The Horror List Discussion and Suggestions (Genre Project)

[domino harvey]

I meant that the Prowler lingers on the deaths in terms of dragging them out and soaking up all the gristly details-- they're very gratuitous, even for this genre! And yes, you can tell the difference between this and a lesser slasher, and no, no one should really bother to dig anywhere near as deep as I have to confirm

Always glad to welcome a new member to the smallest club on earth, the Texas Chainsaw Massacre: the Next Generation Is a Good Movie club (I'm still sole member of the It's Better Than the Original club, I imagine)

[therewillbeblus]

I meant that the Prowler lingers on the deaths in terms of dragging them out and soaking up all the gristly details-- they're very gratuitous, even for this genre!

That they are, the rake is really used to its full potential!

Always glad to welcome a new member to the smallest club on earth, the Texas Chainsaw Massacre: the Next Generation Is a Good Movie club (I'm still sole member of the It's Better Than the Original club, I imagine)

I don't know if I can make the jump that it's better than the original, but I've also developed a love for that movie built around its use of grindhouse filmmaking to cut at the audience in ways I feel have been unmatched in their violence towards the viewer. This one almost reminds me of a Happy Death Day 2U situation where they just went haywire in a bunch of different directions with the same basic structure. Even if it was missing the form that sold me on the first, the actual demonstration of the deranged content is so inspired and undisciplined it gives it a run for its money on creativity and atmosphere alone. Basically I could see myself joining that club over time with more viewings, which is strong praise considering how locked I feel about the first.

[Mr Sausage]

That's fair.

I really should have said loved since I do like the Freddie Francis directed one and AD has some silly fun to it. The rest mostly blur together for me while the first kind of just bores me. I much prefer the Frankenstein films, but that again might just be chalked up to finding Cushing a more effective performer. To be fair he actually was allowed to play a character in those films while most of the time Lee just had to say boo.

Part of the fun of the Hammer Frankensteins is tracking the modulations in the character across them, from ruthless and amoral, to self-absorbed, to kindly but abstract, to pure evil, to exhausted and worn out. Following the reboot of Evil you can't even be sure it's the same character from film to film, which has the happy effect of allowing Cushing to change his performance and add a variety poor Lee was hardly allowed in his Draculas.

[knives]

Yep. Good summary of why I prefer them.

[therewillbeblus]

With only about two months left in this project, I'm going to devote my time to cramming in as many revisits as possible, but I'd like to put in a word for the films on my list that I expect will be orphaned either because people have not seen them, don't have access, or they don't qualify them as horror:

Benilde or the Virgin Mother

Under the Sun of Satan

La vie lointaine

All of these are surely up for debate, but I can't recommend each highly enough as films themselves, let alone prime examples of capturing the debilitating instability we experience from mystery that defies our logical gravity to any clarity in life. These function a similar way as demonlover does for me, at least the first two, and serve as the opposite reaction to said mysteries that something like The Young Pope comes at with more warmth and optimism while validating this discomfort without surrendering into horror.

[DarkImbecile]

Dracula (Tod Browning, 1931)
... One wonders if there was anyone actually directing the thing. Freund’s camerawork is beautiful, its movements so smooth and appropriate that you almost don’t register you’re seeing them from 1931. But the blocking is so bad. The film’s origin as a stage production can’t explain it as the blocking isn’t even terribly good stage blocking: characters cramped around each other, half the time with their backs to the audience/camera. And then there’s the weird production errors, like light blockers left attached to lamps, as though the camera position were changed at the last minute without anyone bothering to change anything else.

I think the sloppiness and basic nature of so much of the movie serves in a roundabout way to make the shots that do work so much more effective; I'm thinking in particular of a couple of scenes with Lugosi in the castle and with Renfield. It's jarring and unsettling after all the conventionally shot and boringly staged scenes in the study when we get the camera drifting down to the level of the unconscious maid as Dwight Frye crawls across the floor toward her making that straining 'laugh'. To your point, there's a lot about this film that doesn't work, but the elements that do work are so effective that it remains one of the key depictions of this character.

[bottled spider]

Since it appears to be little discussed on the forum, I'll put in a word for Brandon Cronenberg's Antiviral. It's very noir in atmosphere and plot, and futuristic -- so a bit like William Gibson or Philip K Dick, although it was written from scratch by Cronenberg. Quite yucky. But, like, artistic yucky. All Christmassy with white walls and red blood. (Fun fact: this movie contains no profanity, according to the IMDb content advisory).

[therewillbeblus]

The Exorcist: I hadn’t seen this in at least a decade, and while the deliberate pacing was more rewarding this time, the film ultimately didn’t hold up as well as I remembered. The Linda Blair stuff is still impressively conceived in its perversity, but it’s the narrative flexibility to ruminate in the space of a priest’s needs and emotional sensitivities, as well as the empathy and genuineness in helping others that makes this film good. It reminded me a bit of Bresson’s Diary of a Country Priest in that portrayal of a religious figure who is struggling but still willing to help, however it still struggles to do much with this potential beyond some fleeting moments. Overall a disappointment that was a lock for my list and now won’t find a spot.

Doppelganger: Kurosawa continues his genre-defying track record in experimentation with mood as this turns into more of a comic fantasy. The initial encounter is quite creepy especially after hearing the story second hand in a previous scene, with unprecedented application to this character who at this point isn’t even identified as the protagonist. Differentiating itself a bit from other sources on the subject like the Dostoevsky, this double isn’t treated as solely a threat that assaults one’s sense of identity or existential needs, but one that resembles another part within him that he’s more curious about exploring than afraid of. It’s an intelligent use of a parts-based therapeutic modality like IFS in externalizing the newer ‘part,’ which is extra meta since that’s a crucial part of the intervention process in these types of theories. The playful exchanges are very funny, especially as someone who engages in this kind of work often and grew up around it embedded in my parents’ teaching style, so not only is it familiar but hilariously on the nose in exposing the more eye-rolling aspects as well as bringing a sensitivity to the validation and ‘seek to understand’ portions many will probably overlook. This is all expertly captured by Kurosawa who is generally interested in treating this process with compassion as an extension of his care for his characters, while exploiting its absurdity in a respectful manner. Nothing is too deep though, and this is one of his most digestible works, as well as one of the best I’ve seen. I don’t think I’d call it a horror though..

[knives]

Evil Dead (dir. Alvarez)
I don't think Alvarez pairs his humour and cruelty as well here as in Don't Breathe, but this is definitely one of the most disgusting films I've seen in a long while. It gives a surprising amount of exposition at first, but fortunately drops that in favour of gross out gag after gross out gag. Though by having that exposition in the way he does Alvarez further confirms for me that he is something of a horror Almodovar. Like Tie Me Up, Tie Me Down the film plays like it is a metaphor for an accepted thing (marriage there, going cold turkey here) where the idea of doing a metaphor becomes an absurdity onto itself. Though it's not as good as that movie about being more than its grossest parts.

Happy Death Day 2 U (dir. Landon)
This is such a wonderfully inspired choice for a sequel. It basically takes the bones of the original film and turns it into a Joseph Kahn feature expanding the roles of various characters into a weird soup of likable something. I'd say this is an even better film if not for the fact that it would be totally incoherent without having first seen the first.

Trick 'r Treat (dir. Dougherty)
This is a ton of uncomplex horror fun. The Dylan Baker segment is the best because it plays off of Happiness for laughs and tension. The whole film actually is in a conversation with its genre and audience expectations in a way that keeps things intellectually engaging even as the primary goal seems to be how to have fun with the set ups. We get the punch line to a lot of scares before the set up for example. The film also balances a lot of different emotional registers that intimate a traditional narrative in this mix of short stories.

In the Mouth of Madness (dir. Carpenter)
Carpenter in apocalyptic mode really works for me. It's hard to give a cognizant argument on the film's merits because I was just so terrified the whole time. There's a few cheesy moments spread throughout, but that seems in good imitation of the New England horror that is the film's jumping off point. It also seems to make the tension all the more effective and strange. When David Warner is supposed to be your figure of sensibility you know you're in for a wild ride.

[therewillbeblus]

Evil Dead (dir. Alvarez)
I don't think Alvarez pairs his humour and cruelty as well here as in Don't Breathe, but this is definitely one of the most disgusting films I've seen in a long while. It gives a surprising amount of exposition at first, but fortunately drops that in favour of gross out gag after gross out gag. Though by having that exposition in the way he does Alvarez further confirms for me that he is something of a horror Almodovar. Like Tie Me Up, Tie Me Down the film plays like it is a metaphor for an accepted thing (marriage there, going cold turkey here) where the idea of doing a metaphor becomes an absurdity onto itself. Though it's not as good as that movie about being more than its grossest parts.

I didn't love Alvarez's film but I appreciated his audacity to go full-force in the opposite direction as Raimi, and didn't think of it along the lines as metaphor-for-withdrawal, but man does that make this movie so much better to think of it that way! Where the difference lies I think is that in the Almodovar it's twisted into cheeky and disturbing relationship dynamics that disrupts our own comfort with imbuing empathy into a socially unacceptable situation that mirrors the familiar in another way we don't want to confront, but here it's externalized completely into that rancid physical horror as manifestations for the experience of not only the addict withdrawing but the hostages/supports along for the ride, while also resembling the suffocating elephants in the room of harm/resentment and painful history for both the affected and addict as monsters, and perhaps even the stigma and shame as well. Great comparison as usual.

Happy Death Day 2 U (dir. Landon)
This is such a wonderfully inspired choice for a sequel. It basically takes the bones of the original film and turns it into a Joseph Kahn feature expanding the roles of various characters into a weird soup of likable something. I'd say this is an even better film if not for the fact that it would be totally incoherent without having first seen the first.

I also liked the second one more though I still struggle on landing on a decision for it to be horror, even if it undoubtedly has some even more clearly defined setpieces. I saw Detention after this, but you were right to qualify them as synonymous in that thread, which is a huge compliment given how undefinable and original both films are. If this doesn't make my horror list it will surely be in the upper tiers of my sci-fi one down the line.

[knives]

We really should do a sci-fi list some day for sure. There are a ton of fun '50s films that would be good to chat about.

[therewillbeblus]

We really should do a sci-fi list some day for sure. There are a ton of fun '50s films that would be good to chat about.

Coming in August

[knives]

Small yay as I force everyone to to watch the works of Antonio Margheriti.

[Mr Sausage]

Small yay as I force everyone to to watch the works of Antonio Margheriti.

Everyone’s favourite Bava imitator.

[knives]

Poor Riccardo Freda.

[Mr Sausage]

Poor Riccardo Freda.

Everyone’s favourite Bava collaborator?

In all seriousness, Margheriti and Freda both directed two terrific Italian horrors: The Miniskirt Murders by the former is one of the rare giallos to be coherent and have a surprising twist, on top of being a lot of fun The latter’s Horrible Doctor Hitchcock is a terrific slice of 60s perversion and grande guignol insanity. Both ought to be watched for the project.

[knives]

I firmly agree. Italian horror of that vintage works incredibly well for me since it seems to be taking the Corman films as a jumping off point while ramping up some of the painterly qualities. Freda's The Ghost is definitely one of my formative movies with a vicious Barbara Steele performance.

[DarkImbecile]

With only about two months left in this project, I'm going to devote my time to cramming in as many revisits as possible, but I'd like to put in a word for the films on my list that I expect will be orphaned either because people have not seen them, don't have access, or they don't qualify them as horror...

I'm not sure I have any pre-2000s picks that wouldn't be widely considered already (except maybe John Carpenter's Prince of Darkness, which in a different, less Lovecraftian way nicely hits a lot of the apocalyptic notes knives appreciated from In the Mouth of Madness) so here are three films from the last few years I enjoyed that haven't been discussed as much (only two of which are likely to make my list, but all of which are worth a watch):

Raw (Julia Ducournau) — Delightfully gruesome, trenchant commentary on sexuality and siblings, and one of the better closing shots of last decade.

1922 (Zak Hilditch) — This isn't a great movie (and in contrast to Raw has a disappointing final shot one has to overlook), but there's enough rural atmosphere, morbid imagery, and a surprisingly good lead performance for Thomas Jane to push it over the exceedingly low bar of entry into the list of best Stephen King adaptations. Easy to catch on Netflix for those who have assimilated, worthy of 100 minutes for genre/King fans who haven't yet seen it, and still a possibility for a spot toward the bottom of my list.

And since twbb has shown a particular willingness to bend the boundaries of the genre, let me throw out a recent one I quit liked and which I go back and forth on regarding its appropriateness for this genre list: Michael Pearce's Beast definitely has some horror elements, though it may ultimately be more of a romantic thriller packed with style and imagery, along with a very good early performance from the burgeoning star Jessie Buckley (nudge, nudge: if anyone sees it and wants to comment, I'd love for it to be in that linked Films of 2018 thread, as I've been waiting two years for a third post to justify splitting it off into its own thread!).

[knives]

Prince of Darkness isn't my favorite Carpenter because it probably errs a little too much on the side of goofy, but it undoubtedly has the scariest scene of his career. It's definitely a must see for fans of the genre.

[therewillbeblus]

Raw (Julia Ducournau) — Delightfully gruesome, trenchant commentary on sexuality and siblings, and one of the better closing shots of last decade.

This is easily making my list (I agree on the closing shot, as well as the wonderfully comic final line). I struggle to write anything substantial about it since the commentary has already been touched on enough, though I do think the female perspective on a subgenre that has been dominated by men, like everything really, is extra welcome here because of the messy nature of puberty's physicality and adolescent social pressure for women just as much if not moreso than men, which makes the idea of body horror even more fitting along lines that often remain hidden rather than the male experience which is for some reason more acceptable and public. It's also just expertly crafted and even on a level of pure style it would make my list. I think it's among the best of the modern quality-horror resurgence that have punctured the public's eye in the indie scene.

And since twbb has shown a particular willingness to bend the boundaries of the genre, let me throw out a recent one I quit liked and which I go back and forth on regarding its appropriateness for this genre list: Michael Pearce's Beast definitely has some horror elements, though it may ultimately be more of a romantic thriller packed with style and imagery, along with a very good early performance from the burgeoning star Jessie Buckley (nudge, nudge: if anyone sees it and wants to comment, I'd love for it to be in that linked Films of 2018 thread, as I've been waiting two years for a third post to justify splitting it off into its own thread!).

I only had to read your line on a Thoroughbreds comparison to be sold here, though what really piques my interest is how this will "bend the boundaries of the genre." I'd offer one of my own as a swapie (or demonlover and Vox Lux as more accessible swapsies, the former of which will find a home here even if it's still stretching things a bit, while the latter certainly will not), but since Beast is already waiting for me at the library, I can't really wager much motivation than to suggest it'll be fun.

[Mr Sausage]

Prince of Darkness, like The Devil Rides Out, is an object lesson in how to successfully treat something utterly goofy with absolute seriousness.

By the way, knives, what scene are you referring to?

[knives]

It's been too long since I've seen it to give a good explanation, but I think it's the one with the mirrors set in a pitch black room right before the Alice Cooper cameo.

[swo17]

Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Next Generation: Alright well throw the tomatoes at me because I thought this was awesome.

I just watched this too and liked it (especially McConaughey, and the ending) though I'm a little surprised domino liked one and not the other because to me they were kind of the same movie except for the latter starring two of our social betters. (Or maybe I just answered my own question?) I was also surprised to learn that Kim Henkel was not some no-name female director but rather the guy that wrote the original film! Having recently been reminded of Blatty's Exorcist film, I'm kind of fascinated by this idea of a writer for the first film in an iconic series returning to direct one of its sequels. Are there any other good examples of this phenomenon?

[therewillbeblus]

I think that they are basically the same film in content and exaggeration but the way they’re filmed is different, with the first really using that grind house style to assault us, and this takes the cheesy and insane parts of the first and transforms them into full on absurdism. Though it is puzzling to me why anyone would cite one as far better or worse than another. As a friend of mine said, if judged inside an objective vacuum sans personal measurements of why one gets a pass vs the other, they’re about on par with each other.

[domino harvey]

Maybe my original write-up will shed some light on why I like it, swo (your half kidding guess is part of it, though not the main reason)

the Texas Chainsaw Massacre: the Next Generation (Kim Henkel 1997) As far as I know I'm the only human being alive who prefers this film to the two Tobe Hooper films which preceded it, though I caught this on cable years ago and wasn't sure if my memories would live up to reality. So, after revisiting, I can say with confidence that this is a more interesting and better film. Like Hooper's films, the movie delights in abrasiveness, but here that quality of shrill noise and clamor takes on a disturbing and inescapable patois of glorious trash. That a scuzzy film like this stars Oscar winning future A-Listers Renee Zellweger and Matthew McConaughey makes it all the more surreal. This is an unrelentingly negative movie-- at one point Zellweger is trying to be defiantly brave in the face of overwhelming odds against her and McConaughey just starts spitting on her before grabbing a can of lighter fluid and setting her unconscious friend on fire in front of her. It's a perfect summation of this film, which is the living embodiment of that famous Godard summation: a film found in a garbage dump. There are no outward positive traits, and yet its consistency of tone, its ability to hold the vile nature of its execution sustainably for the non-stop last two-thirds of this film left me impressed once again. I can respect a film that doesn't half-ass its shocks and distasteful aspects but instead goes whole-hog head-first into total abandon. So, I guess what I'm saying is, I agree with the rest of the world that this film is trash. I just don't mean it derisively.