Reply to Topic
or have a giant picture of Kurt Cameron's face on the poster.
(Now we're going to need a Kurt Cameron face among the celebrity emojis!)
The Exorcist (1973) vs. Poltergeist (1982)
Which heavyweight is walking out with the crown?
33 votes. You may not vote on this poll
Which, @Yoda, I recall you saying you felt horror movies in general are just less mainstream now. I can't help but feel the nadir of horror movies in the pop culture was the 90s, but even then, I don't think they really completely disappeared; however it has since rebounded. Now some of that is driven by the fact that I hear critics talking about movies, and that rebound has to do with stuff like A24 making critically-acclaimed horror films that garner... acclaim. From critics. Which is not the mainstream.
Obviously things are way more fragmented, and the economics have changed things so that our old rubrics (like "they made a lot of them, they must be a huge success!") don't really work any more. I think the Resident Evil comparison I made earlier makes the point pretty well: it is totally possible for affordable horror or sci-fi films to make a decent profit, and spurn a lot of sequels and spin-offs, without being especially well-known, without being a big part of the cultural discussion. I know, I'm really asking for it by not defining "especially well-known." It's all very hard to measure.
(again, my mind keeps going back to the choice phrase, "last gasp")
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
Why do you ask?
ALIENS was very intense. I had the privilege of watching it a few times in the theater, which allowed me to watch the audience at key moments of terror. Watching a room with hundreds of people in it all jump a foot out of their chair at exactly the same moment is something I've never forgotten. At any rate, Paxton was the comic relief. I was wondering if you liked how he offered a release from the tension, if he made you laugh, or if this was another character that didn't work for you.
Yeah, he didn't work for me because I just didn't find him funny. But even if I imagine moments I did find funny in horror films, they never made me think they were better horror films. Better films, sure, but better films at the cost of inducing less horror. I don't want to say this is totally either/or, but man, it sure feels like it is, in my case at least.
Signs is a pretty good example. I really enjoyed it (I think I saw it four times in theaters, and partially for exactly the reason you described: to see how other people reacted to it), and it cares more about building tension than basically anything else. For whatever reason, the last line of Ebert's review of the film (phrasing might be a tad off) always stuck with me: "It's still building when it ends."
Anyway. Signs has lots of moments of levity, and I like most of them. I think they make the film better...but they absolutely diffused the tension for me. Perhaps necessarily. And the film has so much excess tension that it's a better story and a better film for giving a little of it back, particularly since the thing it cares second most about is emotional catharsis. But there is absolutely a recut version of Signs somewhere in the multiverse that is much scarier and more impressive as a horror film, I think, for eschewing all that.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
ALIENS was very intense. I had the privilege of watching it a few times in the theater, which allowed me to watch the audience at key moments of terror. Watching a room with hundreds of people in it all jump a foot out of their chair at exactly the same moment is something I've never forgotten. At any rate, Paxton was the comic relief. I was wondering if you liked how he offered a release from the tension, if he made you laugh, or if this was another character that didn't work for you.
X
Favorite Movies
I thought Paxton was one of the most memorable characters. Not only was he the comic relief, but he was a cliché character from decades of past war movies - there's always one guy in the platoon who's the pessimist; the "how do I get out of this chicken shit outfit?" and the "we're all gonna die" guy. I think most people liked him (except Yoda) BECAUSE he was familiar - we felt like we knew him because we'd seen him so many times before. (And he gave voice to the thoughts most of us would have in such situation, but would be too apprehensive to say out loud.)
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
I thought Paxton was one of the most memorable characters. Not only was he the comic relief, but the was a cliche character from decades of past war movies - there's always one guy in the platoon who's the pessimist; the "how do I get out of this chicken shit outfit?" and the "we're all gonna die" guy. I think most people liked him (except Yoda) BECAUSE he was familiar - we felt like we knew him because we'd seen him so many times before. (And he gave voice to the thoughts most of us would have in such situation, but would be too apprehensive to say out loud.)
Was thinking about Poltergeist (1982) and was wondering if this was ever explained or addressed (if I'm remembering it correctly)...
I do recall others asking about this part of the plot as well.
When Tangina arrives she stresses that it's important that Carol-Anne NOT go into the light.
Obviously "the light" represents crossing over into death. If Carol-Anne were to go into the light she wouldn't just be missing, she'd be dead and her family would never see her again. The entire reason everyone is gathered at the house is to rescue Carol-Anne from the limbo she's stuck in and bring her back alive to the land of the living (and thus, AWAY from the light).
But later, during a climactic scene, Tangina is yelling for Carol-Anne to "GO INTO THE LIGHT" ... and even Carol-Anne's father realizes this is the exact opposite of what Tangina had said before. He even says something back, I think, like, "You said she should not go into the light!"
At that point there almost seems to be a bit of rebellion against Tangina since she started contradicting her own advice.
Was this ever explained in the movie or even outside the movie?
I do recall others asking about this part of the plot as well.
When Tangina arrives she stresses that it's important that Carol-Anne NOT go into the light.
Obviously "the light" represents crossing over into death. If Carol-Anne were to go into the light she wouldn't just be missing, she'd be dead and her family would never see her again. The entire reason everyone is gathered at the house is to rescue Carol-Anne from the limbo she's stuck in and bring her back alive to the land of the living (and thus, AWAY from the light).
But later, during a climactic scene, Tangina is yelling for Carol-Anne to "GO INTO THE LIGHT" ... and even Carol-Anne's father realizes this is the exact opposite of what Tangina had said before. He even says something back, I think, like, "You said she should not go into the light!"
At that point there almost seems to be a bit of rebellion against Tangina since she started contradicting her own advice.
Was this ever explained in the movie or even outside the movie?
X
Favorite Movies
Was thinking about Poltergeist (1982) and was wondering if this was ever explained or addressed (if I'm remembering it correctly)...
I do recall others asking about this part of the plot as well.
When Tangina arrives she stresses that it's important that Carol-Anne NOT go into the light.
Obviously "the light" represents crossing over into death. If Carol-Anne were to go into the light she wouldn't just be missing, she'd be dead and her family would never see her again. The entire reason everyone is gathered at the house is to rescue Carol-Anne from the limbo she's stuck in and bring her back alive to the land of the living (and thus, AWAY from the light).
But later, during a climactic scene, Tangina is yelling for Carol-Anne to "GO INTO THE LIGHT" ... and even Carol-Anne's father realizes this is the exact opposite of what Tangina had said before. He even says something back, I think, like, "You said she should not go into the light!"
At that point there almost seems to be a bit of rebellion against Tangina since she started contradicting her own advice.
Was this ever explained in the movie or even outside the movie?
I do recall others asking about this part of the plot as well.
When Tangina arrives she stresses that it's important that Carol-Anne NOT go into the light.
Obviously "the light" represents crossing over into death. If Carol-Anne were to go into the light she wouldn't just be missing, she'd be dead and her family would never see her again. The entire reason everyone is gathered at the house is to rescue Carol-Anne from the limbo she's stuck in and bring her back alive to the land of the living (and thus, AWAY from the light).
But later, during a climactic scene, Tangina is yelling for Carol-Anne to "GO INTO THE LIGHT" ... and even Carol-Anne's father realizes this is the exact opposite of what Tangina had said before. He even says something back, I think, like, "You said she should not go into the light!"
At that point there almost seems to be a bit of rebellion against Tangina since she started contradicting her own advice.
Was this ever explained in the movie or even outside the movie?
The little girl was bait in that moment, right? They were all chasing her and with her going towards the light, they were also headed towards the light.
The little girl was bait in that moment, right? They were all chasing her and with her going towards the light, they were also headed towards the light.
Was it explained at any point that you had to go into the light to get out of the light (after it had been established that going into the light was the equivalent of going over a cliff = something you couldn't come back from?)... or that this circular logic of "you have to go in to get out" stuff was all going through Tangina's head and made some sort of sense?
I recall some of the audience (on first viewing) being a bit confused and thinking that Tangina had somehow turned on the family at the point where she started to say "go into the light" (like maybe she was suddenly possesses by evil spirits and was now telling Carol-Anne to go into the light and die).
X
Favorite Movies
But if the light is death (heaven or whatever) why would anyone go toward it if they didn't want to die. How is this a strategy on Tangina's part to bring Carol-Anne back?
And yes, I think we are supposed to think that Tangina's gone rogue. We're supposed to be afraid of her.
I think the "true" idea is that she was playing chicken with the dead, with Tangina planning on Carol-Anne zigging-or-zagging at the right moment. Tangina is trying to solve the problem and get back the girl and she's tricking the ghosts.
On a side note, I am a very old man now. Not much time left myself. My wife passed a few years ago, a slow painful thing. I was there with her at the end. She was in and out, but the last thing she said to me was, "Don't go into the light. It's a trap." I've never really figured out what she meant by that, but I reckon I'll find out soon enough....
That last bit was a lie, sorry. My wife is quite alive. I heard the above bit I heard on Coast-to-Coast years ago, but I do love a ghost story. Forgive me. And if in heaven we never meet, I'll bang on the pipes for you to send up some heat.
At that moment, the primary mission task was to get the maledictions to exfil to the immaterial L-Z staging to the afterlife. Carol-Anne was an asset at that moment, a soldier, expendable. You can't make on omelet without breaking a few eggs and Tangina is willing to do what it takes to whip up omelets. Are you? ARE YOU SON!!!
And yes, I think we are supposed to think that Tangina's gone rogue. We're supposed to be afraid of her.
I think the "true" idea is that she was playing chicken with the dead, with Tangina planning on Carol-Anne zigging-or-zagging at the right moment. Tangina is trying to solve the problem and get back the girl and she's tricking the ghosts.
On a side note, I am a very old man now. Not much time left myself. My wife passed a few years ago, a slow painful thing. I was there with her at the end. She was in and out, but the last thing she said to me was, "Don't go into the light. It's a trap." I've never really figured out what she meant by that, but I reckon I'll find out soon enough....
That last bit was a lie, sorry. My wife is quite alive. I heard the above bit I heard on Coast-to-Coast years ago, but I do love a ghost story. Forgive me. And if in heaven we never meet, I'll bang on the pipes for you to send up some heat.
And yes, I think we are supposed to think that Tangina's gone rogue. We're supposed to be afraid of her.
I think the "true" idea is that she was playing chicken with the dead, with Tangina planning on Carol-Anne zigging-or-zagging at the right moment. Tangina is trying to solve the problem and get back the girl and she's tricking the ghosts.
On a side note, I am a very old man now. Not much time left myself. My wife passed a few years ago, a slow painful thing. I was there with her at the end. She was in and out, but the last thing she said to me was, "Don't go into the light. It's a trap." I've never really figured out what she meant by that, but I reckon I'll find out soon enough....
That last bit was a lie, sorry. My wife is quite alive. I heard the above bit I heard on Coast-to-Coast years ago, but I do love a ghost story. Forgive me. And if in heaven we never meet, I'll bang on the pipes for you to send up some heat.
And yes, the film did quite well at convincing us Tangina went rogue. As I said in my last post, a lot of people picked up on that, but were confused by it. So, although I love the movie, I guess I've got a small plot issue with this part - whatever Tangina's strategy that caused her to suddenly contradict herself was never made clear to the audience.
But I do feel reassured that that IS the case and not just some detail I missed or don't remember. (The big question we're left with is: was this intentional on the part of the filmmakers - they wanted endless speculation as we're engaging in here... or it was another little plot hole that no one bothered to fill in?)
As to the afterlife - I think the depiction in Defending Your Life (1991) is probably more close to accurate than most.
I always remember something a psychic said (although I consider most psychics to be conmen themselves)... and that is the afterlife is getting back exactly what you gave others on Earth by the way of treatment, feelings, compassion, etc. Which means we should all be REAL careful about how we treat others in this life.
X
Favorite Movies
I like the idea that Tangina was playing chicken with the ghosts... my problem, however, is that this was not explained in the movie.
And yes, the film did quite well at convincing us Tangina went rogue. As I said in my last post, a lot of people picked up on that, but were confused by it. So, although I love the movie, I guess I've got a small plot issue with this part - whatever Tangina's strategy that caused her to suddenly contradict herself was never made clear to the audience.
But I do feel reassured that that IS the case and not just some detail I missed or don't remember. (The big question we're left with is: was this intentional on the part of the filmmakers - they wanted endless speculation as we're engaging in here... or it was another little plot hole that no one bothered to fill in?)
As to the afterlife - I think the depiction in Defending Your Life (1991) is probably more close to accurate than most.
I always remember something a psychic said (although I consider most psychics to be conmen themselves)... and that is the afterlife is getting back exactly what you gave others on Earth by the way of treatment, feelings, compassion, etc. Which means we should all be REAL careful about how we treat others in this life.
And yes, the film did quite well at convincing us Tangina went rogue. As I said in my last post, a lot of people picked up on that, but were confused by it. So, although I love the movie, I guess I've got a small plot issue with this part - whatever Tangina's strategy that caused her to suddenly contradict herself was never made clear to the audience.
But I do feel reassured that that IS the case and not just some detail I missed or don't remember. (The big question we're left with is: was this intentional on the part of the filmmakers - they wanted endless speculation as we're engaging in here... or it was another little plot hole that no one bothered to fill in?)
As to the afterlife - I think the depiction in Defending Your Life (1991) is probably more close to accurate than most.
I always remember something a psychic said (although I consider most psychics to be conmen themselves)... and that is the afterlife is getting back exactly what you gave others on Earth by the way of treatment, feelings, compassion, etc. Which means we should all be REAL careful about how we treat others in this life.
It is a curious point. I guess they thought we'd make the preferred inference or perhaps this is one of those things that is the result of an explanatory scene winding up on the cutting room floor?