Horror : where the f is the status of horror movies right now?

Re: where the f is the status of horror movies right now?

lukejbarnett said... uh either you are remembering a different movie than lord of illusions, so you are mistaking it for another movie in your memory or you don't understand horror movies or this film. this is one of the biggest cinematic accomplishments ever made.

it's a work of art that deserves to be watched by everyone who deserves to watch it bc they have enough film knowledge to fully appreciate it. ebert gave it such a glowing review that gives it validation not that it needed it from him but it does this.

now the first time i watched it i didn't like it bc i had such high expectations going in. but the second time i watched it it was epically great to me in every way and it instantly became one of my all time favorite films.

it has a little of everything. it's a film that really is amazing in that it has so many different elements from different kinds of films. it's a film noir, it's a dark fantasy, it's a horror film, its' a suspense thriller, it's a mystery/suspense.

it has one of the most compelling intriguing, and original plots that has ever been conceived. what if a magician fakes his own death on stage in front of everyone watching his magic act? so then he goes away from the public and assumes another identity. also what if this magician has magical shape moving abilities for real? what if this magician can actually create magic for real, not illusions?

then we have a private detective doing investigating on the set of his magic act and talking to other magician friends of his trying to find out the mystery of his death and disappearance.

this plot is all done in very intriguing ways. and i'm talking amazing, magical ways where you as the viewer are believing everything magical that happens. i've never been as transported by magic in a film before, i'm taking about magician magic. transported meaning moved mentally, emotionally, and psychologically.

this film has many deep ideas everywhere not just in the main plot but in every single scene. which makes even small scenes of plot significance very engaging and intriguing.

the art of magician magic has never been this great or realistic in any other movie or in any tv show or any medium or media.

so please watch this film again bc remember i said i didn't like it the first time but loved it the second time.

uhhhhh, hellraiser is ok? i've never read something so wrong or inaccurate in my whole life. hellraiser is a game changer. hellraiser is the most important horror film that has been made since 1987. i mean this is how important and how great this film is.

reading you say this proves to me that you are not a horror movie fan. bc even if you didn't really like it bc you were 70 years old so you didn't like horror films made in the '80s you would still not just pass off this film as ok.

you have to watch night breed. it's a work of art. it's like no other film that has ever been made and is a visionary film of wonder. it's magical and extremely unique.
expand
reading you say this proves to me that you are not a horror movie fan

Not all horror fans like the same films. We don't have to agree on everything. In fact, I can't think of one film that all horror fans could unite behind. Some of us don't like Lord of Illusions or Hellraiser while others (like yourself) don't like Nosferatu (an undisputed classic) or Burnt Offerings. We can agree to disagree, no? giveup.gif

Re: where the f is the status of horror movies right now?

cryptoflovecraft said...
reading you say this proves to me that you are not a horror movie fan

Not all horror fans like the same films. We don't have to agree on everything. In fact, I can't think of one film that all horror fans could unite behind. Some of us don't like Lord of Illusions or Hellraiser while others (like yourself) don't like Nosferatu (an undisputed classic) or Burnt Offerings. We can agree to disagree, no? giveup.gif
expand
my point is we all agree that hellraiser is an all time classic horror film so to not agree that it is is wrong. it was talked about on the 2nd season of eli roth's history of horror, elijah wood talked about how epically great this film is on an artistic level. i mean we are talking about a film that transcends it's genre, operating on a higher level of excellence than even the most respected horror films that aren't artistic.

so to go against what has been proved as film legacy fact is wrong. you can not like it as much as you want, this is fine but you can't go against it being one of the best horror films, art films and films ever made.

when i watched nosferatu i was never really into it bc every time someone said something a title card with the dialogue appeared which has this stilted, disconnected, inconsistent in tone and pace feel.

it totally takes you out of the movie bc every minute or 30 seconds, for 30 seconds you are looking at a page of dialogue and nothing else, what a waste of time. so the flow of the movie's story is not there and the story is lost. also the story wasn't that interesting or inspiring at all. it was just the most basic vampire story ever.

by the way i read the book it's based on called dracula by bram stoker and i was so bored by it. it was the most plodding, going nowhere, uninspired, unremarkable, most over rated so called classic book i've ever read. i kept wondering when is it going to get engaging and interesting but it never did except one or 2 small parts.

i know that some "classic" films are highly over rated and this is the case with nosferatu. i can see how it has artistic merits in some epic looking moments with count orlak, the imagery is great in these moments but they only make up maybe 5 minutes of screen time. what it is is perspective and relative movie making.

back in the '20s when it was made, it was a ground breaking art film but since the age of talkies we don't like movies like this anymore bc they have become irrelevant, invalid, and outdated bc they don't have sound. but even in this quality appraising this movie falls flat bc of it's weak uninteresting and unengaging, and uninspired story.

now burnt offerings might actually be a great horror film but i never could get into it(enjoy it) bc i never knew what was going on. it might be that i am not intelligent enough to ever understand what was happening in the story and so that's why i was always in a state of confusion and not enjoying it.

your point is contradicted by you saying "nosferatu(an undisputed classic)". if it's an undisputed classic then hellraiser can also be an undisputed classic. you get what i mean?

lukejbarnett

Re: where the f is the status of horror movies right now?

lukejbarnett said... my point is we all agree that hellraiser is an all time classic horror film so to not agree that it is is wrong. it was talked about on the 2nd season of eli roth's history of horror, elijah wood talked about how epically great this film is on an artistic level. i mean we are talking about a film that transcends it's genre, operating on a higher level of excellence than even the most respected horror films that aren't artistic.

so to go against what has been proved as film legacy fact is wrong. you can not like it as much as you want, this is fine but you can't go against it being one of the best horror films, art films and films ever made.

when i watched nosferatu i was never really into it bc every time someone said something a title card with the dialogue appeared which has this stilted, disconnected, inconsistent in tone and pace feel.

it totally takes you out of the movie bc every minute or 30 seconds, for 30 seconds you are looking at a page of dialogue and nothing else, what a waste of time. so the flow of the movie's story is not there and the story is lost. also the story wasn't that interesting or inspiring at all. it was just the most basic vampire story ever.

by the way i read the book it's based on called dracula by bram stoker and i was so bored by it. it was the most plodding, going nowhere, uninspired, unremarkable, most over rated so called classic book i've ever read. i kept wondering when is it going to get engaging and interesting but it never did except one or 2 small parts.

i know that some "classic" films are highly over rated and this is the case with nosferatu. i can see how it has artistic merits in some epic looking moments with count orlak, the imagery is great in these moments but they only make up maybe 5 minutes of screen time. what it is is perspective and relative movie making.

back in the '20s when it was made, it was a ground breaking art film but since the age of talkies we don't like movies like this anymore bc they have become irrelevant, invalid, and outdated bc they don't have sound. but even in this quality appraising this movie falls flat bc of it's weak uninteresting and unengaging, and uninspired story.

now burnt offerings might actually be a great horror film but i never could get into it(enjoy it) bc i never knew what was going on. it might be that i am not intelligent enough to ever understand what was happening in the story and so that's why i was always in a state of confusion and not enjoying it.

your point is contradicted by you saying "nosferatu(an undisputed classic)". if it's an undisputed classic then hellraiser can also be an undisputed classic. you get what i mean?
expand
your point is contradicted by you saying "nosferatu(an undisputed classic)". if it's an undisputed classic then hellraiser can also be an undisputed classic. you get what i mean?

How is my point contradicted? I emphasized that Nosferatu is an "undisputed classic" because of the things you said about it in the past. I never said that Hellraiser wasn't a classic, I understand that it's a classic horror film. I won't dispute that. I still find it to be overrated


back in the '20s when it was made, it was a ground breaking art film but since the age of talkies we don't like movies like this anymore bc they have become irrelevant, invalid, and outdated bc they don't have sound. but even in this quality appraising this movie falls flat bc of it's weak uninteresting and unengaging, and uninspired story.


Speak for yourself. "We" (meaning: me and many other horror lovers) still do like movies like this! You can like both talkies and silent films. I can appreciate films from an earlier era in the same way I can appreciate music or art from another era.


by the way i read the book it's based on called dracula by bram stoker and i was so bored by it. it was the most plodding, going nowhere, uninspired, unremarkable, most over rated so called classic book i've ever read. i kept wondering when is it going to get engaging and interesting but it never did except one or 2 small parts.

It's a classic work of literature and atmospheric horror to boot. I found it to be anything but boring. I consider Dracula to be a must-read for all horror fans. To me, atmosphere, feeling/mood and suspense are the most important ingredients in effective horror stories. As Stephen King famously said, "I recognize terror as the finest emotion and so I will try to terrorize the reader. But if I find that I cannot terrify, I will try to horrify, and if I find that I cannot horrify, I'll go for the gross-out. I'm not proud." Too much modern horror relies on the latter ("the gross-out"); the horror that I love is rooted in the works of writers like Stoker, Poe and Lovecraft. I don't have much love for a lot of modern horror (slashers, torture porn, 'jump scare' horror, etc) because it lacks those important ingredients I mentioned and relies solely on the gross-out. Give me a good slowburn Gothic horror book or film over the dreck that passes for horror these days!

BTW, I appreciate Clive Barker as a writer. I loved his Books of Blood (Vol. 1-3, I believe)…I read them decades ago and really enjoyed them. I just never took to his films.

Re: where the f is the status of horror movies right now?

cryptoflovecraft said...
your point is contradicted by you saying "nosferatu(an undisputed classic)". if it's an undisputed classic then hellraiser can also be an undisputed classic. you get what i mean?

How is my point contradicted? I emphasized that Nosferatu is an "undisputed classic" because of the things you said about it in the past. I never said that Hellraiser wasn't a classic, I understand that it's a classic horror film. I won't dispute that. I still find it to be overrated


back in the '20s when it was made, it was a ground breaking art film but since the age of talkies we don't like movies like this anymore bc they have become irrelevant, invalid, and outdated bc they don't have sound. but even in this quality appraising this movie falls flat bc of it's weak uninteresting and unengaging, and uninspired story.


Speak for yourself. "We" (meaning: me and many other horror lovers) still do like movies like this! You can like both talkies and silent films. I can appreciate films from an earlier era in the same way I can appreciate music or art from another era.


by the way i read the book it's based on called dracula by bram stoker and i was so bored by it. it was the most plodding, going nowhere, uninspired, unremarkable, most over rated so called classic book i've ever read. i kept wondering when is it going to get engaging and interesting but it never did except one or 2 small parts.

It's a classic work of literature and atmospheric horror to boot. I found it to be anything but boring. I consider Dracula to be a must-read for all horror fans. To me, atmosphere, feeling/mood and suspense are the most important ingredients in effective horror stories. As Stephen King famously said, "I recognize terror as the finest emotion and so I will try to terrorize the reader. But if I find that I cannot terrify, I will try to horrify, and if I find that I cannot horrify, I'll go for the gross-out. I'm not proud." Too much modern horror relies on the latter ("the gross-out"); the horror that I love is rooted in the works of writers like Stoker, Poe and Lovecraft. I don't have much love for a lot of modern horror (slashers, torture porn, 'jump scare' horror, etc) because it lacks those important ingredients I mentioned and relies solely on the gross-out. Give me a good slowburn Gothic horror book or film over the dreck that passes for horror these days!

BTW, I appreciate Clive Barker as a writer. I loved his Books of Blood (Vol. 1-3, I believe)…I read them decades ago and really enjoyed them. I just never took to his films.
expand
no, you said nosferatu is an undisputed classic and also said that there is not one horror film that everyone agrees is a classic. so the nosferatu is an undisputed classic comment contracts your previous comment in saying that there is no classic horror film that everyone agrees is a classic horror film.

you said hellraiser is just ok. saying it's ok is not the same thing as saying it's a classic horror film.

i say we bc anyone with a heart beat inside their chest doesn't like silent movies. my gosh, there is a good reason why we don't ever make silent movies anymore. we need sound, it's essential to movies.

we all moved on from this outdated way of making movies so many year ago. we also moved on from black can white for the most part, though sometimes it's good for a movie to be in black and white nowadays.

imagine a movie that is so old fashioned that you are bored to the point of being sick bc it was made in the '50s and it also doesn't have sound? well this is even more boring, bc not only is the plot really slow moving bc it's an old movie, but also it doesn't have sound.

now stephen king is a legend in horror books. i used to respect more and think clive barker has been a better writer and a better and bigger legend than stephen king in horror fiction. but i found out that stephen king has been a much better writer and is a better and bigger legend than clive barker in horror fiction.

the reason why is clive barker hasn't had half the range of writing abilities and talents as stephen king. stephen king has written effectively and classically great books in horror, mystery/suspense, dark fantasy, drama, and other genres at a very high quality level of writing abilities and talents.

i just have always preferred clive barker over stephen king bc of his imaginative stories and how they are written in a very poetic, genius way and also bc of their highly intelligent prose. i also love the style of clive's writing, it has class whereas stpehen king often times writes belligerent dialogue that i don't like.

also clive barker transports me to his magical an amazing worlds a lot better than stpehen king ever does. the one fantasy book i read by stephen king the eyes of the dragon is a perfect example of how king is just not anywhere near as great a writer of fantasy as clive barker. i was not that impressed at all by this book. it was a good book but not a great book.

so you mentioned poe, lovecraft, and stoker as authors of hororr fiction that you love but what about stephen king? is he one of your favorite horror authors of all time? what about clive barker is he one of your favorite horror authors of all time?

also do you think 50 years and 100 years from now stephen king will be in the same league of the greatest and biggest legends in the history of horror fiction? so poe/lovecraft/stoker, and shelley?

geez i was so petrified and disturbed by the story called the midnight meat train in one of the books of blood that i had to put it down. my heart was beating so fast and i i was crying, and i was so disturbed and scared. it was the story about the train and the weird creatures on it it was so dark and dreadful.

have you ever read this story?

lukejbarnett

Re: where the f is the status of horror movies right now?

lukejbarnett said... no, you said nosferatu is an undisputed classic and also said that there is not one horror film that everyone agrees is a classic. so the nosferatu is an undisputed classic comment contracts your previous comment in saying that there is no classic horror film that everyone agrees is a classic horror film.

you said hellraiser is just ok. saying it's ok is not the same thing as saying it's a classic horror film.

i say we bc anyone with a heart beat inside their chest doesn't like silent movies. my gosh, there is a good reason why we don't ever make silent movies anymore. we need sound, it's essential to movies.

we all moved on from this outdated way of making movies so many year ago. we also moved on from black can white for the most part, though sometimes it's good for a movie to be in black and white nowadays.

imagine a movie that is so old fashioned that you are bored to the point of being sick bc it was made in the '50s and it also doesn't have sound? well this is even more boring, bc not only is the plot really slow moving bc it's an old movie, but also it doesn't have sound.

now stephen king is a legend in horror books. i used to respect more and think clive barker has been a better writer and a better and bigger legend than stephen king in horror fiction. but i found out that stephen king has been a much better writer and is a better and bigger legend than clive barker in horror fiction.

the reason why is clive barker hasn't had half the range of writing abilities and talents as stephen king. stephen king has written effectively and classically great books in horror, mystery/suspense, dark fantasy, drama, and other genres at a very high quality level of writing abilities and talents.

i just have always preferred clive barker over stephen king bc of his imaginative stories and how they are written in a very poetic, genius way and also bc of their highly intelligent prose. i also love the style of clive's writing, it has class whereas stpehen king often times writes belligerent dialogue that i don't like.

also clive barker transports me to his magical an amazing worlds a lot better than stpehen king ever does. the one fantasy book i read by stephen king the eyes of the dragon is a perfect example of how king is just not anywhere near as great a writer of fantasy as clive barker. i was not that impressed at all by this book. it was a good book but not a great book.

so you mentioned poe, lovecraft, and stoker as authors of hororr fiction that you love but what about stephen king? is he one of your favorite horror authors of all time? what about clive barker is he one of your favorite horror authors of all time?

also do you think 50 years and 100 years from now stephen king will be in the same league of the greatest and biggest legends in the history of horror fiction? so poe/lovecraft/stoker, and shelley?

geez i was so petrified and disturbed by the story called the midnight meat train in one of the books of blood that i had to put it down. my heart was beating so fast and i i was crying, and i was so disturbed and scared. it was the story about the train and the weird creatures on it it was so dark and dreadful.

have you ever read this story?
expand
i say we bc anyone with a heart beat inside their chest doesn't like silent movies. my gosh, there is a good reason why we don't ever make silent movies anymore. we need sound, it's essential to movies.

we all moved on from this outdated way of making movies so many year ago. we also moved on from black can white for the most part, though sometimes it's good for a movie to be in black and white nowadays.

Last time I checked, my heart was still beating. And last time I checked, people were still praising Nosferatu, The Phantom Carriage, the original Phantom of the Opera, the original Hunchback of Notre Dame, The Lodger (Hitchcock's silent classic based on Jack the Ripper's murders) and the truly chilling gem Haxan: Witchcraft Through the Ages. If you haven't seen the latter, do so now!!!! There are many wonderful silent films that are still loved and being re-released on DVD and Blu-ray.

so you mentioned poe, lovecraft, and stoker as authors of hororr fiction that you love but what about stephen king? is he one of your favorite horror authors of all time? what about clive barker is he one of your favorite horror authors of all time?

do you think 50 years and 100 years from now stephen king will be in the same league of the greatest and biggest legends in the history of horror fiction? so poe/lovecraft/stoker, and shelley?

I like both King and Barker but I don't know if I'd put them in the same league as Poe, Stoker and Lovecraft. I reread the stories of Poe and Lovecraft. I don't think I've ever reread a Stephen King novel. (In fact, I usually give my paperback novels away after reading them.) Time will tell if King's works are one day considered classic literature or not. For now, novels like The Shining and The Stand are pulp fiction classics.


geez i was so petrified and disturbed by the story called the midnight meat train in one of the books of blood that i had to put it down. my heart was beating so fast and i i was crying, and i was so disturbed and scared. it was the story about the train and the weird creatures on it it was so dark and dreadful.

have you ever read this story?

Yes, many years ago. I remember enjoying the story. I enjoyed the movie too (not sure who directed it).

Re: where the f is the status of horror movies right now?

cryptoflovecraft said...
i say we bc anyone with a heart beat inside their chest doesn't like silent movies. my gosh, there is a good reason why we don't ever make silent movies anymore. we need sound, it's essential to movies.

we all moved on from this outdated way of making movies so many year ago. we also moved on from black can white for the most part, though sometimes it's good for a movie to be in black and white nowadays.

Last time I checked, my heart was still beating. And last time I checked, people were still praising Nosferatu, The Phantom Carriage, the original Phantom of the Opera, the original Hunchback of Notre Dame, The Lodger (Hitchcock's silent classic based on Jack the Ripper's murders) and the truly chilling gem Haxan: Witchcraft Through the Ages. If you haven't seen the latter, do so now!!!! There are many wonderful silent films that are still loved and being re-released on DVD and Blu-ray.

so you mentioned poe, lovecraft, and stoker as authors of hororr fiction that you love but what about stephen king? is he one of your favorite horror authors of all time? what about clive barker is he one of your favorite horror authors of all time?

do you think 50 years and 100 years from now stephen king will be in the same league of the greatest and biggest legends in the history of horror fiction? so poe/lovecraft/stoker, and shelley?

I like both King and Barker but I don't know if I'd put them in the same league as Poe, Stoker and Lovecraft. I reread the stories of Poe and Lovecraft. I don't think I've ever reread a Stephen King novel. (In fact, I usually give my paperback novels away after reading them.) Time will tell if King's works are one day considered classic literature or not. For now, novels like The Shining and The Stand are pulp fiction classics.


geez i was so petrified and disturbed by the story called the midnight meat train in one of the books of blood that i had to put it down. my heart was beating so fast and i i was crying, and i was so disturbed and scared. it was the story about the train and the weird creatures on it it was so dark and dreadful.

have you ever read this story?

Yes, many years ago. I remember enjoying the story. I enjoyed the movie too (not sure who directed it).
expand
notice i said mostly people don't like black and white movies so that is key bc it differentiates between black and white and silent movies. the only silent movie that has been made since the talkies movies started was a movie that was up for an academy award and i don't even have to watch it to know it's boring as hell bc it's a silent movie.

so the fact that there has only been 1 silent movies since the silent movies ended in the '30s proves my point that silent movies are outdated and invalid movies.

and even the only movie since it ended was a gimmicky, novelty movie that only was made bc they knew it was a gimmick movie so it would be commercially successful bc of this which is a cheap marketing tactic if you ask me. so that proves it's not ever coming back.

i watched the original phantom of the opera with lon chaney and while it wasn't horrible i didn't really like it bc again the silent movie format made it boring bc they kept having to go to the dialogue title card screen like they always do.

the main problem i had with it wasn't the dialogue title card scenes it was the story i thought the story wasn't interesting enough to be good. i will say that this is a good movie but overrated, not a classic and not a great film bc it doesn't have enough of a story and the characters were not engaging enough or likable or well written enough.

so i'm not going to rule out the possibility that a silent movie from the silent era could be good. maybe i'll like metropolis?

i love that you brought up haxan: witchcraft through the ages bc i found out a few years ago from watching the 1st season of eli roth's history of horror that this is the first witch movie ever made. i, before this had never even heard of this movie. do you love this movie? what are some cult, as in society cult, movies that you have watched?

not on purpose but just coincidentally i've come across and watched 4 society cult movies in the last few months bc they were on the screenpix on demand channel. night visitor(1989), the dunwich horror(1970), the blood on satan's claw, and the crimson cult(1968). have you ever watched any of these movies?

it's interesting bc bradley cooper was on the verge of but not quite a star when he made the midnight meat train and i know that had he been a star he wouldn't have been in it bc well it's a small (maybe independent) horror movie. i think it was either a year or 2 years after it was made that he became a star bc a year or 2 after the midnight meat train he was in limitless and silver linings playbook.

and i don't think he became a star right after the commercial success of the hangover. i think it was one more step, one more big movie after this movie that made him a star.

hey did you know they actually made a movie called the books of blood about 10 years ago? so weird, i guess they will eventually make a movie out of every clive barker book.

i didn't understand how they could make a movie called the books of blood bc there is more than one story in these books.

so they can't possibly make a movie that has all these stories in them and the movie doesn't have a subtitle clarifying which story the movie is about and it doesn't have a subtitle clarifying which books of blood book the movie is about. can you explain to me how they did this? have you ever watched this movie?

what do you mean by pulp fiction classics?

you didnt' answer my questions of: is stephen king one of your fvaorite horror authors? and is clive barker one of your favorite horror authors?

lukejbarnett

Re: where the f is the status of horror movies right now?

lukejbarnett said... notice i said mostly people don't like black and white movies so that is key bc it differentiates between black and white and silent movies. the only silent movie that has been made since the talkies movies started was a movie that was up for an academy award and i don't even have to watch it to know it's boring as hell bc it's a silent movie.

so the fact that there has only been 1 silent movies since the silent movies ended in the '30s proves my point that silent movies are outdated and invalid movies.

and even the only movie since it ended was a gimmicky, novelty movie that only was made bc they knew it was a gimmick movie so it would be commercially successful bc of this which is a cheap marketing tactic if you ask me. so that proves it's not ever coming back.

i watched the original phantom of the opera with lon chaney and while it wasn't horrible i didn't really like it bc again the silent movie format made it boring bc they kept having to go to the dialogue title card screen like they always do.

the main problem i had with it wasn't the dialogue title card scenes it was the story i thought the story wasn't interesting enough to be good. i will say that this is a good movie but overrated, not a classic and not a great film bc it doesn't have enough of a story and the characters were not engaging enough or likable or well written enough.

so i'm not going to rule out the possibility that a silent movie from the silent era could be good. maybe i'll like metropolis?

i love that you brought up haxan: witchcraft through the ages bc i found out a few years ago from watching the 1st season of eli roth's history of horror that this is the first witch movie ever made. i, before this had never even heard of this movie. do you love this movie? what are some cult, as in society cult, movies that you have watched?

not on purpose but just coincidentally i've come across and watched 4 society cult movies in the last few months bc they were on the screenpix on demand channel. night visitor(1989), the dunwich horror(1970), the blood on satan's claw, and the crimson cult(1968). have you ever watched any of these movies?

it's interesting bc bradley cooper was on the verge of but not quite a star when he made the midnight meat train and i know that had he been a star he wouldn't have been in it bc well it's a small (maybe independent) horror movie. i think it was either a year or 2 years after it was made that he became a star bc a year or 2 after the midnight meat train he was in limitless and silver linings playbook.

and i don't think he became a star right after the commercial success of the hangover. i think it was one more step, one more big movie after this movie that made him a star.

hey did you know they actually made a movie called the books of blood about 10 years ago? so weird, i guess they will eventually make a movie out of every clive barker book.

i didn't understand how they could make a movie called the books of blood bc there is more than one story in these books.

so they can't possibly make a movie that has all these stories in them and the movie doesn't have a subtitle clarifying which story the movie is about and it doesn't have a subtitle clarifying which books of blood book the movie is about. can you explain to me how they did this? have you ever watched this movie?

what do you mean by pulp fiction classics?

you didnt' answer my questions of: is stephen king one of your fvaorite horror authors? and is clive barker one of your favorite horror authors?
expand
notice i said mostly people don't like black and white movies so that is key bc it differentiates between black and white and silent movies. the only silent movie that has been made since the talkies movies started was a movie that was up for an academy award and i don't even have to watch it to know it's boring as hell bc it's a silent movie.

so the fact that there has only been 1 silent movies since the silent movies ended in the '30s proves my point that silent movies are outdated and invalid movies.

What film is it you're talking about? Mel Brooks' Silent Movie, maybe? giveup.gif That was one of his best films and a fun parody of silent films to boot.



i love that you brought up haxan: witchcraft through the ages bc i found out a few years ago from watching the 1st season of eli roth's history of horror that this is the first witch movie ever made. i, before this had never even heard of this movie. do you love this movie? what are some cult, as in society cult, movies that you have watched?

not on purpose but just coincidentally i've come across and watched 4 society cult movies in the last few months bc they were on the screenpix on demand channel. night visitor(1989), the dunwich horror(1970), the blood on satan's claw, and the crimson cult(1968). have you ever watched any of these movies?

Yes, Haxan is really great. You could say that I love it.

The Dunwich Horror is a weird little psychedelic horror film from the hippie era. I like it for what it is. It's based on the Lovecraft story of the same name but it's not a very faithful adaptation. It features Sandra Dee's only nude appearance, I believe.

Blood on Satan's Claw is a good one. It's been years since I watched it but I remember enjoying it.

Night Visitor is typical late 80's horror fare. I didn't like it much at all.

I don't think I've seen Crimson Cult though I've heard of it.

Some "cult" (Satanic or otherwise) movies that I like are Race with the Devil (1975), Rosemary's Baby (1968), Horror Hotel aka The City of the Dead (1960), Satan's Slave (1976), and the pseudo-documentary film Witchcraft '70, which purports to show a "real" Satanic ritual conducted by a Manson-style cult via hidden camera (of course, it was probably all just an act).

Race with the Devil is my favorite of the films I mentioned. It stars Peter Fonda, Warren Oates and Loretta Swit. Two couples vacationing in Texas accidentally witness a Satanic ritual while out camping. The Satanists see them and chase them around rural Texas. It seems every town they stop in has Satanists living in it. It's a great combination horror and car chase film with an amazing ending. I advise watching it late at night with all the lights out, it'll creep you out!

so they can't possibly make a movie that has all these stories in them and the movie doesn't have a subtitle clarifying which story the movie is about and it doesn't have a subtitle clarifying which books of blood book the movie is about. can you explain to me how they did this? have you ever watched this movie?

Sorry, I can't explain it as I haven't seen the film (Books of Blood). giveup.gif

what do you mean by pulp fiction classics?

I would classify King's books as being closer to pulp fiction than to literature.

is stephen king one of your fvaorite horror authors? and is clive barker one of your favorite horror authors?

King? Yes, I guess so. Considering all the books I've read by him and liked.

Barker? Not really. I liked Books of Blood but that's about it.

Re: where the f is the status of horror movies right now?

cryptoflovecraft said...
notice i said mostly people don't like black and white movies so that is key bc it differentiates between black and white and silent movies. the only silent movie that has been made since the talkies movies started was a movie that was up for an academy award and i don't even have to watch it to know it's boring as hell bc it's a silent movie.

so the fact that there has only been 1 silent movies since the silent movies ended in the '30s proves my point that silent movies are outdated and invalid movies.

What film is it you're talking about? Mel Brooks' Silent Movie, maybe? giveup.gif That was one of his best films and a fun parody of silent films to boot.



i love that you brought up haxan: witchcraft through the ages bc i found out a few years ago from watching the 1st season of eli roth's history of horror that this is the first witch movie ever made. i, before this had never even heard of this movie. do you love this movie? what are some cult, as in society cult, movies that you have watched?

not on purpose but just coincidentally i've come across and watched 4 society cult movies in the last few months bc they were on the screenpix on demand channel. night visitor(1989), the dunwich horror(1970), the blood on satan's claw, and the crimson cult(1968). have you ever watched any of these movies?

Yes, Haxan is really great. You could say that I love it.

The Dunwich Horror is a weird little psychedelic horror film from the hippie era. I like it for what it is. It's based on the Lovecraft story of the same name but it's not a very faithful adaptation. It features Sandra Dee's only nude appearance, I believe.

Blood on Satan's Claw is a good one. It's been years since I watched it but I remember enjoying it.

Night Visitor is typical late 80's horror fare. I didn't like it much at all.

I don't think I've seen Crimson Cult though I've heard of it.

Some "cult" (Satanic or otherwise) movies that I like are Race with the Devil (1975), Rosemary's Baby (1968), Horror Hotel aka The City of the Dead (1960), Satan's Slave (1976), and the pseudo-documentary film Witchcraft '70, which purports to show a "real" Satanic ritual conducted by a Manson-style cult via hidden camera (of course, it was probably all just an act).

Race with the Devil is my favorite of the films I mentioned. It stars Peter Fonda, Warren Oates and Loretta Swit. Two couples vacationing in Texas accidentally witness a Satanic ritual while out camping. The Satanists see them and chase them around rural Texas. It seems every town they stop in has Satanists living in it. It's a great combination horror and car chase film with an amazing ending. I advise watching it late at night with all the lights out, it'll creep you out!

so they can't possibly make a movie that has all these stories in them and the movie doesn't have a subtitle clarifying which story the movie is about and it doesn't have a subtitle clarifying which books of blood book the movie is about. can you explain to me how they did this? have you ever watched this movie?

Sorry, I can't explain it as I haven't seen the film (Books of Blood). giveup.gif

what do you mean by pulp fiction classics?

I would classify King's books as being closer to pulp fiction than to literature.

is stephen king one of your fvaorite horror authors? and is clive barker one of your favorite horror authors?

King? Yes, I guess so. Considering all the books I've read by him and liked.

Barker? Not really. I liked Books of Blood but that's about it.
expand
it won or was nominated for an academy award about 4 years ago.

not true. first of all sandra dee's character never shows any nudity. second of all she's such a horrible actor and not a real actor bc she never shows nudity in this movie even in the cult ceremony scene.

in which is supposed to be erotic bc she was nude but you never see any nudity and even in this scene in which no nudity is shown she was such an unprofessional actor that she couldn't just lay there and not show nudity bc she got a body double for i don't know what reason? bc she didn't show any more than what you'd see a girl show who is in a bikini.

now the blood on satan's claw is a gem. it's like a unknown gem bc i had never heard of it until i watched it a few months ago for the first time on my screenpix on demand channel. its' extremely effective in being this disturbing, very strange and and very effecting, dreamy, atmospheric society cult film. it feels so evil and wrong and sinful.

it has an amazingly haunting final scene that is a cult ritual scene in which this girl is dancing in a trance like way, she's in a trance and she is trance inducing in how she is moving her body and how her face looks. also she is topless which is amazingly hot bc she has the biggest and the most beautifully shaped tits ever.

and this scene isn't even the hottest scene in this movie even though it is really hot bc of hw she looks and really hot bc it goes on for like 3 minutes. my favorite scene is a scene in which is such a sex fantasy for me.

it has a girl, a blonde, a perfectly beautiful, hot like 20 year old blonde in a church with a like priest and she sexually tempts him to try to get him to have sex with her by taking off her robe and thus becoming completely nude.

and you see every part of her body from the front. oh my gosh she is one of the hottest and one of the most beautiful girls i've ever seen. she has one of the most beautiful faces and she has 2 of the best tits i've ever seen. so she tries to seduce him and i don't know any man who wouldn't succumb to her sexual and beauty charms.

also there is an extremely intriguing and magical scene that is so amazingly great and magical that it's definitely one of the best magical scenes in movie history. one of the girls in the cult, a good girl who somehow got in the cult gets a devil growth on her leg and a guy has to remove it with a knife and it has hair on it. it's the weirdest and most magical scene i maybe have sever seen in a movie that's how magical and amazing it is. do you remember this amazing scene?

i've never seen something like this in a movie that i can remember. the idea is amazing. and it feels so powerful and real the way that they made it like this really happened to this poor and innocent girl.

the best scene in this movie is the cult initiation scene. it has an innocent girl who actually i don't think is in the cult but gets forced into a ceremony in which she is raped. it is really powerful and moving and magical in that it feels like a magical thing is actually happening to the characters.

so their cult is actually capable of magical powers. i'm telling you this is truly a one of a kind film, no other film is really like it that i have ever watched.

for a movie to have 4 all time classically great and epic scenes in it is a huge and rare accomplishment.

do you remember all 4 of these scenes i described?

exactly night visitor is typical late night and bad b movie and forgettable bad movie movie. but it does have the irresistibly hot and cute and beautiful shannon tweed playing a next door milf kind of character and sexual tease to a high school guy.

the best part of this movie is the cult ceremony scene in which the delectable and irresistible teri weigel shows her amazingly beautiful and hot tits in extreme close up. she's actually more beautiful than shannon tweed is in this movie.

oh dude you have to watch the crimson cult a very '60s psychedelic horror film about a cult which has the indescribably and inhumanly beautiful barbara steele. she rally does have the most other worldly and impossibly magically beautiful eyes ever.

the best part of watching this movie other than watching barbara steele and the hot blonde who show her ass and side boob is watching 2 legends of horror films act across from each other.

share lines, talk to each other and act together: christopher lee and boris karloff. these are master actors. not that they are master in that they are the best actors of all time but they are master actors in that they mastered the art of acting. it's worth watching this movie just to watch these actors act together in scenes. it was such pleasures and such delights watching them act together and talk to each other.

have you ever read the thief of always by barker? it a great book. also have you read in the flesh; a short story collection book by barker? it's my favorite barker book.

lukejbarnett

Re: where the f is the status of horror movies right now?

lukejbarnett said... it won or was nominated for an academy award about 4 years ago.

not true. first of all sandra dee's character never shows any nudity. second of all she's such a horrible actor and not a real actor bc she never shows nudity in this movie even in the cult ceremony scene.

in which is supposed to be erotic bc she was nude but you never see any nudity and even in this scene in which no nudity is shown she was such an unprofessional actor that she couldn't just lay there and not show nudity bc she got a body double for i don't know what reason? bc she didn't show any more than what you'd see a girl show who is in a bikini.

now the blood on satan's claw is a gem. it's like a unknown gem bc i had never heard of it until i watched it a few months ago for the first time on my screenpix on demand channel. its' extremely effective in being this disturbing, very strange and and very effecting, dreamy, atmospheric society cult film. it feels so evil and wrong and sinful.

it has an amazingly haunting final scene that is a cult ritual scene in which this girl is dancing in a trance like way, she's in a trance and she is trance inducing in how she is moving her body and how her face looks. also she is topless which is amazingly hot bc she has the biggest and the most beautifully shaped tits ever.

and this scene isn't even the hottest scene in this movie even though it is really hot bc of hw she looks and really hot bc it goes on for like 3 minutes. my favorite scene is a scene in which is such a sex fantasy for me.

it has a girl, a blonde, a perfectly beautiful, hot like 20 year old blonde in a church with a like priest and she sexually tempts him to try to get him to have sex with her by taking off her robe and thus becoming completely nude.

and you see every part of her body from the front. oh my gosh she is one of the hottest and one of the most beautiful girls i've ever seen. she has one of the most beautiful faces and she has 2 of the best tits i've ever seen. so she tries to seduce him and i don't know any man who wouldn't succumb to her sexual and beauty charms.

also there is an extremely intriguing and magical scene that is so amazingly great and magical that it's definitely one of the best magical scenes in movie history. one of the girls in the cult, a good girl who somehow got in the cult gets a devil growth on her leg and a guy has to remove it with a knife and it has hair on it. it's the weirdest and most magical scene i maybe have sever seen in a movie that's how magical and amazing it is. do you remember this amazing scene?

i've never seen something like this in a movie that i can remember. the idea is amazing. and it feels so powerful and real the way that they made it like this really happened to this poor and innocent girl.

the best scene in this movie is the cult initiation scene. it has an innocent girl who actually i don't think is in the cult but gets forced into a ceremony in which she is raped. it is really powerful and moving and magical in that it feels like a magical thing is actually happening to the characters.

so their cult is actually capable of magical powers. i'm telling you this is truly a one of a kind film, no other film is really like it that i have ever watched.

for a movie to have 4 all time classically great and epic scenes in it is a huge and rare accomplishment.

do you remember all 4 of these scenes i described?

exactly night visitor is typical late night and bad b movie and forgettable bad movie movie. but it does have the irresistibly hot and cute and beautiful shannon tweed playing a next door milf kind of character and sexual tease to a high school guy.

the best part of this movie is the cult ceremony scene in which the delectable and irresistible teri weigel shows her amazingly beautiful and hot tits in extreme close up. she's actually more beautiful than shannon tweed is in this movie.

oh dude you have to watch the crimson cult a very '60s psychedelic horror film about a cult which has the indescribably and inhumanly beautiful barbara steele. she rally does have the most other worldly and impossibly magically beautiful eyes ever.

the best part of watching this movie other than watching barbara steele and the hot blonde who show her ass and side boob is watching 2 legends of horror films act across from each other.

share lines, talk to each other and act together: christopher lee and boris karloff. these are master actors. not that they are master in that they are the best actors of all time but they are master actors in that they mastered the art of acting. it's worth watching this movie just to watch these actors act together in scenes. it was such pleasures and such delights watching them act together and talk to each other.

have you ever read the thief of always by barker? it a great book. also have you read in the flesh; a short story collection book by barker? it's my favorite barker book.
expand
not true. first of all sandra dee's character never shows any nudity.

I'm pretty sure they showed her breasts, maybe it was a stunt double. Mind you, it's been decades since I last saw the film.

second of all she's such a horrible actor and not a real actor

I quite liked her in that role. It wasn't a typical Sandra Dee role. She looked sexy and "witchy" dressed in all black. Sandra Dee also appeared in a couple of Night Gallery episodes in the early 70s.


also there is an extremely intriguing and magical scene that is so amazingly great and magical that it's definitely one of the best magical scenes in movie history. one of the girls in the cult, a good girl who somehow got in the cult gets a devil growth on her leg and a guy has to remove it with a knife and it has hair on it. it's the weirdest and most magical scene i maybe have sever seen in a movie that's how magical and amazing it is. do you remember this amazing scene?

Hmm…I'm trying to remember it but I can't. giveup.gif I watched Blood on Satan's Claw sometime back in the 90s so I've forgotten some of the details.

have you ever read the thief of always by barker? it a great book. also have you read in the flesh; a short story collection book by barker? it's my favorite barker book.

No, I've only read Books of Blood 1-3 and The Damnation Game by Barker. I'm not a huge Barker fan or even much of a modern horror fiction fan. As for Stephen King, I tend to only like his early stuff from the 70s and 80s. "It" was the last novel of his that I really liked, I think that came out in the late 1980s.

Re: where the f is the status of horror movies right now?

cryptoflovecraft said...
not true. first of all sandra dee's character never shows any nudity.

I'm pretty sure they showed her breasts, maybe it was a stunt double. Mind you, it's been decades since I last saw the film.

second of all she's such a horrible actor and not a real actor

I quite liked her in that role. It wasn't a typical Sandra Dee role. She looked sexy and "witchy" dressed in all black. Sandra Dee also appeared in a couple of Night Gallery episodes in the early 70s.


also there is an extremely intriguing and magical scene that is so amazingly great and magical that it's definitely one of the best magical scenes in movie history. one of the girls in the cult, a good girl who somehow got in the cult gets a devil growth on her leg and a guy has to remove it with a knife and it has hair on it. it's the weirdest and most magical scene i maybe have sever seen in a movie that's how magical and amazing it is. do you remember this amazing scene?

Hmm…I'm trying to remember it but I can't. giveup.gif I watched Blood on Satan's Claw sometime back in the 90s so I've forgotten some of the details.

have you ever read the thief of always by barker? it a great book. also have you read in the flesh; a short story collection book by barker? it's my favorite barker book.

No, I've only read Books of Blood 1-3 and The Damnation Game by Barker. I'm not a huge Barker fan or even much of a modern horror fiction fan. As for Stephen King, I tend to only like his early stuff from the 70s and 80s. "It" was the last novel of his that I really liked, I think that came out in the late 1980s.
expand
you're wrong i just watched it and in the cult ceremony scene at the end she never shows any nudity. and i'm very careful with watching a scene that might show girl nudity bc i always try to enjoy a nudity scene with a girl as much as i can.

so i was really carefully watching this scene so if she had shown any nudity then i would have known that she showed nudity in this scene. and she never showed nudity in this movie.

the only reason i said sandra dee is not a real actor is bc she refused to shown nudity in a scene in which she needed to, it was essential to the kind of scene it was and this movie was made in 1970 when nudity was totally allowed in movies.

so there was no excuse for her not showing nudity in that scene and she even used a body double to show parts of her character's body in that scene which is really pathetic and not a real actor thing to do,

bc using a body double is a thing that not real actors do and she didn't even show nudity in that scene so that was really a not real actor thing that she did.

i love that you mentioned sandra dee was in a few night gallery episodes in the early '70s bc i just watched an episode of night gallery with sandra dee a few months before i watched her in the dunwich horror.

in the episode she plays a girl tormented by her dead sister's spirit and her sister was a tap dancer. do you remember this episode? why do you love sandra dee? or like her?

i loved sandra dee bc she was so beautiful in this episode and also i loved her in the dunwich horror bc she was so beautiful until she didn't show nudity in that last scene then i hated her bc she didn't give me her tits or ass or any nudity.

ok then do you remember the big titted brunette dancing and hurting a guy in a ceremony scene which is the last scene in the blood on satan's claw? do you remember the blonde taking off her robe thus being completely nude trying to seduce the priest in the church scene? do you remember the rape scene of the innocent girl they forced into their ceremony in the woods scene?

actually it came out in the summer of 1986. i know this bc eli roth said this in his first season of eli roth's history of horror, in his interview with stephen king.

ever read firestarter or christine? or the eyes of the dragon by king?

lukejbarnett

Re: where the f is the status of horror movies right now?

lukejbarnett said... you're wrong i just watched it and in the cult ceremony scene at the end she never shows any nudity. and i'm very careful with watching a scene that might show girl nudity bc i always try to enjoy a nudity scene with a girl as much as i can.

so i was really carefully watching this scene so if she had shown any nudity then i would have known that she showed nudity in this scene. and she never showed nudity in this movie.

the only reason i said sandra dee is not a real actor is bc she refused to shown nudity in a scene in which she needed to, it was essential to the kind of scene it was and this movie was made in 1970 when nudity was totally allowed in movies.

so there was no excuse for her not showing nudity in that scene and she even used a body double to show parts of her character's body in that scene which is really pathetic and not a real actor thing to do,

bc using a body double is a thing that not real actors do and she didn't even show nudity in that scene so that was really a not real actor thing that she did.

i love that you mentioned sandra dee was in a few night gallery episodes in the early '70s bc i just watched an episode of night gallery with sandra dee a few months before i watched her in the dunwich horror.

in the episode she plays a girl tormented by her dead sister's spirit and her sister was a tap dancer. do you remember this episode? why do you love sandra dee? or like her?

i loved sandra dee bc she was so beautiful in this episode and also i loved her in the dunwich horror bc she was so beautiful until she didn't show nudity in that last scene then i hated her bc she didn't give me her tits or ass or any nudity.

ok then do you remember the big titted brunette dancing and hurting a guy in a ceremony scene which is the last scene in the blood on satan's claw? do you remember the blonde taking off her robe thus being completely nude trying to seduce the priest in the church scene? do you remember the rape scene of the innocent girl they forced into their ceremony in the woods scene?

actually it came out in the summer of 1986. i know this bc eli roth said this in his first season of eli roth's history of horror, in his interview with stephen king.

ever read firestarter or christine? or the eyes of the dragon by king?
expand
Sorry for the late response, I didn't realize that you replied. wave.gif Anyway, it's been years since I last watched The Dunwich Horror. I could've sworn that they showed her breasts (or enough of her breasts to be considered nudity) during the ritual scene. giveup.gif Nevertheless, it was probably Dee's most risque role.

I don't have a problem with her for refusing to appear nude in films. Actually, I respect her more for that.

i love that you mentioned sandra dee was in a few night gallery episodes in the early '70s bc i just watched an episode of night gallery with sandra dee a few months before i watched her in the dunwich horror.

in the episode she plays a girl tormented by her dead sister's spirit and her sister was a tap dancer. do you remember this episode? why do you love sandra dee? or like her?

Yes, I remember it well.

I don't know why I like her but I just do. Her looks, her mannerisms, her voice and her acting all agree with me, I guess.

do you remember the big titted brunette dancing and hurting a guy in a ceremony scene which is the last scene in the blood on satan's claw? do you remember the blonde taking off her robe thus being completely nude trying to seduce the priest in the church scene? do you remember the rape scene of the innocent girl they forced into their ceremony in the woods scene?

I really need to rewatch that one because I don't remember those specific scenes. Then again, nude scenes aren't that important to me unless there's something unique about them or the nude woman in question is especially attractive to me. Hence, I've forgotten a lot of nude scenes in films I've watched through the years.

ever read firestarter or christine? or the eyes of the dragon by king?

I've read Christine. I really didn't care for it. I didn't like the movie either.

Re: where the f is the status of horror movies right now?

cryptoflovecraft said... Sorry for the late response, I didn't realize that you replied. wave.gif Anyway, it's been years since I last watched The Dunwich Horror. I could've sworn that they showed her breasts (or enough of her breasts to be considered nudity) during the ritual scene. giveup.gif Nevertheless, it was probably Dee's most risque role.

I don't have a problem with her for refusing to appear nude in films. Actually, I respect her more for that.

i love that you mentioned sandra dee was in a few night gallery episodes in the early '70s bc i just watched an episode of night gallery with sandra dee a few months before i watched her in the dunwich horror.

in the episode she plays a girl tormented by her dead sister's spirit and her sister was a tap dancer. do you remember this episode? why do you love sandra dee? or like her?

Yes, I remember it well.

I don't know why I like her but I just do. Her looks, her mannerisms, her voice and her acting all agree with me, I guess.

do you remember the big titted brunette dancing and hurting a guy in a ceremony scene which is the last scene in the blood on satan's claw? do you remember the blonde taking off her robe thus being completely nude trying to seduce the priest in the church scene? do you remember the rape scene of the innocent girl they forced into their ceremony in the woods scene?

I really need to rewatch that one because I don't remember those specific scenes. Then again, nude scenes aren't that important to me unless there's something unique about them or the nude woman in question is especially attractive to me. Hence, I've forgotten a lot of nude scenes in films I've watched through the years.

ever read firestarter or christine? or the eyes of the dragon by king?

I've read Christine. I really didn't care for it. I didn't like the movie either.
expand
there is nothing respectable about not showing nudity in a movie. it is the opposite of a respectful thing to do bc it undermines the art and craft of acting. stage actors show nudity. the best actors do it the less than best actors don't do it.

it's a matter of having the most respect for the occupation and career that you have. if you respect your occupation and the art of acting you show nudity when it's required for the part.

sandra dee is amazingly beautiful in a movie in 1958. when i saw her i was amazed by how beautiful she is. she was on an inhuman level of beauty that is rarely ever seen. i'm talking about natural beauty queen, doll teen, american girl beauty at the highest level.

what about firestarter and the eyes of the dragon? have you read either of these books?

lukejbarnett

Post deleted

This message has been deleted.

Re: where the f is the status of horror movies right now?

lukejbarnett said... i love how you said watch burnt offerings bc i just watched it for the first time a few months ago. and sadly i hated it bc it was very boring to me. although i did kind of like the amityville horror(1979) which i finally watched for the first time a few months ago also.

oliver reed plays a very weird out of context or control person in burnt offerings. it's highly original acting take on a character that reed achieved. burnt offerings is from 1974 by the way. by the way karen black has one of the weirdest looking faces i've ever seen in she movie. not putting her face looks down just saying she has a very weird looking face in this movie.

probably the most disturbing of early cronenberg films? it's by far his most disturbing early film.

if you want to watch a great performance from oliver reed well he always gave a great performance but one i just saw for the first time is his performance in the hunting party. he's so mesmerizing an charismatic in this film. this is a guy who has complete control over his acting in so many movies.

that's the part of the last house on the left that got the most criticism and controversy, the rape scene. they showed a scene from the virgin spring in the interview wes craven gives while being interviewed by mick garris about 10 years ago that i watched. it was a prt of a series of interviews made by mick garris called post mortem in this interview wes admitted tlhotl is a variation on the virgin spring.

is a retelling the same thing as a remake?

i love so much that the last house on the left and the hills have eyes remain your favorite wes craven films bc of the legends of these classic films. i've never watched either film bc i've always been afraid of watching them bc of how disturbing their reputations are but have always been impressed with their reputations as being genre classics and pushing the envelope in disturbing horror films.

he explains in the interview i mentioned that he was raised a strict methodist. he was so sheltered that he didnt' watch his first disney movie until he was 25 years old!

so you can see why he disowned this nasty piece of film called the last house on the left now right?
expand
My Top 50 Horror Films List:

https://www.imdb.com/list/ls000475169/

Re: where the f is the status of horror movies right now?

cryptoflovecraft said... My Top 50 Horror Films List:

https://www.imdb.com/list/ls000475169/
expand
how come you didn't put the last house on the left in this list?

lukejbarnett

Re: where the f is the status of horror movies right now?

lukejbarnett said... how come you didn't put the last house on the left in this list?
expand
I only went as high as 50 movies. It would be on my Top 100 list.

Re: where the f is the status of horror movies right now?

cryptoflovecraft said... I only went as high as 50 movies. It would be on my Top 100 list.
expand
that's hard to believe bc you said tlhotl and the hills have eyes are your favorite wes craven films and it seemed like from what you wrote about tlhotl praising it so highly that you would put it as one of the top 50 horror films of all time.

is tlhotl quite a bit lower than the hills have eyes on your list of favorite wes craven films? like do you watch the hills have eyes a lot more and more often than tlhotl?

lukejbarnett

Re: where the f is the status of horror movies right now?

cryptoflovecraft said... I only went as high as 50 movies. It would be on my Top 100 list.
expand
if you think about it that's kind of odd considering it's unanimously been touted as one of the most important and one of the best of all time horror films ever made. so for a 50 horror films list of the best of all time, you'd think for just horror films it would be in the top 50 of all time.

if you think about it most of hitchcock's horror like films are not horror films but mystery/suspense films. i guess the most horror film film he made is the birds. people debate about psycho being the first slasher film and a horror film.

also people debate it's not a horror film and it's a mystery/suspense film and it's not a slasher film bc slasher films weren't yet around, being made yet. only about 2 people get slashed in psycho so you can't really call it a slasher film and it's not a horror film bc it's story basis is in mystery/suspense.

also the texas chainsaw massacre is not a slasher film bc you only see the slightest bit of violence most of the violence is off camera or implied.

lukejbarnett

Re: where the f is the status of horror movies right now?

lukejbarnett said... if you think about it that's kind of odd considering it's unanimously been touted as one of the most important and one of the best of all time horror films ever made. so for a 50 horror films list of the best of all time, you'd think for just horror films it would be in the top 50 of all time.

if you think about it most of hitchcock's horror like films are not horror films but mystery/suspense films. i guess the most horror film film he made is the birds. people debate about psycho being the first slasher film and a horror film.

also people debate it's not a horror film and it's a mystery/suspense film and it's not a slasher film bc slasher films weren't yet around, being made yet. only about 2 people get slashed in psycho so you can't really call it a slasher film and it's not a horror film bc it's story basis is in mystery/suspense.

also the texas chainsaw massacre is not a slasher film bc you only see the slightest bit of violence most of the violence is off camera or implied.
expand
if you think about it most of hitchcock's horror like films are not horror films but mystery/suspense films. i guess the most horror film film he made is the birds. people debate about psycho being the first slasher film and a horror film.

Hitchcock is my second favorite director of all time. I agree that most of his films aren't really "horror". Psycho and The Birds are the exceptions. I never cared much for The Birds…it's OK but not great imo. The effects were good but the characters left me feeling cold. Psycho, on the other hand, is amazing from start to finish. It's sort of like two movies in one. The first half is about Janet Leigh's character stealing the money and trying to get away with the perfect crime which she doesn't seem to be doing very well as everyone seems to suspect her of something, including the highway cop and the car salesman. And then she stops at that roadside motel and the movie takes on an entirely new direction. I like how the film goes from being a mild thriller about a woman living on the run to a full-blown horror film once Norman and his mother are introduced. The characters, the subplots and the suspense are all great in this film. Psycho keeps me glued to the screen from start to finish. It was a game changer film in that it introduced a new kind of "monster" i.e., the psycho killer, into the horror genre. It also has that iconic shower scene which had a huge influence on slasher films.

also people debate it's not a horror film and it's a mystery/suspense film and it's not a slasher film bc slasher films weren't yet around, being made yet. only about 2 people get slashed in psycho so you can't really call it a slasher film and it's not a horror film bc it's story basis is in mystery/suspense.

also the texas chainsaw massacre is not a slasher film bc you only see the slightest bit of violence most of the violence is off camera or implied.

I consider Psycho and TCM to be proto-slasher films. They influenced the slasher subgenre even if they weren't exactly "slasher films", e.g., the Leatherface-Marilyn Burns chase scene through the woods is remarkably similar to chase scenes in countless slasher films from the 80s. Also in TCM, people get bludgeoned with hammers, hung on meat hooks and cannibalized, so even if we don't see a lot of blood and gore (a wise decision on Hooper's part) we still see a good amount of violence and carnage. And not surprisingly, the film still got an R rating despite Hooper leaving out the excessive gore.

Re: where the f is the status of horror movies right now?

cryptoflovecraft said...
if you think about it most of hitchcock's horror like films are not horror films but mystery/suspense films. i guess the most horror film film he made is the birds. people debate about psycho being the first slasher film and a horror film.

Hitchcock is my second favorite director of all time. I agree that most of his films aren't really "horror". Psycho and The Birds are the exceptions. I never cared much for The Birds…it's OK but not great imo. The effects were good but the characters left me feeling cold. Psycho, on the other hand, is amazing from start to finish. It's sort of like two movies in one. The first half is about Janet Leigh's character stealing the money and trying to get away with the perfect crime which she doesn't seem to be doing very well as everyone seems to suspect her of something, including the highway cop and the car salesman. And then she stops at that roadside motel and the movie takes on an entirely new direction. I like how the film goes from being a mild thriller about a woman living on the run to a full-blown horror film once Norman and his mother are introduced. The characters, the subplots and the suspense are all great in this film. Psycho keeps me glued to the screen from start to finish. It was a game changer film in that it introduced a new kind of "monster" i.e., the psycho killer, into the horror genre. It also has that iconic shower scene which had a huge influence on slasher films.

also people debate it's not a horror film and it's a mystery/suspense film and it's not a slasher film bc slasher films weren't yet around, being made yet. only about 2 people get slashed in psycho so you can't really call it a slasher film and it's not a horror film bc it's story basis is in mystery/suspense.

also the texas chainsaw massacre is not a slasher film bc you only see the slightest bit of violence most of the violence is off camera or implied.

I consider Psycho and TCM to be proto-slasher films. They influenced the slasher subgenre even if they weren't exactly "slasher films", e.g., the Leatherface-Marilyn Burns chase scene through the woods is remarkably similar to chase scenes in countless slasher films from the 80s. Also in TCM, people get bludgeoned with hammers, hung on meat hooks and cannibalized, so even if we don't see a lot of blood and gore (a wise decision on Hooper's part) we still see a good amount of violence and carnage. And not surprisingly, the film still got an R rating despite Hooper leaving out the excessive gore.
expand
my friend said the same thing about tcm he said it's a pre slasher film. but then if the slasher film genre started in the '70s then what do we call blood feast from 1963 or 2000 maniacs from the '60s or bay of blood by mario bava in the '60s? these films are slasher films but made before the genre was invented. maybe they call bay of blood a giallo film but what about the horror films of herschell gordon-lewis in the '60s?

lukejbarnett

Re: where the f is the status of horror movies right now?

lukejbarnett said... my friend said the same thing about tcm he said it's a pre slasher film. but then if the slasher film genre started in the '70s then what do we call blood feast from 1963 or 2000 maniacs from the '60s or bay of blood by mario bava in the '60s? these films are slasher films but made before the genre was invented. maybe they call bay of blood a giallo film but what about the horror films of herschell gordon-lewis in the '60s?
expand
then what do we call blood feast from 1963 or 2000 maniacs from the '60s or bay of blood by mario bava in the '60s?

I'd consider those to be proto-slasher films as well.

Re: where the f is the status of horror movies right now?

lukejbarnett said... it must have been someone else who ranked the friday the 13th films on here then. guess i confused you with someone else sorry.

it sounds like you are a purist bc you said jason goes to hell is abysmal and it's the first film that went completely away from the '80s formula. and you've never watched freddy vs. jason. you sure you are not a fth13th purist?

now if you are a fan of the friday the 13th series you have to watch jason x. it's the most precise '80s friday the 13th film tribute. it feels so '80s friday the 13th that it's amazing. it's a beautiful film bc of this. and i went in thinking there is no way it's going to be a good movie bc it's in space.

i hated jason goes to hell the first time i watched it. but grew to love and appreciate it the next time i watched it. i hated the fact that jason is barely in it visibly. its' a beautiful tribute film to the '80s friday the 13th films, making references to hallmarks of this series and it's meta before scream.

wait, you don't love texas chainsaw massacre 2? it's unanimously hailed as a classic horror film.
expand
it sounds like you are a purist bc you said jason goes to hell is abysmal and it's the first film that went completely away from the '80s formula. and you've never watched freddy vs. jason. you sure you are not a fth13th purist?

Yes, I'm sure!

Re: where the f is the status of horror movies right now?

It's all ghost and demon movies now, which are the most boring types of horror there is, with notable exceptions.

Just because I'm not on THEIR side, doesn't mean I'm on YOURS.

Re: where the f is the status of horror movies right now?

exactly i have no interest in ghost movies. and demon movies made by hollywood are almost always horrendous. hopefully they can move to a different phase and be successful in a different phase really soon.

lukejbarnett

Re: where the f is the status of horror movies right now?

Hollywood isn't the place to look for good horror anyway.

"The Dig"
http://cinemarchaeologist.blogspot.com/

Re: where the f is the status of horror movies right now?

you can say this about all movies bc almost all hollywood movies suck. but i'm watching a good maybe hollywood horror movie right now called smiley. i say maybe hollwood bc it might be from hollywood, not sure. maybe the studio is an offshoot of warner bros. or some other hollywood production company.

you definitely should watch smiley it is a cut above the usual quality horror movie fare that we usually get since the '00s started.

lukejbarnett

Re: where the f is the status of horror movies right now?

Friday the 13th franchise, and those of that ilk, are crap horror.

The 70's had some really great horror films.

Horror has never been a respected genre.

Re: where the f is the status of horror movies right now?

The 70's had some really great horror films.

I concur. That's my favorite decade for horror.

Re: where the f is the status of horror movies right now?

I wish they made horror movies with a plot.

I watched a Netflix thing with Amy Adams last night The Woman in the Window and it was sort of horror and they tried to make some kind of plot, with a twist.

It was "okay" but at least it had a story going on and it wasn't a one sentence plot.

I would like to see a horror movie like Hellraiser where they went into more detail about who everyone is.

Re: where the f is the status of horror movies right now?

Horror movies are still being made and released. Right now most horror movies bypass theaters altogether and are widely seen by a majority of folks either on various streaming surfaces or horror channels like Shudder. I really liked both the killer animal fright feature Boar and the horror-Western The Wind.

Woody Anders is the birthday man/ Hey Laddy Laddy La / He does it because it's his jam/ Hey Laddy Laddy Lo

Post deleted

This message has been deleted.

Re: where the f is the status of horror movies right now?

the collector is a classic. one of a kind, brilliant, bonkers, balls to the wall no holds barred horror film with the most clever and original setup and story in a horror film n so many years. the collection is about 50% of the film that the collector is though unfortunately.

they just did the same kinds of things except with less original ideas. there's not any great scenes except the massacre scene and no interesting plot twists or ideas. it' s pretty good, but that's it.

lukejbarnett

Re: where the f is the status of horror movies right now?

The public is bored with constant iterations of the same old franchises over and over. 10 movies about the same character gets old. There are still good horror movies being made however. A Quiet Place 2 is currently getting rave reviews.

Re: where the f is the status of horror movies right now?

you know that thing i just thought after seeing they made a freaking fantastic four movie in 2014? why do they have to make movies that we just had every 5 or 10 years? there is no reason for them to update a freaking fantastic four movie with jessica alba.

that movie came out in like 2004 yet they still had to make another fantastic four movie in 2014 just 10 years later? i just don't remember so many movies with the same name and characters being made just 10 years apart ever in the '80s or '90s or before those decades.

we really have reached the worst time in movies when this happens. this time where there is no creativity and so they have to rely on movies that have already been made to make a movie.

this really is pathetic we don't need 3 hulk movies with 2 different actors we also don't need freaking 9 fast and the furious movies. we also don't need 2 no 3 different spider mans in less than just 20 years time, geez.

do you know they actually remade cabin fever a few years ago? and that movie was made in 2002.

now we have this completely unnecessary thing with king kong and godzila. so in order for them to be able to have kong vs. godzila they had to make a king kong movie and a godzila movie. all 3 of these movies are unnecessary bc we've had more than enough of king kong and godzila movies heck we just had a king kong movie in like 2005!

oh and other completely unnecessary movies were all the planet of the apes movies made in the '10s bc we just had a planet of the apes movie in 2001 geez this is really lazy filmmaking.

lukejbarnett

Re: where the f is the status of horror movies right now?

Oh no for a moment I was afraid you had started posting again.

*breathes a deep sigh of relief*

Re: where the f is the status of horror movies right now?

Yeah. The same thing happened back in the 90s and Scream revived horror, and then again with saw but they were terrible after the second. Hopefully something new and fresh will be along cuz these days nothing is shocking or scary.

Re: where the f is the status of horror movies right now?

so what kinds of horror movies do you like?

lukejbarnett

Re: where the f is the status of horror movies right now?

SCREAM didn't revive horror; it just led to a series of bad knock-offs of SCREAM. The movie was a rare bright spot in a pretty dreary age for the genre (which has always seemed strange to me, because the '90s was otherwise one of the best movie decades in the history of the medium).

"The Dig"
http://cinemarchaeologist.blogspot.com/
Top