Definitive 100 Discussion - Part 3 (with Voting)

MudSkipper

(021) The Evil Dead (1981)
(022) Suspiria (1977)
(023) An American Werewolf in London (1981)
(024) Dog Soldiers (2002)
(025) The Blair Witch Project (1999)
(026) Audition (1999)
(027) Rec (2007)
(028) A Tale of Two Sisters (2003)
(029) Idle Hands (1999)
(030) Carnival of Souls (1962)

I've added a poll to see if any of them should be removed, closing date of poll is mon 7th of december. To keep it fair, please only vote for movies you've actually seen

I'll add my own thoughts on these later

MudSkipper

(021) The Evil Dead (1981)
A definite classic, no list would be complete without

(022) Suspiria (1977)
Still in my to watch pile of italian horror, sounds promising tho

(023) An American Werewolf in London (1981)
Another classic, well deserved spot

(024) Dog Soldiers (2002)
One of my personal favourites of recent years, watch it if you haven't yet

(025) The Blair Witch Project (1999)
oh what could have been, despite all its viral marketing as being 'real' footage this movie just didn't do it for me. Not only the characters, but the whole movie just annoyed me when I sat down to watch it, so switched it off..... only finished it on the 3rd attempt. I'm probably alone in this, but this movie deserves to be removed.

(026) Audition (1999)
A fine example of Asian horror

(027) Rec (2007)
Now this is what the blair witch could have been. Main character goes from an unlikeable stuck-up bint to a victim you sympathise with.

(028) A Tale of Two Sisters (2003)
Another fine example of Asian horror, not many jump out of your seat scares, just an old fashioned spine chiller

(029) Idle Hands (1999)
Also still in my to watch pile

(030) Carnival of Souls (1962)
Available in the public domain for anyone interested in downloading it. It probably is one of the more obscure movies listed so far. It shouldnt be as it was an influence for night of the living dead (imdb trivia) and on viewing the influence on some of David Lynch's work is also fairly obvious

spooky donkey

I have to say I really enjoyed Blair witch. But then I watched it long after the hype died off. I went in with low expectations and really enjoyed the film as a result.

Otis Driftwood

On a personal level,probably the weakest section of the list and the one with the most removal nominees.Anyway

(021) The Evil Dead (1981)
Bona fide classic of low budget horror.The amount of people that say part 2 or 3 is better makes my brain hurt.

(022) Suspiria (1977)
Argentos best work IMO.Everything about it works.

(023) An American Werewolf in London (1981)
This could have turned into schlock but Bakers effects work is simply awe inspiring.Again,another prime example of why horror movies dont need CGI.

(024) Dog Soldiers (2002)
Was really bored with this one.Might give it another go.

(025) The Blair Witch Project (1999)
Despite the hype this did creep me out.Just about deserves a place on the list.

(026) Audition (1999)
Not a horror at all IMO.Fantastic movie but there are more deserving Asian horrors that could be on here.

(027) Rec (2007)
Didnt like this at all,so ridiculously over rated its laughable.Everything is telegraphed in it.FFS,you put your head into a dark attic,emmm,obviously something is going to jump out.

(028) A Tale of Two Sisters (2003)
Wasnt a fan of this either.Not a bad movie but its a pretty similar premise to many Asian horrors,creepy girl with a dark secret.Meh,boring.

(029) Idle Hands (1999)
Not a horror either IMO.Its good fun but this is very much a horror comedy therefore shouldnt be alongside the likes of Halloween,TCM or The Fly.

(030) Carnival of Souls (1962)
Havnt seen this one but will defo download it.

Cactus Col

(021) The Evil Dead (1981)

I was tempted to vote go for this, because I don't think the list needs both this AND the sequel. But it is a classic, and taking on it's on deserves to be on the list.


(023) An American Werewolf in London (1981)

A classic film, absolutely deserves to be on the list.
(024) Dog Soldiers (2002)

i enjoyed it, but I don't think it quite deserves to be on a "definitive" list of horror.

(025) The Blair Witch Project (1999)

This absolutely deserves a spot on the list. I know it became trendy to dislike this film, but the truth is it's a scary as hell film that is a victim of it's own success. If this had been a hard to find film it would be regarded as something of a lost classic.

(027) Rec (2007)
Great film, very scary.

(029) Idle Hands (1999)
It's a fun film, but does not deserve to be on a definitive list


Didn't vote on some films as I haven't seen them. However, I would be a bit wary about the amount of Asian horrors that are coming up. People seem to regard subtitled films in a better light than english language films, maybe because of the extra effort of having to read subtitles, or maybe because there is a bit more exclusivity in having seen a foreign language film, that most people wouldn't bother with.

trustno1

(021) The Evil Dead (1981)

Definitely deserves a place on the list - although having watched it again recently it does not hold up well against other horrors out at the same time, but I know this would be on the account of the virtually non-existant budget - some really nice features like the camera work over the rafters with the noise as it passes each beam..

(022) Suspiria (1977)

Remember watching this when I was very young and I remember being very freaked out by it - must re-watch it and see does it still have the same effect.

(023) An American Werewolf in London (1981)

Excellent casting, special effects + right amount of humour and superb soundtrack makes this one a classic..

(024) Dog Soldiers (2002)

Loved the humour in this one and was good to watch a decent werewolf film again.

(025) The Blair Witch Project (1999)

For me, for this film to work, it needs to be watched in the right setting i.e. lights off and absolutely no interuptions - really freaked me out the second time around as I was so absorbed into it.

(026) Audition (1999)

Haven't seen it - added to my 'to watch' list

(027) Rec (2007)

I absolutely loved this, and I have to say that the american version wasn't a bad remake - its hilarious to watch the special features on Quarantine where they are all discussing where they got their ideas for the film from.. eh.. hello.. its nearly a scene by scene remake!!..

(028) A Tale of Two Sisters (2003)

Meh.. thought this one was just okay..

(029) Idle Hands (1999)
(030) Carnival of Souls (1962)

Final two I haven't yet seen..

MudSkipper

Cactus Col wrote: »

(However, I would be a bit wary about the amount of Asian horrors that are coming up. People seem to regard subtitled films in a better light than english language films, maybe because of the extra effort of having to read subtitles, or maybe because there is a bit more exclusivity in having seen a foreign language film, that most people wouldn't bother with.

Granted there's 2 up for discussion in this lot and we've had 3 Asian ones in the first 30. Bu a glance at the rest shows that these are the only 3. Unless you count french or italian ones as asian

Cactus Col

MudSkipper wrote: »

Granted there's 2 up for discussion in this lot and we've had 3 Asian ones in the first 30. Bu a glance at the rest shows that these are the only 3. Unless you count french or italian ones as asian

For some reason I had it in my head that there were far more ... obviously confused myself! sorry.

Fysh

nedtheshed wrote: »

(026) Audition (1999)
Not a horror at all IMO.Fantastic movie but there are more deserving Asian horrors that could be on here.

(029) Idle Hands (1999)
Not a horror either IMO.Its good fun but this is very much a horror comedy therefore shouldnt be alongside the likes of Halloween,TCM or The Fly.

I'm curious as to your reasoning here - both films have horrific elements, why should they not be considered horror? I mean, if we're going to accept things like Evil Dead 2 & 3 or Shaun of the Dead on the list, why not Idle Hands? And surely the point of having films like Audition or Cabinet of Dr Caligari on the list is to remind people of the diversity that the genre offers?

I suppose my question is "what does horror mean to you?" I know you're very much against CGI in horror films and while I understand that on a practical basis (given that few films have used it well), but on the other hand CGI is just a tool - so is it a case that you don't think the tool is used well, or that it can't be used well?

Decuc500

One or two lukewarm reactions to A Tale of Two Sisters so far. I hope it'll be kept on the list, it really unnerved me when I saw it. It's got a real feeling of dread running through it.

Suspiria...I'd have it in my top 10 favourite horror movies.

Idle Hands though didn't do anything for me. Thought it was a bit silly, I voted to lose it...

Off topic but I saw a great killer crocodile movie recently, Rogue, from the guy who made Wolf Creek. Rogue has a good cast, great cinematography, great score and a very believable large man-eating croc. I can't believe it didn't get a cinema release here.

Otis Driftwood

Fysh wrote: »

I'm curious as to your reasoning here - both films have horrific elements, why should they not be considered horror? I mean, if we're going to accept things like Evil Dead 2 & 3 or Shaun of the Dead on the list, why not Idle Hands? And surely the point of having films like Audition or Cabinet of Dr Caligari on the list is to remind people of the diversity that the genre offers?

I suppose my question is "what does horror mean to you?" I know you're very much against CGI in horror films and while I understand that on a practical basis (given that few films have used it well), but on the other hand CGI is just a tool - so is it a case that you don't think the tool is used well, or that it can't be used well?

So do Irreversible,Salo,Rambo etc etc but they certainly arent horror.

I dont consider Evil Dead 2 + 3 or Shaun of the Dead as horrors either.They may have slight horror elements but over all are horror comedies therefore shouldnt be alongside TCM,Halloween,Nightmare on Elm St or Evil Dead.

IMHO.

MudSkipper

Decuc500 wrote: »

Off topic but I saw a great killer crocodile movie recently, Rogue, from the guy who made Wolf Creek. Rogue has a good cast, great cinematography, great score and a very believable large man-eating croc. I can't believe it didn't get a cinema release here.

replacement thread is here

nedtheshed wrote: »

So do Irreversible,Salo,Rambo etc etc but they certainly arent horror.

I dont consider Evil Dead 2 + 3 or Shaun of the Dead as horrors either.They may have slight horror elements but over all are horror comedies therefore shouldnt be alongside TCM,Halloween,Nightmare on Elm St or Evil Dead.

IMHO.

Depends on your definition of Horror, for me it doesnt have to be gore or bodycount, the psychological element works just as well if not better, for me anyway :eek:

Irreversible may not be classed a horror, but show it to your girlfriend or wife and she will likely be horrified and have nightmares for days... just a thought

Shaun of the dead may be comedy/horror but it's tongue in cheek-ness is what made it. There's room on our list for all types of 'pure' horror and horror hybrids where it's mixed with other genres. After all isn't alien just a sci-fi ?

Karl Hungus

Cactus Col wrote: »

Didn't vote on some films as I haven't seen them. However, I would be a bit wary about the amount of Asian horrors that are coming up. People seem to regard subtitled films in a better light than english language films, maybe because of the extra effort of having to read subtitles, or maybe because there is a bit more exclusivity in having seen a foreign language film, that most people wouldn't bother with.

People regard a subtitled film highly because it's a great film, not because of some ulterior motive about being more 'exclusive' to have seen it or putting in more effort to read subtitles. Some of the best horror films in recent years have been foreign ones, be it Let The Right One In, [Rec] or Martyrs, it's been films from other countries that have impressed me the most, simply because they have been better films than any English language counterparts you could care to mention. 'Exclusivity' or anything else has nothing to do with it.

The amount of Asian films mentioned so far is nothing more than a reflection of how good they are. Ring and A Tale Of Two Sisters are absolutely masterpieces of the genre, and there are many other great examples, but largely Asian horror films have been routinely getting worse and worse, with as many lame sequels and cash-ins as the American industry. If it were simply a status thing to mention an Asian film, there's plenty of other muck like Acacia, Phone, Cello, The Red Shoes or countless others that could've been mentioned. But excellent films like Ring or Audition were mentioned, which should tell you a little about why they have a position in this list.

Honestly, there's an attitude of "You only say you like that to look cool/be different" leveled at film fans who watch foreign movies, but the simply truth is that in general, people genuinely like the films that they say they like, and there are no other motives to saying they like them. There's no other reason for films like Ring and the likes for being highly regarded other than the fact that they are extremely good films. You admit yourself you haven't watched the films in question, so it is a bit silly to be speculating on why other people might profess to liking them, or what ulterior motives they may have.

Fysh

This post is basically an expanded +1 of Karl's post - the Asian horrors nominated so far have all been good and given time will come to be appreciated in the same way as the likes of Argento's films are appreciated for their place in the genre.

The argument about people rating a subtitled film more highly just for being foreign would carry more weight if we were talking about rubbish like Wishing Stairs or comparative fluff like Versus (great fun, but hardly one for the history books).

Necronomicon

100% agree with Karl. Just did a quick count and there are a grand total of 3 Asian horrors in the 100 - hardly being flooded with them.

And ATOTS is my pick, if you f*ckers dump it I'm outta here :pac:

spooky donkey

I think catus Col may have been getting at people who will assume that a subed film will be automatically better than its english remake. Some one mentioned that Rec and Quaenteen are basically scene for scene remake. Now I have only seen the english one but if they are identical they I would have to say the english language is better. Because it takes less effort to enjoy it. If I was a spanish speaker I may go the other way.

For me a film is the sum of all of its parts and having to read subs is a netitive. That said I have watched some really great Asian movies that had subs. To me they would have been better had they been in english, but it dosent take away from the fact that a great movie is a great movie.

Just recently my kids watch Miasaki`s Ponyo on the cliff. They watched it with subs as they dident know any better, and they really enjoyed it. So then I put the english dub on and they said it was much better that way. Kids tell it like it is....

Karl Hungus

spooky donkey wrote: »

I think catus Col may have been getting at people who will assume that a subed film will be automatically better than its english remake. Some one mentioned that Rec and Quaenteen are basically scene for scene remake. Now I have only seen the english one but if they are identical they I would have to say the english language is better. Because it takes less effort to enjoy it. If I was a spanish speaker I may go the other way.

For me a film is the sum of all of its parts and having to read subs is a netitive. That said I have watched some really great Asian movies that had subs. To me they would have been better had they been in english, but it dosent take away from the fact that a great movie is a great movie.

Nobody mentioned originals vs. sequels, so I doubt that was what Cactus Col was getting at.

And honestly Spooky, if you think that just because a remake is a scene for scene copy of the original means it's just as good as the original, boy is your opinion wrong! Psycho vs. Psycho. One's an absolute masterpiece and one of the greatest films ever made, the other is one of the biggest piles of excrement you could hope to watch. Yet they're scene for scene the same.

A film is far, far more than the sum of it's parts. And Gus Van Sant's Psycho is a standing example of this, just because it has the same parts, doesn't mean it's as well put together. [Rec] is widely recognized as being a far superior film to Quarantine.

I wonder though, are people who like the original Psycho only saying so because it's in black and white? :pac:

spooky donkey wrote: »

Just recently my kids watch Miasaki`s Ponyo on the cliff. They watched it with subs as they dident know any better, and they really enjoyed it. So then I put the english dub on and they said it was much better that way. Kids tell it like it is....

You cannot compare the attention spans/reading comprehension of a child to that of an adult. That's in no way trying to insult your kids, but I wouldn't have dreamed of watching a subtitled film as a kid either. In general kids would probably prefer Michael Bay's Transformers to something like Goodfellas or The Wrestler, is that kids telling it like it is?

And seriously, it's not as if there's a huge amount of effort required to watch a subtitled film, it takes a little more attention, but that's it really.

Fysh

spooky donkey wrote: »

I think catus Col may have been getting at people who will assume that a subed film will be automatically better than its english remake. Some one mentioned that Rec and Quaenteen are basically scene for scene remake. Now I have only seen the english one but if they are identical they I would have to say the english language is better. Because it takes less effort to enjoy it. If I was a spanish speaker I may go the other way.

For me a film is the sum of all of its parts and having to read subs is a netitive. That said I have watched some really great Asian movies that had subs. To me they would have been better had they been in english, but it dosent take away from the fact that a great movie is a great movie.

Just recently my kids watch Miasaki`s Ponyo on the cliff. They watched it with subs as they dident know any better, and they really enjoyed it. So then I put the english dub on and they said it was much better that way. Kids tell it like it is....

You're joking, right? As a spanish speaker I grew up through years of AWFUL Spanish dubs of English language films, and the same is far too often the case with English-language dubs of foreign films. Spirited away is a great example - aggravatingly non-contextual accents & voices bolted onto a film in a way that detracts from an otherwise fantastic example.

As for scene-for-scene remakes - you might find them easier to watch, I find them pointless. Why re-do an entire film if you're not changing anything of importance? "Effort required to view" is not a metric of the quality of a film in its own right, it's a metric related purely to the entertainment aspect of a film. Which is what gets us films like Saw 6, Police Academy 8 and Dance Movie. Not a trend I'm keen on, and not one that contributes to the aesthetic development of film as a medium or the audience as individuals.

spooky donkey

On the matter of Subs I stand by that I feel they take from a film. perhaps its just im not as fast a reader as other people but often when I watch a movie I have to rewind it to see what was said as i missed the full sentace. Some times its that I read what was said but missed the action or did not see properly what had just happened. I hate having to rewind a film for those reasons.

And I stand by what I said about a film being the sum of all its parts, a small few good things things do not make up for a lot of other crap in a movie.

With secence for secne remakes I say whats the point. The omen is another good example of why the should not have bothered, and yes Psycho. But if they save you having to read the movie then why not.

trustno1

spooky donkey wrote: »

On the matter of Subs I stand by that I feel they take from a film. perhaps its just im not as fast a reader as other people but often when I watch a movie I have to rewind it to see what was said as i missed the full sentace. Some times its that I read what was said but missed the action or did not see properly what had just happened. I hate having to rewind a film for those reasons.

And I stand by what I said about a film being the sum of all its parts, a small few good things things do not make up for a lot of other crap in a movie.

With secence for secne remakes I say whats the point. The omen is another good example of why the should not have bothered, and yes Psycho. But if they save you having to read the movie then why not.

I totally agree with you here in relation to Sub Titles - a lot of people do have problems following them and it does put them right off watching foreign films, and I reckon thats why a lot of them are re-made. Instead of doing half arsed remakes, I think they should put more effort into the dubbing.

Cactus Col

spooky donkey wrote: »

I think catus Col may have been getting at people who will assume that a subed film will be automatically better than its english remake. Some one mentioned that Rec and Quaenteen are basically scene for scene remake. Now I have only seen the english one but if they are identical they I would have to say the english language is better. Because it takes less effort to enjoy it. If I was a spanish speaker I may go the other way...

I wasn't specifically talking about remakes, but foreign language films in general. But it certainly does apply to remakes too. I was saying that because people go to the extra effort of reading the subtitles they tend to regard the film a bit higher than they would a similar english language film.

For example the Korean film Brotherhood (Taegukgi .. I think) and Saving Private Ryan. Anybody I've spoken with who have seem both (not many), seem to say that Brotherhood is the better film, that Private Ryan is mawkish, or overly sentimental. Which is fair enough, in that Private ryan is sentimental and mawkish.

However, the very same can be said of Brotherhood, it is very mawkish, and I would say cringeworthy. But because people have watched it using subtitles, they think better of the Korean film.

The good, the bad, and the weird, being another film that is unjustifiably praised.

Of course this isn't always true.

In regards to subtitles and dubbing ... I tend to prefer subtitles, as I've heard quite a number of bad dubs on good films (The Brotherhood of the Wolf is particularly bad). However, I have also noticed that dubbing can tend to condense what's being said on screen (this is the case for english language films, I assume the case for foreign language too).

So instead of:
"To be, or not to be--that is the question:
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles "

You get
"To be or not to be --- is it nobler in the mind to suffer the arrows of luck, or take arm against troubles"

So either subs or dubs, chances are we're gonna be missing out on something.


On that note though, could I suggest "The Host" as a replacement for one of the displaced films.

Fysh

Cactus Col wrote: »

I was saying that because people go to the extra effort of reading the subtitles they tend to regard the film a bit higher than they would a similar english language film.

I'll be honest, in my estimation those people are idiots. The quality and merit of a film should have no relation to the effort or lack thereof involved in watching it and making sense of it. (I know that if you're just looking for entertainment that's not the case, but "entertainment" is a terrible and fickle standard if you're trying to judge something on artistic/creative merit).

I'm not saying it doesn't happen, I'm saying the people who do it are idiots. For example - I watched Wishing Stairs with subtitles. The fact that I had to read the dialogue from the screen did not stop me concluding that it was a wretched piece of crap lacking any imagination and piggy-backing on the J-Horror trend. If someone wants to argue otherwise, they'd want to have a far better argument than "but it had subtitles and I had to read them to follow what was happening".

That said, I'm 100% in agreement that The Host deserves a place on the list, if there are spaces being made.

Karl Hungus

Cactus Col wrote: »

I wasn't specifically talking about remakes, but foreign language films in general. But it certainly does apply to remakes too. I was saying that because people go to the extra effort of reading the subtitles they tend to regard the film a bit higher than they would a similar english language film.

For example the Korean film Brotherhood (Taegukgi .. I think) and Saving Private Ryan. Anybody I've spoken with who have seem both (not many), seem to say that Brotherhood is the better film, that Private Ryan is mawkish, or overly sentimental. Which is fair enough, in that Private ryan is sentimental and mawkish.

However, the very same can be said of Brotherhood, it is very mawkish, and I would say cringeworthy. But because people have watched it using subtitles, they think better of the Korean film.

The good, the bad, and the weird, being another film that is unjustifiably praised.

Of course this isn't always true.

Ok, here's a question.

Do you always 100% agree with how highly praised rated English language films are, or are there plenty of films, no matter what the language where you just don't see what people like about them? Because I know there's a vast amount of American films that are in my opinion hugely overrated. It's nothing more than people having their own personal taste, and boiling their preferences down to saying "It's just because it's subtitled" is utterly ridiculous. I don't think you could boil anyone's preferences down to a single reason, no matter what kind of film it is. Anyone saying "You only like X because of Y" is just silly.

For the record, I absolutely loved The Good, The Bad and The Weird.

Cactus Col wrote: »

On that note though, could I suggest "The Host" as a replacement for one of the displaced films.

Aye, great film that.

I'd say we could easily replace Idle Hands with The Host.

spooky donkey

Cactus Col wrote: »

For example the Korean film Brotherhood (Taegukgi .. I think) and Saving Private Ryan. Anybody I've spoken with who have seem both (not many), seem to say that Brotherhood is the better film, that Private Ryan is mawkish, or overly sentimental. Which is fair enough, in that Private ryan is sentimental and mawkish.

Well I have seen both and I would go with Private ryan. Though mainly cause the opening sequence has played on my mind for years. I haveent really gone back to that film because of it. I will revisit it one day.

Subs had no real bearings in Brotherhood as you done need subs to hear a grenade go off

I even watched sholin soccer with no subs or dubs one time cause i lost the remote and I still enjoyed that film even though I only had a vague idea what it was about.

MudSkipper

Not much time tonight, but my preference is:

subbed > dubbed >>> english remakes

Then again I grew up with dutch tv where everything was subbed be it english/french/gibberish We also had german tv where everything is dubbed and steve mcqueen had the same voice as bill cosby.... was definately weird

I'd +1 the host, just drop it on the replacement thread here

I'll start the next round with voting tomorrow, and maybe one of the mods can then close this poll and show the results? 10 days is long enough to let them run I'd say

Cactus Col

Karl Hungus wrote: »

Ok, here's a question.

Do you always 100% agree with how highly praised rated English language films are, or are there plenty of films, no matter what the language where you just don't see what people like about them? Because I know there's a vast amount of American films that are in my opinion hugely overrated. It's nothing more than people having their own personal taste, and boiling their preferences down to saying "It's just because it's subtitled" is utterly ridiculous. I don't think you could boil anyone's preferences down to a single reason, no matter what kind of film it is. Anyone saying "You only like X because of Y" is just silly.

No matter what the language I don't always agree with how highly praised some films are. But I think that can apply pretty much to every one.

Usually though, even if I don't like a film I can see why it would be highly rated (or vice versa, if I do like a film, I can understand if others don't rate it highly). Martyr's for example (dubbed too!) is a film I personally wasn't too pushed about. But I can see why others rate it so highly, and wouldn't argue with it being in the definitive 100.

Karl Hungus wrote: »

For the record, I absolutely loved The Good, The Bad and The Weird.

No accounting for taste! (that said, I'm a big fan of The Core, so I won't be slagging anyone)