2020 Halloween Challenge

Out of curiosity, how do you feel about labeling Se7en as a horror film (and just for the record, I agree that Silence is a horror film).

I know this wasn’t directed to me, but I don’t consider Seven horror either. Both films deal with a serial killer, yes, but both focus more with the detectives pursuit of the killer rather then the act of the killings perpetrated by the antagonist.

Exactly the same.



Neither are pure horror, obviously. But I could make a really good case against most horror films that are on 'greatest ever lists' that they also aren't so pure.

To me...my personal opinion is that "thriller" is not a true genre that it splits into two paths...Action and Horror and this comes from Hitchcock



Horror - Seven, Deep Red, Silence of the Lambs
Action - Die Hard, Taken, Mission Impossible


Hitchcock

Horror - Vertigo, Rear Window, Psycho, Dial M for Murder

Action - North by Northwest, Foreign Correspondent, Torn Curtain

I hear ya and we've had this conversion recently, but even on a re-watch I did in the context of the recent Corri discussion on it, I still came away feeling like it was a Thriller and not even as much Horror as a movie like Curse Of The Cat People.

It appears we are of one mind on this topic.

We discussed this over at Corrie sometime before it shut down, so I don't know if I really have any other thoughts to add, but I'd definitely say Silence feels more like a horror film than a thriller. Hannibal Lecter and Buffalo Bill definitely scream horror more than they scream thriller, to my eyes. In regards to Se7en, it's a bit of a harder sell for me since John Doe doesn't come in until the last act, but if someone wants to classify it as such, that's fine by me. By the time it gets to the final act, I'd definitely call it a horror film.

As long as can agree the person who wrote this is an idiot, I'm satisfied with leaving the discussion at this:

__________________
IMDb
Letterboxd

I'll have more thoughts about House of Usher when I actually finish it.

For now my main thought is: man, when did filmmakers stop loving the idea of slapping a bright grape-purple filter over their images?

House of Usher, 1960 (A Roger Corman film)

Another Poe adaptation starring Vincent Price, that begins with a young man arriving at an isolated estate where a servant tries to refuse him entry. Will there be a theme of premature burial? It's deja vu all over again!

In this story Phillip arrives at the estate of his fiance, Madeline, and her brother, Roderick. Roderick tells Phillip that he cannot marry Madeline because their family, the Ushers, have a strain of madness in them. As Phillip becomes more and more insistent that Madeline leave with him (and as the house itself seems to be determined to take Phillip out), Roderick is driven to desperate means.

Overall, pretty great! Another over-the-top yet enjoyable role from Price, as a man who claims to be so sensitive to external stimuli that he cannot bear any clothing more coarse than silk, any sounds louder than a spoken voice, and food spicier than mush, and so on.

The visuals are a lot of fun, with the house having plenty of personality on its own, full of creaks and cracks, insane portraits of previous Ushers, and the occasional stewpot with a mind of its own. The colors are bright in both setting and costume. There are some great shots, such as a bloodied hand emerging from a coffin.

I suppose my only real criticism was the lack of development of Madeline's character. We are repeatedly told, but not shown, things about her. We don't really see the spark that Phillip keeps claiming she has, and neither do we really see the madness that Roderick insists is lurking inside of her. She seems to exist in almost every scene to be the rope in a game of tug-of-war between Phillip and Roderick. A part that actually made me laugh (unintentionally, I think?) was when Phillip attends to an ill Madeline in bed, tells her that she can't be controlled by Roderick, and then literally tries to spoon-feed her like an infant. What Phillip (and Roderick) call love mostly looks like control--I wish that the movie had let one or two more conversations between Madeline and Phillip breathe a bit so that we could have rooted for them as a couple. I feel that it would have added a lot of impact to several of the scenes.

And additionally,

Still, even without much character development the film's horror set pieces are effective and there's a ticking clock element that adds plenty of suspense. Phillip might not have a ton of depth, but he's well written enough that we can root for him in the final act as he goes head to head with Roderick.

A charming October film.

Always makes me chuckle that someone so sensitive decides to wear the most retina-searing red velvet, while keeping these De Kooning-looking nightmares on the walls. Maybe go with some Rothko instead, chief.

__________________
Captain's Log
My Collection

How do you like your clothes?
Soft.

How do you like your food?
Bland mush.

How do you like your color schemes?
GARISH!

Blood and Black Lace, 1964 (A Mario Bava film)

A young model named Isabelle is murdered by a mysterious, faceless killer. But when Isabelle's diary turns up, the murderer cuts a swatch of violence through the rest of the fashion house.

I'm sure this one has been seen by many in this thread. It's classic Bava, especially in the use of color (when people tell me I should love Argento . . . Bava has the effect on me that everyone seems to think Argento should have). The film feels, at times, like a graphic novel or a stage play. There's a strangeness to it that's really wonderful, especially as it is anchored by a police investigation framework, and yet the police are maybe the most incidental characters.

The kills themselves are all pretty memorable, with the gory torture and murder of the unfortunate Peggy being a standout. About two-thirds of the way through the film we are given insight into the killer that adds an emotional weight to the violence that is to come. Unlike many slashers/giallo, the film isn't interested in dime store psychology. The inside scoop on the killer is at once mundane and horrifying.

Horror often gets a bad rep for failing to land the final act. Blood and Black Lace has an incredibly satisfying and stylish finale. It's easy to see why so many films that followed felt the need to "borrow" from it.

Only downside? Just personally speaking I cannot stand adults talking in baby voices (maybe because my students sometimes think it is cute. It is not.). So the scene where one character was alternating going "Mmmmmmmmm" and baby-talking had me seriously considering the fast-forward button.

I think I'm with you, Tak.
I love a lot of what Argento does but I feel like Bava does for me what Argento is trying to do, even doing more of, but just not quite connecting with me in the same way.

I’ve been eying Blood and Black Lace for months. Finally getting to it this week.

I am really bad with titles (often thinking I have seen things that I have not or vice versa), and a few years ago I started a film called Blood and Lace that just totally failed to hook me and I was like "Why do people like this movie so much?". It was only recently that I realized it wasn't Blood and Black Lace.

I don't think there is much debate that Bava's movie's are 'better'. And by better I guess I mean they show some amount of restraint to tell their story or make their point clearly. To develop character. To acknowledge something called good taste, either in style or substance.

Argento, on the other hand, is all about audacity. To the point he's frequently willing to sabotage much of the tone or the narrative momentum he's been building. Personally I think it's wonderful to have a director give into every one of his stylistic impulses, but it does come at a cost.

That's why it's nice to live in a world where there is both Argento and Bava. Why choose one?

Argento is fine.

But I do get tired of being told (by perfectly well-meaning people) that they bet I'll just love XYZ film of his. And I totally concede that based on other things I like, I probably "should." I just don't.

Watching Bava's films it just always strikes me that THIS is the kind of visual/stylistic stuff I like, and yet it's almost never recommended to me by the same people who push Argento's stuff.

This sounds complain-y, but it's more like 90% observation and 10% complaint.

Leprechaun: Origins, 2014 (A 00s-10s Throwback/Remake/Reboot)

Look, sometimes after a few fancy steak dinners, you reach for a microwave burrito, right?

While, for legal reasons, the plot description of this film on several websites makes it clear that this film is NOT AFFILIATED WITH THE EARLIER LEPRECHAUN SERIES, the use of the word in the title and the word "origins" clearly implies that you're in for a prequel of sorts.

(EDIT: Okay, apparently this film IS a continuation of the original series. They just needed to help fans understand that all the fun parts of the original series would not be present. BAFFLING!)

Four college aged students (I mean, they are supposed to be college aged, but one of the actors is in his 30s) are on a road trip through Ireland. They end up in a small village where some locals tell one of the women, Sophie, about some historically significant stone formations and she convinces the others to stay to check them out. They are put up in a very rustic cabin by the locals, but soon realize that they've been set up as a sacrifice.

I mean, where to even begin?!

I kind of imagine the director was called in and the conversation went like this:

DIRECTOR: I'm so thrilled to be filming a new Predator movie!
PRODUCERS: You are actually making a Leprechaun film.
DIRECTOR: . . .
PRODUCERS: Why, what were you envisioning?
DIRECTOR: Well, you know, a creature with predator vision. He'll do a lot of growling and even some of that classic Predator clicking under the growls. Ooh! Also I thought that at some point he could pull out someone's spine?
PRODUCERS: So . . . Leprachaun but he's a Predator?
DIRECTOR: Yes! Also, the creature costume doesn't really . . . move. So before filming any scene with the monster, I'll need to cover the lens with Vaseline. Like, really smear it all over the place.
PRODUCERS: Sure, why not.

And while the movie is very stupid, I wish that it had been a bit more visually engaging. Almost the whole thing takes place at night, and the lighting and color design is really muddy. The characters aren't at all distinct, aside from one of the villagers who is conflicted about killing the tourists.

This is also one of those movies that really likes talking about rules and then just doesn't follow them.

Probably would be fun to watch with a group to make fun of it, but not quite "enjoyably bad" enough to recommend as a solo watch.

For me that was Blood And Roses.

Quoted for truth.

__________________
5-time MoFo Award winner.