|
Post by wjohnson22 on Jan 30, 2014 22:41:20 GMT -5
Hello again Bob! I really enjoyed this week's podcast, and am hoping many of your predictions come true. All the talk on the podcast about George Romero's Empire of the Dead comic makes me wonder what your top five horror movies are (inspired by the album thread). My apologies if you've already been asked or talked about this elsewhere on the thread.
My top 5 horror movies 5. The Cabin in the Woods 4. The Thing (John Carpenter's) 3. Original Nosferatu 2. The Shining 1. Alien
|
|
|
Post by CaptainSuperior on Jan 30, 2014 23:14:49 GMT -5
Hello again Bob! I really enjoyed this week's podcast, and am hoping many of your predictions come true. All the talk on the podcast about George Romero's Empire of the Dead comic makes me wonder what your top five horror movies are (inspired by the album thread). My apologies if you've already been asked or talked about this elsewhere on the thread. My top 5 horror movies 5. The Cabin in the Woods 4. The Thing (John Carpenter's) 3. Original Nosferatu 2. The Shining 1. Alien Saw this list and felt like I had to join in lol. 5. Dawn of the Dead 4. Pet Cemetery 3. The Woman in Black 2. The Hills Have Eyes 1. House of 1000 Corpses / Devils Rejects
|
|
|
Post by Bob Reyer on Jan 30, 2014 23:24:01 GMT -5
"W",
I'll give you two (well, three) lists, in case I'm fouling up the question!
My "All-Time Top 10 Favorite Horror Films"
10) The Black Cat (1934) 9) The Howling (1980) 8) Night of the Living Dead (1968) 7) Halloween (1978) 6) Frankenstein (1931) 5) Son Of Frankenstein (1939) 4) Dracula (1931) 3) The Wolf Man (1941) 2) Jaws (1975) 1) Psycho (1960)
My "All-Time Top 5 Favorite Science-Fiction Films"
5) The Day The Earth Stood Still (1951) 4) The Beast from 20,000 Fathoms (1953) 3) The War of the Worlds (1953) 2) Forbidden Planet (1956) 1) King Kong (1933)
Now, for my DVD store, I came up with a "Top 50 Horror Films", which I determined by scariness, quality, historical importance and cultural relevance. Here's the "Top 20":
20) The Descent (2005) 19) Nosferatu (1922) 18) Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956) 17) The Fog (1980) 16) Suspiria (1977) 15) Re-Animator (1985) 14) Alien (1979) 13) Frankenstein (1931) 12) Dracula (1931) 11) Evil Dead (1983) 10) A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984) 9) Jaws (1975) 8) The Thing (1951 & 1982!!) 7) The Haunting (1963) 6) Dawn of the Dead (1978) 5) The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974) 4) The Exorcist (1973) 3) Halloween (1978) 2) Night of the Living Dead (1968) 1) Psycho (1960)
It's good to see "Alien" on your list! I've had countless arguments over the years as to whether it's a Science-Fiction film or a Horror film!
|
|
|
Post by wjohnson22 on Jan 30, 2014 23:51:09 GMT -5
Bob, as always, you go above and beyond and deliver the goods! I like your distinction between rating your "favorite" movies and then rating movies based on other factors. There are many movies that I might not have liked, but recognize their importance for one reason or another. And there are many movies I love that have been critically panned.
I now have some work to do as far as watching some of the films on your lists and compiling some more extensive lists as I build my collection.
Finally, I'd love to hear your thoughts about how you came to include "Alien" on your horror list. Obviously a movie can be both sci-fi and horror (I'm thinking Event Horizon), but when forced to choose which predominates, that is where things get tricky. For me, I'm in the camp that Alien is a monster movie that happens to be set in space. Although the setting is sci-fi, the key elements are horror tropes. Plus, H.R. Giger's influence and Lovecraftian design further seals the deal for me that Alien is a horror movie at its heart.
For my favorite sci-fi movie, I'd have to go with 2001: A Space Odyssey. I watched this film for the first time as a teenager with my Dad (it's his favorite movie), and we continue to discuss it to this day. The combination of the movie itself and the connection I have with it and my dad makes it rise to the top.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Reyer on Jan 31, 2014 3:20:45 GMT -5
"W",
Although I have no trouble "hyphenating" ("Romantic-Musical-Comedy"), some friends and I got into a long debate over the notion of being able to give a film a single designation. Our final answer was that as a general rule, an important deciding factor as to genre would be film-maker's intent. If the object is to scare the audience, it's a "Horror" film, to make them laugh, a "Comedy", etc. It's simplistic, but pretty effective. By this way of classification, Abbott & Costello Meet Frankenstein, even with all the Universal monsters, is obviously a "Comedy", as it was made to create laughter. (We even figured out a difference between a "Thriller" which is meant to make you well, thrilled, and a "Horror" film meant to horrify! Yes, we were insane!)
The "Science-Fiction" vs. "Horror" split can be a little trickier, as Alien was the film that started the argument among us in the first place! My winning points that ended up overcoming all the talk of "It's set in outer space" or "It's about an alien space monster" were these: Ridley Scott's Alien was influenced by a 1958 film called It, The Terror from Beyond Space, which was itself simply a version of The Thing From Another World in an outer space setting. TTFAW is a haunted house/spooky "Horror" film at its heart, intended to frighten you with jump scares and a boogeyman around every corner. "But Alien is in space", was the rejoinder; "So Blazing Saddles is a 'Western'?" my come-back. I finished with this thought; let's postualate a film where we're centered on the crew of an ocean-going freighter that while docked at a foreign port is invaded by a terrible monster that hides in its bowels, emerging to kill off the crew one-at-a-time in various scary ways. "What genre of film would that be?", with a grudging tone that implied my victory, I heard my friend say "Horror".
|
|
|
Post by wjohnson22 on Jan 31, 2014 14:18:34 GMT -5
"W", Although I have no trouble "hyphenating" ("Romantic-Musical-Comedy"), some friends and I got into a long debate over the notion of being able to give a film a single designation. Our final answer was that as a general rule, an important deciding factor as to genre would be film-maker's intent. If the object is to scare the audience, it's a "Horror" film, to make them laugh, a "Comedy", etc. It's simplistic, but pretty effective. By this way of classification, Abbott & Costello Meet Frankenstein, even with all the Universal monsters, is obviously a "Comedy", as it was made to create laughter. (We even figured out a difference between a "Thriller" which is meant to make you well, thrilled, and a "Horror" film meant to horrify! Yes, we were insane!) The "Science-Fiction" vs. "Horror" split can be a little trickier, as Alien was the film that started the argument among us in the first place! My winning points that ended up overcoming all the talk of "It's set in outer space" or "It's about an alien space monster" were these: Ridley Scott's Alien was influenced by a 1958 film called It, The Terror from Beyond Space, which was itself simply a version of The Thing From Another World in an outer space setting. TTFAW is a haunted house/spooky "Horror" film at its heart, intended to frighten you with jump scares and a boogeyman around every corner. "But Alien is in space", was the rejoinder; "So Blazing Saddles is a 'Western'?" my come-back. I finished with this thought; let's postualate a film where we're centered on the crew of an ocean-going freighter that while docked at a foreign port is invaded by a terrible monster that hides in its bowels, emerging to kill off the crew one-at-a-time in various scary ways. "What genre of film would that be?", with a grudging tone that implied my victory, I heard my friend say "Horror". Thanks for the explanation! I love your parallel to the ocean vessel to help demonstrate that Alien is a horror movie at its core. I also love that the characters in Alien are depicted as working class stiffs, makes them much for relatable (one of the making-of documentaries described it as “Truckers in Space” – love that description). On a related note, what makes for a good horror movie in your opinion? I remember reading various reviews from Roger Ebert where he discussed build-up and anticipation as key elements in quality horror, almost more than the pay off. I recently read Lovecraft’s essay “Supernatural Horror in Literature” which seems to echo this sentiment, in that Lovecraft argues that good horror needs to create a sense of dread in the audience. Looking forward to your thoughts!
|
|
|
Post by Bob Reyer on Jan 31, 2014 16:34:16 GMT -5
"W", Although I have no trouble "hyphenating" ("Romantic-Musical-Comedy"), some friends and I got into a long debate over the notion of being able to give a film a single designation. Our final answer was that as a general rule, an important deciding factor as to genre would be film-maker's intent. If the object is to scare the audience, it's a "Horror" film, to make them laugh, a "Comedy", etc. It's simplistic, but pretty effective. By this way of classification, Abbott & Costello Meet Frankenstein, even with all the Universal monsters, is obviously a "Comedy", as it was made to create laughter. (We even figured out a difference between a "Thriller" which is meant to make you well, thrilled, and a "Horror" film meant to horrify! Yes, we were insane!) The "Science-Fiction" vs. "Horror" split can be a little trickier, as Alien was the film that started the argument among us in the first place! My winning points that ended up overcoming all the talk of "It's set in outer space" or "It's about an alien space monster" were these: Ridley Scott's Alien was influenced by a 1958 film called It, The Terror from Beyond Space, which was itself simply a version of The Thing From Another World in an outer space setting. TTFAW is a haunted house/spooky "Horror" film at its heart, intended to frighten you with jump scares and a boogeyman around every corner. "But Alien is in space", was the rejoinder; "So Blazing Saddles is a 'Western'?" my come-back. I finished with this thought; let's postualate a film where we're centered on the crew of an ocean-going freighter that while docked at a foreign port is invaded by a terrible monster that hides in its bowels, emerging to kill off the crew one-at-a-time in various scary ways. "What genre of film would that be?", with a grudging tone that implied my victory, I heard my friend say "Horror". Thanks for the explanation! I love your parallel to the ocean vessel to help demonstrate that Alien is a horror movie at its core. I also love that the characters in Alien are depicted as working class stiffs, makes them much for relatable (one of the making-of documentaries described it as “Truckers in Space” – love that description). On a related note, what makes for a good horror movie in your opinion? I remember reading various reviews from Roger Ebert where he discussed build-up and anticipation as key elements in making in quality horror, almost more than the pay off. I recently read Lovecraft’s essay “Supernatural Horror in Literature” which seems to echo this sentiment, in that Lovecraft argues that good horror needs to create a since of dread in the audience. Looking forward to your thoughts! "W", Far be it from me to disagree with the old gentleman from Providence, as I am a devotee of his work, and even wrote a "radio play" in the Lovecraftian vein that we recorded and used as a Halloween episode. ( talkingcomicbooks.com/2012/11/01/talking-comics-special-issue-the-minds-eye/ ) . As much as I enjoy a good Italian zombie gore-fest every now-and-then, for me the best horror films have to start with what great "regular" films have--believable and relatable characters (as opposed to "cannon fodder"), and an engaging plot. Moving on to the fantastic elements, no matter from where they stem, whether the Hell of the Underworld, or some far-flung other dimension, I am in complete agreement with the two gentleman you cite; without the suspenseful build-up of palpable tension, you cannot achieve the release of emotions required to create those moments of terror that stay with you after you've left the theatre. I believe it was in his interview with Francois Truffaut, but Sir Alfred Hitchcock was asked to describe the difference between shock and suspense. (I'm sure I'm not quoting this verbatim, but the spirit is there!) Here's a hypothetical scene: there are two men sitting at a desk, having a rather normal conversation. All of a sudden, there's a huge explosion! What you have is one brief moment of shock as they are both killed.
Take it again; the same two men are sitting at the same desk. There's a shot of a bomb under the desk, with the clock counting down. We continue to cut back-and-forth between shots of the men blissfully chatting, and the timer running down. The people in the audience will be yelling at the screen "Don't you see the bomb!", as their own tensions rise, and then after a few minutes, the bomb goes off. Instead of one second of shock, you have minutes of great suspense!
(By the way, have you seen either of the films made by the H.P. Lovecraft Historical Society? Their first was "The Call of Cthulhu", which was made as if it had come out in the era the novella did, so it's a 47-minute silent film! Similarly, the second was "The Whisperer in Darkness", and that was made to replicate a 1930s Universal! They were both excellent, and for me, they are the most faithful adaptations of HPL's work!)
|
|
|
Post by CaptainSuperior on Jan 31, 2014 16:45:42 GMT -5
"W", Although I have no trouble "hyphenating" ("Romantic-Musical-Comedy"), some friends and I got into a long debate over the notion of being able to give a film a single designation. Our final answer was that as a general rule, an important deciding factor as to genre would be film-maker's intent. If the object is to scare the audience, it's a "Horror" film, to make them laugh, a "Comedy", etc. It's simplistic, but pretty effective. By this way of classification, Abbott & Costello Meet Frankenstein, even with all the Universal monsters, is obviously a "Comedy", as it was made to create laughter. (We even figured out a difference between a "Thriller" which is meant to make you well, thrilled, and a "Horror" film meant to horrify! Yes, we were insane!) The "Science-Fiction" vs. "Horror" split can be a little trickier, as Alien was the film that started the argument among us in the first place! My winning points that ended up overcoming all the talk of "It's set in outer space" or "It's about an alien space monster" were these: Ridley Scott's Alien was influenced by a 1958 film called It, The Terror from Beyond Space, which was itself simply a version of The Thing From Another World in an outer space setting. TTFAW is a haunted house/spooky "Horror" film at its heart, intended to frighten you with jump scares and a boogeyman around every corner. "But Alien is in space", was the rejoinder; "So Blazing Saddles is a 'Western'?" my come-back. I finished with this thought; let's postualate a film where we're centered on the crew of an ocean-going freighter that while docked at a foreign port is invaded by a terrible monster that hides in its bowels, emerging to kill off the crew one-at-a-time in various scary ways. "What genre of film would that be?", with a grudging tone that implied my victory, I heard my friend say "Horror". Thanks for the explanation! I love your parallel to the ocean vessel to help demonstrate that Alien is a horror movie at its core. I also love that the characters in Alien are depicted as working class stiffs, makes them much for relatable (one of the making-of documentaries described it as “Truckers in Space” – love that description). On a related note, what makes for a good horror movie in your opinion? I remember reading various reviews from Roger Ebert where he discussed build-up and anticipation as key elements in making in quality horror, almost more than the pay off. I recently read Lovecraft’s essay “Supernatural Horror in Literature” which seems to echo this sentiment, in that Lovecraft argues that good horror needs to create a since of dread in the audience. Looking forward to your thoughts! I agree with Lovecraft and Ebert's assessment on what makes good horror. The problem with most movies that are labeled as horror films aren't horror films at all. Most films today believe that gore equals horror, which is not the case. Too many classic horror movies that have been remade these days have fallen victim to this style of "horror". When I look at the list I put up earlier I have very specific reasons for those films being in my top 5. The original Dawn of the Dead is scary because of the break down in society and the concept that society is so corrupt that there is no more room in hell. Pet Cemetery deals directly with the ideals of greif and loss through death. We've all had someone that we lost that we wish could still be here with us, and the film details the grotesque nature of that idea. The Hills Have Eyes is ground breaking in its plot because it is one of the few horror movies where the protaganist becomes more than a victim and actually flips the rolls of hunter and hunted. Rob Zombie's movies House of 1000 Corpses and Devil's Rejects does a phenominal job of flipping the roles of good vs evil and when we blur the line, by the end of Devils Rejects I had a geniune concern for the evil characters and a questionable opinion about the supposed protaganist. If you want to check out some of the best horror in American literature check this book out, www.amazon.com/American-Gothic-Tales-William-Abrahams/dp/0452274893
|
|
|
Post by Bob Reyer on Jan 31, 2014 19:47:48 GMT -5
CaptainSuperior wrote: I agree with Lovecraft and Ebert's assessment on what makes good horror. The problem with most movies that are labeled as horror films aren't horror films at all. Most films today believe that gore equals horror, which is not the case. Too many classic horror movies that have been remade these days have fallen victim to this style of "horror".
There have been so many poor remakes lately as the studios look to cash in, and they all seem to come from screenwriters or directors who are "fans" of the original but who don't grasp, or who can't put on screen, the essential core of those earlier films, and as "Cap" points out, they substitute flashy or gruesome effects for a more nuanced presentation.
As one example, although Zach Snyder's Dawn of the Dead has its moments, it is bereft of all the socio-political subtext that was so much a part of George Romero's original. From the 1978 version, referring to the mall, there was this question and answer about the zombies:
Fran: "What are they doing? Why do they come here?"
Steven (Flyboy): "Some kind of instinct. Memory of what they used to do. This was an important place in their lives"
As a comment about the growing rise in rampant consumerism, that's pretty good on its own, but after some time living within the temple of commerce, our leads fall prey to the same instincts that drive the "ghouls" to the mall, and they find that they have become zombies in thrall to their own, more materialistic wonts and desires. A nicely done 180 by Mr. Romero!
Much of Mr. Snyder's film takes place at a mall, but to me there is never a sense that it is anything but a "setting", as opposed to Mr. Romero's use of it as a symbol of both a "safe haven" and a growing cultural rot. It's not an awful film in a technical sense, or in the performances, but it's just a "gory movie", where the original was a Horror film.
Let me say for the record that even with the complaints you've just read, I'd rather watch the new DotD than the "torture porn" (I prefer the appellation "gorno", myself!) of things like Hostel, Saw and the rest of that ilk.
'
|
|
|
Post by wjohnson22 on Jan 31, 2014 22:28:54 GMT -5
I'm really excited to check out the Radio Play! There is a great podcast, the HP Lovecraft Literary Podcast (www.hppodcraft.com) where the hosts go through all of Lovecraft's major stories, have guest scholars speak, and do well-produced readings of some stories. It's my second-favorite podcast to Talking Comics!
Regarding what makes a good horror movie, I think your point Bob that it needs to start with developed, engaging characters and a sound plot could be applied to any story of any genre right? I think where many horror movies (and sci-fi, action/adventure too) fall short is that they let a certain gimmick, gore, and/or special effects do most of the heavy lifting in lieu of connecting the audience to characters and really feel the stakes involved (of course, there is always a place for fluff, not every movie has to be an Oscar-contender).
I found this passage from Lovecraft's "Supernatural Horror in Literature" interesting:
"Therefore we must judge a weird tale not by the author’s intent, or by the mere mechanics of the plot; but by the emotional level which it attains at its least mundane point. If the proper sensations are excited, such a “high spot” must be admitted on its own merits as weird literature, no matter how prosaically it is later dragged down. The one test of the really weird is simply this—whether or not there be excited in the reader a profound sense of dread, and of contact with unknown spheres and powers; a subtle attitude of awed listening, as if for the beating of black wings or the scratching of outside shapes and entities on the known universe’s utmost rim."
This goes to Lovecraft's focus on atmosphere, and I don't think it's an accident that Lovecraft's strength is in creating a vivid atmosphere of trepidation and glimpses at forces beyond our perception (and that this focus sometimes overshadows character development, which isn't always a bad thing). But I find it interesting how Lovecraft discusses regardless of the author's intent, what's most important is the emotional reaction the reader feels. I wonder if Lovecraft's focus on atmosphere over character development was, at least in part, motivated by wanting to take away the reader's security blanket of finding comfort in a strong protagonist, and rather making the true protagonist the other-worldly forces beyond our control. Generally, Lovecraft does this well so it doesn't seem like a gimmick, but in lesser hands focusing primarily on atmosphere often weakens the story.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Reyer on Feb 1, 2014 11:18:44 GMT -5
"W",
I'm certain my work isn't up to theirs, but you may have some fun listening, nonetheless!
I think that as an audience, many horror movie fans are willing to accept sub-standard dramatic elements if the gore or monster quotient is met. The films that are the most well-remebered are those with the most filmic craft, where all the pieces are in harmony.
HPL's best works create an oppressive mood of inevitable doom, centered on the notion that man's place is the cosmos is so inconsequential as to be meaningless. His lead characters are generally cut from the same cloth as himself; bookish scholars searching for hidden truths, but they are vital to the stories being told!
|
|
|
Post by CaptainSuperior on Feb 1, 2014 12:56:14 GMT -5
Bob, I've been meaning to ask, do you recommend any classic story arcs for Doctor Strange? I'm currently reading the Eternity Saga from Strange Tales, and recently read The Oath mini series.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Reyer on Feb 1, 2014 21:40:41 GMT -5
Bob, I've been meaning to ask, do you recommend any classic story arcs for Doctor Strange? I'm currently reading the Eternity Saga from Strange Tales, and recently read The Oath mini series. "Cap", "The Eternity Saga" is a heck of a place to start! I would also recommend, in no particular order (and I hope I'm close with the issue numbers, but I'm just back from NYC, and the Knicks/Heat game is on in front of me!) Strange Tales # #148--#156 "Umar Strikes!" This might go back a couple of issues further, but you get some great Dormammu stuff, the introduction of his sister Umar, the origin of The Ancient One, and of course, Clea, and all written by Stan and Roy Thomas, with art by Steve Ditko, Bill Everett and Marie Severin. Marvel Premiere #11--#14 "Siseneg" Steve Englehart and Frank Brunner bring you the creation of the Universe--'Nuff Said! Doctor Strange #1--#5 "Silver Dagger" More Englehart/Brunner greatness! (buy all the Englehart/Brunner---trust me! It's MP #9--14, DS #1--#5.) Strange #1--#4 Mark Waid and Emma Rios tell a tale of the older Stephen Strange and a new apprentice. Marvel Feature #1--#3; The Defenders #1--#5 Roy Thomas created the team of Dr. Strange, Namor and the Hulk, but Steve Englehart and Sal Buscema took it to another level. ( Defenders #4 has the return of The Valkyrie, too!) Hope this helps!
|
|
|
Post by CaptainSuperior on Feb 2, 2014 9:51:24 GMT -5
Bob, I've been meaning to ask, do you recommend any classic story arcs for Doctor Strange? I'm currently reading the Eternity Saga from Strange Tales, and recently read The Oath mini series. "Cap", "The Eternity Saga" is a heck of a place to start! I would also recommend, in no particular order (and I hope I'm close with the issue numbers, but I'm just back from NYC, and the Knicks/Heat game is on in front of me!) Strange Tales # #148--#156 "Umar Strikes!" This might go back a couple of issues further, but you get some great Dormammu stuff, the introduction of his sister Umar, the origin of The Ancient One, and of course, Clea, and all written by Stan and Roy Thomas, with art by Steve Ditko, Bill Everett and Marie Severin. Marvel Premiere #11--#14 "Siseneg" Steve Englehart and Frank Brunner bring you the creation of the Universe--'Nuff Said! Doctor Strange #1--#5 "Silver Dagger" More Englehart/Brunner greatness! (buy all the Englehart/Brunner---trust me! It's MP #9--14, DS #1--#5.) Strange #1--#4 Mark Waid and Emma Rios tell a tale of the older Stephen Strange and a new apprentice. Marvel Feature #1--#3; The Defenders #1--#5 Roy Thomas created the team of Dr. Strange, Namor and the Hulk, but Steve Englehart and Sal Buscema took it to another level. ( Defenders #4 has the return of The Valkyrie, too!) Hope this helps! Thanks for all the recommendations, almost all of those are on Marvel Unlimited luckily! Lol, if your a Knicks fan Bob it's been a rough life as a fan these past couple years, but on the bright side the Knicks will always be better then the Nets. Oh, and GO Heat!
|
|
|
Post by Bob Reyer on Feb 2, 2014 12:41:39 GMT -5
"Cap",
Glad to be of help! I've heard that if a run isn't on the Marvel Unlimited app, you can request it for future inclusion? If so, that's a great feature!
From my perspective as a Knicks fan since the Willis Reed/Walt Frazier days, it has been more than a couple of years since things were good around the Garden! Once Jeff Van Gundy left, the only moment I really felt the organization had a vision was the half-season that Don Nelson was in charge!
As to the Nets, I have no animosity, as I was a fan when they played on Long island in the Sixties and Seventies, back in the ABA days of Rick Barry and Dr. J.! As a matter of fact, my first pro basketball game was the ABA's New York Nets vs. the Minnesota Pipers and their star player who became my favorite, the original Michael Jordan/Julius Erving style high-flier "The Hawk", Connie Hawkins!
|
|