunity to take Craven's ideas and characters and let them do whatever the hell they wanted with it. But you'll notice the original film had a vision behind it. And a few of the sequels had good ideas but... do you think anyone asked Craven: what would Freddy do? How could he be revived 5 times after Nancy destroyed him in the first film? (The ending to the film you see now was a form of studio interference- it's not Craven's original ending.) Why does this take place here? Etc. An idea that remains potent and brilliant in one film likely does not stretch for a franchise in the horror genre. This is why you'll note the trend of good sequels by directors of seminal horror films being considered remakes. Evil Dead II, Dawn of the Dead, etc. They re-write the entire concept, abandon characters or start over with the old ones, etc(.) because they know what worked for one film can't just repeat in a sequel. That the first was a completely self-contained concept and wasn't made to stretch. With that in mind, the only smart thing New Line did with character continuity in the Nightmare franchise is bring Nancy back once. Her father back once. And they died. Their stories between films are kept relevant to the 3rd film and don't affect the original. They don't change it. Halloween II fucks up bigtime because it leads people to believe Michael and Laurie were related in the first film. Carpenter wrote it but he didn't want to. It goes against the entire idea that Michael wasn't human. That he was somehow a force of evil. His name, after all, was: The Shape.

Friday the 13th, on the other hand, was totally made to stretch. And the character writing got smarter (then dumber, then smarter again occasionally) over the course of so many sequels. Even with huge gaps in logic, the franchise evolved. Every movie had something the previous films did not. Even if I can't respect Part IV because I can't wrap my head around why they would seemingly demonize sexuality and being young, the film was consistent. The death scenes were compelling, you couldn't take your ideas off them, and they had a theme / motif to them which was that they were all connected to sex. Technically, even with that film, the franchise wasn't being raped. Craven and Carpenter could certainly argue that what New Line and Universal / Trancas / Miramax were doing to them was raping or making a mockery out of their creations. Friday the 13th was much more communal in its' creativity. In fact, the real mastermind behind it was producer Frank Mancuso Jr. and he stayed on every sequel made at Paramount. So... they did retain a cohesion. Someone was responsible for making sure every new idea fit within the franchise somehow.

[gunswordfist]

I learned so much just from that one post. I was wondering if Michael and Laurie were actually related in the original Halloween. Is there any DVDs available that has the original ending to Nightmare On Elm Street?

[talonmalon333]

I never liked that backstory to Michael Myers and Laurie, anyway. The first movie gave us all we need to know about the character. Though, this revelation was something I could live with.

Now that druid story, on the other hand... ugh.