djtoell

Something tells me you didn't actually visit every video store in the world to come to that conclusion, as I've seen SOTL categorized under horror at more than one video store.

DJ

ctyankee

Well then you should tell them to put it back in the Suspense/Thriller section where it belongs.

The day that the Oscar for Best Picture goes to a horror film will be when cows can fly.

Sure there are elements of horror in Silence of the Lambs, just as there are elements of humor in Midnight Cowboy. However, that doesn't make it a comedy.

Btw, Phantasm, House, Final Destination and Killer Klowns from Outer Space are not slasher films. Even calling Scream (which is part parody of slasher films) a slasher film is a stretch.

I enjoy horror films. To be candid, the problem is that films where the primary mission is to scare people are pretty constained in plot and story.

Supermallet

Okay, here's what I don't understand. Silence of the Lambs is SCARY. It has not one, but TWO serial killers, and plenty of gore . How is it not a horror film? Because it has a great plot and characters? I think some people are defining horror far too narrowly.

djtoell

Don't trample on the ego boost that people get out of attempting to speak authoritatively on a topic as hopelessly subjective as genre categorization...

DJ

Frank S

The reason you probably put it off is the current DVD is of major horrible quality!

Frank S

The reason you probably put it off is the current DVD is of major horrible quality!

Frank S

The reason you probably put it off is the current DVD is of major horrible quality!

Julie Walker

I think some people miss interpret the word 'horror' all together. Horror does not always= scary.

Disturbing maybe,but not always jump out of your seat,afraid of the dark scary.

Yet you can also have a gothic drama,which would still qualify as a horror film. Stuff like Company of Wolves and Bram Stokers Dracula. Neither are remotely scary,nor attempt to be. But they are fantastic amazing pieces of art...& no matter what you say,they are hororr movies.

So yes,Silence of the Lambs is without a doubt a horror movie. Is a sicko out skinning women to make a body suit not horror? Call it 'reality' horror if you will,since it is something that could happen in real life. But it is horror nonetheless.

Yet since horror gets a bad wrap,more elitist movie goers live in denial and masque the films as 'psychological thrillers' etc..but never call them 'horor movies'.

In that case,Videodrome would be neither a horror film or scifi film. It would be a 'psychological thriller/drama'. Yet it is still a sci-fi horror film,that is of the psychological brand,rather than jump scares.

So stop living in denial,Silence of the Lambs is just as much a horror film,as Videodrome is..along with Friday the 13th,Frankenstein and so on

slop101

MSRP will be $39.99 - but dvdPlanet will have it for $24.99. I don't see a problem.

jough

That's what I said.

jough

I used those films as examples of horror films, not slasher films (which is a sub-genre of horror).

jough

Hey, I thought "From Justin to Kelly" was pretty scary, but it's not really a horror film either.

Here's a question: is Hitchcock's "Psycho" a horror movie?

See, I'd say it isn't, even if it has elements of the genre.

Films as complex as The Silence of the Lambs certainly defy simple genrefication, but it holds little in common with "A Nightmare on Elm Street 3: The Dream Warriors."

I like the Sci-Fi horror sub-genre a lot. Anyone remember "Dreamscape"?

Anyway, Scanners and Videodrome are certainly horror films, and it's nice to see Criterion releasing it.

ctyankee

First you introduced 'psychological thrillers' into the discussion not anyone else. However, I don't see anything wrong with the term and it seems very valid for many films. Works well to describe films like Se7en, Hannibal, Kiss the Girls and even older films such as Vertigo.


To your point, if we were to see a sicko skinning some babe yes that would be horror. If we just know that that stuff is going on, it is just sickening stuff like we hear on the news. After all, what is the difference between that and say some sicko putting a woman's head in a box and delivering it himself (a la Se7en)?

Does that mean you need to have sicko violence in a film for it to be horror? Certainly not. But it does need to be about presenting the film with the primary goal being to scare the audience. The Haunting (1963) is a perfect example. Clearly horror without sicko violence or much gore. Yet its intent is not to present drama - its intent is to scare you.

I use the word intent because it is important. Otherwise, older horror films would not even qualify. Watch old films like Creature From the Black Lagoon and it is nothing anymore but cornball fun. Yet, at the time it was released its aim was to scare. I saw it recently in 3D and the audience laughed harder than they do for some modern comedies.

I'm not hung up about whether Videodrome is first and foremost a sci-fi film with some scary moments or a horror film. Same thing with Alien and Aliens. To my mind it still gets back to intent. Is Alien primarily about scaring the audience or about presenting a sci-fi thriller? I can see it being argued either way.

Supermallet

Alien is primarily about scaring the audience. Go watch the interviews on the Quadrilogy. Everybody wanted to make a scary movie.

scroll2b

of course, another thread hijack......

Julie Walker

The Haunting could easily be called a 'psychological thriller/drama' as well. Since that is pretty much what it is. The fear and unease is all psychological. Are ghosts real or is all in that womans head?

But yes,the Haunting is a horror film no matter how you want to dress it. Since I know some people have issues with admitting to liking a horror film. Since they are not taken 'that' seriouslly by elite snob critics and the like...with the few expections.


So horror is a broad genre that include many different things. Alien qualifies as a horror film as well.

Horror does not always aim to scare. Clive Barkers Hellraiser & Nightbreed are great examples of non-scary horror films. One is a disturbing film,while the other is an imaginative fantasy,with some social commentary subtly thrown into the mix.

Seven is definitely a horror film,again of the psychological kind. Taxi Driver is one as well,though most won't admit to it. Yet it is a horror of the more reality type,than supernatural.

The only real mystery genre films are the stuff like Sherlock Holmes,North By Northwest,Rear Window and so forth.

Psycho is a horror film,again of the psychological brand. It is not a graphic film,but in its time seemed extremely graphic. Meanwhile all the tension comes from the unease and creepy atmosphere of the film.

So trying to compare one horror film to the other,as your Silence of the Lambs vs Elm St 3 analogy.

...and yes Scanners is a horror film. A sci-fi horror film(Videodrome included) if you will,but definitely a horror film one way or the other.

Pants

Since many of you don't want to listen to reason and feel that slasher films are the only "true" horror films, I'd like to relate this story:

I once saw John Carpenter speak in 1999 after a screening of The Thing and he went out of his way to insist that Seven and Silence of the Lambs are horror films and that he thought it was great that horror films were still being made and were still popular with audiences.

So there you have it from the mouth of a master of the genre.

DonnachaOne

SO, YEAH, HOW 'BOUT THAT VIDEODROME CC! HUH? HUH?

Leave the definition of horror for another thread! This one's all about the new flesh!

jough

Oh, well, if John Carpenter said something about someone else's films, it must be gospel.

Anyway, I don't think anyone ever said anything about slasher films being the only "true" horror films - I only used slasher films as an example of a sub-genre of horror films.

But to what genre do "thrillers" and "suspense" and "detective" films belong? Would you consider all action movies "horror" because they feature violence and suspense?

Since this thread is already derailed I may as well pose this question: what are the defining characteristics of what makes something a "horror" film?

Since there are some films that we can probably all agree on that are horror films, and some that seem to be in the grey area with people arguing for and against, why is it that we can easily classify "Freddy vs. Jason" as a horror film (I'm assuming we can all agree on that one - let me know if you disagree) but have a difference of opinion on whether or not "Se7en" or "Silence of the Lambs" are horror films?

Pants

Since he's the greatest living director working in the genre...YES, it is gospel

jough

Well, that's debatable, too.

What about Romero? Wes Craven? Clive Barker? Cronenberg? Tobe Hooper? Sam Raimi?

Clearly Carpenter is not the only respected director in the genre - and Carpenter, like Hitchcock, has made more films in other genres than he has in the horror genre.

Besides, Fincher himself doesn't consider "Se7en" to be a horror film - and I respect his word on the subject a lot more than I do Carpenter's.

Richard Malloy

Anybody uncover a cover shot yet? (Of "Videodrome", that is...)

jough

It hasn't even been officially announced yet, so no, no cover shot.

Sessa17

*cough* Dario *cough* *cough* Argento!

ctyankee

I don't think anyone here has suggested that slasher films are the only true horror films, most have said just the opposite. So know I'm wondering whether you were nodding off and Carpenter said the exact opposite. Just kidding ya.

Let's see a director who hasn't been relevant in almost twenty years and now goes to screenings of his own movies is asked whether horror films are still relevant/popular ...

"Yes" says Carpenter (preaching to the choir) and please make my honorarium out to 'cash.'