TORTURE HORROR (All Purpose Thread) in Second Takes on Films of the 2000s Forum

0 Points

Forum Jump

TORTURE HORROR (All Purpose Thread)

Author	Comment
Joe Karlosi		#101	[-]
Nov 4 10 5:41 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Michael Elliott wrote: No, it's saying something like PARANORMAL ACTIVITY, HALLOWEEN or THE SHINING could be scary without showing a baby being ripped out of its mother's womb. Hey, Mike, I just rembered something very interesting here. In many of our online discussions of ROSEMARY'S BABY (1968), you have always said the ending never worked for you. You have always said that you thought Mia Farrow should have gone ahead and stabbed the baby and killed it! (I strongly disagree with that, as you know, feeling the end of the movie as it stands is perfect). I can see you have some sort of isolated aversion to the "pregnant woman" thing (from INSIDE). But while there is an incredible amount of bloodletting and gore there, there is not "torture" going on in that film, which is what we're discussing in this thread. However, one only needs to follow you throughout the years as I have (and look at your thousands of IMDB reviews) in order to see you have enjoyed MANY of the so-called "gore' movies, or the 'torture films". Whether it be CANNIBAL FEROX and other "cannibal" movies, or God only knows what else. In fact, you just wrote in your new review for SAW 3D that it was "very good" (your quote). Your tastes in horror have never been confined to subtle movies. Last Edited By: Joe Karlosi Nov 4 10 6:13 AM. Edited 8 times.
Omega Man		#102	[-]
Nov 4 10 5:54 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Something like the infamous "Two Girls One Cup" video is far, FAR more disgusting & disturbing than ANYTHING shown in any fictional horror film ever made. And no one is tortured (or even threatened) in it. By the way: If you don't know what "Two Girls One Cup" is... then be thankful. "Dammit, it's jammed!" www.eccentric-cinema.com
Joe Karlosi		#103	[-]
Nov 4 10 5:57 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	And let's not forget THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST.
Hamicus Helen		#104	[-]
Nov 4 10 7:00 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Joe Karlosi wrote: Jonatwork wrote: Me, too. I'm off to read about movies that are actually enjoyable without being about entrails and people screaming in agony. What a thought! Amen. I have to remind you again, because you chose to ignore me last time - My favorite films here are the Universal classics, and things like Val Lewton's THE BODY SNATCHER (1945). I think the subtle ROSEMARY'S BABY is maybe the best horror film ever made. I've just bought Lon Chaney's 1925 silent movie THE MONSTER. Bela Lugosi is my avatar symbol. And Still, I am capable of enjoying all sorts of other horrors as well and am not "afraid" of a fake movie. Thankyou, this has been my irk in this thread. My favourite horrors are from the 60's, 70's and 30's. Hammer and similar ilk, the universal classics etc. Peter Cushing is my avatar White Zombie is my fave zombie film. And yet I happen to thoroughly enjoy the Hostel films too. Being able to enjoy different extremes of horror, what a thought! "You think that when you die you go to heaven. You come to us!" Last Edited By: Hamicus Helen Nov 4 10 7:34 AM. Edited 2 times.
Michael Elliott		#105	[-]
Nov 4 10 9:19 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Joe Karlosi wrote: Michael Elliott wrote: No, it's saying something like PARANORMAL ACTIVITY, HALLOWEEN or THE SHINING could be scary without showing a baby being ripped out of its mother's womb. Hey, Mike, I just rembered something very interesting here. In many of our online discussions of ROSEMARY'S BABY (1968), you have always said the ending never worked for you. You have always said that you thought Mia Farrow should have gone ahead and stabbed the baby and killed it! (I strongly disagree with that, as you know, feeling the end of the movie as it stands is perfect). I can see you have some sort of isolated aversion to the "pregnant woman" thing (from INSIDE). But while there is an incredible amount of bloodletting and gore there, there is not "torture" going on in that film, which is what we're discussing in this thread. However, one only needs to follow you throughout the years as I have (and look at your thousands of IMDB reviews) in order to see you have enjoyed MANY of the so-called "gore' movies, or the 'torture films". Whether it be CANNIBAL FEROX and other "cannibal" movies, or God only knows what else. In fact, you just wrote in your new review for SAW 3D that it was "very good" (your quote). Your tastes in horror have never been confined to subtle movies. This doesn't quite work, although it was a smart move on your part to bring it up. ROSEMARY'S BABY works so well because of what we DON'T see. I'm sure someone with less talent would have shown a hairy baby with three eyes, ten vampire teeth and all sorts of other issues but a more talent filmmaker would know that we really didn't need to SEE what was going on. That was a lot more powerful than had we seen the deformed creature. That goes to my point that it takes a lot more talent to do what, say HALLOWEEN did than what THE BURNING did. Again, I didn't give INSIDE a bad rating nor did I flat out say it should be banned. I said it wasn't all that talented to get a reaction from people by slicing up a pregnant woman. You and I could do that. I did say that I'm thankful that type of film isn't seen by the masses or I'd kiss you butt and join you in the BOY IS IT OVER chants. Back to ROSEMARY, I did say that I believe most people would have killed the baby. I told you that I showed the film to a couple pregnant girls and neither one would want to bring in the antichrist so they would have killed it. We could change this topic to an aborition but I won't take it in that direction. I would say that I think Polanski could have ended the movie by killing the kid and by doing in a way where we never see a thing and it would be 100% more powerful than any scene in INSIDE.
Joe Karlosi		#106	[-]
Nov 5 10 5:31 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Michael Elliott wrote: ROSEMARY'S BABY works so well because of what we DON'T see. I'm sure someone with less talent would have shown a hairy baby with three eyes, ten vampire teeth and all sorts of other issues but a more talent filmmaker would know that we really didn't need to SEE what was going on. That was a lot more powerful than had we seen the deformed creature. You don't have to convince me, because that's my point too and I agree. I did say that I believe most people would have killed the baby. I told you that I showed the film to a couple pregnant girls and neither one would want to bring in the antichrist so they would have killed it. We could change this topic to an aborition but I won't take it in that direction. I would say that I think Polanski could have ended the movie by killing the kid and by doing in a way where we never see a thing and it would be 100% more powerful than any scene in INSIDE. Besides "most people", what you have always maintained through our many online chats over the years is that you would have PREFERRED that Rosemary killed the baby, stating that in your view it would have made a better ending. Yes, I understand that you are talking about accomplishing this without showing anything, but it's still killing a baby who - at that newborn state of its life - has not yet committed any harm. From your own review at the IMDB, you wrote: I've never really cared for the decision of Rosemary at the end of the movie but Polanski's direction through this scene makes one understand what he was going for and what he was trying.
akira		#107	[-]
Nov 10 10 4:16 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Rick wrote: Akira, I just need to comment that your last post was incredibly bitter, sour, nasty, and way-over-the-top. People are simply expressing opinions here. Your post came out of nowhere as regards the prior temperament of this thread. I think ya been watching too much torture porn. It's angried up your blood. Think as you like
Godziwolf		#108	[-]
Nov 12 10 2:11 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Michael Elliott wrote: Back to ROSEMARY, I did say that I believe most people would have killed the baby. I told you that I showed the film to a couple pregnant girls and neither one would want to bring in the antichrist so they would have killed it. We could change this topic to an aborition but I won't take it in that direction. I would say that I think Polanski could have ended the movie by killing the kid and by doing in a way where we never see a thing and it would be 100% more powerful than any scene in INSIDE. Polanski would never depict the murder of a child. That would limit his dating pool.
Godziwolf		#109	[-]
Nov 12 10 2:15 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Joe Karlosi wrote: Jonatwork wrote: I don't see how one can say it's about being horrified at what is being experienced when such detail is gone into about the actual killings. In all the classic situations you've described, the focus is not on the faces of people being mutilated, on the detailed examination of human insides being pulled apart. Taken one by one, when the mummy is strangling a victim, it's nothing that kids don't do when they play monster games, laughing as they play monster and "kill" each other. Yes, you can often see their faces in torment when Kharis is strangling them in some mummy movies. Dick Foran as an old man in THE MUMMY'S TOMB comes to mind, as well as Professor Norman and that museum guard in THE MUMMY'S GHOST. And sure, kids do play innocent "strangulation games" when they play monsters. I used to do it too, in 1972. But these movies were made in the '30s and '40s, when I'd bet it was a little more intense and people were not as jaded yet. So I'm suggesting that what seems "tame" today was not always so when it was "new". People living through the depression and WWII weren't jaded and familiar with misery?
Godziwolf		#110	[-]
Nov 12 10 2:21 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Michael Elliott wrote: Godziwolf wrote: Michael Elliott wrote: Even before I was a father I would have looked down on "entertainment" of a pregnant woman being tortured, sliced open and having a baby stolen. F13, HALLOWEEN and the countless other slasher movies were fun. Even with the killing they were fun because, to me, they didn't cross a certain line. The same with Rambo, LETHAL WEAPON and countless other action movies were killing was shown. The difference is that those movies were fun to watch. I think most people object to the "torture/porn" because they're not fun and it seems the only goal is to show graphic violence. So you reject a sub-genre of horror because it's... horrifying? Isn't that like hating a comedy because it's too funny? No, it's saying something like PARANORMAL ACTIVITY, HALLOWEEN or THE SHINING could be scary without showing a baby being ripped out of its mother's womb. So? Is To Hell and Back a better movie than Saving Private Ryan or Paths of Glory because it depicted war without, you know, actually showing any of the horror of it?
Michael Elliott		#111	[-]
Nov 12 10 2:33 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Godziwolf wrote: Michael Elliott wrote: Godziwolf wrote: Michael Elliott wrote: Even before I was a father I would have looked down on "entertainment" of a pregnant woman being tortured, sliced open and having a baby stolen. F13, HALLOWEEN and the countless other slasher movies were fun. Even with the killing they were fun because, to me, they didn't cross a certain line. The same with Rambo, LETHAL WEAPON and countless other action movies were killing was shown. The difference is that those movies were fun to watch. I think most people object to the "torture/porn" because they're not fun and it seems the only goal is to show graphic violence. So you reject a sub-genre of horror because it's... horrifying? Isn't that like hating a comedy because it's too funny? No, it's saying something like PARANORMAL ACTIVITY, HALLOWEEN or THE SHINING could be scary without showing a baby being ripped out of its mother's womb. So? Is To Hell and Back a better movie than Saving Private Ryan or Paths of Glory because it depicted war without, you know, actually showing any of the horror of it? If you're going to compare PATHS OF GLORY or SAVING PRIVATE RYAN to *any* film in the "torture/porn" genre then you are obviously missing the boat. No one ever said that a war film had to be serious drama only or only show the horrors of war. No one ever said horror films must stick to one formula or one sub-genre. No one said you couldn't show torture. Would you say watching a 3-year-old girl raped, tortured and murdered would be disturbing? Yeah, any human would fine it disturbing so that has nothing to do with talent. There's no talent behind the recent trend of "scares", which are nothing more than making the theaters loud sound system dead quiet and then having a BOOM and loud BANG come out. It's cheap and contains no talent. Read the reviews of PA2 and see how people were disappointed because of its cheapness and it's lack of imagination, which pretty much gave us nothing but these cheap scares of the BOOM, BANG and ZING sounds. Compare these cheap "scares" to what was behind the first film. Again jack-monkey with a camera can show ugly images on screen. You, Joe and I could film the lowest of lows and make people sick to it. Last Edited By: Michael Elliott Nov 12 10 2:44 PM. Edited 1 times.
Joe Karlosi		#112	[-]
Nov 12 10 5:39 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Godziwolf wrote: Joe Karlosi wrote: And sure, kids do play innocent "strangulation games" when they play monsters. I used to do it too, in 1972. But these movies were made in the '30s and '40s, when I'd bet it was a little more intense and people were not as jaded yet. So I'm suggesting that what seems "tame" today was not always so when it was "new". People living through the depression and WWII weren't jaded and familiar with misery? Oh, come on. You know what I meant. I was talking about not yet being jaded to the HORROR MOVIES. And the stuff of the '30s and '40s was indeed considered "stronger in its day" than it is today. FRANKENSTEIN in 1931 was as intense for some as the SAW films are today. We all realize that. This is not even up for a debate.
Godziwolf		#113	[-]
Nov 14 10 1:51 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Joe Karlosi wrote: Godziwolf wrote: Joe Karlosi wrote: And sure, kids do play innocent "strangulation games" when they play monsters. I used to do it too, in 1972. But these movies were made in the '30s and '40s, when I'd bet it was a little more intense and people were not as jaded yet. So I'm suggesting that what seems "tame" today was not always so when it was "new". People living through the depression and WWII weren't jaded and familiar with misery? Oh, come on. You know what I meant. I was talking about not yet being jaded to the HORROR MOVIES. And the stuff of the '30s and '40s was indeed considered "stronger in its day" than it is today. FRANKENSTEIN in 1931 was as intense for some as the SAW films are today. We all realize that. This is not even up for a debate. Isn't it? Grand Guignol was in its 4th decade by 1931. Jekyll & Hyde, a much more overtly violent and depraved movie, was released in the same year. Movies still had a novelty in their depiction of things -- we weren't far removed from audiences thinking the train was going to burst through the screen (perhaps the most successful horror movie ever), or that Edison's simple frame-substitution effects were real -- but audiences weren't unfamiliar with the grotesque. Considering that in the 1930s, most Americans still lived on a farm, I'd hazard a guess most of them had been up close and personal with butchery and death. Movies may have been naive, but that doesn't mean the audiences were.
Godziwolf		#114	[-]
Nov 14 10 1:58 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Michael Elliott wrote: If you're going to compare PATHS OF GLORY or SAVING PRIVATE RYAN to *any* film in the "torture/porn" genre then you are obviously missing the boat. No one ever said that a war film had to be serious drama only or only show the horrors of war. No one ever said horror films must stick to one formula or one sub-genre. No one said you couldn't show torture. Would you say watching a 3-year-old girl raped, tortured and murdered would be disturbing? Yeah, any human would fine it disturbing so that has nothing to do with talent. There's no talent behind the recent trend of "scares", which are nothing more than making the theaters loud sound system dead quiet and then having a BOOM and loud BANG come out. It's cheap and contains no talent. Read the reviews of PA2 and see how people were disappointed because of its cheapness and it's lack of imagination, which pretty much gave us nothing but these cheap scares of the BOOM, BANG and ZING sounds. Compare these cheap "scares" to what was behind the first film. Again jack-monkey with a camera can show ugly images on screen. You, Joe and I could film the lowest of lows and make people sick to it. If you think Saving Private Ryan has nothing in common with a gore genre, BOOM sounds, or easy excess, you obviously missed the first 20 minutes. But that's neither here nor there: you argued that movies that showed the violence were somehow inferior to those that merely suggested it. I pointed out that two of the most acclaimed war films showed exactly what was going on, which under your theory, would have made them inferior to something like To Hell and Back. Somewhere along the line here is a happy medium. We pretend Halloween doesn't show anything, but it does. Carpenter's The Thing is gory as hell. Giallo seems well regarded around here, and that's all about ulta-violence. If it's sadism that's distasteful, then why is Phibes so well regarded? Is it the banality of the events that's the problem? Things like The Girl Next Door are disgusting films. But in that one's case, it actually happened. Most of the horror it contained is the realization that it's not fiction.
Joe Karlosi		#115	[-]
Nov 14 10 6:51 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Grand Guignol was in its 4th decade by 1931. Jekyll & Hyde, a much more overtly violent and depraved movie, was released in the same year. Movies still had a novelty in their depiction of things -- we weren't far removed from audiences thinking the train was going to burst through the screen (perhaps the most successful horror movie ever), or that Edison's simple frame-substitution effects were real -- but audiences weren't unfamiliar with the grotesque. Considering that in the 1930s, most Americans still lived on a farm, I'd hazard a guess most of them had been up close and personal with butchery and death. Movies may have been naive, but that doesn't mean the audiences were. Where do you think I am getting my views from? They're not my own individual opinion. I've gotten these facts from the memories of people who recalled seeing the early monster films in their heyday and who have said that they WERE frightened and upset by them. You read comments and hear interviews with people all the time who said they were afraid of Frankenstein's monster. Senior citizens today, for example, who relate stories of being kids back then and were afraid to walk home after seeing DRACULA or THE WOLF MAN. They would have nightmares from the movies. These things did happen. Read some of the reviews of the day where certain critics called these movies disturbing and sometimes questioned the mental health of some people. And some of these movies WERE INDEED BANNED in the '30s (though they're considered tame today, and we laugh at the idea they used to be considered too extreme). The 1935 version of THE RAVEN was yesterday's equivalent of HOSTEL in its day. That film itself is often cited as a major reason for the "Horror Ban of the 1930s". Just several days ago someone posted a YouTube interview with 93-year-old Ernest Borgnine at a convention. Borgnine talked about how terrified he was after first seeing Karloff's FRANKENSTEIN. Carpenter's The Thing is gory as hell. Are you sure anymore? Well, this proves my point entirely. It's all about the times. When Carpenter's THING was released in 1982, you are correct --- it was considered "gory as hell". But your timing on this one is perfect, as a couple of weeks ago my 18-year-old nephew and I watched THE THING at my home and I was amazed to discover it not longer felt "over-the-top gory" anymore. In the last 28 years we have seen far more explicit stuff onscreen, and my nephew especially thought it was unbelievable when I told him that THE THING was once considered "extremely gory"! He couldn't believe it, having been so used to the SAW movies and newer films like that. He also thought the special effects which were once considered to be "too graphic" were actually "cheesy"! THE THING, in comparison to what is featured in horror movies now, is no longer considered "too strong." But just like my examples of how FRANKENSTEIN and THE RAVEN affected viewers in the 1930s, Carpenter's film was also equally potent and "off-putting" back in its time. I never thought I'd say this, but I'll now say that John Carpenter's THE THING is actually a tame old horror movie. Last Edited By: Joe Karlosi Nov 14 10 10:19 AM. Edited 7 times.
M F Berry		#116	[-]
Nov 14 10 3:45 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I never thought I'd say this, but I'll now say that John Carpenter's THE THING is actually a tame old horror movie. In comparison, you're right, Joe ... and I find that fact as scary as heck.
Joe Karlosi		#117	[-]
Nov 14 10 3:48 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Me too, believe it or not.
M F Berry		#118	[-]
Nov 15 10 3:08 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I b'leeves ya, Joe!
Michael Elliott		#119	[-]
Nov 15 10 10:16 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Godziwolf wrote: Michael Elliott wrote: If you're going to compare PATHS OF GLORY or SAVING PRIVATE RYAN to *any* film in the "torture/porn" genre then you are obviously missing the boat. No one ever said that a war film had to be serious drama only or only show the horrors of war. No one ever said horror films must stick to one formula or one sub-genre. No one said you couldn't show torture. Would you say watching a 3-year-old girl raped, tortured and murdered would be disturbing? Yeah, any human would fine it disturbing so that has nothing to do with talent. There's no talent behind the recent trend of "scares", which are nothing more than making the theaters loud sound system dead quiet and then having a BOOM and loud BANG come out. It's cheap and contains no talent. Read the reviews of PA2 and see how people were disappointed because of its cheapness and it's lack of imagination, which pretty much gave us nothing but these cheap scares of the BOOM, BANG and ZING sounds. Compare these cheap "scares" to what was behind the first film. Again jack-monkey with a camera can show ugly images on screen. You, Joe and I could film the lowest of lows and make people sick to it. If you think Saving Private Ryan has nothing in common with a gore genre, BOOM sounds, or easy excess, you obviously missed the first 20 minutes. But that's neither here nor there: you argued that movies that showed the violence were somehow inferior to those that merely suggested it. I pointed out that two of the most acclaimed war films showed exactly what was going on, which under your theory, would have made them inferior to something like To Hell and Back. Somewhere along the line here is a happy medium. We pretend Halloween doesn't show anything, but it does. Carpenter's The Thing is gory as hell. Giallo seems well regarded around here, and that's all about ulta-violence. If it's sadism that's distasteful, then why is Phibes so well regarded? Is it the banality of the events that's the problem? Things like The Girl Next Door are disgusting films. But in that one's case, it actually happened. Most of the horror it contained is the realization that it's not fiction. I never made a blanket statement that gore movies can't be as good as those without gore. Let me put it this way. I've seen many, many gory movies from various Italian cannibal flicks to the recent trend of torture/porn. I have yet to see one more powerful that FRANKENSTEIN, NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD (which has gore), HALLOWEEN, THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT or THE SHINING (which too has gore). It's execution not content. The not-fiction part could take this discussion into a much wider direction. I'm not sure if you'd agree but one could say that DELIVERANCE or TAXI DRIVER were much more frightening than THE THING or FRANKENSTEIN simply because those films deal with real monsters. Some people simply can't be scared of something they know is fake or something they don't believe in no matter how well made it is.
Joe Karlosi		#120	[-]
Nov 28 10 7:40 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I just found this quote over at Wikipedia, regarding the SAW series : While the films are often compared to Hostel and classified as torture porn by the media, the creators of Saw disagree with the term "torture porn". Writer Luke Y. Thompson of OC Weekly argued that unlike Hostel, the Saw films actually have less torture than most in the sense of sadism or masochism, as most "torture" is self-inflicted by the characters (and sometimes inevitable). I should also point out that the recent SAW 3D was budgeted at $20,000,000 but to date has made $102,000,000. So I'm wondering if this will really be the last installment. Last Edited By: Joe Karlosi Nov 28 10 7:43 AM. Edited 1 times.

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Add Reply

Yuku free message boards

TORTURE HORROR (All Purpose Thread)