Underrated Horror Films?

[Maglor]

I will say this about Begotten--it is able to evoke a response from people. I suppose that disgust or strong indifference have to count for something. If someone wants to label that art, that is their right, but similar to what Nam is saying, if you aren't producing anything that enriches in some way or another (entertaining people, informing people, exciting people, giving people something interesting to think about, etc.), then I think it is a sad excuse for art. Sure, you could smear your feces on the wall and call it art. Some emo teenagers in, well, Marilyn Manson t-shirts will probably love it. But to me, that kind of stuff is one of the lowest forms of "art." It is easy to do, it doesn't say much of anything. It doesn't even entertain on any level. Oh, you want to speak of the true nature of man and your insightful, cynical understanding of reality as nothing but dog ____? Good for you, but I'm not going to waste my time on that kind of nonsense.

Just got back from working out.

I remembered an example of a peice I saw at my local art museum.

It was in a dark room off to the side of the rest of the art. You sat on a bench and watched a screen. All that was on that screen was a projection of a beating heart (presumably footage from an open heart surgery). The clip started with the heart beating at a normal pace, then it slowed down to the point of almost stopping, after which it sped up to the pace of a humming bird, then back to normal. The whole clip lasted about 10 minutes if I remember right, and it was on a continuous loop.

Did this entertaining, inform, or excite. No not really, but it did move me. I loved it. And there was nobody in that room wearing a Manson t-shirt. In fact I would say I was the youngest person there.

I cant imagine sitting in front of a Rembrandt for 10 minutes and being moved like that. Sure Rembrandt is technically brilliant with his craft and I appreciate his art, but that does not invalidate the beating heart piece.


I guess what I'm saying is that I could never be an art critic. I have a hard time saying that anything that somebody presented as art isn't. I see critics as being cynical and jaded. I sometimes even see them as a bit soulless. In my opinion, art is first and foremost meant to make you feel. Any entertaining, informing or exciting that it may or may not do is secondary.

If a piece doesn't happen to move me, I don't say that it is not art or is "crap" art. If it moves somebody it is valid, even if it only moves the person that made it.

 

[Maglor]

Just purchased a copy of Flowers of Flesh... on eBay, I love this trash cinema, etc.

Great thread!

Good choice!

Get ready for some serious ____!


Oh, and look up easter eggs for the DVD. There is a "snuff vision" version of the film hidden on the DVD that looks like an old VHS tape. It really sells the effects and brutality much better.



Also, be warned that the sound effects are god awful (read: fake sounding). They are obviously added and a bit distracting.

 

[furystorm]

Thanks for the suggestion. I'll be looking for that.

 

[thenammagazine]

Just got back from working out.

I remembered an example of a peice I saw at my local art museum.

It was in a dark room off to the side of the rest of the art. You sat on a bench and watched a screen. All that was on that screen was a projection of a beating heart (presumably footage from an open heart surgery). The clip started with the heart beating at a normal pace, then it slowed down to the point of almost stopping, after which it sped up to the pace of a humming bird, then back to normal. The whole clip lasted about 10 minutes if I remember right, and it was on a continuous loop.

Did this entertaining, inform, or excite. No not really, but it did move me. I loved it. And there was nobody in that room wearing a Manson t-shirt. In fact I would say I was the youngest person there.

I cant imagine sitting in front of a Rembrandt for 10 minutes and being moved like that. Sure Rembrandt is technically brilliant with his craft and I appreciate his art, but that does not invalidate the beating heart piece.


I guess what I'm saying is that I could never be an art critic. I have a hard time saying that anything that somebody presented as art isn't. I see critics as being cynical and jaded. I sometimes even see them as a bit soulless. In my opinion, art is first and foremost meant to make you feel. Any entertaining, informing or exciting that it may or may not do is secondary.

If a piece doesn't happen to move me, I don't say that it is not art or is "crap" art. If it moves somebody it is valid, even if it only moves the person that made it.

There's a fine line though, between appreciating the human body in all it's complex beauty and mechanical finesse, and liking someone's tacky, and horribly presented bastardization of pagan folklore. One is art, the other... not so much.

If you like the heart, there's an exhibit where the artist has taken bodies preserved with wax in various states of autopsy and displayed them doing every day things. It is morbid, but it's also beautiful in it's own complex construction.

 

[karamazov80]

I think you make a good argument, Maglor. I think that opinion is completely legitimate.

I also agree that art, usually, is something that should make you feel. But I also think that there is a hierarchy of art. Some of it is good. Some bad. Most in-between. Some would consider Michael Bay's Transformers movie art. It does evoke feelings in some. Some creativity was involved in its creation, etc. But if it is art, it is not remotely comparable to the works of, say, Ingmar Bergman or Sergio Leone as a work of art.

Similarly, if you want to consider feces smeared on the wall art, that it may be. But it is not remotely comparable to a Van Gogh painting.

Just as we are able to praise the art that we enjoy, we each have a right to criticize that which we dislike or even find reprehensible. Some Nazi propaganda artwork is very beautiful and effective at stirring emotions from a purely visceral standpoint, but is still garbage because of what it stands for. Other works (like Begotten) pretend to be more than what they are, and ultimately just aren't good for much of anything in my view.

I think that even the art that makes us uncomfortable must have some substance, and ultimately must be saying more than, say, a bottle of human excrement could ever hope to do.

 

[sparkstron73]

Just goes to show how much debate and opinion a film like begotten raises.
I'd never heard of it or knew that the director went on to do marilyn mansens vids.

Controversy will always be popular and people will have something to say about it,whether for or against.

Other films mentioned "The omega man" are definately underated and do have a point,reflecting overcrowding and squalor and the threat of wmd's.

"Soylent Green" is another underated horror imo,which tackles the overpopulation problem in a unique way.

Not really a horror film but the idea is horroriffic or is it?

 

[karamazov80]

Hot Toys figures are made out of people!!

 

[Maglor]

There's a fine line though, between appreciating the human body in all it's complex beauty and mechanical finesse, and liking someone's tacky, and horribly presented bastardization of pagan folklore. One is art, the other... not so much.

If you like the heart, there's an exhibit where the artist has taken bodies preserved with wax in various states of autopsy and displayed them doing every day things. It is morbid, but it's also beautiful in it's own complex construction.

I have seen Bodyworlds 4 times.

 

[thenammagazine]

I have seen Bodyworlds 4 times.

I've been meaning to catch it the few occasions it's been around here, but I always miss it due to obligations.

 

[Maglor]

I think you make a good argument, Maglor. I think that opinion is completely legitimate.

I also agree that art, usually, is something that should make you feel. But I also think that there is a hierarchy of art. Some of it is good. Some bad. Most in-between. Some would consider Michael Bay's Transformers movie art. It does evoke feelings in some. Some creativity was involved in its creation, etc. But if it is art, it is not remotely comparable to the works of, say, Ingmar Bergman or Sergio Leone as a work of art.

Similarly, if you want to consider feces smeared on the wall art, that it may be. But it is not remotely comparable to a Van Gogh painting.

Just as we are able to praise the art that we enjoy, we each have a right to criticize that which we dislike or even find reprehensible. Some Nazi propaganda artwork is very beautiful and effective at stirring emotions from a purely visceral standpoint, but is still garbage because of what it stands for. Other works (like Begotten) pretend to be more than what they are, and ultimately just aren't good for much of anything in my view.

I think that even the art that makes us uncomfortable must have some substance, and ultimately must be saying more than, say, a bottle of human excrement could ever hope to do.

This is a good post. And there is a lot to reply to. But I gotta leave for work now...


Will report back later.

I've been meaning to catch it the few occasions it's been around here, but I always miss it due to obligations.

If you get the chance, go!

I've seen Bodyworlds One 3 times and Two once. One is better... and I think there is a Bodyworlds Three as well.

I didn't go for morbid reasons. I am a massage therapist and fascinated by muscle anatomy...

...that said the show definitely touches on both science and art. And you definitely are moved by the experience. Especially the pregnant woman.

 

[thenammagazine]

If you get the chance, go!

I've seen Bodyworlds One 3 times and Two once. One is better... and I think there is a Bodyworlds Three as well.

I didn't go for morbid reasons. I am a massage therapist and fascinated by muscle anatomy...

...that said the show definitely touches on both science and art. And you definitely are moved by the experience. Especially the pregnant woman.

No, I hear ya. And I didn't mean that people were morbid by going, , just that the nature of the exhibit is morbid. But even the biggest of skeptics can't really knock it as they're likely the ones you're swearing at in traffic who slow to 4mph just to see a car accident on the opposite side of the highway.

 

[sparkstron73]

Hot Toys figures are made out of people!!

pmsl

 

[ArmoredFoe]

What about Hell Night...I always thought that movie was so awesom when I was a kid and yet I never really hear anyone mention that one.

The Town that Dreaded Sundown - another movie that I seen when I was a kid and loved because it freaked me out, but again no mentions really.

Also the Brood, thought that was another great flick...not really true horror, but still good.

 

[karamazov80]

The Brood is greatly disturbing, and I think it is as much horror as anything else. Another Cronenberg classic

 

[Shogun]

Lots of nice ones mentioned. I always thought Warlock was underrated. I can't think of any other horror movie where the main villain kills a kid, boils his fat, drinks it and gets the power of flight.

 

[karamazov80]

I can't think of any other horror movie where the main villain kills a kid, boils his fat, drinks it and gets the power of flight.

Didn't that happen in Mary Poppins at one point? Maybe that part was off-screen.

 

[thenammagazine]

Lots of nice ones mentioned. I always thought Warlock was underrated. I can't think of any other horror movie where the main villain kills a kid, boils his fat, drinks it and gets the power of flight.

I thought that one was pretty cool too. The sequels... no.

 

[The Batman Professor]

Here are some other films I recommend (in no particular order)
PRINCE OF DARKNESS
HOUSE OF THE DEVIL
THE DEVIL'S NIGHTMARE
TOMBS OF THE BLIND DEAD
GINGER SNAPS
PRIVATE PARTS
THE BEYOND
BLACK SUNDAY
DERANGED
SHOCK WAVES
WITCHFINDER GENERAL

 

[thenammagazine]

Also, The Horror Show (though I don't get why I keep seeing House III crap associated with it) should be added to the list. Awesome serial killer turned ghost story with a solid script. It's better seeing it uncut than the version butchered by the MPAA. Kara, you should be all over this like a fat kid on cake considering it stars your hero, Lance Henriksen.

 

[karamazov80]

Kara, you should be all over this like a fat kid on cake considering it stars your hero, Lance Henriksen.

I say once that I think he could have worked as the Terminator, next thing you know, I'm spending my nights sleeping next to his Sideshow doll, rehearsing my display of undying love that I will recite to him right before the romantic murder/suicide

I will put it in my Netflix queue, though.

--edit: Tis not on Netflix --