Your favourite 'horror' movies?

I seem to be on the wrong side of the divide here and the crevasse is growing.

I never thought of "Unbreakable" as a science fiction film. Its theme, and the two-dimensionality of its characters, it seems to me, is a sober examination of the plausibility and possibilities of the world of adolescent fiction, aka the comic book superhero.

"Blade Runner", on the other hand....I recently viewed the director's cut on DVD and was greatly disappointed, though I was previously highly enthusiastic about this film, which I had seen in fragments only, edited for television.

I figured if you can like a film inspite of commercials, dubbed dialog, and cut scenes, the real thing must be incredible. Not so fast, mooseface.

The future depicted in the film is visually arresting, as I remembered, but the story is badly told and the performances remote and, for the most part, lacking humanity. (I guess the androids can be forgiven for that.) Despite being unmotivated by recognizable human impulses, each segment ends in a predictable splat of violence. There is a good movie in there somewhere but, in its present form, this is just a mess, powerful scenes adding up to nothing in particular.

Not really intending to be argumentative here, and I guess this is a bit off topic anyway, but that's my humble opinion. To each their own, as the saying goes.

"Blade Runner," or Philip K. Dick (the author) of course isn't everyone's cup of tea. The point of the film was a loss of humanity in a future civilization (and not that far off). The androids provided a parable and the fact that they didn't seem to be any less human than the humans was a strong sociological criticism. It also deals with life as being transitory in a very bleak manner. Hard for some to interpret. I don't find Shyamalan's films to be difficult to figure out at all -- I don't get where they are suppose to make one think about anything. They are convoluted and slightly off kilter (especially "Unbreakable"). What would you call the film but science fiction? It attempts to be sociological science fiction, which is what "Blade Runner" actually is. I wish I could appreciate the films but by the time I sat down to watch "Signs," I wasn't expecting much more than what the film provided. It may have been Gibson's deadly dull performance (a chair could have upstaged him). The films have their fascination as experiments but I'm wondering if any artist should really show their experiments. Of course, I don't wish to spoil you enjoyment of the films and I'm not saying that I enjoyed them on the surface.

Have you seen "Minority Report" and "Total Recall," the two other adaptations of Philip K. Dick's stories?

I'm not saying you're wrong either; in fact, I know your opinion on both movies is closer to the mainstream than mine, and it is, after all, only a matter of opinion either way.

Just recently saw "Minority Report"; found it to be reminiscent of "Blade Runner" stylistically, but less compelling. The film contained the twin burdens of logical flaws and Tom Cruise in the lead. "Total Recall" I liked much better, but in all cases I suspect the Dick stories are more compelling than the film adaptations...at least based on the few Dick stories I have read.

I got the message of "Blade Runner", although I would have phrased it a little differently, emphasizing the humanity of the replicants rather than the inhumanity of the humans. I just think the film has a lot of unnecessary baggage. The point is most eloquently made on the rooftop when Rutger Hauer runs down. The rest of the movie, to me, is a mix of atmosphere and cheap thrills. Far from the worst movie ever made, but also far from the best.

I don't know if you have ever been to Epinions.com, but my favorite reviewer there (Mangiotto) has an opinion about Unbreakable that expresses my sentiments pretty closely:

http://www.epinions.com/mvie-review-229A-331A5993-3A1CE092-prod3

While there, you might check out a few of Greyfan's reviews as well (shameless plug). I haven't written anything lately, but I'm thinking of taking it up again.

By the way, the Internet Movie Database classifys "Unbreakable" under Thriller, Drama, and Fantasy; nary a word about Science Fiction.

I'm not going to disagree with you about "Signs", which is a well-made one trick pony, fun while it lasts and instantly forgettable.

I found Cruise to be an asset to the film which is another matter of opinion and the logic flaws must have escaped me since all mysteries rely on circumstance and coincidence. Was it the logic of the science or the plot? It is pretty much like Phillip K. Dick wrote it.

I did find the replicants human only in their will to live and they were certainly pissed about that! I didn't find it as a thriller but rather a methodical mystery. If you are referring to scenes like the killing of the androids, did you expect them to be invited out for a drink? The scene where the snake charmer attempts to escape is cinematically exciting but I have come to expect that from Ridley Scott. The film is more highly regarded by the British.

There was once a designating of extrapolative fiction as "science fantasy," and soon that was dropped for science fiction. As there is some science involved in the premise of "Unbreakable" and I didn't find it again that much of a thriller, I'd opt for calling it science fantasy. It's also a mystery but the mystery is rather laid out on a plate early on in the film (and I had a hard time finishing the film). "Signs" I did also drag myself through and finish -- that has to be Gibson's most moribund and uninteresting performance to date. He was not nearly as convincing as a person who lost faith as, say, Richard Burton in "The Night of the Iguana." The connection to the alien invasion eluded me entirely except to add some unnecessary angst to the film. I was astonished that the aliens were even shown. Should have taken a hint from Robert Wise and "The Haunting."

I'd say "Total Recall" was set back a notch or two with Arnold's strange, robotic performance (one of the Dick adaptations where I hadn't read the book so I don't know if this isn't what he had in mind). Let's hope he does better as Governor of California. Why is it only bad actors go into politics?

What did everyone think of 'Frailty'?

Lightwizard

It was plot points on "Minority Report" but I would have to watch the movie again to get into specifics. To the best of my recollection, the problem was with what prompted the director to begin the chain of events in the first place. Can't explain it in any detail without seeing it again.

I tend to not like Tom Cruise in much of anything, so I'll chalk that up to personal prejudice. My wife liked him. She likes him in everything, although not as much as she likes Antonio Banderas. But I digress.

The worst segment of "Blade Runner", to me, was the section when Roy Batty (Rutger Hauer) confronts his maker Tyrell, having gained access via the unbelievable "ruse" of following Sebastian in through the security system, and, after a bit of banter, crushes the man's head like an egg. The plot arcs, of which this is the most "cinematic", are a continuing series of confrontations in which someone (android or human) ends up dead. The interviewer. Joanna Cassidy. Leon. Darryl Hannah. Tyrell. In spite of the glorious sets and cinematography, and the message, this is a lot of cheesy, B-movie stuff. Cheap thrills. Standard action flick material grafted onto a serious subject.

"Unbreakable" is a very thourough study of an idea that has little resonance in the real world, but matters greatly to anyone who ever imagined what it would be like to be -really be- a superhero. With such a theme, it cannot hope to be taken as seriously as, say, a movie like Blade Runner, which is attempting to project a real possible future, and deal with an ethical and moral dilemma with implications for the present and the future, but that does not make "Unbreakable" valueless, at least not to me. Mainly because the movie accomplishes what it sets out to do, which is to examine that particular comic book fantasy thoroughly, and "realistically". I'm not sure what you thought the mystery of the film was, as you didn't specify, but its effectiveness as a thriller -if thriller is the correct word, and I'm not sure that it is quite right- depends on whether the mystery is: does he (Bruce Willis) have supernatural powers, or doesn't he?

I think the question is debatable, even at the film's conclusion, and that is what makes the picture (at least for me) compelling.

But I reckon I've just about beat this one to death; don't expect we'll end up seeing eye to eye, and that's okay. If we all liked the same movies, think how long the lines at the theaters would be, and what the heck would we talk about after the show?

Can't comment on "Frailty", cavfancier. 'Fraid I missed that one. Time to step aside and let someone else ramble.

Tom Cruise seems to mess everything up for me, too, LW. He's nice to look at, but he's sort of in the Canoe league, to me. (Canoe--Keanu. The same guy in every role--sort of wooden.)

Cav. I really liked some of the aspects of Frailty. My memory is a little foggy, but the purity of the father's belief, and the view into religious fervor to insanity, back to 'plausibility?' was kewl. There were some heartbreaking scenes. The son identity twist was also a surprise for me. Creepy in a good way.

What did you think?

I loved Frailty.

Also, Sofia's thoughts on it are pretty much my own as well.

Science fiction seldom relies on much characterization -- it's what happens to the characters in the circumstance of a future society, how advanced technololgy is dealth with and not dealth with. "Solaris" was more involved with emotion. In the case of "Minority Report," the author again was writing a mystery story in the future. Of course, there is a sociological theme involved and is very timely to such current events such as the Patriot Act, wire-tapping, et al. I didn't detect any specific plot discrepancies other than the ending was a bit rushed and the wife being able to spring the Cruise character out of "prison" was a tad muddled. The rest of the film was powerful and had some innovative looking cinematography. Still thought Cruise was cast well in the lead and not just for his looks -- he was a convincing protagonist.

The section of "Blade Runner" you're speaking of is straight out of the story. Didn't find any of the following plot action as "cheap thrills," but to each his own. The Harrison Ford character was hired back to kill the replicants -- was he suppose to put poison in their tea? I agree that as we are both making critical assessments, we can be like Ebert and Roper and at least have some fun disagreeing!

"Frailty" is on my list to rent as I missed it in the theaters so thanks for the recommendation. It did get some good critical notices.

Lightwizard

I think we've reached closure, Mr. Ebert---or am I Ebert? Anyway, it has been fun.

Just like to go on record as saying I don't usually recommend "Unbreakable" to people because I know it is a movie a lot of people won't care for, and I thought so even while being enthralled by it on first viewing. And I do recommend "Blade Runner"; in the heat of the discussion I might have lost sight of that fact.

Just for the record, I brought up Shyamalan inititally as a comparison with Hitchcock, who he is obviously emulating -or stealing from, depending on your take. I think they are both more adept at suspense than horror, and I don't think the work of either one belong on this list. I suppose "The Haunting" shouldn't be here either, strictly speaking, even though it is on my list of all time favorite movies, and is very scary.

I wonder: is there a distinction between horror and movies that are scary, or have I just painted myself into another rhetorical corner?

I think there is overt horror and subliminal horror. In that way, Hitchcock's "Vertigo" has horror elements in it. Monsters don't always take physical form but may be lodged in our ID. Shakespeare certainly explored this and using that as a model, the movies came up with "Foribidden Planet." In "The Haunting,"
the horror was the possession of the house -- depending how you read that! I guess we've all had those moments when we have to say, "Well, that's a horrible thought." "The Haunting" on my first viewing of the film was scary and mostly because it dredged up sub-conscious fears.

Shylaman is more subliminal horror. That was broken by showing the aliens in "Signs." Bad decision in my opinion as he didn't trust the audience to use their imagination. What movie makers won't do to supposedly ensure an audience. I give "Unbreakable" higher marks for being on a different plane but I think it was unsuccessful in its storytelling, veering off into ineffective metaphysical mumbo jumbo.

As far as metaphysical elements handled with success and making the concept more psychologically chilling, "Vertigo" takes the honors.

I can be Roper or visa versa. I always get something out of someone else viewpoint. It may not change my mind but in the case of a film, it may make me go back to reconsider the effort.
One thing I do agree with about "Blade Runner" was Ridley Scott's brief but obvious lapse into horror elements making the replicants a bit more monstrous than in the P. K. Dick original story. That's a loss of a half of a star as it rather dampened the effect of the final scene with Hauer. In the story, one felt more empathetic with the plight of the androids.

Top List:
Ringu
Ringu Sen
Fallen
The Believers
Prince of Darkness

Re; Sofia's comment on Keanu Reeves:After seeing him as Bill (or possibly Ted, I'm never sure) I always identify him with that character, regardless of who he is supposed to be.

I would have mentioned "Psycho," but a lot of people have already mentioned it, so I'll say that I thought "Interview With the Vampire," while not as good as the book, was nonetheless quite good.

I am a big fan of really bad horror movies...anyone seen "Buckets of Blood" ? There are also a couple directed by Lamberto Brava that I like.

1) Demons
2) Delirium

I also like the old hammer movies from the sixties with Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee...I thought he was the scariest Vampire of them all.

I love the "gross out" factor in "Dawn of the Dead" ....the others were okay...and I saw "Dawn.." before I saw "Night..."

I've always wondered if "Jaws" was intentionally a horror flick...but like the rest of you...I never go past my ankles when near an ocean. I can remember the scene(s) that frightened me the most in the flick...when the head pops out of the sunken dinghy and when Robert Shaw is telling the story when his ship goes down during wwII....eeeeeek....

I'm sure there are plenty others...and good to know there are other horror fans out there...Will have to look for the "haunting.."

I guess this will be our Halloween horror film feature so I'll take care of it now.

I just watched the original Frankenstein and The Bride of Frankenstein on TCM this evening. I'm confused about the Bride, missing Robert Osbourne's intro.
It's supposed to be a sequel but so much changed between the two movies. They switched the location from Germany to England, for one. But I was completely thrown by Elsa Lancaster as Mary Shelly (she played the Bride as well, of course) in the beginning of the movie, in conversation with her brother and Lord Byron. Wasn't that scene set in the mid-1800's? She began to tell the story she had written, the story of the Bride, but it seemed to be set in the future, the early 1900's, according to the fashions.
I could do the research and probably get to the bottom of it all but does anyone on this thread know the story of these two classic horror movies and why they don't jive?

I'm not sure and since they were both directed by James Whale, you'd believe there would be more coordination between the two plots. They are both derived directly from the novel (as Shelley did write about creating a woman partner for the monster if I remember correctly). Then there's "Frankenstein: The True Story" which is really almost entirely off the map. And, of course, Warhol's hilarious 3-D spoof with all sorts of innards being thrown out at you. The Kenneth Branaugh is the closest to the novel but for some reason lacked something which made it rather incohesive. I'd have to do some Googling or perhaps it's at IMDPPro. I'll give it a try.

Ebert's review might reveal something of the nature of what is actually a tongue-in-cheek satire concocted by Mr. Whale and the scripwriter.

LINK TO EBERT REVIEW

And here's a documentary made about the making of the film:

LINK TO SHE'S ALIVE! The Making of the Bride of Frankenstein