Horror Show

[Ayailla]

Exam is similar, except that the disparate group never leaves a single room where they are undergoing the final test for a prestigious job position.

I am going to go with you on that one. I think Exam is a brilliant film.

[Magpie]

Two very unique movies I would recommend are "Cube" and "Exam"

Cube (its sequel Cube 2 and its prequel, Cube Zero) is a low budget sci-fi thriller about a disparate group who must work together to escape a huge, booby-trapped cube. We know virtually nothing about them, and the reason for them being there is never explained (although it's hinted at in the prequel). Saw 2 lifted the plot virtually wholesale.

Exam is similar, except that the disparate group never leaves a single room where they are undergoing the final test for a prestigious job position.

Neither of them is a gorefest, but when they get meaty, they are pretty unflinching about it.

[kensei]

Having some further thoughts now on Jason Voorhees, and the fact that he was a developmentally disabled kid. That is an element that could have been made very poignant if the Friday the 13th movies hadn't gone in the cartoonish direction they did. I think he was sent to summer camp with the thought that it would be good for him, maybe even therapeutic, but instead the other kids made fun of him, and ultimately he drowned in the lake when the counselors who were supposed to be watching him were off somewhere having sex. His mother was the killer in the first movie, getting revenge for her boy, and her death at the end somehow triggered his resurrection at which point he took up the cause from there on. He was this lumbering, mute, mentally retarded adult killing machine, a total simpleton with a single purpose- revenge on young vibrant 20-somethings because they had destroyed his family. I really think there might have been room for a serious exploration of mental illness there if it had been done differently. But the closest they ever came to that was in "Freddy vs. Jason" in which there's a dream sequence where Freddy Krueger is seeing Jason as he was in childhood at the time of his death and he says, "Now that's a face only a mother could love," and then sinks one of his blades into Jason's head and says how much he'd love to get into that little addled mind and take a peek at what makes him tick. Nasty stuff.

A few years ago, there were two one-off remake films done in the same year of "Friday the 13th" and "A Nightmare on Elm Street." I saw the Friday the 13th one, in which Jason's childhood wasn't explored much and he was just this psycho killer living out a rumored existence out in a rural area. There was nothing supernatural about him in that version, which was a nice change. One weird twist though was that he kidnapped a girl and held her prisoner for an extended period, rather than killing her, for no apparent reason. I didn't see the Nightmare on Elm Street remake, but it starred Jackie Earl Haley as Freddy. I LOVED him as the ragtag superhero Rorschach in "Watchmen." He also played the drunken groundskeeper Willie in the Johnny Depp "Dark Shadows" revival. He had this wonderful gruff voice when he played Rorschach, which is nothing like his regular speaking voice. But then I saw the ads for his run as Freddy, and he sounded EXACTLY like Rorschach! Guess he only has one "character voice" that he can do.

The exploration of mental illness in these kinds of movies makes me think of an obscure one that was made for t.v. back in the 80s I think. I have it on VHS so it's probably still available- "Dark Night of the Scarecrow." A mentally retarded man befriends a little girl, and townspeople eye them suspiciously. One day the girl is attacked by a mad dog and the man saves her, but she's badly injured, and when someone sees him holding her afterward they think it was him that attacked her and a group of men go chasing after him. He runs into a field, finds a scarecrow and climbs inside of it to hide. They find him, and shoot him dead. When they learn what really happened they engage in a coverup of what they've done which includes having to kill other people, but then they start being killed off one by one by various methods having to do with farm equipment. Each time, before they're killed they see a scarecrow that's been planted in the ground nearby. The retarded man has risen from the grave, still clad in the costume of a scarecrow and is taking his revenge. In the end, after killing the last man, he is greeted by the little girl who is happy to have her friend back, and in his scary scarecrow costume he gently hands her a flower. Great stuff for network tv! No overt blood and gore, just really solid network-approved horror. The leader of the gang that killed the guy is played by Charles Durning, and there's great acting throughout.

[kensei]

I haven't seen that movie yet. But i will get round to it.

Sorry if I put too many spoilers in there then. I should caution you about one thing- Rob Zombie's movies are done in a very raw and gritty fashion, as if really terrible things happened for real and someone was there with a camera, rather than being stylized big budget Hollywood productions. There is only one big star in it- Malcolm McDowel as Dr. Loomis. The rest of the cast being for the most part never before seen actors makes it feel all the more real. (Zombie's wife, Sheri Moon, is in many of his films and she plays Michael's mother.)

[Scorpio]

I had to think back- weren't we just discussing them on the last page? But I guess it was over a month ago.

Both of these killers were the victims of indifference from people who were supposed to be taking care of them as children. With Jason it was camp counselors, and with Michael it was his older sister. Jason's story though, despite his greater number of movies and victims over the years, was taken in a non-serious and almost cartoonish direction. He became unambiguously supernatural, killed and resurrected numerous times. He even went into outer space, and there was constant dark humor injected into the story. Michael is more grounded in reality, with only a hint that there might be something supernatural in his nature, and not a bit of humor. As I said earlier, I would have been perfectly satisfied with the ending of the first "Halloween." He's shot six times, he falls off the balcony, and when the doctor peers over the side his body is gone. Poof. Guess he really was the Boogy Man, end of story. The lower quality sequels ruined it for me.

Michael wins for me as to the more compelling character, but you really need to check out Rob Zombie's remake of "Halloween" to fully appreciate him. Five minutes is spent in the original on what made him snap. Zombie's spends 20-plus on it. Kid Michael shows classic signs of being a future serial killer. He loves his mother but she is a stripper and married to a sleazy stepfather, and he has a promiscuous older sister. He is taking out his rage over all this by torturing animals. His first kill is a bully in school who taunts him about what his mother does for a living. It's one of the most brutal things I've ever seen on screen- Michael ambushes the kid in some woods after school and beats him to death with a tree branch as the bully cries and begs for mercy. Shortly thereafter comes Halloween night. Michael's mom has to work, but she tells the sister she has to take her brother trick-or-treating. But of course she'd rather spend quality time with her boyfriend, and Michael in his clown costume is left out in the cold. He snaps. And in this version, he kills his sister, the sister's boyfriend, and his stepfather in a blood-soaked massacre that his horrified mother comes home to. Once confined to the asylum, Michael grows into a hulking monster of a man who never speaks and when presented with arts and crafts as an activity becomes obsessed with creating nothing but masks, a huge collection of various styles of masks. Until the inevitable night of his violent escape.

Explaining Michael Meyers? His own personal world dealt him nothing but bad cards. Instead of attempting to play them, he threw them back in the world's face and said screw this, I don't want to play anymore. I only want to win.

I haven't seen that movie yet. But i will get round to it.

[Scorpio]

Over-the-top gore films with a predicable plot were fun before CGI, because it was like watching a magic act, trying to figure out how it was done, and if an individual effect was convincing, even if the movie itself wasn't, it was very cool, because someone had done something good, maybe with models, maybe with trick photography, maybe with judicious editing and forced perspective, maybe with animatronics, hydraulics, make-up, props. It was fascinating.

Now it's just CGI. The answer is always CGI. It has ruined gore-fest horror films for me.

I dont like CGI in horror movies either, but i thought the CGI in the red band Evil dead trailer was used effectively to add a little atmosphere.

[Scorpio]

Horror? I think that the viewing public has become so de-sensitised to blood spurting from arteries and heads being severed in glorious colour that nobody is frightened any more.Its more a fun thing now.laugh a minute as yet another victim is decapitated,squashed or torn asunder. Its a sad indictment ,or rather indicative of the state of humanity.We havent progressed that far from the eras of the Roman Games,throwing Jews down wells and **** fighting etc.Just for fun. No harm in it ,people say,its only virtual reality,and I suppose it is.My question is why would anyone want to watch it? and why would it be classed as entertain ment?
I dont class films like Psycho ,for one, amongst that number.Hitchcock made people use their imagination ,perhaps thats too much to ask for in present times.

I don't believe horror films need to be scary to be entertaining. Seven and Silence of the lambs did not scare me, but they did engage me.

[RivkahChaya]

Over-the-top gore films with a predicable plot were fun before CGI, because it was like watching a magic act, trying to figure out how it was done, and if an individual effect was convincing, even if the movie itself wasn't, it was very cool, because someone had done something good, maybe with models, maybe with trick photography, maybe with judicious editing and forced perspective, maybe with animatronics, hydraulics, make-up, props. It was fascinating.

Now it's just CGI. The answer is always CGI. It has ruined gore-fest horror films for me.

[John Wheat]

I would say that Jason Vorhees is the better Slasher Villain. If your into Slasher films I recommend "Behind the Mask - The Rise of Leslie Vernon" It's an excellent slasher that plays on the genre's traits aka "Scream".

[Smoking Joe]

Horror? I think that the viewing public has become so de-sensitised to blood spurting from arteries and heads being severed in glorious colour that nobody is frightened any more.Its more a fun thing now.laugh a minute as yet another victim is decapitated,squashed or torn asunder. Its a sad indictment ,or rather indicative of the state of humanity.We havent progressed that far from the eras of the Roman Games,throwing Jews down wells and **** fighting etc.Just for fun. No harm in it ,people say,its only virtual reality,and I suppose it is.My question is why would anyone want to watch it? and why would it be classed as entertain ment?
I dont class films like Psycho ,for one, amongst that number.Hitchcock made people use their imagination ,perhaps thats too much to ask for in present times.

[kensei]

Who is the better Slasher villain: Jason Vorhees or Michael Myers ?.
Both are similar off course; they are both male, physically imposing, masked, and murderous.
I find Jason the more interesting of the too for some reason. Jason was the victim of indifference from those supposed to ensure his welfare and has inherited a murderous legacy from his mother.This has a kind of logic, but Michael's behavior i find more vague. Perhaps someone could explain Michael to me.

I had to think back- weren't we just discussing them on the last page? But I guess it was over a month ago.

Both of these killers were the victims of indifference from people who were supposed to be taking care of them as children. With Jason it was camp counselors, and with Michael it was his older sister. Jason's story though, despite his greater number of movies and victims over the years, was taken in a non-serious and almost cartoonish direction. He became unambiguously supernatural, killed and resurrected numerous times. He even went into outer space, and there was constant dark humor injected into the story. Michael is more grounded in reality, with only a hint that there might be something supernatural in his nature, and not a bit of humor. As I said earlier, I would have been perfectly satisfied with the ending of the first "Halloween." He's shot six times, he falls off the balcony, and when the doctor peers over the side his body is gone. Poof. Guess he really was the Boogy Man, end of story. The lower quality sequels ruined it for me.

Michael wins for me as to the more compelling character, but you really need to check out Rob Zombie's remake of "Halloween" to fully appreciate him. Five minutes is spent in the original on what made him snap. Zombie's spends 20-plus on it. Kid Michael shows classic signs of being a future serial killer. He loves his mother but she is a stripper and married to a sleazy stepfather, and he has a promiscuous older sister. He is taking out his rage over all this by torturing animals. His first kill is a bully in school who taunts him about what his mother does for a living. It's one of the most brutal things I've ever seen on screen- Michael ambushes the kid in some woods after school and beats him to death with a tree branch as the bully cries and begs for mercy. Shortly thereafter comes Halloween night. Michael's mom has to work, but she tells the sister she has to take her brother trick-or-treating. But of course she'd rather spend quality time with her boyfriend, and Michael in his clown costume is left out in the cold. He snaps. And in this version, he kills his sister, the sister's boyfriend, and his stepfather in a blood-soaked massacre that his horrified mother comes home to. Once confined to the asylum, Michael grows into a hulking monster of a man who never speaks and when presented with arts and crafts as an activity becomes obsessed with creating nothing but masks, a huge collection of various styles of masks. Until the inevitable night of his violent escape.

Explaining Michael Meyers? His own personal world dealt him nothing but bad cards. Instead of attempting to play them, he threw them back in the world's face and said screw this, I don't want to play anymore. I only want to win.

[Scorpio]

Jason V Michael

Who is the better Slasher villain: Jason Vorhees or Michael Myers ?.
Both are similar off course; they are both male, physically imposing, masked, and murderous.
I find Jason the more interesting of the too for some reason. Jason was the victim of indifference from those supposed to ensure his welfare and has inherited a murderous legacy from his mother.This has a kind of logic, but Michael's behavior i find more vague. Perhaps someone could explain Michael to me.

[John Wheat]

To Kensei

The remake of "Carrie" could be an excellent film. The casting sounds good. Lets hope the don't **** it up. Thanks for the info.

Cheers John

[Scorpio]

Ooooh, my. This reminds me to mention that there is another remake of Stephen King's "Carrie" (not the first) coming out imminently, a story about a girl whose first period ends up destroying her own life and the lives of everyone around her.

She is played this time by Chloe Grace Moretz, a teenage actress who is so good she's been called the next Jodie Foster. She made her mark in another genre I love- comic book superhero movies- in "Kick-Ass" where she played an 11-year-old pint sized and foul mouthed killing machine called Hit Girl. The sequel "Kick-Ass 2" is out this August in which she reprises the role, now a teenager. When the first one came out Chloe talked about how the foul language made her uncomfortable. Now she's saying it's not so bad, "'Cause at least I know what the words mean now." Though not the main star, she stole the show in the first one and I'm sure she will do the same in the second. After the first "Kick-Ass" she ruled as a kid vampire in the brutal horror flick "Let Me In," as a forever-young bloodsucker who must kill to live but also longs for friendship. Then she played the young daughter in the Johnny Depp "Dark Shadows" movie, which was ok but not great. Her character actually ended up being a werewolf in the end, totally out of left field, in an "Oh yeah, I'm a werewolf, let's not make a big deal out of it" kind of way. What for? Absolutely LOVED her in "Kick-Ass" and "Let Me In," not so much in "Dark Shadows" but it wasn't that bad.

And now she is the new "Carrie." It looks like a pretty straightforward retelling without much changed as far as the story, and Chloe's such a good actress that I'm sure it will be at least acceptable. What really piques my interest though is the casting of Julianne Moore as Carrie's deranged psycho-religious mother. I think that's going to be killer!

I thought Dark Shadows sucked like the Brides of Dracula. Why cant Hollywood remake a rubbish horror film and make decent job of it this time.

[kensei]

Remember those films you saw in the fifth grade about getting your period? "You may feel some slight cramping." "After a while, you will experience your period as normal, and 'that time of the month' won't feel different from any other time."

The people who make those films are the first people I'd maul.

Ooooh, my. This reminds me to mention that there is another remake of Stephen King's "Carrie" (not the first) coming out imminently, a story about a girl whose first period ends up destroying her own life and the lives of everyone around her.

She is played this time by Chloe Grace Moretz, a teenage actress who is so good she's been called the next Jodie Foster. She made her mark in another genre I love- comic book superhero movies- in "Kick-Ass" where she played an 11-year-old pint sized and foul mouthed killing machine called Hit Girl. The sequel "Kick-Ass 2" is out this August in which she reprises the role, now a teenager. When the first one came out Chloe talked about how the foul language made her uncomfortable. Now she's saying it's not so bad, "'Cause at least I know what the words mean now." Though not the main star, she stole the show in the first one and I'm sure she will do the same in the second. After the first "Kick-Ass" she ruled as a kid vampire in the brutal horror flick "Let Me In," as a forever-young bloodsucker who must kill to live but also longs for friendship. Then she played the young daughter in the Johnny Depp "Dark Shadows" movie, which was ok but not great. Her character actually ended up being a werewolf in the end, totally out of left field, in an "Oh yeah, I'm a werewolf, let's not make a big deal out of it" kind of way. What for? Absolutely LOVED her in "Kick-Ass" and "Let Me In," not so much in "Dark Shadows" but it wasn't that bad.

And now she is the new "Carrie." It looks like a pretty straightforward retelling without much changed as far as the story, and Chloe's such a good actress that I'm sure it will be at least acceptable. What really piques my interest though is the casting of Julianne Moore as Carrie's deranged psycho-religious mother. I think that's going to be killer!