The best/ scariest horror films

Tony EH

Nah. The 78 version is one of the few examples where the original is completely trounced.

The 50's "reds" thing grows old real fast - even though there are those who say that the original had little or nothing to do with that. I'm not sure whether Siegel ever meant for the film to be viewed in such a manner. In fact, I think he was more inclined to put an anti-McCarthy (Joseph, not Kevin ) slant on the picture. But, people have been seeing what they want in 'Invasion of the Body Snatchers' since it premiered.

I like the 50's version, because I like some of the films from that period, like 'Them', or 'It Came from Outer Space'. But, the 70's version is just creepier. One of the greatest sci-fi films ever made IMHO.

It's like comparing the 50's 'The Thing' to Carpenter's 1982 version. There just isn't one to be made.

shazzerman

I prefer the 1956 version too. Apart from the communist scare subtext - which might grow old real fast, but films are of their time, are they not? - some of the brilliantly-composed shots can be read as symbolising the plight of Mexican immigrant labour workers: those high-angle shots of the trucks with the pods in the back. Siegel's shot composition is rarely commented on but this film is full of cleverly arranged and lit shots that tell us more than the unfolding plot does about Miles' growing isolation - there are a handful of shots during the sequence where the body is on King Donovan's pool table that depict Miles in isolation while the other three are blocked in a group. When Jack (Donovan) and Miles move to the pool table, they appear to be separated by the mystery body lying on the table; the mise-en-scène here suggesting that the pods will drive Miles into isolation and noir-like nightmare. There are lots of shots with clocks in the frame to suggest Miles is running out of time. Okay, the remake was able to present a much more bleak ending - and the lighting in the film rivals Escape from Alcatraz in terms of how dark the film looks throughout. Siegel and producer Walter Wanger were compelled to tack on the framing device that shows the FBI making that all-important call (they believe Miles and something will be done about the threat). Two great films, but I prefer the formal beauty of the original.

storker

The Changeling (1980): Some moments that really make your hair stand on end.
The Ring
An American Werewolf in London Plenty of laughs too. The scariest part is the beginning.
Jacob's Ladder: very weird and disturbing and Elizabeth Pena is gorgeous.
Thirty Days of Night
Flatliners (the original)
Picnic at Hanging Rock
Anguish: recent low key low budget movie worth a watch I think
Bram Stoker's Dracula I think this stands up well.
The Redeemer - Son of Satan: Saw this as a B-movie many years ago. It's very like "And Then There Were None" but with the subtlety dialled down and the horror dialed up.
The Innocents (1961): very creepy, some great moments that will stay with you forever.
added...
The Mist: Effective creature feature with an emotionally gutting ending.

Tony EH

shazzerman wrote: »

I prefer the 1956 version too. Apart from the communist scare subtext - which might grow old real fast, but films are of their time, are they not? - some of the brilliantly-composed shots can be read as symbolising the plight of Mexican immigrant labour workers: those high-angle shots of the trucks with the pods in the back. Siegel's shot composition is rarely commented on but this film is full of cleverly arranged and lit shots that tell us more than the unfolding plot does about Miles' growing isolation - there are a handful of shots during the sequence where the body is on King Donovan's pool table that depict Miles in isolation while the other three are blocked in a group. When Jack (Donovan) and Miles move to the pool table, they appear to be separated by the mystery body lying on the table; the mise-en-scène here suggesting that the pods will drive Miles into isolation and noir-like nightmare. There are lots of shots with clocks in the frame to suggest Miles is running out of time. Okay, the remake was able to present a much more bleak ending - and the lighting in the film rivals Escape from Alcatraz in terms of how dark the film looks throughout. Siegel and producer Walter Wanger were compelled to tack on the framing device that shows the FBI making that all-important call (they believe Miles and something will be done about the threat). Two great films, but I prefer the formal beauty of the original.

Siegel wanted a bleaker ending and felt that the studio almost ruined the film. Nobody really cared for it too much either when it was first released. But, it was one of those films that had/has an enduring appeal.

I just prefer the 70's post Watergate and "psychiatry" paranoia of Kaufman's version. Themes of who are we? who am I? who are you? - which were deliberate as opposed to the accidental "Communist" readings for Siegel's. It doesn't suffer from period trappings either, like the 50's version does. Plus, there's an unnerving creep present in the 1978 version that just isn't there in 1956.

It's horses for course I spose and both films are good - I own the two of them (three if you want to count Ferrara's version). I've liked both since I was a kid, it's just when I saw the 1956 version, it was in the early evening in a run of 50's sci-fi on BBC2 and it entertained me, but nothing more.

The 1978 version, I also saw on BBC2, left kid me bewildered, confused, frightened, worried at the end and sort of shocked that the resolution was so desperate. Additionally, there's shots in there that aren't fully explained. Why does the camera linger on Robert Duvall? WTF is up with that dog?

I get more and more out of Kaufman's version and get less and less from Siegel's, the more that I watch them.

Kunkka

A lot of good mentions but I thought the Babadook was the best horror in the last 10 years or so.

branie2

The Sixth Sense - that great line "I see dead people!"

mrcheez

Kunkka wrote: »

A lot of good mentions but I thought the Babadook was the best horror in the last 10 years or so.

The kid drove me nuts though and made it kinda unbearable

Tony EH

Yeh. Ruined for me. I wanted the Babadook to rip him to shreds.

shazzerman

Tony EH wrote: »

Siegel wanted a bleaker ending and felt that the studio almost ruined the film. Nobody really cared for it too much either when it was first released. But, it was one of those films that had/has an enduring appeal.

I just prefer the 70's post Watergate and "psychiatry" paranoia of Kaufman's version. Themes of who are we? who am I? who are you? - which were deliberate as opposed to the accidental "Communist" readings for Siegel's. It doesn't suffer from period trappings either, like the 50's version does. Plus, there's an unnerving creep present in the 1978 version that just isn't there in 1956.

It's horses for course I spose and both films are good - I own the two of them (three if you want to count Ferrara's version). I've liked both since I was a kid, it's just when I saw the 1956 version, it was in the early evening in a run of 50's sci-fi on BBC2 and it entertained me, but nothing more.

The 1978 version, I also saw on BBC2, left kid me bewildered, confused, frightened, worried at the end and sort of shocked that the resolution was so desperate. Additionally, there's shots in there that aren't fully explained. Why does the camera linger on Robert Duvall? WTF is up with that dog?

I get more and more out of Kaufman's version and get less and less from Siegel's, the more that I watch them.

Do you mean that because it was made in the 1950s, it suffers from period trappings? Maybe I am mis-reading your point, but if you are judging films to lack something because they fail to reflect a more contemporary socio-political outlook, then I would say that that is lacking. I think the whole red scare business in the original is just as deliberate as the way post-Watergate paranoia is included in Kaufman's version. It's all built into the mise-en-scène (shot composition, angles, those clocks...) in the original - and I'm a formalist at heart - while in the 1978 version (which I think is superb, by the way) Kaufman relies more on the Richter script and the very low-key lighting to do this kind of work.

I'll definitely pay more attention to the 1978 version next time, in light of your post. The next time you look at the original, I advise you to concentrate on the composition. How about this shot?

shazzerman

A couple of images from the original that (I think) show how its brilliance is tied to its mise-en-scene in a large way.

Tony EH

shazzerman wrote: »

Do you mean that because it was made in the 1950s, it suffers from period trappings?

Period trappings, as in how films were made back then and the restrictions under which a film maker could operate. It's looks and feels like a 50's film, not because it was made then, but because how it was made.

shazzerman wrote: »

I think the whole red scare business in the original is just as deliberate as the way post-Watergate paranoia is included in Kaufman's version. It's all built into the mise-en-sc (shot composition, angles, those clocks...) in the original - and I'm a formalist at heart - while in the 1978 version (which I think is superb, by the way) Kaufman relies more on the Richter script and the very low-key lighting to do this kind of work.

Not according to the actual film makers themselves. Siegel never intended a reading like that and the writer was a left wing socialist (who suffered under the "Blacklist" (or threats thereof), so he is hardly going to be putting any emphasis on such an angle. As said earlier, if there was anything Siegel was interested in commenting on at the time, it would have been McCarthyism, not Communism.

I think the "Communism" thing was later attributed by reviewers and viewers and it stuck, largely because of the political propaganda of the day.

shazzerman wrote: »

I'll definitely pay more attention to the 1978 version next time, in light of your post. The next time you look at the original, I advise you to concentrate on the composition. How about this shot?

Sure, it's well composed. The cinematography looks nice and for a film that was shot in a short space of time, it holds together very well.

I just prefer the 78 version and as I get older it holds my attention more and improves with age.

shazzerman

As you say, horses for courses. The "whole red scare business" I mean to refer to Communism and McCarthyism both, and it also resonates with whart you say about the 1950s restrictions that filmmakers - the good ones, at least - had to work around: the film can - and has - been read as both anti-Communist and and ant-McCarthyism (depending on the interpretation), perhaps because Siegel and Mainwaring's hands were tied. I think Siegel said that he didn't consciously insert any direct references to the whole red scare business (whether Communism itself, or the McCarthyism that "answered" it), but that he felt that the film is inescapably suffused with resonances. It might not be deliberate, in the sense that the filmmakers consciously set out to include it, but I just feel that the whole way in which the film is constructed follows a deliberate pattern and that pattern seems to me to take its cues from the politically-charged mood of the 1950s. Fair enough if anyone comes back at me with the question: But what have clocks and silhouetted isolated figures have to do with Reds Under the Bed? And I will answer that I think all these choices build on the growing paranoia reflected in the film which, in turn, reflects the paranoia of America during that time because of the Red Menace and the McCarthyist reaction.

But, in any case, I don't think that its conscious or unconscious aping of the socio-political situation of its time is why the film is so good. As I said, I love the overall design of the film. It takes a decent script and spins cinematic gold from it. In these two shots, that design is subtle but prime examples of early Siegel cinematic savvy. "Invasion4" shows the isolation of Miles once again. Notice the picture of a plant on the left, and a clock on the right. A brief moment, but the frame is fraught with meaning. And in "Invasion5" we have a very striking shot of the body on the pool table. Notice the cuckoo clock on the top right. When it strikes, the body opens its eyes... Actually, I think Kaufman's remake has a similar shot to "Invasion4" involving a janitor mopping a floor - a very memorable moment in that film, where the static shot is stretched to breaking point (did David Lynch see this, I wonder? Remember the sequence in The Return of the guy sweeping the bar?). One of the differences between the two films is the way Kaufman employs these low-lit and extended static shots to punctuate the film with these subtle eerie moments. That janitor is no more "explained" than Robert Duvall's uncanny moment. It's a totally different and more modern style to tell the same story as the original (but with a different ending).

A similar relationship exists between the two "Things", "Nyby"'s and Carpenter's. Carpenter gets my nod this time (only just), because his concentration on composition and the whole "look" of the film in general is much more attuned to bringing out the extreme and claustrophobic paranoia of the original story than anything even Hawks could bring to the 1951 version.

Walter Bishop

mrcheez wrote: »

The kid drove me nuts though and made it kinda unbearable

He was supposed to be a pain in the arse I thought, helped highlight the trouble she was having raising the kid on her own; lack of a father figure etc.

Tony EH

shazzerman wrote: »

As I said, I love the overall design of the film. It takes a decent script and spins cinematic gold from it. In these two shots, that design is subtle but prime examples of early Siegel cinematic savvy. "Invasion4" shows the isolation of Miles once again. Notice the picture of a plant on the left, and a clock on the right. A brief moment, but the frame is fraught with meaning. And in "Invasion5" we have a very striking shot of the body on the pool table. Notice the cuckoo clock on the top right. When it strikes, the body opens its eyes... Actually, I think Kaufman's remake has a similar shot to "Invasion4" involving a janitor mopping a floor - a very memorable moment in that film, where the static shot is stretched to breaking point (did David Lynch see this, I wonder? Remember the sequence in The Return of the guy sweeping the bar?). One of the differences between the two films is the way Kaufman employs these low-lit and extended static shots to punctuate the film with these subtle eerie moments. That janitor is no more "explained" than Robert Duvall's uncanny moment. It's a totally different and more modern style to tell the same story as the original (but with a different ending).

Sure, it's designed and shot very well. I have no problems with it on that level at all. It also has some nice subtle dialogue that can fly over the head with a casual watch. At one point the stars are told to "Watch out for yourselves" in a take care kind of way that also substitutes for a completely different meaning more suitable to the story.

But, a lot of Siegel's films are well staged and shot. The opening to 'Dirty Harry' is one of my favorites of any film and it just follows Eastwood as he traces the logical line of a gunman's shot. But, the audience is always wondering where he's going. It's merely a walk across the block, but it holds the attention superbly.

There's nothing on how the 1956 film looks that we'll disagree on I think.

branie2

End of Days, with Gabriel Byrne as the Devil

shazzerman

Tony EH wrote: »

Sure, it's designed and shot very well. I have no problems with it on that level at all. It also has some nice subtle dialogue that can fly over the head with a casual watch. At one point the stars are told to "Watch out for yourselves" in a take care kind of way that also substitutes for a completely different meaning more suitable to the story.

But, a lot of Siegel's films are well staged and shot. The opening to 'Dirty Harry' is one of my favorites of any film and it just follows Eastwood as he traces the logical line of a gunman's shot. But, the audience is always wondering where he's going. It's merely a walk across the block, but it holds the attention superbly.

There's nothing on how the 1956 film looks that we'll disagree on I think.

Oh, definitely. And it is a great example of Siegel's control and design. Of course, beyond all the staging and the shot composition, Lalo Schifrin's music too plays an integral part in how that particular sequence works so well.

Burzum

Hellraiser
Phantasm
Dolls
Opera
From Beyond
Perfect Blue

Some of my favorites

Tony EH

shazzerman wrote: »

Oh, definitely. And it is a great example of Siegel's control and design. Of course, beyond all the staging and the shot composition, Lalo Schifrin's music too plays an integral part in how that particular sequence works so well.

True and I had mentioned it in the post before I edited it (the sentence looked awkard). Schifrin's manic jazz fusion stop/start music is a great overlay to the visuals.

yerwanthere123

mrcheez wrote: »

Ah I didn't hear about it and missed all the hype, probably helped.

I just watched it not knowing anything about it, not even a trailer. I think this is the best way to appreciate films on their own merits.

Oh I know, I'd be the same, but at the same time it's difficult not to know something about the movie you're about to watch, so if I've heard from multiple sources that it's supposed to be good I will have some level of expectation. I find it difficult not to be somewhat influenced by hype/word of mouth/critical consensus etc.

mrcheez

yerwanthere123 wrote: »

Oh I know, I'd be the same, but at the same time it's difficult not to know something about the movie you're about to watch, so if I've heard from multiple sources that it's supposed to be good I will have some level of expectation. I find it difficult not to be somewhat influenced by hype/word of mouth/critical consensus etc.

had to remember which film you were talking about... for other reader's reference it was this post I put up:

mrcheez wrote: »

Saw "It Comes at Night" just now. Brilliant.

artvanderlay

The Conjuring 2. That freaking nun!

Also the first, and original, Nightmare on Elm Street, before they cocked up the ending. What a horrible premise! I couldn't sleep for days after seeing that as a kid.

mrcheez

That time of year again... going to try to get in a new Horror flick each evening in the run-up to Halloween.

Started off last night with: Terrifier

Gory slasher... great if you hate clowns

CastorTroy

Was half thinking it was because all the victims are clowns, but guessed otherwise. Though that would be a nice twist. Like Cherry Falls but with clowns instead of virgins. And preferably good

kunst nugget

Hereditary was a hit for me. Very effective horror movie with great performances.

Cork Boy 53

Not a horror film as such but there is a scene in Fire in the Sky, where Travis Walton is being subjected to an examination by the aliens, that never fails to give me the creeps.

brianregan09

Cork Boy 53 wrote: »

Not a horror film as such but there is a scene in Fire in the Sky, where Travis Walton is being subjected to an examination by the aliens, that never fails to give me the creeps.

Plus 1 on that , that film I think aired 1st in a couple of parts on Sky one it freaked the **** out of me as a child I had to sleep with the lights on for about 2 weeks afterwards uhhh still gives me the chills thinking about it

mrcheez

mrcheez wrote: »

That time of year again... going to try to get in a new Horror flick each evening in the run-up to Halloween.

Started off last night with: Terrifier

Gory slasher... great if you hate clowns

saw Unsane last night, more of a B-movie psych thriller than horror but defo worth a watch as the story premise could happen to anyone. Also saw Hold the Dark night before, give it a miss.

mrcheez

Watched It Follows again last night, forgot how good this was. It's still creepy even having seen it before.

Child's Play night before to bring back good ol' memories of watching a pirated version on VHS when it first came out.

Then I got stuck into Resident Evil Biohazard on PSVR... now we're talking true horror. Gonna probably end up playing this each evening rather than horror flick for rest of the month :pac:

Walter Bishop

It Follows is brilliant, and a second or later viewing really helps to pick up on a lot of details that can go un-noticed on first watch.

neirbloom

Dunno if id classify it as a horror but I remember being unable to sleep for days after watching Threads. Testament, which came out the year before which I watched recently is another which goes for more of an emotional punch is another I would highly recommend, early Kevin Costner role.