Ill-Starred Son wrote:
I think you are misinterpreting several things I'm saying, but others we may disagree with.
Really? I did not believe I was. My intention was to further the point you had made about films needing more than just blood and gore. Perhaps if I had stated from the outset that I agreed that you would have maybe read my words in a more happy angle.
Ill-Starred Son wrote:
First off, others may have a different interpretation of what "thrillers" are, but i don't see them as action movies, I see them as sort of somewhere between horror and drama, with potential action in there.
I stated that I believed I might be too literal. I did not mean that thrillers were action movies, I meant that they are horror as a canvas but the brushes used to bring the picture to life is not usual horror aesthetic.
- In my first post of this thread I made a point that I felt The Terminator was a horror film first and I stand by that. Cameron said he wanted to emulate the works of John Carpenter and wanted to do his own take on the unstoppable killing shape, (i.e Michael Myers). So he wrote, in a big way, a Halloween type setting (that was the canvas), then he began to paint said movie mostly without a horror aesthetic, but with guns, explosions, 80s purple lasers and breakneck exposition.
- The villain is an unstoppable killing machine that exists only to kill a target.
- The villain is identified with a music score that consistently plays anytime he is on screen. The musical cue representing a beating heart.
- The main protagonist is a female. Literally the Final Girl.
- The killer is put down by the films hero, only to return to said violence with the start being a dramatic and unnatural sit up.
- The climax of the film sees the villain brought down to expected conclusion, only to reappear and continue its pursuit, despite the excessive damage taken.
- The film ends on a bleak and depressing note.
The ending where the
Terminator rises up from out of the flames of the truck was literally the germ of the franchises iconic look. That metal endoskeleton surrounded by burning flames was what James Cameron had a horrifying fever-induced nightmare of. If a person is trying to make a film out of a HORRifying image seen in a HORRifying nightmare, I believe it is safe to say he is making a HORRor film.
- Now while I have undoubtedly just described a horror film, I doubt anyone would compare its take on horror the same as Halloween. That is because while Halloween is a slow moving horror film, the Terminator is an action packed horror ride. Since I have used the analogy of a roller coaster previously, comparing Halloween and Terminator would be like comparing, respectively,
bumper cars with the
Sheikra. One is objectively more THRILLing than the other.
Ill-Starred Son wrote:
....I would call Jacobs Ladder a "thriller", and I love that movie, but some call it horror.
That is fair, I too love Jacob's Ladder. I will even admit the twist ending got me, VERY FEW films have ever shocked me with their endings but that did.
Ill-Starred Son wrote:
No, horror is supposed to be scary of course. I never used the word "fun". But it can be more "creepy" or suspenseful at times than just blood and guts. There's all different types of horror and thrillers and I love the blood and guts ones a lot of the time but i also love the ones that give you something more to think about.
I never meant to imply that you meant fun, that was more of a generalized remark mixed in with the direct response to you. I agree with you however, my two favorite horror films are, according to people here, nothing more than blood and gore, but I can just as easily enjoy a horror film with next to no blood and gore, in fact I normally prefer them.
Ill-Starred Son wrote:
Just because there's other aspects to think about doesn't mean it's not horror. ... .I also NEVER EVER said there should be zero body count.
I understand that and I never wrote that you did. I believe I even began that statement with the declaration that I might have misread your words.
Ill-Starred Son wrote:
Horror totally needs a body count. Hell, i even think thrillers do, but i'm just saying that while I often totally love the horror movies that are all about death and gore, i mean i watch them constantly, I also want something to think about and some other elements to the movie that are creepy and possibly keep me guessing as to what will happen other than only guessing how the next person will be killed.
I agree completely. I enjoy films where the director allows for the surroundings to play equal parts in the story. Something as simple as the dank feel of a room could make all the difference in a scene. I always try to praise a director for giving a great looking film but as I have stated numerous times in the movie thread, I will always prefer a film that has low production qualities but a riveting story than I would a film with thrilling blockbuster production qualities but a humdrum story.
Ill-Starred Son wrote:
Also, if you find the paranormal in movies to ALWAYS be "Brain bending stupidity marketed to brainless people for cheap jump scares and story telling that is beneath even that of Blues Clues" then we couldn't POSSIBLY disagree more as i think there are lots of BRILLIANT movies with paranormal elements that are really good and creepy.
Really? I obviously have not seen every horror film and have seen even less paranormal films but brilliant? Really? You might take offense to me comparing it to Blues Clues, however that TV show was geared towards at least teaching young children basic learning skills, it exists to make its target audience smarter, paranormal horror films have literally been working to make its target audience dumber.
- My first post here I explained why I thought the Exorcist 3 is amazing, and I will expand on that. I have always been fascinated by Crime Scene Investigation, despite being acutely aware it is not as dramatic as shown on CSI and the like. For this reason, and my youthful affinity for crime mysteries, I am a big fan of procedural stories and The Exorcist 3 is a Murder Mystery primarily, supernatural horror secondarily.
Because the mystery is so compelling it makes the supernatural scenes like
this significantly more palpable, especially when you consider that if you did not know there was a paranormal bent, you would think it was just another ruthless murder by an unknown (but real) assailant.
The scenes with Brad Dourif as the Gemini Killer are show-stealing and while I love George C. Scott, none of the "story" would have worked if it had not been a Priest possessed. Having Jason Miller reprise his role as Damien Karras and then become the embodiment of evil is just so much more brutally fascinating then if not.
- - The story of the Exorcist 3 is literally about a group of evil spirits - demons - possessing the dead body of Father Karras and trapping his soul inside so that this man of God has to watch the unspeakable evil inflicted upon the innocent by the soul of a ruthless and genius level insane serial killer.
Know what makes that movie scary to me? First, it does not belittle the audience's intelligence. Second, the characters all act like real people and make relatively smart decisions throughout. Third, the descriptions of the victims are brutal and vivid but are virtually never shown.
The way Scott describes the murder at 1:21 - 2:22 is so shocking and appalling that this film would have gotten an X rating.
But most importantly, it was that Blatty wanted the antagonist to either win or it be ambiguous. Almost every paranormal horror film I have ever seen spends more time building up its jump-scarey-way-too-obviously-evil-to-make-not-running-away-stupid villain that they forget the protagonist is who we should be seeing the story through the eyes of. Further issue this act brings is if you make your villain seemingly unstoppable you are forced to commit to laughable inanity like waiting for the dramatic music and high speed wind blowing effects so you can shout its name at it. Being that can walk through solid objects, wisdom of the millenniums, and bend space and time is then thwarted by the pesky English language? If you think I am kidding here, that is
EXACTLY how the big bad monster in The Conjuring 2 is killed off.
A film based on real events that are fascinating and one of the few examples of real life 'paranormal events' that are completely unexplained by officials who witnessed some of the occurrences. How are these moments portrayed? With laughable inanity. Valak is the name of the demon in the grimoire Lesser Key Of Solomon, where he is described as an angelically winged boy riding a two-headed dragon, attributed with the power of finding treasures. How does this 'masterpiece' of a film portray him? As a stupid ass nun.
How does the Exorcist 3 portray its demons? As ruthless pieces of havoc wreaking mayhem who could never be defeated, feel remorse, pity or fear from its enemies and simply wants to inflict as much devastating psychological damage it is possible against humans, especially since we are incapable of ever truly stopping them. THAT is how you execute a supernatural horror film, you basically forgo the happy ending and accept the nihilism of said scenario.
Ill-Starred Son wrote:
I am saying that while i love movies that have lots of blood and guts, that a lot of my favorites have more going for them than ONLY that... And I'm equally a fan of horror, thrillers and sci fi going back to the 1960s and earlier all the way up to the present... I just like my horror to ideally have some elements that get my attention other than just the blood.
I would agree with all three points, so I am not sure why this seemed like a disagreement. Both types of horror can be good or bad, I would NEVER write off a film for having too much violence, realistic or not.