The most important horror movies ever made?
Dug Weir
gore movie.
Dug
--
The Gentleman Adventurer
ForceBerg
most influence on the genre!
--
/ ForceBerg
"Strangers find me strange, but those who are not find me even stranger"
--
Rev. Evil Ed
"ForceBerg" <mrga...@geocities.com> wrote:
> could you please tell me (with a motivation) which horrormovies have
> had most influence on the genre!
Dead and Buried
Motel Hell
THE NECRO FILES
--
Rev. Evil Ed (evi...@waste.org)
"I am a humanist, which means, in part, that I have
tried to behave decently without any expectation of
rewards or punishments after I'm dead."
-Kurt Vonnegut
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Legion
>Motel Hell
>THE NECRO FILES
You obviously aren't a horror fan...you forgot the ever important HALLOWEEN 6
(Producer's Cut, of course).
Childof80s
HALLOWEEN
FRIDAY THE 13TH (although the quality of the film is definitely subpar--hey,
don't get me wrong, I still love it--it was undoubtedly influential)
THE EXORCIST
A lot of Bava films, especially BLACK SUNDAY and BLOOD AND BLACK LACE...so many
others
Ben
"I guess there's just two kinds of people Miss Sandstone, my kind of people,
and assholes...its rather obvious which category you fit in to."-Connie Marble
(Pink Flamingos)
danyuld
on the slasher genre, this little known canadian film by director Bob Clark
of Porkys fame .. remains a classic in my library and gets pulled every
christamas eve as part of my ritual..lol
check it out its very creepy and one of the best films ever made
danyuld
Childof80s <child...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000502182109...@ng-bg1.aol.com...
Lynch4ever
>most influence on the genre!
Maybe it's just me, but I've never thought of horror movies as being
particularly important. Doesn't keep me from enjoying them, though.
jason
Albert Conklin
Halloween
Friday the 13th
The Exorcist
Al
Litchick66
If you read the question again you'll find the poster asking which films were
important *to the genre* and not just "important" in general. Whether or not
you find horror films of any importance is not the issue.....I believe the
question was intended to elicit what people felt were films that contributed to
the particular genre. In response to that question, I'd have to offer the
following (in no particular order):
The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari
Metropolis
Der Golem
M
Svengali
The Exorcist
Frankenstein and Bride of Frankenstein (Mr. Whale's versions)
Nosferatu
Psycho
The Birds
Jaws
Black Christmas
Bluebeard (The John Carradine version)
Invasion of the Body Snatchers
Phantom of the Opera
There are probably more, but I can't think of them right now.
[This space reserved for new signature file...
when I think of one.]
Charli
Litchick66
>following (in no particular order):
>
YIKES! I forgot Bava's _Black Sunday_, one of my all-time favorites!!
PJ
had
> most influence on the genre!
I'll throw in a few that I consider essential.
The Lon Chaney Phantom of the Opera
James Whale's Frankenstein and Bride of Frankenstein
Todd Browning's Dracula
These three not only tapped into the literary genre and brought it
most dramatically to the screen but left an aesthetic stamp on how
these stories would be told for decades to come. Technical elements
like lighting, make up (all three feature prosthetics to some degree),
pacing, cinematography etc made progress in these films.
Night of the Living Dead
The indy to beat the lot! Not only made with extraordinary skill under
adverse conditions but highly original when it only had to be midly
effective. This film is a testament to the power of stong ideas to
make it through.
This aspect, as much as (if not more than) the film's subject matter,
reappears in other indies onwards (Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Phantasm,
Evil Dead, God Told Me To etc etc)
This is all before we get to Romero's influence on Italian horror...
The Exorcist
A rich mix of morality and questions of faith with straight out horror.
It's influence in introducing demonic possession as a plot to the
mainstream set of a lot of cashing in (not to mention outright ripping
off) which is still resonating.
More particularly, for me anyway, The Ex was a groundbreaker in casting
off the generic marks that had long mildewed by the early 70s. It looked
more like a normal big budget drama than a horror and the editing was
frequently like an action movie's. The film can be almost unbearably
tense at times and it is this, more than the demonic outbursts, that
keeps the film's reputation above water.
Halloween
If not the first slasher then the first to stamp a style on the
sub-genre. Clear lines and near zero moral ambiguity, just the
plain exploitation of fear and a great sense of nightmare logic
(was The Shape the first monster who kept rising after being repeatedly
"killed"?). And then there's the soundtrack music.
--
PJ
PJetn...@spambedamned.slv.vic.gov.au
*******************************
FrMerrin
another:
Several silent movies, especially the German ones "Nosferatu" and "The Cabinet
of Dr Caligari".
"M" (Fritz Lang)
"Dracula" (Tod Browning)
"Frankenstein", "Bride of Frankenstein" (James Whale)
"Cat People" (Jacques Tourneur)
"Dead of Night" (Various)
"Invasion of the Bodysnatchers" (Don Siegel)
"The Curse Of Frankenstein", "Dracula" (Terence Fisher)
"Les Yeux Sans Visage" (George Franju)
"Psycho" (Alfred Hitchcock)
"Blood Feast" (H.G.Lewis)
"Night of the Living Dead" (George Romero)
"Rosemary's Baby" (Roman Polanski)
"Bay of Blood" (Mario Bava)
"Deliverance" (John Boorman)
"The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" (Tobe Hooper)
"Suspiria" (Dario Argento)
"Halloween" (John Carpenter)
"Alien" (Ridley Scott)
"Cannibal Holocaust" (Ruggero Deodata)
"Zombie" (Lucio Fulci)
"Maniac" (William Lustig)
"Videodrome" (David Cronenberg)
Mike
"Do you remember Rick Astley ?
He had a big, fat hit, it was ghastly.
He said, 'I'm never gonna give you up,
Or let you down.'
Well, I'm here to tell you that Dick's a clown."
Nick Lowe
FrMerrin
Somehow I managed to forget "The Exorcist", "Don't Look Now" and "Henry" from
that list. The brain's going, I tell you.
Dean
on Haunted Hill" (or possibly another Vincent Price flick) to those
already mentioned.
-Dean
In article <UyAP4.15767$uJ1....@nntpserver.swip.net>, "ForceBerg"
<mrga...@geocities.com> wrote:
> could you please tell me (with a motivation) which horrormovies have had
> most influence on the genre!
> --
>
Henrik Larsen
<50uugs0ri7n44g7eb...@4ax.com>...
Excellent list! I'll add a few:
"The Mask of Satan" (Mario Bava)
"Carnival of Souls" (Herk Harvey)
"The Fall of the House of Usher" and the rest of the Corman/Price/Poe
series (Roger Corman)
-Henrik
ForceBerg
movies?
--
/ ForceBerg
"Strangers find me strange, but those who are not find me even stranger"
--
ForceBerg <mrga...@geocities.com> skrev i
diskussionsgruppsmeddelandet:UyAP4.15767$uJ1....@nntpserver.swip.net...
Dr Walpurgis
> could you please tell me (with a motivation) which horrormovies have had
> most influence on the genre!
NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD. Every horror film since has shown its influence.
--
"Oh, the times we have to live in . . . TAXI!!!"
Lucio Fulci - QUELLA VILLA ACCANTO AL CIMITERO
http://www.geocities.com/hollywood/3390/
DAM
>
> "Do you remember Rick Astley ?
> He had a big, fat hit, it was ghastly.
> He said, 'I'm never gonna give you up,
> Or let you down.'
> Well, I'm here to tell you that Dick's a clown."
>
> Nick Lowe
I would also make a strong case for Frankenstein Meets The Wolfman as
being one of the most important films in the genre. It was the first
film to pit two monsters against each other. There are several other
points in this seemingly silly film's favour as being influential
covered in an excellent article in the second last Scarlet Street
magazine.
--
Cheers,
Dwight A. Macpherson
Creative Services
The Ottawa Citizen
Professor Quatermass
> >I would suggest the following as being important to the genre in one way
or
> >another:
> >
Whilst I agree wholeheartedly with the good Father with his choices, I think
as the original poster asked for important films as being films which had a
defining influence on the evolution of the genre, I would refine that list
*just* a tad:
Frankenstein (1933) - the first true horror film IMHO (I would have said
'Nosferatu, but most of the prints were ordered destroyed by Stokers Widow
at the time. Just imagine what would have happened if the film obtained a
worldwide release - Tod Browning's 'Dracula' would have looked like an
episode of Teletubbies by comparison!)
Curse of Frankenstein (1956) Horror goes colour and the blood begins to
flow!
Psycho (1960?) Horror breaks a few psychological taboos and is given
some critical respect (finally)
Night of the Living Dead/ Rosemary's Baby (both 1968). Horror goes
ballistic - gory realism on one hand and on the other, horror breaches the
'art film'. The genre hasn't been the same since NOTLD
The Exorcist - horror wins at the Oscars and shows the big studios that
there can be money and respectability in terror. The genre is no longer seen
as the recluse of the drive in!
Texas Chainsaw Massacre/ The Evil Dead - if only for the fact they were
used as whipping posts by the pro- censorship lobby in the early 80s in the
UK. The ramifications of the VRA are still being felt.
Halloween. Started the stalk 'n' slash genre which lasted well over a
decade
And unfortunately, I would have to say that one of the most defining
horror movies of the last decade:
Se7en. OK - it relied of one hell of a co- incidence, but Fincher's dark
depressing tale revolutionised the serial killer thriller genre and made
downbeat endings vogue again.
I do think that we are long overdue for a film where we can look back
and say 'yes - this was a defining moment in the evolution of horror.'
Anybody care to guess as to what the next step will be? God forbid if
anyone includes 'Scream' at this point...
The Prof
--
****************************************************************************
******
"Drink Professor?"
" I don't usually before noon..."
Forget the X Files movie - watch the Original: Quatermass and the Pit!
****************************************************************************
*****
FrMerrin <mi...@dvdtimes.co.uk> wrote in message
news:m3vugsokcbjlrk66g...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 03 May 2000 02:06:18 +0100, FrMerrin <mi...@dvdtimes.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >
> >"M" (Fritz Lang)
> >"Dracula" (Tod Browning)
> >"Frankenstein", "Bride of Frankenstein" (James Whale)
> >"Cat People" (Jacques Tourneur)
> >"Dead of Night" (Various)
> >"Invasion of the Bodysnatchers" (Don Siegel)
> >"The Curse Of Frankenstein", "Dracula" (Terence Fisher)
> >"Les Yeux Sans Visage" (George Franju)
> >"Psycho" (Alfred Hitchcock)
> >"Blood Feast" (H.G.Lewis)
> >"Night of the Living Dead" (George Romero)
> >"Rosemary's Baby" (Roman Polanski)
> >"Bay of Blood" (Mario Bava)
> >"Deliverance" (John Boorman)
> >"The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" (Tobe Hooper)
> >"Suspiria" (Dario Argento)
> >"Halloween" (John Carpenter)
> >"Alien" (Ridley Scott)
> >"Cannibal Holocaust" (Ruggero Deodata)
> >"Zombie" (Lucio Fulci)
> >"Maniac" (William Lustig)
> >"Videodrome" (David Cronenberg)
>
> Somehow I managed to forget "The Exorcist", "Don't Look Now" and "Henry"
from
> that list. The brain's going, I tell you.
>
Zeder
Bay of Blood
Watch this then Friday the 13th and you'll see why.
-----------------------------------------------
http://www.geocities.com/_deadguy_/
synthuser
> Metropolis
Lang's Metropolis?
"I have recently seen the silliest film.
I do not believe it would have been possible
to make one sillier...It gives in one eddying
concentration almost every possible foolishness,
cliche, platitude and muddlement about mechanical
progress in general, served up with a sauce of
sentimentality all it's own...I do not think
there is one single new idea, a single instant
of artistic creation..."
- HG Wells, 1927
I'm in agreement with Wells on this film.
Silly, goofy, over-rated, cliched,
simplistic and well...just plain boring.
Just curious, how is this schmaltzy tale of
the mind and heart needing the hand(snore)
a horror film, let alone one of the most
important horror films ever made???
As for silent films, I'd rather
watch Chaplin.
JMOs
Jeff Krouskop
second the "nomination" of Invasion of the Bodysnatchers(both versions with
this title were excellent, but I assume Mike was referring to the original).
This is the quintessential paranoia film, and one that manages to rise above
its political undertones and maintain its horror to this day. I still think
that the most chilling moment I've ever seen on film is the scene where
Kevin McCarthy is peering in the window of a friend's house and overhears a
man telling his wife(in horrific monotone) that he's going up to put a seed
pod in the crib with their sleeping baby. Makes me shudder just thinking
about it. The influence of this film may have been more subtle, and perhaps
isn't as strongly felt in the post-slasher era, but it still remains one of
the most important horror films of all time.
DAM
> Frankenstein (1933) - the first true horror film IMHO (I would
1931
> Curse of Frankenstein (1956) Horror goes colour and the blood begins to
> flow!
1957
> Psycho (1960?) Horror breaks a few psychological taboos and is given
> some critical respect (finally)
Correct!
Halloween. Started the stalk 'n' slash genre which lasted well over a
> decade
I would say Psycho and Peeping Tom (possibly Black Christmas) began this
lamentable trend. And maybe even 1946's The Spiral Staircase would fit
here.
> Se7en. OK - it relied of one hell of a co- incidence, but Fincher's dark
> depressing tale revolutionised the serial killer thriller genre and made
> downbeat endings vogue again.
Uses almost the same plot as The Abominable Dr. Phibes, without the
black humour.
DAM
Not even a horror film. It's pure science fiction. There are several
good scenes and wonderful art direction, but overall, rather a tough
couple of hours.
Brian Parent
Dr Walpurgis
> > Se7en. OK - it relied of one hell of a co- incidence, but Fincher's dark
> > depressing tale revolutionised the serial killer thriller genre and made
> > downbeat endings vogue again.
>
> Uses almost the same plot as The Abominable Dr. Phibes, without the black
> humour.
LOL! I never looked at it that way before, but by Jove you're right!
Dr Walpurgis
> As for silent films, I'd rather watch Chaplin.
Chaplin sucks. Hooray for Harold Lloyd! (de-de-de-de-de-de-de-deeee...)
Professor Quatermass
> Professor Quatermass wrote:
>
> > Frankenstein (1933) - the first true horror film IMHO (I would
> 1931
>
Hells bells - of course! Sorry , '33 was the Invisible Man!
>
> > Curse of Frankenstein (1956) Horror goes colour and the blood begins
to
> > flow!
>
> 1957
yep again. That's two for two. I don't know - ten years ago these dates
would be rattling out like a machine gun. Well, they say memory's the first
thing to go as you get older..
> > Psycho (1960?) Horror breaks a few psychological taboos and is given
> > some critical respect (finally)
>
> Correct!
>
yay hay!!! finally!
> Halloween. Started the stalk 'n' slash genre which lasted well over a
> > decade
>
>
> I would say Psycho and Peeping Tom (possibly Black Christmas) began this
> lamentable trend. And maybe even 1946's The Spiral Staircase would fit
> here.
>
that's true (you could also include Dementia 13 in here), but they did
not have the impact that Halloween did (6 sequels, friday the 13th parts 1 -
100 etc etc)
Without question Peeping Tom is a much better film, but could it be
called a 'defining moment in horror'? I feel that Peeping Tom is in the same
category as Carpenter's The Thing - ahead of it's time. If The Thing had
been released maybe a year or so later, It would have gotten a much wider
audience and would have had a hell of a lot more imapct that it did
(although it has garnered a massive cult reputaion over the years).
Audiences were just not ready for Peeping Tom's intense psychology or The
Things gore and tension.
Having said that, how do you account for the phenomenon of The Exorcist?
Why is that? - both films are unrelentingly nasty, very well made by a
director at the pinnacle of their career (nothing that Carpenter or Friedkin
has done since somes close IMHO), given the full treatment by major studios
wrt budget, FX and advertising. Yet The Thing tanked but the Exorcist was a
'must- see' event.
> > Se7en. OK - it relied of one hell of a co- incidence, but Fincher's
dark
> > depressing tale revolutionised the serial killer thriller genre and made
> > downbeat endings vogue again.
>
>
> Uses almost the same plot as The Abominable Dr. Phibes, without the
> black humour.
>
a bit harsh.........but fair. Can you imagine Vincent Price as John Doe?
I still think we are long overdue for an 'event' horror movie.
The Prof.
Jeff Leach292931
>"Zombie" (Lucio Fulci)
>"Maniac" (William Lustig)
>"Videodrome" (David Cronenberg)
>
>
YIPPEE!!!! Hurray for Videodrome!!! Long live the New Flesh!
Jeff Leach
"I'll kill you and I'll kill your families. And I'll do it in pieces."
Drug dealer Donatelli from "An Innocent Man"
MPRocks221
FrMerrin
>Exorsist 2: The Heritic. <grin>
There's no call for that sort of talk. It is vitally important in a tap
dancing/demonic possession/pissed Welsh actor sort of way.
FrMerrin
<Quate...@BritishRocketGroup.uk> wrote:
>Whilst I agree wholeheartedly with the good Father with his choices, I think
>as the original poster asked for important films as being films which had a
>defining influence on the evolution of the genre, I would refine that list
>*just* a tad:
I agree with all your comments, but I deliberately only chose films that I felt
influenced the genre in some serious way. So my favourites such as "E2TH" and
"The Wicker Man" didn't feature.
Litchick66
>
>> Metropolis
>
>Lang's Metropolis?
>
Yep......none other.
Litchick66
>
>I'm in agreement with Wells on this film.
>Silly, goofy, over-rated, cliched,
>simplistic and well...just plain boring.
>
>Just curious, how is this schmaltzy tale of
>the mind and heart needing the hand(snore)
>a horror film, let alone one of the most
>important horror films ever made???
>
>As for silent films, I'd rather
>watch Chaplin.
I find it important, not so much for anything cinematic as much as for its
theme, the idea of taking a soul and placing it in an inanimate object. The
concept, I think, is what makes it important for me.
Justin Kerswell
<Quate...@BritishRocketGroup.uk> writes
> Anybody care to guess as to what the next step will be? God forbid if
>anyone includes 'Scream' at this point...
>
SCREAM wouldn't be included. In-fact I'd have thought its place on this
list is pretty much unavoidable.
The original post was asking for films which had the most
"influence" on the genre. Regardless of the merits, or lack of, of
Williamson/Craven's slasher movie you can't really deny that it was
arguably the most influential horror film of the late 90's.
--
Justin Kerswell
=:-0 HYSTERIA! 0-:=
slashers! - gialli! - cheese!
http://www.south-over.demon.co.uk/
* now with 102 reviews!*
(now incl. THE RIPPER (1985) and ICED (1988))
**** news section now open! ****
"Hey Boogeyman- let's Boogie!"
Mary McDonough confronts mortal danger
with disco in MORTUARY (1981)
Justin Kerswell
@nospamhotmail.com> writes
>How was SCREAM influential? It's derivative nonsense. The only thing
>it influenced was more of the same. Sorry, but I don't see this at
>all.
...who said an influence had to be positive? ... For the record I'd
add FRIDAY THE 13TH too (even if it was influenced by Bava's BAY OF
BLOOD), as it had as much of an influence on early 80's horror as
HALLOWEEN.
Paul Hutchings
>>"influence" on the genre. Regardless of the merits, or lack of, of
>>Williamson/Craven's slasher movie you can't really deny that it was
>>arguably the most influential horror film of the late 90's.
>
>it influenced was more of the same.
If it influenced more of the same then it must have been influential,
whether you like the films or not.
--
Paul Hutchings
FrMerrin
<jus...@south-over.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <39102...@nnrp1.news.uk.psi.net>, Professor Quatermass
><Quate...@BritishRocketGroup.uk> writes
>> Anybody care to guess as to what the next step will be? God forbid if
>>anyone includes 'Scream' at this point...
>>
> ...I know this will be met with some derision but I don't see why
>SCREAM wouldn't be included. In-fact I'd have thought its place on this
>list is pretty much unavoidable.
>
> The original post was asking for films which had the most
>"influence" on the genre. Regardless of the merits, or lack of, of
>Williamson/Craven's slasher movie you can't really deny that it was
>arguably the most influential horror film of the late 90's.
I broadly agree with you, in that "Scream" influenced the commercial revival of
the sub-genre. Not a good thing perhaps, but it certainly made an impact.
Mike
FrMerrin
>On Thu, 4 May 2000 18:38:04 +0100, Justin Kerswell
><jus...@south-over.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>"influence" on the genre. Regardless of the merits, or lack of, of
>>Williamson/Craven's slasher movie you can't really deny that it was
>>arguably the most influential horror film of the late 90's.
>
>How was SCREAM influential? It's derivative nonsense. The only thing
>it influenced was more of the same.
In which case, it was influential. So you're arguing against yourself.
Mike
james Mcconnell
the faculty
urban legend
halloween h20
disturbing behaviour
and other teeny horror flicks
whether thats a good thing or a bad thing..weeeeelllll.....
jamie
--
"A child was graphically incinerated by lighting his anal wind!!"
Review of South Park The Movie by Christian Analysis of American Culture
thom <thompa...@nospamhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:gynQ4.512$A94....@news20.bellglobal.com...
> If you mean influential to the makers, then sure, it influenced them
> to churn out more. But it certainly didn't influence the horror genre
> in any way. Just the box office.
Neal Marshall Stevens
"thom" <thompa...@nospamhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:gynQ4.512$A94....@news20.bellglobal.com...
> On Thu, 04 May 2000 22:15:28 +0100, FrMerrin <mi...@dvdtimes.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 04 May 2000 19:10:13 GMT, thompa...@nospamhotmail.com (thom)
wrote:
> >
> >>On Thu, 4 May 2000 18:38:04 +0100, Justin Kerswell
> >><jus...@south-over.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >>
> >>>"influence" on the genre. Regardless of the merits, or lack of, of
> >>>Williamson/Craven's slasher movie you can't really deny that it was
> >>>arguably the most influential horror film of the late 90's.
> >>
> >>How was SCREAM influential? It's derivative nonsense. The only thing
> >>it influenced was more of the same.
> >
> >In which case, it was influential. So you're arguing against yourself.
>
> If you mean influential to the makers, then sure, it influenced them
> to churn out more. But it certainly didn't influence the horror genre
> in any way. Just the box office.
The point is, if a movie is successful and then tons more of the same get
made -- that's what makes it influential.
Not all influences are positive. After "Psycho" there were a bunch of movies
in a similar vein -- b&w movies in the early sixties with dark characters
and flashes of nasty violence. After "the Exorcist" there were a ton of
exorcist rip-offs. After "Night of the Living Dead" there were a bunch of
living-dead rip-offs.
The point is, if you were looking for a horror movie in the years following
"The Exorcist" -- the movies that you were likely to find would all, good or
bad, be movies that were influence by "The Exorcist".
That's what make those movies "influential." The genre is moving along one
trajectory -- then a movie comes out, and all of a sudden, the genre movies
being made are all moving in a different trajectory.
Where they've going recently -- post Scream, I don't think is all that
interesting. But that's because of the influence has had on the genre.
NMS
John Donaldson
(after a bunch of others posted)
<snip>
>>>How was SCREAM influential?
><snip> But it certainly didn't influence the horror genre
>in any way. Just the box office.
Um ! Not to wax on about the genres being a commercial medium or to
get into boging down this thread with the usual discussions about
defining concepts like Horror Genre, Genre, etc.
The box office is a valid measure of influence (agreed..bad influences
count as well as the good ones).
If THE EXORCIST can be included (it's negative effect on the worldwide
horror genre is well known..though I personally like the film), then
SCREAM (which I don't defend but don't hate either) fully qualifies.
Also HALOWEEN, FRIDAY THE 13th, and surely others are included for
many of the same reasons.
Curiously I've noticed that sadly lacking in the discussion is mention
of Warner Brothers DR. X (1932) and MYSTERY OF THE WAX MUSEUM (1933)
Certainly influential (there is even a Chinese copy made soon after)
but predates the mad doctor/naked girl on table with sheet film later
credited to Jesus Franco (Orloff....) or Franju (depending on your
side of that arguement).
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
John Donaldson
FrMerrin
>On Thu, 04 May 2000 22:15:28 +0100, FrMerrin <mi...@dvdtimes.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 04 May 2000 19:10:13 GMT, thompa...@nospamhotmail.com (thom) wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 4 May 2000 18:38:04 +0100, Justin Kerswell
>>><jus...@south-over.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>>"influence" on the genre. Regardless of the merits, or lack of, of
>>>>Williamson/Craven's slasher movie you can't really deny that it was
>>>>arguably the most influential horror film of the late 90's.
>>>
>>>How was SCREAM influential? It's derivative nonsense. The only thing
>>>it influenced was more of the same.
>>
>>In which case, it was influential. So you're arguing against yourself.
>
>If you mean influential to the makers, then sure, it influenced them
>to churn out more. But it certainly didn't influence the horror genre
>in any way. Just the box office.
Of course it influenced the genre. If studios are making copies of "Scream",
they're not making other horror films. It's an influence for the worse,
certainly, but it's certainly important to the non-development of the genre.
Mike
Nick Lindley
>Perhaps I haven't expressed myself clearly. All I'm trying to say is
>that to me, the labels "influential" or "important" to the genre
>should only apply to films which displayed a certain originality or
>broke new ground, neither of which can be attributed to Scream, imo.
>As far as I'm concerned, box office earnings or how many sequels/
>bastard offspring it spawned are beside the point.
How long are you going to continue contradicting yourself?
--
Nick Lindley
Neal Marshall Stevens
But in some sense, all of the great universal horror movies of the thirties
and later were "bastard offspring" of the original Bela Lugosi "Dracula" --
which was, let's face it, not such a great movie. But it was enormously
successful and thus it spawned the entire generation of Universal horror --
and inspired other studios to attempt, in isolated cases, to cash in on the
genre as well. If "Dracula" had bombed, it is doubtful that Universal would
have gone ahead with plans for other horror movies.
On that basis, there are very few movies that are, in terms of their
influence on cinema history, more important. But it's still a pretty clunky,
stage-bound movie.
"Curse of Frankenstein" then, would have to be another one. If Hammer had
made it, and it had bombed, there would be no "hammer horror" -- and yet, in
the pantheon of Hammer movies, it's certainly far from the greatest.
So you have an odd situation -- where the quality of a movie, in retrospect,
isn't necessarily closely corrolated with its importance - in the sense of
influencing the genre.
It's rather interesting, actually. In the thirties and the fifties, you had
seminal films that spawned movies in a similar mold that were often much
better than the first. It seems that, in subsequent decades, really the
opposite has proven true. There aren't really any zombie movies that have
surpassed the original NOTLD's impact. Of all the "Exorcism" films, the
original "Exorcist" is still the best, by far (at least I think so). The
same is true for "Halloween" and the whole sub-genre it inspired. "Dracula"
spawned "Frankenstein" and "Bride of Frankenstein" and "The Invisible Man"
and "The Black Cat" and "White Zombie" -- because I think a case could
strongly be made that, but for "Dracula's" initial success, those movies
wouldn't have been made. But where are the equivalent "Bride of
Frankenstein's" or "The Black Cat's" to Carpenter's "Halloween"? "Friday
the Thirteenth" and its ilk?
And yet how could you NOT say that "Halloween" was an important movie in the
genre, or that NOTLD or "The Exorcist" wasn't? All of them were good films
that engendered dozens of other films in a similar vein. But not as good.
That's the difference.
NMS
Childof80s
>on the slasher genre, >>
::smaks myself:: How could I forget BLACK CHRISTMAS!!!!!! It seems unfair to
include HALLOWEEN and leave out BC when so many of the things that made it
influential were originally in BLACK CHRISTMAS.
Ben
"I guess there's just two kinds of people Miss Sandstone, my kind of people,
and assholes...its rather obvious which category you fit in to."-Connie Marble
(Pink Flamingos)
Paolo Clara
>
> On Sat, 6 May 2000 01:12:12 +0100, "Nick Lindley"
> <Ni...@LindleyN.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >thom wrote in message ...
> >
> >>Perhaps I haven't expressed myself clearly. All I'm trying to say is
> >>that to me, the labels "influential" or "important" to the genre
> >>should only apply to films which displayed a certain originality or
> >>broke new ground, neither of which can be attributed to Scream, imo.
> >>As far as I'm concerned, box office earnings or how many sequels/
> >>bastard offspring it spawned are beside the point.
> >
> >How long are you going to continue contradicting yourself?
>
> sigh....
Qu-y mange dont de la kalisse de marde!!!!
Ken aka Skrybe
Ken aka Skrybe
"Litchick66" <litch...@aol.comNOSPAM> wrote in message
news:20000502190750...@ng-ce1.aol.com...
> >>could you please tell me (with a motivation) which horrormovies have had
> >>most influence on the genre!
> >
> >Maybe it's just me, but I've never thought of horror movies as being
> >particularly important. Doesn't keep me from enjoying them, though.
> >
>
> If you read the question again you'll find the poster asking which films
were
> important *to the genre* and not just "important" in general. Whether or
not
> you find horror films of any importance is not the issue.....I believe the
> question was intended to elicit what people felt were films that
contributed to
> the particular genre. In response to that question, I'd have to offer the
> following (in no particular order):
>
> The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari
> Metropolis
> Der Golem
> M
> Svengali
> The Exorcist
> Frankenstein and Bride of Frankenstein (Mr. Whale's versions)
> Nosferatu
> Psycho
> The Birds
> Jaws
> Black Christmas
> Bluebeard (The John Carradine version)
> Invasion of the Body Snatchers
> Phantom of the Opera
>
> There are probably more, but I can't think of them right now.
Avoid normal situations.
: Professor Quatermass wrote:
[..]
:> Psycho (1960?) Horror breaks a few psychological taboos and is given
:> some critical respect (finally)
: Correct!
Um... don't you gents remember how it was flamed out the wazoo by the
critics at the time?
--
alt.flame "things have changed a bit since then, of course, but it's truly
amazing how wildly the critical consensus on a given picture can alter"
Special Forces
"I was at Cannes a couple of years ago and I was doing interviews with the
European press and they asked me, 'How can you say the things you say and stay
in the business?' And I said, 'I'm a screenwriter. You don't know how low
that is.'" -- William Goldman