|
Post by Evil Dave on Sept 22, 2007 6:40:38 GMT -5
lol, you're assuming that I "buy" Jamie Lee Curtis as a bookworm, which I don't. Which is one of the many ignored flaws in the film. Most people that like this movie only like it, because they've had it beaten into their skull that they're supposed to.
|
|
|
Post by lazario on Sept 22, 2007 7:11:12 GMT -5
What about her performance didn't you buy?
And Halloween is an excellent film. Not because anyone says it is, though much of what critics, historians, and fans have pointed out is very much true. It's also one of the best films of its' type in the genre. If you don't agree, you favor another basic style. That's it. Maybe you like 'em gorier, grittier, whatever. But that is personal taste. And nothing more.
|
|
|
Post by Evil Dave on Sept 22, 2007 7:34:15 GMT -5
Gore has nothing to do with it.
|
|
|
Post by lazario on Sept 22, 2007 7:36:50 GMT -5
Um, okay. So WHAT does? Do you talk just to hear yourself say something???
|
|
|
Post by Evil Dave on Sept 22, 2007 7:49:14 GMT -5
I've explained my reasons for not giving Halloween high marks several times on this site. I don't feel the need to go over them yet again.
|
|
|
Post by lazario on Sept 22, 2007 7:50:45 GMT -5
Halloween deserves high marks. It's one of the best horror movies of the 1970's. One of the 2 best!
|
|
|
Post by Evil Dave on Sept 22, 2007 8:06:18 GMT -5
Not in my opinion. Top 10 at best.
|
|
|
Post by lazario on Sept 22, 2007 8:09:20 GMT -5
What else would be in that Top 10?
I definitely think Halloween is better than Dawn of the Dead, though. Dawn is stiff in many regards, and Halloween's music was much spookier and moody. Also, none of the actors in Dawn were as good as Donald Pleasence.
|
|
lowkey
SERIAL KILLER
Posts: 574
|
Post by lowkey on Sept 22, 2007 23:51:21 GMT -5
I definitely think Halloween is better than Dawn of the Dead, though. I'm not going to stand here and listen to this kind of filthy, vulgar talk. Anyway getting back to Burns, her performance was effected a lot by the conditions she was working under. The scene in the gas station where she was having the complete emotional breakdown was supposedly real. Hooper refused to stop filming, and she's always said that she won't ever forgive him for it. Had Curtis been working under such horrid conditions too, her performance might have been as realistic.
|
|
|
Post by Evil Dave on Sept 23, 2007 2:54:31 GMT -5
My top horror flicks from the 70's (in no particular order):
- Suspiria
- The Omen
- The Texas Chainsaw Massacre
- The Exorcist
- Black Christmas
- The Last House on the Left
- The Hills Have Eyes
- Dawn of the Dead
- Alice, Sweet Alice (aka Communion)
- Halloween
- Jaws
**Not sure exactly where Halloween would rank, but now that I've written them out, I'm positive it wouldn't make my top 5.
|
|
|
Post by tsmooth31 on Sept 23, 2007 3:11:25 GMT -5
the hills have eyes has gotta be top 5 for me..i expected it to be crap and was pretty shocked at how much i liked it..
most underated movie from the 70's is messiah of evil..the atmosphere was amazing and it made for some great scenes
|
|
|
Post by lazario on Sept 23, 2007 7:16:36 GMT -5
getting back to Burns, her performance was effected a lot by the conditions she was working under. The scene in the gas station where she was having the complete emotional breakdown was supposedly real. Hooper refused to stop filming, and she's always said that she won't ever forgive him for it. Had Curtis been working under such horrid conditions too, her performance might have been as realistic. Thank you. Both movies were made differently for different effect. Comparing one to the other in those terms, insisting Halloween should be more like The Texas Chainsaw Massacre... just plain offensive! And anyone who insists Dawn of the Dead is better than Halloween merely prefers zombie flicks to slasher flicks. But Halloween is just better. Like I said, it's scarier, has better music, and there's no one in Dawn who's as good an actor as Donald Pleasence. This one's certainly freaky when you consider everyone's preciousness about child raising and all that... but this is not better than Halloween. It's stiff as a rail, overlong, and very boring. And it's not one of a kind, unlike Halloween. I've yet to compose my own 10 best of the '70s, but this wouldn't even make the top 10. Not even close, actually. It has some classic scenes, obviously, but in putting them together, they got a movie that's not as good as people think it is. It's serviceable, but no masterpiece. Good, but not a masterpiece. This is another one that wouldn't make my top 10. But it is better than The Omen. Good for it's type and definitely better than a lot of people give it credit for thanks to the godawful remake... but not good enough to be one of the 10 best of the '70s!
|
|
|
Post by Evil Dave on Sept 23, 2007 7:22:47 GMT -5
Who said anything about a top 10? I just listed my favorite horror films from the 70's. I didn't even count or rank them, I just listed them.
|
|
|
Post by lazario on Sept 23, 2007 7:29:42 GMT -5
Actually, you did. It's the post right in the middle of this page.
Just for your information. This is not an insult.
|
|
|
Post by Evil Dave on Sept 23, 2007 7:39:36 GMT -5
You said Halloween would be in the top 2. I responded saying I didn't think it'd be in the top 10. I never said anything about making a top 10 list. But I guess we're playing symantics now, and that's just dumb for everybody.
|
|
|
Post by lazario on Sept 23, 2007 8:06:14 GMT -5
I'm not trying to compete, if that's what you think.
|
|
|
Post by Evil Dave on Sept 23, 2007 8:13:55 GMT -5
In this case, no I don't think that.
|
|
|
Post by lazario on Sept 23, 2007 8:36:05 GMT -5
My top 10 would probably change quite a bit, but I really think Halloween, The Exorcist, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Carrie, Suspiria are obvious picks. So, that's 5. Dawn of the Dead is a great film, but because it has always been cut into so many different versions, it can never be a full masterpiece. Besides, I think that the additional dialogue in the Extended Version adds a great deal. And then the extra footage in the action scenes from European version (the first 3 chapters on the Anchor Bay DVD are longer than on both the U.S. Theatrical and Extended versions) is important too, since the film isn't all that gory. But I'd say it's probably still on the top 10.
That's 6.
What's the Matter with Helen? (1970) - only saw it once, but it absolutely blew me away. That's not easy to do! Squirm didn't blow me away, just pleasently surprised me.
The Last House on the Left (1972) - powerful and smart, about more than just torture and sleaze. It makes a statement.
Deep Red (1975) - beyond a giallo. In fact, one could argue Argento's movies weren't really giallos (though I obviously don't know very about about that that is) since Bava kind of mastered that subgenre and his movies were always about someone killing for Money. Money and some kind of conspiracy was always involved. Argento's films are just about psycho killers. This one is masterful because it changed the format of the standard psychological thriller-horror film. Not only is there a little bit of gore and impeccably stylized death scenes, but there are downright genius unnatural (to this subgenre) elements- a child's song, a creepy looking doll, that great moment with the psychic with the music highlighting how bizarre it is ("You! Have killed... and you will kill again..."), disorienting and strange closeups.
After that... I'd say it comes down to Deranged (1972) or Piranha (1978). And with that score... I'm gonna have to go with Piranha. And the viciousness. And the brilliance of the script / screenplay. And Barbara Steele.
So that's 10:
Halloween (1978) The Exorcist (1973) The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974) Carrie (1976) Suspiria (1977) Dawn of the Dead (1978) The Last House on the Left (1972) Piranha (1978) Deep Red (1975) and What's the Matter with Helen? (1970)
in that basic order.
|
|
lowkey
SERIAL KILLER
Posts: 574
|
Post by lowkey on Sept 23, 2007 23:21:55 GMT -5
A lot of people view TCM as a Slasher, or at least the foundation for the genre. The latter might be somewhat true, but it's definitely not a slasher. I agree that they really can't be compared, at least not as slasher vs slasher. If I were going to label it a slasher, I'd have to say TCM fails miserably, because it just lacks the elements of a good slasher.
Guilty. I did grow up on slashers though. They were the fisrt horror movies I really loved. I didn't like b&w stuff, or silent films until I grew up though. Night was one of the few exceptions.
Halloween is scarier, but it's supposed to be. It's one of the few movies I do find scary actually.
Night and Dawn were meant to be social commentary. Dawn was intentionally satirical. Argento as executive producer of Dawn reserved the right to handle the European distribution, which is why we have the very different(inferior imo) European cut. Romero says that he just never understood the movie, and what it was supposed to be.
You're also right, the actors weren't as good as Pleasence either. The difference is that Pleasence was a professional actor, and the cast of Dawn were local amateurs.
You do have to give Romero credit here. Most low-budget, indies cast pretty much anyone. A lot of times it's the friends and relatives of the director or something, and they completely suck. Romero has always taken care to hire people who actually have talent. They may not be A-list material, but they are usually above average.
Romero considers the theatrical cut to be his director's cut. The extended cut was leaked before he had finished editing it, and he's never approved of it. Personally I prefer the extended cut. There's a bootleg German cut that combines the theatrical, extended, and European cut(with a running time of 156 minutes). I've never seen it--it's dubbed in German--but it seems to be hated more than liked by fans.
|
|
|
Post by lazario on Sept 24, 2007 4:34:23 GMT -5
I forgot, there's more dialogue in the beginning of the movie in the European version. In the TV station scene, on the rooftop of the apartment housing place, and in the basement. So what I do whenever I watch the movie, is I put in the European DVD, watch the first 3 chapters, switch over to the Extended version for chapters 4 through... 20 I think. Then I switch over to the Theatrical version for that scene with Stephen coming out of the elevator as a zombie, because that has the perfect music cue. But then, there's yet another scene in that ending that's longer in the Extended version, so after that chapter (either 21 or 22, I think), I have to put the Extended version disc back in. Then for the last chapter, pop that out and put the Theatrical version disc back in because it's the only one that has the big bell sound at the end of the movie, even though it's the same end credits sequence as the Extended version...
It's a messy way to watch the movie and there should really be 1 version that unites all these pieces, because it honestly is the best way to watch the movie. I'm with the director when they want their movies to always be in widescreen. I support that. But, when he can't even keep track of what pieces are in what version... I don't even think rabid fans of the Extended version would be able to tell that they made the opening longer and changed 2 of the end sound / music cues. And if they did, they'd like it the way I propose it. I can pretty much guarantee it. Since I doubt there are any rabid fans of the Extended version. I just prefer all the extra story stuff they shot for it. I've seen the Extended version with people and they really respond to all the extra character work in it. And to me, spending more time with people makes the situations they get in scarier, more dooming.
|
|