Best Horror Movies

[cowboykurtis]

2 HALLOWEEN 1978
Hawks meets Hitchcock as the slasher cycle finds true Shape...

Police: Man Re-Enacts 'Halloween' Scene

ROGERS, Ark.

Police say something bad was bound to happen when a butcher knife, the movie "Halloween" and a group of drinking men came together at a Rogers motel room.

John Hetzel, 40, was charged with aggravated assault and second-degree battery after attacking a man who checked on him at his motel room after a night of drinking, police spokesman Cpl. Kelley Cradduck said.

Cradduck said the victim had gone to the motel Tuesday night to check on Hetzel after they had been drinking at a bar. Hetzel and his roommate were watching the horror movie "Halloween" and, when the man knocked, Hetzel opened the door and slashed away with a butcher knife, Cradduck said.

The man, whose name was unavailable, raised his right arm to ward off the blows and was stabbed in the hand.

Cradduck said police they had trouble interviewing Hetzel because he was drunk, but the spokesman said Hetzel told officers that he should have killed the victim.

Police said they could upgrade the charge to attempted murder.

Cradduck said Hetzel has served time in a Nevada prison for attempted murder and kidnapping.

[RegularKarate]

i've seen 32

34 for me, BOOYA!

[Ghostboy]

33 for me. But as soon as I pop The Innocents in, I'll be up there with RK.

Mod, now that Cannibal Holocaust is out on DVD, you should try to squeeze it in to your weekend viewing.

[ᾦɐļᵲʊʂ]

Eraserhead is horror?

[modage]

Frankenstein (1931)
"Look! It's moving. It's alive. It's alive... It's alive, it's moving, it's alive, it's alive, it's alive, it's alive, IT'S ALIVE!"

WHATS IT ABOUT? Before he was a Halloween pinup that any kid could draw from memory he was a character from a classic piece of literature adapted into this classic film that scared the SHIT out of people.

IS IT SCARY? Not anymore, but when it was released it was so scary they put a disclaimer on the front of it (which you may recognize from the first Simpsons Treehouse of Horror).  I can only imagine how audiences must've freaked out over seeing some guy dig up graves, stitch together a body and bring a monster to life in 1931.              



WHAT'S GOOD ABOUT IT? Everything.  Because even if you've never seen this film, you know everything about it: mad scientists, angry mobs, and monsters.  The template for countless movies and motifs throughout film history originate here.  The monster makeup is incredible and everything about the way director James Whale shoots him to make a 5'11" Boris Karloff seem like he was 8 feet tall is amazing considering it was about 70 years before Lord of the Rings.        

SCARIEST MOMENT: Even though you know it's coming, you may still gasp when he sees the little girl.



WHY SHOULD I WATCH IT? Because I would bet a lot of you have not seen this.  And it's easy to forget as synonymous as the Frankenstein monster has become at Halloween on every napkin or goofy toy that it really all started with this film.  And if you are at all interested in film you owe it to yourself to watch this.  

[modage]

Bride Of Frankenstein (1935)
"We belong dead."

WHATS IT ABOUT? Bride Of Frankenstein picks up just moments after the original ended to continue the story in one of the rare sequels throughout history to live up to and surpass the original.  

IS IT SCARY? No, and in one of the greatest bait-and-switches in history, nobody seemed to mind.  Director James Whale delivers a film that is more comedy and tragedy than horror, but it was so good, it didn't matter.            



WHAT'S GOOD ABOUT IT? Though she is onscreen less than 3 minutes total she is one of the most unforgettable images in film history.  That's an amazing feat.  And even though it came only 4 years after the original Frankenstein, the film feels considerably more modern with Franz Waxman's score laying under the film where there had previously been only dialogue.  But the best part is seeing the Frankenstein monster become more of a tragic misunderstood creature and less of a rampaging monster.      

SCARIEST MOMENT: n/a



WHY SHOULD I WATCH IT? Again, if you are at all interested in film history you owe it to yourself to watch this.

[children with angels]

Takashi  Miike's One Missed Call is the best NEW horror film I've seen in years - probably now one of my all-time favourites in terms of a pure horror-genre experience.

The thing is, whilst also being a sly spoof of and middle finger to all the tasteful Japanese horror films so fashionable lately (Ringu, Dark Water, Phone etc), it manages also to very skillfully and efficiently scare the complete crap out of you, when its self-consciousness really should dampen all fear completely.

I think the secret to a great horror film is uncertainy, not allowing the audience to feel comfortable at any moment that they have a handle on what's going on, on the level of story, chracter, tone, style, everything - and this is something that One Missed Call does perfectly. Other examples would be something like the Texas Chainsaw Massacre and Jacob's Ladder, movies that practically make the rules of their own little sub-genres up as they go.

For a piece on this (the idea of uncertainty being the key to a good horror, inspired by watching One Missed Call),  here's a link to my site if anyone's interested - if not, that's cool too: http://www.alternatetakes.co.uk/?2005,8,19

[modage]

This is what can separate a truly terrifying film from a mediocre genre exercise: say, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974) from Jeepers Creepers (2002). Constantly a horror movie will begin tolerably well, notching up the tension and atmosphere, then lose it completely when the killer is revealed. This is because the something that threatened us with its ambiguity has become a definable thing, complete with an explanation and a reason for existence.

Jeepers Creepers is a textbook case. The opening, with a brother and sister travelling a rural road, becoming increasingly terrorised - first by a giant truck, then by an eerie place with a mysterious hole in its backyard - has an undeniable air of dread about it. The moment the evil force becomes personified in a winged demon who needs to take body parts of humans to survive, fear becomes impossible, replaced by incredulity and ridicule.

though most would agree with you, i disagree on Jeepers Creepers.  the film suceeds to me because you're never sure what your dealing with until the very end.  at first it might just be an angry driver, then you see him dumping bodies and he's definitely a psycho, then you see him sniffing things and he is not human, and when the wings sprout out towards the end you have no idea what the hell you've been watching!  they also never explained WHY this creature exists or where it comes from and by keeping him mostly in shadow retains his mystery.  you only know that it needs to feed & collect parts.  granted that does reveal a little more than texas chainsaw massacre which succeds because it truly explains nothing, not every film can acheive that.  by that reasoning you would have to discount every vampire film ever made for explaining they dont die and need blood and taking away that mystery, no?  

i will have to see One Missed Call now, too bad i don't have time this year.

[children with angels]

they also never explained WHY this creature exists or where it comes from.  only that it needs to feed.  granted that does reveal a little more than texas chainsaw massacre which succeds because it truly explains nothing, not every film can acheive that.  by that reasoning you would have to discount every vampire film ever made for explaining they dont die and need blood and taking away that mystery, no?

Granted: dealing with a definable evil force is obviously not always necessarily a bad thing. It's probably not the fact that the monster is revealed in Jeepers Creepers exactly that makes the film lose the sense of dread that was so well built up at the start, it was just the way it was done. The moment you mention about the sprouting wings DOES make you go "what the fuck?!", but for me did so in a way that was more comic than anything else, completely dissipating any hope of fear from then on.

My point was mainly just how effective uncertainty is at unsettling the audience, and to suggest that if uncertainty CAN be continued till the very end - skipping the usual unmasking/explaining of the killer - then I feel it should be, or at least it should be if it wants me to stay scared. I would love, in fact,  to see a horror film that was all build-up and no pay-off, one that just notched up the tension, planting little clues, creating a mystery and not finally explaining it - but not dispelling it in some crappy way either - until finally the film ends and you stumble out completely nerve-wrecked and with no explanation. That could be amazing - though obviously not something you could repeat very often. I'm sure something like that must exist.

It's an interesting point you make about discounting vampire films because they explain all the complex mythology and rules so clearly. I (and I'm sure most people) can like a horror film for a number of reasons - being scared by it is by no means the only one. Some of my favourites would be the Night/Dawn/Day trilogy precisely because they explain so much, because the characters are so hung-up on realistic practicalities, and try figure out exactly what is going on with the zombies. That's really cool and new and different - but, now I come to think about it, they don't actually scare me.

So I guess what I'm saying is that being a good horror film can either be about being first-and-foremost a Good Film which belongs to the horror genre, or it can be a frightening film. In order to be the second, I think for me it needs the uncertainty I was talking about.

[Tictacbk]

I'm gonna be sad when this halloween season wraps up, i've enjoyed reading these marathon entries every day, so i'd just like to express my thanks to modage now.  Thanks.

That said, time to go rent some horror movies.

[Ghostboy]

Okay, just watched The Innocents. Holy crap, is this good! Definitely on par with the original The Haunting, as far as classic ghost stories go. The first time you see a ghost, the effect is so subtle that I didn't even realize how frightened I was until about thirty seconds later. The cinematography is absolutely breathtaking, and the sound design is way ahead of its time (both are very Lynchian - and of course, Freddie Francis has shot several Lynch films).

The line between psychological and supernatural horror is beautifully played, too - that kiss at the end is so beautifully disturbing! And I liked the allusions to religious mania, which I recall being a bit stronger in Henry James' original story.

Also, I didn't realize Truman Capote co-wrote the screenplay.

[hedwig]

GB, how did you see Shivers?

[Ghostboy]

Netflix.

[Ghostboy]

Man, today was a good day for horror. First The Innocents, and then I went to the local symphony hall for a screening of a restored print of the 125 Phantom Of The Opera, complete with live orchestral score. It's been quite a few years since I've seen the film, but damn if it isn't just about perfect (and it makes the musical look so much worse in comparison). The best part, of course, is the initial unmasking, which - if you're seeing the film for the first time - will still make you jump. There were quite a few cries of shock in the theater tonight. It's such a brilliantly staged scene!

And Chaney's performance, of course, is beyond reproach. The phantom even more a monster than Karloff's Frankenstein, and yet Chaney makes him so pitiable, despite his incessantly evil and maniacal actions. After seeing this, the idea of the romantic Phantom from the (awful) musical is rather nauseating.

[modage]

Man, today was a good day for horror. First The Innocents, and then I went to the local symphony hall for a screening of a restored print of the 125 Phantom Of The Opera, complete with live orchestral score. It's been quite a few years since I've seen the film, but damn if it isn't just about perfect (and it makes the musical look so much worse in comparison). The best part, of course, is the initial unmasking, which - if you're seeing the film for the first time - will still make you jump. There were quite a few cries of shock in the theater tonight. It's such a brilliantly staged scene!

And Chaney's performance, of course, is beyond reproach. The phantom even more a monster than Karloff's Frankenstein, and yet Chaney makes him so pitiable, despite his incessantly evil and maniacal actions. After seeing this, the idea of the romantic Phantom from the (awful) musical is rather nauseating.

yeah i saw that one last year, which somehow was my first version of the story EVER, and really dug it.  the first unmasking is the best and the color scenes are pretty spectacular too.  for years i'd seen the pictures of chaney in that film so it was really cool to see it finally.  man what i wouldnt give to see London After Midnight now.