Reader's comments on this article Add a new comment on this article

from Conqueror of Uranus Friday, May 18, 2007 - 04:05 (Agree/Disagree?) You forgot a good J-horror. 「予言」(Eng. title "Premonition") based on the manga 「恐怖新聞」 I don't remember the name of the author, but this one is pretty good. (reply to this comment)

From Phoenixkidd Friday, May 18, 2007, 09:22 (Agree/Disagree?) J-Hora wa Sugo! Demo totemo Kurosu(reply to this comment)

from Oddman Thursday, May 17, 2007 - 09:31 (Agree/Disagree?) Ok, some of the films I've watched (or rewatched) in the last few weeks. Texas Chainsaw Massacre The remake of course, the original being The Texas Chain Saw Massacre. This is one of the few remakes that actually turned out better than the original. Jessica Biel's got this old fashioned classic beauty to her, that does a lot for the atmosphere of the film. (But I'm still trying to figure out where the other chick got the gun.) The Hills Have Eyes (Remake) Also pretty good for a remake. The gore factor, the repulsiveness factor, the ambience, all not half bad. I did think the soundtrack could have been a bit better. I don't know. I thought it would turn out pretty bad, but the last 30 minutes or so made it a good film. Not to spoil the movie, but doesn't the dude with scruffy hair and glasses normally die pretty early in the film? The Hazing Arguably the worst horror film I've seen in a long long time. But if you like cheesy comedic effect and comedic (bad) acting inbetween your gore -Think Paris Hilton in House of Wax, or any Romero film- then you might enjoy it. Lady In The Water What can I say? Watch it. Might be a bit slow for people that enjoy the fast paced commercial splatter horror that is so common nowadays, but if you enjoy visuals with a true psychological edge to it, this ones got a razor sharp edge. Stephen King's Christine As is typical with Stephen King adaptations, this isn't by any means spectacular. And well the adult herbie thing just really isn't the freakiest plotline conceivable. If only the story concentrated on the psychology and imagination of the hero(?) it could have turned out a good film. Not that it's at all a bad film. I suggest watching it once at least, if you're bored of the all too typical "guy we didn't quite kill came back to kill us" storyline offered by 80% of films in the genre. Stephen King's Cujo 70% of the film is boring. 70% of the film has too little relevance to the horror waiting in the last 30%. The adversary is too weak and hope shines too bright. You don't like any of the characters before they die. But watching it a second time, and trying to place myself in the shoes of the wife.... Ok, I can see it does qualify as horror... But that Stephen King must have been running out of ideas. Wes Craven's The People Under the Stairs I'm not the biggest Wes Craven fan out there.... But damn, this film was good. Plenty of cheese in there, and the acting is by no means spectacular. The storyline isn't believable, and the villians are bumbling fools, however vile. But it just carries. It just works. I think I'll actually watch this one again. Wrong Turn Rather typical watch, stalk, hunt, murder, plotline. Rather typical deformed redneck villain. Rather typical -gender equally distributed youngster- victim. Rather typical -countryside timbuktu- setting. The average unknown but not bad looking actors, the average weapons. The average oh look, organs in jars. It's just so average in every way. Even Perfume (Which isn't exactly a horror film) seems more of a horror flick. But oh well, if you've seen ten, it doesn't hurt to watch one more.... So I watched it twice. :p Grim Reaper An abomination to the genre. Scream was acceptable. I even allowed for I know what you did last summer. But really, how many more bullets do you need to pump into that horse cadaver after it's already reduced to skeletal structure alone? The true essense of horror is in a good storyline. If you can't do that, go exploitation film. Insurmountable gore. If the best you can do is stab people with paintbrushes for zero plausible reason, don't waste the film. (reply to this comment)

from rainy Thursday, April 26, 2007 - 01:49 (Agree/Disagree?) My favourite horror novel is The Violin by Anne Rice. But maybe it's more of a psychological novel than true horror. (reply to this comment)

from placebo Wednesday, April 25, 2007 - 21:47 (Agree/Disagree?) Book: Les Gardin des Supplices by Octave Mirbeau, second half is all about 18th century chinese torture...meow! (reply to this comment)

from Lionel Tuesday, April 24, 2007 - 13:50 (Agree/Disagree?) Charging zombies with a lawnmower, and trying to keep zombies inside his home rather than out... You need to see braindead, it has baby zombies and zombies having sex. (reply to this comment)

from conan Tuesday, April 24, 2007 - 13:12 (Agree/Disagree?) I haven't seen a lot of films on your list, but most of them are on my Netflix list so I'll get around to them eventually. Here's my thoughts on a few of them and a few others as well. Taking Lives' was awful! The best scene is the first. After that, it's cheesy, predictable, poorly acted, and poorly executed plot lines. The sex scene with the crime scene photos was pretty cool because it implied that they were both sort of excited by gore and other 'repulsive' sights. 'Hide and Go Seek' was even worse. No genuine horror effects of any kind, and of course completely predictable. Plus, can Dakota Fanning's screams be any more annoying. They were bad enough in War of the Worlds but in this one, it was just irritating. If you're going to mention M. Night Shyamalan films, you have to include 'Signs'. The use of imagery in that film is truly chilling. What about 'Lady in the Water'? The wolf thingy when you see it out of the corner of the character's eye...that's a horror master at work. 'Dawn of the Dead' and 'Scream' are neither scary nor are they entertaining movies in their genres. They are both pretty bad films with poor acting at the lead roles and weak support casts as well. 'The Astronaut's Wife' was a terrible movie! No plot, less script, worse acting, no end result. Not to take anything away from the talent of Depp who was very good in 'Secret Window' although John Turturro stole the show in that (bad) movie. 'The Fly' is a remake in case you didn't know. The original was actually a better 'horror' film but with worse effects (naturally) as it is much older. The Goldblum version is actually pretty weak outside of his emotional portrayal which is fantastic acting. '28 Days Later' was fantastic! Cilian Murphy portrays horror very well. 'Red Eye' wasn't a 'scary' movie, but Murphy gives a chilling performance in that movie for Wes Craven and he was fantastic as the scarecrow in 'Batman Begins'. I'm personally thought that 'The Ring' was a very good 'horror' film as the film worked! Didn't like the Hollywood portrayal of 'The Grudge' but the Japanese version, while a weak movie, the horror effects were great; the score, the visuals, the reactions....horror classics. 'Hostel' was a very entertaining film and lots of blood, but not very 'scary', much like 'Cabin Fever'. Both of those have plenty of humor as well. I would put 'Descent' here as well except the entertainment factor with humor is severely lacking. The horror effects with the lighting and the way they use the poor lighting to accentuate the blood as well as the emotional terror the victims are suffering made it a good horror flick. The sub-plot surrounding the exploring girls was superfluous and should of been eliminated entirely or beefed up to be more entertaining. Although the death in the car crash and her subsequent nightmares are great! 'Final Destination' and other movies like that are manufactured horror flicks with no substance and less context and suck immensely. 'Bram Stoker's Dracula' was an excellent vampire flick. Hopkins as van Helsing was brilliant, and Gary Oldman was genuinely evil in seducing Wynonna and keeping Keanu captive. Entertaining, well acted, good effects, lots of blood, and there's still the elements of terror. 'Dracula 2000' was a decent vampire flick too. The 'Saw' films were original, and they appealed to the audience in that you were genuinely horrified for the victims (my opinion on why the films work) while the killer never actually 'kills' anyone. Plus the surprise factor at the end of the first (and by far the best in the trilogy) was nothing short of brilliant. Just enough gore to keep it realistic and leave you wanting more. A horror classic is 'An American Werewolf in London'. That movie took prosthetic make up to new levels to the point that they're used in so many movies today. Plus, it was a genuinely scary flick back in the day. And one of my personal favorite's is 'Hollow Man'. The effects and the acting were great and listening to Kevin Bacon's acting range in his voice alone was really great entertainment. I like the idea that he drove himself crazy but then still had time to spook kids on the street by opening his mouth and taking off his sunglasses. That was hilarious. Hitchcock was a master. So many of his films are still the standard for horror today. Steven King has more scary ideas than anyone else who's ever lived, probably (although Rob Zombie employs a million such ideas in 1000 corpses alone so, maybe King has some company). Wes Craven, M. Knight, and John Carpenter have done more than their share to bring popularity to the horror genre. Anyways, I'm sure I could go on but I'll spare you ;) (reply to this comment)

From madly Sunday, April 29, 2007, 03:23 (Agree/Disagree?) “28 Days Later” was fantastic and I couldn’t agree with you more about Cillian Murphy (and that is with two Ls please… this is my future husband we are talking about :P). He is not used enough, in my opinion and is hardly known here in the US. I ask people their opinion of Cillian Murphy and the general reaction is “who is she?” He has great potential and with those piercing blue eyes, how could he go wrong?(reply to this comment)

From Oddman Tuesday, May 01, 2007, 20:46 (Agree/Disagree?) Cillian Murphy was good in 28 days later, but I dislike him for being in that crappy Redeye film.(reply to this comment)

From madly Tuesday, May 01, 2007, 20:49 (Agree/Disagree?) oh no... cheeks has got to you too. Crap this, crap that...(reply to this comment)

From conan Tuesday, April 24, 2007, 13:19 (Agree/Disagree?) I didn't mention Quentin Tarantino as I don't feel that 'From Dusk till Dawn' is really a horror film, and it's not really a vampire film when Cheech Marin plays one of the evil, scary vampires. He's a fantastic director in his own right, a great writer and his use of blood and gore is just fun. Check out his new film 'Death Proof', the second in the 'Grindhouse' double feature with Robert Rodriguez's 'Plant Terror' as the first. Both films are highly entertaining with 'Planet Terror' using a hell of a whole lot more gore and blood and 'B movie' techniques than 'Proof', but still both are very entertaining and I highly recommend sitting through the near three hours of cinematic experience. (reply to this comment)

From roughneck Wednesday, April 25, 2007, 18:34 (Agree/Disagree?) Tarantino wrote, (and acted in) but didn't direct "From Dusk Till Dawn", that was Rodriguez. :) That being said, Cheech Marin's character's sales pitch outside the Titty Twister is one of my favourite movie monologues of all time. Being as how From Dusk Till Dawn is a (fairly standard) vampire movie, doesn't that kind of automatically makes it horror, genre-wise? If not, I'm sure the multitudinous severed heads and bountiful arterial spray featured ought to do it. :D I second your recommendation of Grindhouse. I quite liked Rodriguez's movie better than Tarantino's. 'Death Proof' ran a bit too much like a chick flick except for the last half hour or so. Ho-hum. Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction, Jackie Brown and Kill Bill were ever so much better movies. Also, it burned my ass to see such lovely MOPAR muscle cars getting trashed. Too bad the Weinsteins are splitting up Planet Terror and Death Proof for release outside of North America. Kind of ruins the "grindhouse double-feature" concept, to say nothing of gypping the theatregoer out of the price of an extra admission. For movies not mentioned yet, how about The Devil's Rejects Pulse Deathwatch Army of Darkness (OK, this one really is more comedy than horror) I thought 'High Tension' (Haute Tension) was also pretty good, though the "twist" doesn't work too well, IMO. My local video store has a rather anemic selection of movies from the horror genre, much to my dismay. I have seen most of the movies listed in this thread though. I was (vainly it would appear) hoping for more that I hadn't seen. As for Stephen King, I don't think he's really giving much effort creatively anymore. His earlier work was pretty good, but his more recent material, particularly the way he ended the Dark Tower series, is somewhat of a letdown. On a(nother) completely unrelated, outta-left-field note, anyone else think those gargantuan oil-slick-mirrored "DC" shades look perfectly hideous on anyone who isn't trying to dress up like a mantis? Discuss also the odium that is the return of giant ray-bans and other such massive owl-esque eyewear to the world of women's fashion. Is my dislike of such what getting old and crotchety feels like? Please help me.(reply to this comment)

From conan Thursday, April 26, 2007, 17:18 (Agree/Disagree?) I was actually aware that Tarantino didn't direct 'Dusk till Dawn' but still considered it Tarantino's film more so than I would consider it a Rodriguez feature, but that might just be me. It wasn't a horror film in my opinion because I don't think there is a (straight) male alive who would be too ticked off if Selma Hayek was gonna 'suck the life out of' you, and while Cheech did have a convincing sales pitch outside the Titty Twister, I thought the first 40 minutes or more of that particular film would be considered action/comedy more than thriller or horror. Again, that's just me, and there was indeed plenty of blood and burst arteries etc to qualify as a horror flick, so whatever...it's a horror flick that wasn't scary maybe? I happen to agree with you on King and his 'effort' to be a horror writer, but that doesn't take anything away from his potential to make just about anything seem scary in his twisted mind and he has sort of set the standard for the horror writing industry (in my opinion) with no offense to Anne Rice and the dozens (or is it hundreds) of other talented writers who specialize in terror. I don't know if anyone has seen 'Das Experiment' (the experiment) which is a German psychological thriller....but that is an excellent movie and a truly terrifying look at the human mind/psyche when put into a position of power or oppression. Anyways, I thought I'd throw that film out there into this thread. I haven't seen 'Devil's Rejects' yet but I've heard it's a better 'horror' flick than '1000 corpses' was which wouldn't be all that hard to do. 'Corpses' was a bad horror film but had so much blood and ridiculous side show effects that it made for an entertaining hair-raiser!(reply to this comment)

From rainy Tuesday, April 24, 2007, 15:27 (Agree/Disagree?) About Stephen King: Yes, I think he's the most original horror writer ever, and his books are the scariest. But the movies tend to suck, don't you think?(reply to this comment)

From lisa Tuesday, April 24, 2007, 15:36 (Agree/Disagree?) I think his books tend to suk. I keep getting sucked back into reading another one by people who loves them and so far the have all been dissaponting. Maybe I'm just getting the bad ones.(reply to this comment)

From rainy Tuesday, April 24, 2007, 17:22 (Agree/Disagree?) there are plenty of bad ones too. He's so prolific, he writes the full spectrum from crap to Ultimate Horror. (I had one in my cupboard for over a year and never got through it, about this woman chained to a bed in a deserted farmhouse while the rats got closer and closer...the whole book seemed to be one scene.)(reply to this comment)

From roughneck Wednesday, April 25, 2007, 18:55 (Agree/Disagree?) That would be Gerald's Game, and yeah, it's no great shakes. :) "Misery" is a much better chained-to-bed story. Curious which one you'd rate as "ultimate horror" though. I quite liked Desperation, The Stand, and his short story (as Bachman) The Long Walk, just off the top of my head. Of course, I confess I've read just about all his books, some several times. (reply to this comment)

From rainy Thursday, April 26, 2007, 01:33 (Agree/Disagree?) I was, actually, thinking of The Stand. Although *I* must confess to not having read it all. Good stuff though. Sometimes do you think he overdoes it a bit? There was also this mini series about a hospital; The Dark Kingdom or something like that... I didn't get to see it all but enjoyed the spookiness.(reply to this comment)

from rainy Tuesday, April 24, 2007 - 01:55 (Agree/Disagree?) Thanks to you, Oddie, I've gone and rented The Exorcism of Emily Rose along with my usual foreign films. I'd toyed with watching it since it came out but was afraid it would be a cheesy rip-off of the Exorcist. But since you said it was even better, I'm getting out the popcorn and red wine tonight. Now we'll see whether you talk shit or not. :) (reply to this comment)

From rainy Tuesday, April 24, 2007, 06:01 (Agree/Disagree?) Hmmm... So I just finished watcing it. Not as scary as the exorcist, and got nothing on Hannibal. (I love the bit in Hannibal where he cooks the dude's brains teppenyaki syle and feeds it to him with ohashis.) What was weird was I kept finding myself on evil's side. There's this one bit where he quotes, "You shall tread on serpents and scorpions, and nothing shall by any means hurt you" And she says, "NOTHING?" in the most evil voice, and I felt that injustice that God's side is always expected to triumph, the weird pity I always had for the devil being the underdog...Okay never mind. but anyway, I was just about to announce it a crap horror flick because I could count my goose bumps on one hand, when at the end I see those things you always see after a true story. What happened next to each character, yadda yadda. So I think, Hmm, maybe it's true, look it up and voila: http://www.fotofetch.com/ Whaddaya know. (reply to this comment)

From rainy Tuesday, April 24, 2007, 06:09 (Agree/Disagree?) Also, I was on the prosecutor's side the whole time. What a load of crap, this idea of demon possession. Maybe she tried drugs for the first time. People who are potential schizophrenics often don't display symtoms until they begin using cannabis. Anyway, it reminded me of the courtcase I've already been through, except this time I was on the other side and found the jury's verdict extrememly hard to swallow.(reply to this comment)

From Oddman Tuesday, April 24, 2007, 06:23 (Agree/Disagree?) That's where I got the chills, rainy. The scientific explanations to so called supernatural phenomena, and the religious rebuttals. All culminating in an unbelievably ridiculous verdict. That view was one, totally denied in the Excorcist. Although the excorcist was a better horror film, the Excorcism of Emily Rose had a very real undismissable fear factor, which the Excorcist didn't have.(reply to this comment)

from ErikMagnusLehnsher Monday, April 23, 2007 - 19:48 (Agree/Disagree?) Pretty extensive list. I'm not sure I agree with on "The Fly". It was a pretty disgusting transformation but a little lacking in true horror creds, IMHO. "Taking Lives" was a good movie with some interesting twists but more of a suspense thriller. I spent the night at a friends house when I was 12 (gulp...waaaay back in 1985) and his permissive parents kindly let us pick out our own movie at the video store. The priority, of course, was to pick out something with an "R" rating and with as much nudity as possible. Then we figured it should be something scary, too. We explained our situation to the stoner behind the counter at the video shop and he flashed a "Jack Black" grin and returned with a movie as he nodded, "This will totally fuck you kids up." We looked at each other and after a brief argument put "My Tutor" (1983) back on the shelf and checked out "The Evil Dead" (1981) per his recommendation. That movie seriously fucked me up for at least a decade. The whole "We're going to get you...we're going to get you" chant absolutely terrified me. All the severed limbs and heads were absolutely disgusting. By movie's end I was trembling on the couch and my friend complained, "What the fuck?!? There was barely any nudity at all." (reply to this comment)

From ange Tuesday, April 24, 2007, 07:09 (Agree/Disagree?) “The Fly” is classic Cronenberg body horror. The horror isn’t supposed to come from things jumping out at you, it’s about disease, the idea of something living inside of you which has an agenda different to your own (like vampire films which respond to an audience's fears of infection and STD’s), it’s about ‘the abject’, the idea of something which is supposed to remain inside or unseen suddenly becoming visible and which you are then forced to confront, and it contains all of the classic morality tale substance of traditional horror films. I think it’s an excellent film and if it subverts the traditional horror genre then all the more reason for it to be a classic. (reply to this comment)

From Oddman Tuesday, April 24, 2007, 07:15 (Agree/Disagree?) I could not agree more, ange. Damn, I gotta watch it again sometime soon. (reply to this comment)

From Oddman Tuesday, April 24, 2007, 01:03 (Agree/Disagree?) I agree somewhat about Taking Lives. It isn't strictly a horror film. But loosely interpreted, a horror film is any film designed to induce horror in a viewer. Horror can be both fear, and/or, a high dose of repulsion, as in the case of exploitation films like Hostel and House of 1000 Corpses Some other films I remember, though each would have to be their own judge of what is a good film.... Nekromantik (Germany 1987) The Blair Witch Project Candyman Cube (Canada) Child's Play (series) Severance (UK) The Covenant House Of Wax House Of Wax (Remake) Creature/Monster Jeepers Creepers Jaws (series) Piranha Anaconda Arachnophobia(reply to this comment)

From conan Tuesday, April 24, 2007, 13:26 (Agree/Disagree?) The 'House of Wax' remake was a really, really, really, really BAD film! Nothing redeeming about it at all. 'Jeepers Creepers' had tremendous potential that wasn't utilized and ended up disappointing. 'Anaconda' was actually pretty good, but that was mostly because of Jon Voight. The movie lacked blood though and I felt that there should have been more random scary incidents in the Amazon or wherever it was that they were supposed to be.(reply to this comment)

From Oddman Tuesday, May 01, 2007, 20:50 (Agree/Disagree?) Since you seem to know your horror, what was that old film with Charlton Heston, about some army of ants? I haven't seen that one in about 10 years I think, and I can't find it at the stores here.(reply to this comment)

From conan Tuesday, May 01, 2007, 21:20 (Agree/Disagree?) I believe it was called 'The Naked Jungle'. I haven't seen the whole thing so I can't say if I thought it was good or not, but if memory serves (and it usually does) then that was the name of the movie. (reply to this comment)

from Oddie Monday, April 23, 2007 - 17:33 (Agree/Disagree?) Oops, forgot to set the category when submitting this. Pop Culture would be the correct one. JW, can this be fixed? (reply to this comment)

From MovingOn Admin Monday, April 23, 2007, 19:18 (Agree/Disagree?) No problem at all. :)(reply to this comment)

from valhalla Monday, April 23, 2007 - 12:05 (Agree/Disagree?) I enjoyed "Bram Stoker's Dracula" alot! (reply to this comment)