Quote:
Originally Posted by Sculpt
(Post 955691)
Whether for #22, or Honorable Mentions, don't you think Inside is a better choice? Seems to be the only one in the list with most acclaim & notoriety.
|
That depends. Personally, I do like Inside more than Haute Tension, but I also like Martyrs better than Inside. All three are loved by some, hated by others, and have achieved some level of notoriety, depending on who you ask. I like Haute Tension, and think it's a nice choice for this list for the reasons I've already stated, but any of them are good candidates for their own reasons. I'm glad to back any of them, and I've already backed Inside, so unless V lets me vote twice, I think that's all I can do. ;) If you choose to back Inside now, I suspect someone might match it to make it tied with Haute Tension.
Just a head's up, if you're making a decision on any of these films based purely on research, keep in mind that these films are all controversial to some degree, and not just for being explicit. Many of them redefine horror formulas is ways that horror fans may not like. Any film that stirs controversy or breaks the rules will cause a wide variance in opinion. I wouldn't trust any RT or IMDB ratings for any of these films, and I certainly wouldn't be overly influenced by any single reviewer's opinion. For instance, a horror fan may choose to watch Trouble Every Day hoping to see a fresh take on the vampire subgenre, but be utterly disappointed because not a single fang is to be found in the entire film. When I first watched In My Skin, my own preconception negatively influenced the experience. I was hoping for some cool body horror that might rival Cronenberg, and instead got a woman's psychological battle, seen through an arthouse lens. The second time I watched it, I was blown away.
What I love about this group of films is that, although they disrupt the tropes, they don't come across as pretentious, as if they're better than the classic concepts they're both drawing from and mutating in the process. They treat their predecessors with a great deal of respect, and don't attempt to hide or satirize their influences. I've read plenty of less-than-insightful reviews about how such-and-such a film is just a copy of some other film. (Frontier(s) / TCM is a common one.) Almost always, however, those reviewers are not looking close enough.
Running with the Trouble Every Day example, here's a quote I like from
one particular review:
Quote:
Tellingly, there are also a number of similarities between Trouble Every Day and Bram Stoker's Dracula that deserve mention. In both films the central couple are threatened by the male character's bloodlust; blood and nudity are used expressionistically; the monster is engulfed in flames; the erotic is a focal point; and classic horror cinema is repeatedly referenced. However, unlike Coppola's film, in which the references were a synthesis and summation of vampire and horror film iconography, the allusions in Trouble Every Day act to underline its progressive intent. For example, Semeneau's deranged wife — and Shane's female doppelganger — Corč (Beatrice Dalle) swings her long cloak-like coat and ascends the stairs, evoking Bela Lugosi's Dracula; Corč is held in a large dark house reminiscent of a Gothic castle; Shane comically impersonates classic movie monsters Nosferatu and Frankenstein while visiting Notre-Dame cathedral.
|
That reviewer is paying attention, and clearly so is director Claire Denis.
Quote:
Originally Posted by realdealblues
(Post 955688)
I don't think Irreversible can even be considered. I suppose there is a 1 minute scene at the beginning that could be considered "horrific" and a 10 minute scene in the middle that could be considered "horrific" but the rest is 88 minutes of boring drama, and both scenes could easily be in any Crime/Drama movie made by Martin Scorsese.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Villain
(Post 955689)
I agree. Disturbing and graphic but not a horror movie
|
I agree this film is less "horror" than the rest, and it's also the the one I'd be least excited to back based on its subject matter. However, to me, that entire first scene -- not just the final 1 minute of it -- is horror. It's a brilliant conveyance of confusion, pending doom and uncontrollable bloodlust by Gaspar Noe, heavily driven by the swirling camerawork and throbbing sound design. It's true that the majority of the film is dramatic setup, although with the story told in reverse, the "setup" ends up playing more like a slow reveal. However, since all of those scenes directly reference those two disturbing scenes, IMO, it all "counts." That's the whole movie. :) This film is definitely experimental, so it will never fit cleanly into the boundaries of any genre. It's basically a unique, brutal arthouse film.
