Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Spoilers What Movie Are You Watching?
- Thread starter Huntn
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Horror movies have really changed since the 1930s. What scared audience back then is almost laughable now, but that has to do with exposure to more graphic depictions of violence and we are just used to it.
This is somewhat accurate. I recently plowed through the 8 disc "Universal Monsters" Blu Ray -pack I received as a birthday present a year ago, and while I can't say the films scared me, the fact that made them very enjoyable to watch was remembering the effect they had on me years and years ago when I first saw them as a kid. I guess you could call it nostalgia (of a period in time I was never a part of), but the general aesthetic and "feel" of ca. 1930's is something I wish could be translated to modern times and cinema. If that makes any sense. Then again, we have the films from that era to fall back on when the mood strikes, so maybe that's how it's supposed to be.
Great films the lot of them.
And on that note, yesterday evening I noticed that there was a fresh addition to Netflix from Indonesian director Timo Tjahjanto called The Night Comes for Us (2018), starring Iko Uwais, Joe Taslim and Julie Estelle, among others. The two gentlemen were, I believe, fight choreographers for The Raid: Berandal, and it shows. All three have also played roles in The Raid -films. If you're familiar with them, you know what to expect from this one.
There is a plot, but it's role is mostly to act as a catalyst for some of the more intense, refined and well choreographed fight scenes you're likely to see. The film has a runtime of 2 hours, and I'd say roughly 80% of that is pure carnage, executed in increasingly inventive ways. There aren't many bones in the human body that don't get broken on screen in this one, and even speaking of humans is a bit of a stretch as obviously no human could endure most of what the characters go through. But that's part of the fun on films like this, and definately why they are very much an acquired taste, so to speak, and at the same time pretty difficult to recommend outright.
Also, it's very refreshing to see strong female roles in films such as this, and the (granted, few) women (who have speaking parts) in the story are not relegated to background characters but give the dudes, and each other a very real run for their money when it comes to physical prowess.
If you're looking for the audiovisual experience of attaching a car battery to your nipples for two hours but don't really like the idea of the ensuing medical costs, this is a film I can whole heartedly recommend.
An adult fairy tale of the "love it or hate it" -category at it's finest.
Last edited:
My impression is that standards in society were much more restrained and movies were censored in the early 20th Century. Good horror movies frequently relied on suspense and played on the audiences imaginations. A good example which scared me as a child was The Haunting (1963) which relied mostly on atmosphere, and sounds, and a bulging door, among other things. The remake (1999) was a dissapointment, relying on a lot of CGI. I think the Friday the 13th series got the ball rolling on creative carnage. I enjoyed the first one, but even that is tame by today’s standards. The last thing I want to see these days is a movie with people being graphically tortured. I really loved Get Out (2017).
Last edited:
Yeah, while the genre has roots that go all the way back to the 40's (and maybe even farther back), Carpenter's Halloween and the first Friday the 13th film are probably the most widely known examples that jumpstarted the "Golden Era" of slasher films in the late 70's. At that time the films did feature violence and bloodshed, yes, but there was also an important element of atmosphere that nowadays more often than not get's ignored (prime example being Rob Zombie's remake of the original Halloween, that strips away everything that made the original the masterpiece it is and substitutes low rent white trash -aesthetic and meaningless gore), or at least put in the passenger seat while the gore steers the vehicle. Basically fluff that appeals to the lowest common denominator, since outlandish violence and worn out genre tropes are what fill the cinema seats. Now, I'm not saying I'm above it all, on occasion I enjoy a mindless bloodbath just like most other horror aficionados, but as the years go by, for me there seems to be a need for a horror film to terrify me more by using psychological means, rather than gore. So basically what I'm saying is we're in agreement, torture porn isn't my cup of tea either.
Get Out really was great. I need to watch it again.
Re Italics:
Actually, Friday the 13th did not get the balling rolling on creative carnage (that would possibly fall to 1971s A Bay of Blood by Mario Bava.) In fact, Tom Savini nicked the lovers getting impaled together in Fthe13th from Bava’s film.
I agree with your thoughts on good horror. My 2nd favorite aspect of John Carpenter’s The Thing was not Rob Bottin’s FX, it would be the rampant paranoia in that movie. How coworkers and friends turn on each other just like that. First favorite thing is Kurt Russell and his beautiful beard.
I love MacReady as a character. He’s great in the original novella, but even better in the movie (his evolution into taking action again was fantastic).For me, good horror has to be about characters first. Actually, any film I am drawn to has to be about character first.
I am a bit weird with gore though. Some creative carnage I can roll with. Torture porn or anything that looks too real, no thanks. Probably why I prefer monsters and giallos (which are so artificial in every way the murders seem just as fake.)
I did watch the original Evil Dead again last night. A mix between creative, utterly gross carnage and a little bit of characterization. Pretty amazing how a bunch of kids from MI came up with such an ingenious and unsettling movie.
Last edited:
The first carnage I remember is Night of the Living Dead, where the zombies were eating something that looked like human guts.Re Italics:
Actually, Friday the 13th did not get the balling rolling on creative carnage (that would possibly fall to 1971s A Bay of Blood by Mario Bava.) In fact, Tom Savini nicked the lovers getting impaled together in Fthe13th from Bava’s film.
I agree with your thoughts on good horror. My 2nd favorite aspect of John Carpenter’s The Thing was not Rob Bottin’s FX is the rampant paranoia in that movie. How coworkers and friends turn on each other just like that. First favorite thing is Kurt Russell and his beautiful beard.
For me, good horror has to be about characters first. Actually, any film I am drawn to has to be about character first.
I am a bit weird with gore though. Some creative carnage I can roll with. Torture porn or anything that looks too real, no thanks. Probably why I prefer monsters and giallos (which are so artificial in every way the murders seem just as fake.)
I did watch the original Evil Dead again last night. A mix between creative, utterly gross carnage and a little bit of characterization. Pretty amazing how a bunch of kids from MI came up with such an ingenious and unsettling movie.
Carpenter's The Thing is just wonderful! I love that movie to death. A good comparison is looking at the original The Thing From Another Word that completely blew off the primary concept and hook of the book Who Goes There and was completely tame in comparison, but it had an outstanding atmosphere and I like how the dialog was delivered. Would that be in a 50's manner?
That is 50s vs 80s. Just the appearance of James Arness in a carrot suit and the description of men hanging on hooks (that the audience was not allowed to see) was enough to terrify audiences, including myself as a kid, who watched the show at a friends house on a black and white TV with a coat over my head. The ending was pretty basic, fry (electrocute) the animated carrot. No worries about who your buddy really was.
Yes, of course, they could. And did.
@Huntn: I was in college - my final undergrad year - when, for some reason, the university cinema club put on a stunning series of some of the best movies ever made.
That was the first time I ever saw "Citizen Kane" (spell binding and utterly brilliant). But, I had read about that movie, - my brother, since his teens, had requested lots and lots of books on movie history as gifts (yes, I read them) - much as I requested books on history (some of which he read) - and thus, sort of expected it to be extremely good.
It was - actually, it was fantastic.
What I had not expected was to have been completely bowled over by the movie The Cabinet of Dr Caligari. This is a movie that was made in 1920, - a century ago - and it was absolutely brilliant.
That season also showed Leni Riefenstahl's compelling (and yes, deeply disturbing) Triumph of the Will (1934).
None of these required anything like CGI (or pornographic levels of violence) - but all were compelling and brilliantly told stories through the medium of visual film.
Last edited:
The first carnage I remember is Night of the Living Dead, where the zombies were eating something that looked like human guts.
Carpenter's The Thing is just wonderful! I love that movie to death. A good comparison is looking at the original The Thing From Another Word that completely blew off the primary concept and hook of the book Who Goes There and was completely tame in comparison, but it had an outstanding atmosphere and I like how the dialog was delivered. Would that be in a 50's manner?
That is 50s vs 80s. Just the appearance of James Arness in a carrot suit and the description of men hanging on hooks (that the audience was not allowed to see) was enough to terrify audiences, including myself as a kid, who watched the show at a friends house on a black and white TV with a coat over my head. The ending was pretty basic, fry (electrocute) the animated carrot. No worries about who your buddy really was.
I’ve seen the 1950s Thing from another world. But in my wonky kid mind, I always thought he was a dinner boogey man: “Beware the Carrot man - if you don’t eat your vegetables, James Agness’ giant carrot will get you!”
50s Thing does have some good moments. “Who Goes There?” is my favorite horror story.
Creative Carnage: thought you meant slasher movie style.
NoTLD: guts were sausages and blood was chocolate syrup. Gotta love George Romero! For me, the ironic ending of Ben being shot under the presumption he was a zombie was the most terrible thing in that film.
@kazmac: Have you ever seen two British classics from the second world war period that I think are both brilliant (and beautifully understated)?
The first is the 1939 version of The Four Feathers (and yes, I'll admit that the 2002 version is actually surprisingly good). But the 1939 version is brilliant. (And yes, I read the book).
The second is The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp - an astonishing and absolutely wonderful film (movie) for wartime (some sources suggest that Winston Churchill was unhappy with it and had sought - initially - to have the movie banned).
But this is a lovely, bitter-sweet (possibly one of my favourite flavours in movies), elegant, tolerant, whimsical, and wonderfully told (the way the passing years are covered was awesome, to my student mind, when I first saw it) movie.
If Four Feathers is the Marx Brothers movie, yes, I saw that as a child.
...Colonel Blimp I’ve heard of, but probably haven’t seen it.
No, it (Four Feathers) is not the Marx Brothers movie, but a British classic.
Colonel Blimp is excellent; an unusually civilised, subtle, decent and nuanced movie - and beautifully filmed and told.
You're thinking of "Horse Feathers". One of the finest of classic comedies ever made. I hesitate to think how many times I've seen that, (and all the other Marx Bros. movies). They are truly in the must watch to be a complete human being category!
And it has my favourite Groucho scene from any movie. A life shaping scene!
I’d highly recommend the 1939 version of the four feathers. Didn’t know they’d done a remake.
Heath Ledger starred in the remake of 2002 (and it wasn't at all bad, just that it had been done better earlier); there was a version done in the 70s, or 80s - Beau Bridges was in it, if memory serves.
But the 1939 version was superb.
They sure have.
I prefer the older, more classic horror films that are less gore and more suspense. I'm not into gratuitous gore or violence for its own sake. Some contemporary horror movies are okay by me, but only very few.
Rob Zombie used a bunch of names from Marx Brothers movies for characters in his two horror flicks: House of 1000 Corpses and Devil's Rejects (sequel to H1KC):
Professor Quincy Adams Wagstaff from (the above mentioned) Horse Feathers
Captain Jeffrey T. Spaulding from Animal Crackers
Rufus T. Firefly from Duck Soup
Otis B. Driftwood from A Night at the Opera
But suspense can be a lot more terrifying than pure (and often gratuitous) gore.
A movie such as "The Innocents" (1961) is a lot more chilling and unsettling than many horror movies where the horror is a lot more overt, gory and violent.
What did you think about Get Out? I forget if you already expressed an opinion abipout it.
Not sure I’ve heard of that one.What did you think about Get Out? I forget if you already expressed an opinion abipout it.
And next year, Three from Hell. Cannot wait to see Bill Moseley saddle up as Otis again.
Revisited one of my favorite indie Kung Fu films, The Challenger (1979) today, in which David Chiang’s greedy con artist teams up with Norman Chu’s vengeful fighter to get back at the wicked fellah played by Ko Fei.
I think Chiang’s team ups with Norman Chu were even more fun than most of the Shaw Brothers movies David did with Ti Lung. Chiang has a natural gift for comedy -and when paired with Chu- is even funnier. When you find out the truth behind Chiang’s scheme, his character is even more lovable.
Of course, the very crude English subtitles add to the mirth, but the end fight is pretty great with Chiang performing some great pole work, and making everyone remember why he was the first stuntman in Hong Kong to make it big as an actor. Chiang and Ko are particularly fast and the choreography they had to perform was utterly glorious.
These three men would up the ante with 1980’s The Loot in terms of story, laughs and awesome martial arts.
Both movies cheer me up immediately due to Chiang’s charms. It bugs me he never caught on as a kung fu comedian, as I think he’s the best one.
While The Loot remains my favorite Kung Fu comedy, I enjoy The Challenger more each time I watch it.
Last edited:
