SHERDOG MOVIE CLUB: Week 37 Discussion - Maniac

[Guestx]

Well I can't claim that I know anything about the people that line-up those websites top movies... But just some speculations.

1: Film has over 100 years of history. So obviously the movies should be fairly spread out over that timespan. So most movies shouldn't be new.

Sure, but since the art of filmmaking and technology are fundamentally intertwined, it makes sense that films get better as time goes on. In the same way that the top sports cars of today are going to outperform the best cars of the 50s, advances both in terms of physical technology as well as techniques should dictate that today's crop of films are generally better than those of the past.

For instance, we might say that Birth of a Nation is a 10 when considering the time in which it was made, but is someone really going to argue that it's a better--or as good of--a movie as Fellowship of the Ring?

3: Critics and filmmakers tend to be refined and cultured people. Refined and cultured people tend to like refined and cultured things.

Not sure what this has to do with anything. Are older movies somehow objectively more refined and cultured than newer ones?

This argument sounds more like misguided snobbery than anything else. "Look at me! I like old stuff! Look how refined and cultured I am!"

4: Most critics and filmmakers are on the older side and people tend to like stuff they watched in their formative periods. It appears that some directors are quite timeless (Hitchcock, Kubrick, Kurosawa, etc) while others gain from this. For example, you have people like Spielberg, Scorsese, Mann, Kurosawa, Carpenter praising John Ford's films as if they're the best thing since sliced bread, but Ford doesn't seem to have nearly as much traction among modern filmmakers as he did of those generations.

Sure, that makes sense.

 

[Guestx]

Those are mostly old movies. I'm sure I'm older than you and there have been many fantastic movies since the 70s and 80s. In fact I'd say there are many more 10/10s after the 80s, even after the 90s and onward than before.

And Starship Troopers is one of the most-overrated movies I've ever seen. In fact it has the element I hate in movies - false reward/consequence (or at least insufficiently-explained/unbelievable). The skinny little model girl playing QB, straight-arming tackles lol and out-playing the stereotypical jock QB. Then the supposed cohesive, disciplined army unit that lacks basic self-discipline/morality and yet is able to understand the commanders decision to kill one of his soldiers who was pierced by an alien-being and the statement, "I would expect you do the same to me," he shouts gruffly as if this makes clear sense. Anyway, Starship Troopers is one of my least-liked popular movies for the reasons listed and many more.

Dredd was good. Some of the others on your list were good as well.

Damn, I love Starship Troopers.

It's one of Verhoeven's best in my opinion, along with Robocop, Total Recall and Black Book.

 

[Guestx]

I almost never read, watch or care what a producer or director (and actor I suppose) says about their film. If the film didn't convey itself, they screwed up and their explanations are pointless as far as I'm concerned. Why should anyone have to read, hear or watch an explanation ever? 99% of the time anything beyond the movie itself and my experience with it detracts from the film.

And I have seen it at least twice, but obviously if it were chosen through nomination vote I'd watch it again.

Interesting, so you never watch films with the commentary turned on?

 

[Guestx]

Movies are an escape (for me anyway, 90% of the time unless I'm watching a documentary). They are portraying a story -fictitious or not. The better the movie, the more it makes a believable, compelling case even when dealing with outlandish subject-matter (see sci-fi for example if one dislikes horror or comedy [genres I do like]). Explanation takes away from the mystery and experience for me. It's only in the last 10 or 12 years that I've begun to understand the truth behind "less is more." And I do think pop culture is failing in this regard. The more we learn about the nitty-gritty, behind the scenes, the more we lose mystique and a part of enjoyment.

Quentin Tarantino would agree with you on this. He feels like all the behind-the-scenes information we now have on films has taken away from the "movie magic" aspect filmgoing. It's better, in his opinion, when audiences don't know how certain things were accomplished and instead have to walk away saying, "How did they do that?"

 

[dissolved]

Damn, I love Starship Troopers.

It's one of Verhoeven's best in my opinion, along with Robocop, Total Recall and Black Book.

Hate is a strong word, but I felt close to that when it came out. I've since cooled, but I still don't think it was a good movie.

 

[dissolved]

Interesting, so you never watch films with the commentary turned on?

Never.

 

[dissolved]

Quentin Tarantino would agree with you on this. He feels like all the behind-the-scenes information we now have on films has taken away from the "movie magic" aspect filmgoing. It's better, in his opinion, when audiences don't know how certain things were accomplished and instead have to walk away saying, "How did they do that?"

Interesting, I didn't know that. Cool! He just went up a notch for me lol.

 

[BeardotheWeirdo]

I would say, though, that the one girl walking alone while noticing Wood's character in the van was a bit unbelievable. But I guess it happens.

I agree for the most part. I thought they knew each other and she'd been stalked before maybe, but it did seem dumb that she noticed right away ... i f she was that paranoid why did she put herself in that position (alone in a dark, dangerous neighbourhood at night) They could've split a cab, or at least stayed where it's safe and called a cab.

I've been making music all my life so I can appreciate good sound production. I hate when bands start their song/album with a clip from a movie (that's too loud) and then the song is all quiet, it kills the energy and vibe. I also hate movies that jump from extremely loud to extremely quiet forcing the viewer to hold the remote all throughout the movie. The sound production was great in this movie.

But where's the consistency? One minute he has no control and is killing every attractive woman he see's, the next he's being (almost) charming. For me this is one of those rare cases (Like in V for Vendetta) where the romantic relationship is so unrealistic that it's almost laughable.

Generally horrors don't have a lot of depth, and I'd say this one has more than most. The explanation came out in his flashbacks of his mom, and, after the dinner date with his first victim, the psychological turmoil of not being able to "have just one."

Myself, I liked the fact his motives weren't spelled out more than this.

Well, that's certainly true that most modern horror stories have little to no depth.

First, Anna came to him and appreciated his craftsmanship. In fact she wanted pictures and to include the manequins in her show. She also demonstrated trust with the introduction. So there was actually a lot of reasons why he had a different reaction, control with her.

The second girl he murdered was trying to take his virginity. Considering how he was acting, and how they just met... she demonstrated way more trust than the girl he fell for. Also the second girl didn't ask any favours and was clearly giving him pity sex, because he was so pathetic. She was nicer then the one he fell for.

The store was passed down, a family business. It looked like a low-rent area of town. Also, it seemed like buyers would be special collectors, not Sears women-section managers. The one restoration Anna thought was beautiful was from the 1930s or something like that. Next, he didn't come across as wealthy driving an old van and whatnot. A lot of family businesses get passed along on a shoestring budget and survive if there's no mortgage and little/no staff. Perhaps there had been an inheritance too, who knows.

I get that, but he was just so weird and creepy that women he looked at, literally ran away from him. Who would want to do business with someone so crazy.

It's like the way Conor acts at press conferences, and then at home alone. There's two totally different persona's. If press-conference Conor was his real personality there is no way he'd get anywhere near or belt.

Elijah's character had zero control most of the time. People like that can run business' for long, even with free rent, there's still property taxes and he has his own apartment. The smell coming from those scalps would draw the attention of his landlord, for sure.

Things just didn't add-up.

It's unclear if she actually was a hooker or more likely IMO, a woman who inherited her parents business, had a shlub of a husband or bf who left her as a single lonely mother looking for affections wherever she could find them. Maybe she supplemented her shop hooking, but we don't know. All of this is very plausible and happens a lot (maybe not the hooking but the rest).

It just didn't add up, imo.

If his grand-parents were successful, hard-working, respsonsible people then it's extremely unlikely that his mom would've turned out the way she did.

If the mother had to turn to prostitution to pay the bills, then how would he be surviving?

I don't think it's a stretch to think that most killings occur during the evening hours. And it was fall as when they were sitting by the pond, so the dark hours are longer than in the summer.

It's not, but for me it was a stretch to think he can act calm and run his business during the day, then at night he has almost no control over his actions. The daytime and night-time versions of him just didn't add-up.

Not sure you can deduce worst killer in history. In the movie he killed 4 and Anna was his 5th. But the news were reporting the kills by the time he went after Anna's agent. So it seems he was in the final spiral.

Ok, one of the worst.

If we're just going by numbers then Elijah is a small fry, but if we're going by the method of murder and the callousness of his actions, he's one of the worst. Scalping people then stapling their scalps to mannequins and pretending they're your friends... it may not seem that way to someone who watches tons of twisted horror movies, but things like this almost never ever happen in real life. The smell alone would drive most crazy.

He was obviously not mentally right, so he wasn't thinking in a logical way like you or I might. Further, the lines between reality and fantasy had been coming in and out of focus for some time. The fact that there were only the four or five mannequins with scalps was indicative of his final descent into madness. And BTW, I believe there was a painter who gouged his own eyes out.

Nowhere close to mentally right, which (as someone who runs their own business) is why I find it so extremely hard to believe that he could function and pay his rent, and run his shop etc.

I think you might be reading more into this than warranted. Of course a horror movie is meant to elicit fear though.

True, but does anyone ever expect them to actually be terrifying.

I'm not afraid of Elijah Woods by any means, but what was I supposed to get out of the movie? It's not enjoyable seeing terrified women get murdered. I suppose it's a testament to how well those scenes were shot and acted but it seemed too real for it to be fun.

I never even thought to look up what the director looks like. I don't think I've ever done this lol. It seems this film evoked some feelings in you anyway.

I was curious, who would make a movie like this... what is his motivation? I have no idea, but he looks like the dictionary definition of a hipster. I've seen propaganda movies before (Cast Away, The Day After) I honestly would love to interview this guy, to find his motivation.

You know, it's extremely rare for movies to bother me this much, but this one really did, it actually offended me which is very hard to do.

Not all good movies wrap up with a bow. I'm guessing you don't watch too many horrors, but many are even more pointless than this one. In the end he actually was found out by police in the hell of his living space.

Yes and no, I love horror-comedies, and I've had plenty of friends, and some girlfriends that love horror movies over the years. I love "Night of The Living Dead", Dawn of the Dead", "Day of the Dead" and a lot of zombie movies. But serious torture horror movies do nothing for me, I hate them.

One of my favourite movies is Father's Day (which is very gory, and is banned in Australia) but it's a silly movie. I love Troma films, and they love gore, nudity, and exploiting women, but in a fun way.

I love Natural Born Killers, but this movie reminded me of my least favourite scene from that movie (on repeat for 2 hours) The scene where the detective strangles the hooker to death...

This story isn't that dissimilar to real life serial killers. The guy (Ed Gein, I believe) who inspired The Texas Chainsaw Massacre movies actually had a similar childhood in some ways to the Maniac. Then, women started missing in Ed's town. By the time they investigated his farmhouse, they found lampshades made of women's skin, and furniture made from bones etc. It was a literal horror house. The documentary is on youtube and a real eye-opener. Many of the most horrific serial killers murdered dozens of victims in unbelievable ways. So really, this film was quite realistic in that regard.

Anyway, thanks for the write-up. I can see how this film wouldn't be appreciated by everyone.

I didn't know Ed Gein was that twisted, but how many serial killers like him have their been? And would he have been able to function in a busy city? I doubt it.

Why do you like the movie so much?

 

[Guestx]

Never.

Weird. My decision on whether or not I actually buy a film on Blu-Ray is largely due the wealth of supplementary material on the disc. If there's not much in the way of extras, I probably won't buy it.

For me, I want each home video release to act as a film course unto itself, so I'll take as much of that stuff as I can get.

 

[Guestx]

I agree with this as well. He was great in The Oxford Murders and Pawnshop Chronicles as well IMO. And I started the new Netflix show Dirk Gentley's Holistic Detective Agency and it is pretty solid so far.

I haven't seen any of those. I'll have to check them out.

I've also heard Grand Piano and The Trust are both solid.

Also, am I the only one who gets him mixed up with Daniel Radcliffe?

Probably.

That's quite an interesting question, actually. Honestly this could be a question for why most horrors? For me there's an emotional reason, and that's fear, or the exploration of it. A second reason is that I truly enjoy seeing and understanding the psychology of almost any type of person. You like supernatural horrors or thrillers, and I similarly appreciate them more than slasher type flicks. But the odd one, like Maniac to me, does offer more than something like The Devil's Rejects, or even movies like Friday The 13th and Halloween.

I tend to like slasher films if they're campy. Freddy vs Jason is one of the few horror films I own on Blu-Ray. I look at films like that as more fun and entertaining than I do scary, and they don't disturb me in the way something like Maniac does because the deaths never strike me as the deaths of real people. Same goes for something like Bride of Chucky.

I actually agree with this, the reason why many (including yourself) would appreciate American Psycho more. Ultimately there is a missing enviable power dynamic missing in Maniac. Bale's character is wealthy, dresses well, is physically fit, is good-looking . . . He's a model, that, men (particularly young men), would want to emulate. So there's this sort of dark exploration of psychosis mixed with power. Ironically it turns out to be a fantasy for Bale even, an exploration of his mind.

Interestingly, along this point, I find younger men and boys enjoy the manifestations of power. I used to love Goodfellas and Casino - basically all gangster movies. They dressed well, did what they want when they wanted. Now I find those movies sort of "Meh," and mostly juvenile.

It was no surprise to me that my nephew's favorite show is "Suits" which, to me isn't horrible, but the plots are kind of thin and generally fail the plausibility inspection when applied. But, again, they display the elements of youthful, male power.

I guess I just never grew out of that stage because I still get down for that shit. Power in general is interesting to me, because it translates into the capability to get things done: to accomplish tasks, to accumulate wealth, to protect yourself and your family.

I often find myself fascinated with men, whether real or imaginary, who found a way to play the game of life and win.

 

[Guestx]

The second girl he murdered was trying to take his virginity. Considering how he was acting, and how they just met... she demonstrated way more trust than the girl he fell for. Also the second girl didn't ask any favours and was clearly giving him pity sex, because he was so pathetic. She was nicer then the one he fell for.

I don't agree with the "clearly giving him pity sex" bit. I think she found him shy but cute and she genuinely liked him.

BTW, you need to fix the formatting on your post. Something got fucked up in your quoting.

 

[dissolved]

I don't agree with the "clearly giving him pity sex" bit. I think she found him shy but cute and she genuinely liked him.

BTW, you need to fix the formatting on your post. Something got fucked up in your quoting.

I was kind of waiting for him to fix it before quoting it myself lol.

 

[BeardotheWeirdo]

Starship Troopers.

How?

 

[Guestx]

True, but does anyone ever expect them to actually be terrifying.

You never experience fear while watching a horror movie?

 

[BeardotheWeirdo]

You never experience fear while watching a horror movie?

A little for The Blair Witch Project, up until the end I thought it was scary. Not so much because of how it was filmed but because the characters acted in a realistic acceptable manner and the scenario didn't seem so far-fetched, until the end. But then I learned about science and all those supernatural movies are hilarious to me now.

I've been threatened with knives and guns, by strangers and gang members in real life. I've seen my good friend threatened by a guy with a gun in the backwoods while camping, another time we were threatened with violence by backwood Native Americans out in the sticks in Northern Ontario... I've been down south, it's not nearly as bad as they pretend it is. I've stayed in Hostels. I've lived in Toronto, right on the border of the good part and the bad part. I don't scare easily, and I don't relate to the type of characters you usually get in horror movies.

I've seen "Traces of Death" (not by choice) in high school. It was one of those illegal films with nothing but real footage of brutal executions, decapitations, torture and horrible shit like that. You want scary, watch that, or the 5 part JFK/RFK conspiracy documentary (Evidence of Revision), that's a truly terrifying series of documentaries. In the Name of The Father, that was scary... horror movies, nope. I feel sorry for the women but I can't relate to someone who can't defend themselves at all, and makes terrible decisions (in those type of situations I can't relate to them)

That's why I loved Green Room so much, it was the first time I've ever been able to actually relate to characters in a horror movie, although I would've handled things much differently than the way they did. But it wasn't scary for me, It was more of an adrenaline rush.

 

[europe1]

Sure, but since the art of filmmaking and technology are fundamentally intertwined, it makes sense that films get better as time goes on. In the same way that the top sports cars of today are going to outperform the best cars of the 50s, advances both in terms of physical technology as well as techniques should dictate that today's crop of films are generally better than those of the past.

For instance, we might say that Birth of a Nation is a 10 when considering the time in which it was made, but is someone really going to argue that it's a better--or as good of--a movie as Fellowship of the Ring?

Are older movies somehow objectively more refined and cultured than newer ones?

Not objectively so.

But subjectively so.

There is a widespread idea in the popular counciousness that old=cultured. I don't agree with that standpoint -- but it is out there, and might affect how people vote.

I was initially going to write "smart people like smart movies", as a response. But that isn't valid to explain the disparity between the amount of old movies and new on those lists, since a fair share of smart movies are still being produced. However, what the smart new movies don't have that the old smart movies have, is the recognition of being smart, which comes with time as people discuss and assess said film.

Quentin Tarantino would agree with you on this. He feels like all the behind-the-scenes information we now have on films has taken away from the "movie magic" aspect filmgoing. It's better, in his opinion, when audiences don't know how certain things were accomplished and instead have to walk away saying, "How did they do that?"

Well... firstly, I think we should acknowledge that this question really consist of two different entities. Technique, the craftsmanship of making a movie. And Analysis, the process of deconstructing a films themes, messages, characters, and so on.

I'm mainly talking about the analysis part, while you and In the Name of seems more zoned-in on the technique part.

Also, Tarantino is somewhat of a hypocrite in saying that, since he himself has brought many craftsmanship issues to the public consciousness. Thus letting the audiences know more about what is going on behind the scenes and how movies work. Take his much publicized stick about recording digitally or using film-stock, for example. There was a big thing about that when he made Hateful 8.

Also -- returning to the subject of technique -- I've never been able to relate to this "loss of mystique" feeling that people say come with understanding how things work. For me, the mystique is replaced with awe. I'm impressed and amazed that they managed to get those shots. When it comes to things like CGi for example, I usually tend to be less amazed than when done with practicals. But that's more due to the change in what craft they're using, rather than me knowing more about the technique involved.

to protect yourself and your family.

Don't know about that, being in a position of high-power tends to coincide with you and your family becoming a target, thus increasing the threat towards them rather than downgrading it. Especially if it's powerful positions that are very public such as politics or the media.

How?

Quién sabe, my friend. Quién sabe...

You never experience fear while watching a horror movie?

Personally I don't really feel fear either. It's just a movie. Sure there are a handful of them out there but most horror movies aren't actually frightening.

I've never understood why people watch horror movies to be frightened. The appeal seems foreign to me. Personally I've always been attracted to horror movies due to their sense of style, atmosphere, sensibility and subject matter.

 

[europe1]

Sure, but since the art of filmmaking and technology are fundamentally intertwined, it makes sense that films get better as time goes on. In the same way that the top sports cars of today are going to outperform the best cars of the 50s, advances both in terms of physical technology as well as techniques should dictate that today's crop of films are generally better than those of the past.

For instance, we might say that Birth of a Nation is a 10 when considering the time in which it was made, but is someone really going to argue that it's a better--or as good of--a movie as Fellowship of the Ring?

Whoa, apperently I forgot to reply to this one.

In the same way that the top sports cars of today are going to outperform the best cars of the 50s, advances both in terms of physical technology as well as techniques should dictate that today's crop of films are generally better than those of the past.

I'd say that that comparison is fallacious since you're comparing a piece of technology with... well... a piece of art. A car is fundamentally quantifiable. You can measure its top speed, acceleration, and so on. Therefore we can objectively determine what car is best. Movies are subjective. You can't "mesure" someone's feelings. You can't quantifiably assess an reaction and then effortlessly contrast-and-compare. Plus, unlike determining the speed of a car, finding out why someone likes or dislikes a movie is immenserable more complex with an ghastly amount of diffrent factors to assess and consider.

we might say that Birth of a Nation is a 10

I think Birth of a Nation might be a poor example to take. Remember earlier when I said that some films might receive votes solely due to technical accomplishments alone? I used Citizen Kane as an example -- but Birth of a Nation is probably the ur-example. I haven't actually seen it, but every review and assessment of it that I've read on why it's one of the greatest films of all time, have spoken soley about the technical innovations.

So people might not actually like it in that way, they simply hold it in a grand opinion due to how inventive it was.

Personally, movies from the 10's are really the only ones that I think are so old that the technology and conventions in play hold the movie back in terms of my enjoyment of them. After that, it's free sailing.

Sure, but since the art of filmmaking and technology are fundamentally intertwined

Art of filmmaking? In the context of what you're saying I assume that you define this as something akin to "the ability to elicit a positive response from the viewer".

I think you place way to great an emphasis on technology in determining the why a film is quality or not. Sure, props and camera conventions have evolved. But things like script, storytelling, acting, and everything else that goes into a film is important too. Technology is just a tool, anyhow. The artistry in filmmaking is using what tools you have to create a piece of film.

LOTR is a great movie. One of its many strengths is that it has amazing world-building -- but I've never seen a movie with more awe-inspiring world-building than 1927's Metropolis. Sure LOTR has techniques that Metropolis never had, such as CGi, landscape photography and... colour. But those things don't make anything great on their own. It's how you use them. The techniques of Metropolis are old and robust but the artistry of it all, the design, the end-product that the director created with the tools that he had are some of the most evocative I've ever seen.

Likewise, LORT is a pretty rousing movie. It inspires grand emotions. But I've almost never had a movie so skillfully inspire emotions of loathing in me as 1931's Fury. LORT can inspire these things through spectable -- but all you really need to kindle emotions is some actors, a script, and a whole lot of talent. Those things arn't dependent on technique once your technique reaches a very rudimentary level.


So what I'm trying to say is, it's not filmmaking artistry that has developed. It's our tools. Tools are what you use to create artistry. But particular sets of tools don't make things great or artistic. They are just what directors draw-upon when they're creating their work. Great directors -- as history has shown -- manage to get across their vision no matter the tools handled to them (as long as we're not talking cave-man levels of sophistication in said tools).

 

[dissolved]

I agree for the most part. I thought they knew each other and she'd been stalked before maybe, but it did seem dumb that she noticed right away ... i f she was that paranoid why did she put herself in that position (alone in a dark, dangerous neighbourhood at night) They could've split a cab, or at least stayed where it's safe and called a cab.

I've been making music all my life so I can appreciate good sound production. I hate when bands start their song/album with a clip from a movie (that's too loud) and then the song is all quiet, it kills the energy and vibe. I also hate movies that jump from extremely loud to extremely quiet forcing the viewer to hold the remote all throughout the movie. The sound production was great in this movie.

But where's the consistency? One minute he has no control and is killing every attractive woman he see's, the next he's being (almost) charming. For me this is one of those rare cases (Like in V for Vendetta) where the romantic relationship is so unrealistic that it's almost laughable.



Well, that's certainly true that most modern horror stories have little to no depth.



The second girl he murdered was trying to take his virginity. Considering how he was acting, and how they just met... she demonstrated way more trust than the girl he fell for. Also the second girl didn't ask any favours and was clearly giving him pity sex, because he was so pathetic. She was nicer then the one he fell for.



I get that, but he was just so weird and creepy that women he looked at, literally ran away from him. Who would want to do business with someone so crazy.

It's like the way Conor acts at press conferences, and then at home alone. There's two totally different persona's. If press-conference Conor was his real personality there is no way he'd get anywhere near or belt.

Elijah's character had zero control most of the time. People like that can run business' for long, even with free rent, there's still property taxes and he has his own apartment. The smell coming from those scalps would draw the attention of his landlord, for sure.

Things just didn't add-up.



It just didn't add up, imo.

If his grand-parents were successful, hard-working, respsonsible people then it's extremely unlikely that his mom would've turned out the way she did.

If the mother had to turn to prostitution to pay the bills, then how would he be surviving?



It's not, but for me it was a stretch to think he can act calm and run his business during the day, then at night he has almost no control over his actions. The daytime and night-time versions of him just didn't add-up.



Ok, one of the worst.

If we're just going by numbers then Elijah is a small fry, but if we're going by the method of murder and the callousness of his actions, he's one of the worst. Scalping people then stapling their scalps to mannequins and pretending they're your friends... it may not seem that way to someone who watches tons of twisted horror movies, but things like this almost never ever happen in real life. The smell alone would drive most crazy.



Nowhere close to mentally right, which (as someone who runs their own business) is why I find it so extremely hard to believe that he could function and pay his rent, and run his shop etc.



True, but does anyone ever expect them to actually be terrifying.

I'm not afraid of Elijah Woods by any means, but what was I supposed to get out of the movie? It's not enjoyable seeing terrified women get murdered. I suppose it's a testament to how well those scenes were shot and acted but it seemed too real for it to be fun.



I was curious, who would make a movie like this... what is his motivation? I have no idea, but he looks like the dictionary definition of a hipster. I've seen propaganda movies before (Cast Away, The Day After) I honestly would love to interview this guy, to find his motivation.

You know, it's extremely rare for movies to bother me this much, but this one really did, it actually offended me which is very hard to do.



Yes and no, I love horror-comedies, and I've had plenty of friends, and some girlfriends that love horror movies over the years. I love "Night of The Living Dead", Dawn of the Dead", "Day of the Dead" and a lot of zombie movies. But serious torture horror movies do nothing for me, I hate them.

One of my favourite movies is Father's Day (which is very gory, and is banned in Australia) but it's a silly movie. I love Troma films, and they love gore, nudity, and exploiting women, but in a fun way.

I love Natural Born Killers, but this movie reminded me of my least favourite scene from that movie (on repeat for 2 hours) The scene where the detective strangles the hooker to death...



I didn't know Ed Gein was that twisted, but how many serial killers like him have their been? And would he have been able to function in a busy city? I doubt it.

Why do you like the movie so much?

Thanks for the long response.

I'm sort of burned out on this thread, so I'll just answer the last question.

I liked it because I thought it was well done, effectively disturbing and even scary at points. Horror movies generally suck, but this was above average as far as I'm concerned. And horror is one of my favorite genres.

 

[BeardotheWeirdo]

Thanks for the long response.

I'm sort of burned out on this thread, so I'll just answer the last question.

I liked it because I thought it was well done, effectively disturbing and even scary at points. Horror movies generally suck, but this was above average as far as I'm concerned. And horror is one of my favorite genres.

Fair enough, if one is able to put themselves into the characters shoes and wants to be scared then I can imagine the film being great. Beauty and entertainment is in the eye of the beholder.

For me personally, the story is always the most important part. I want to see films that are built on a solid foundation.

I wasn't thrilled with Elijah's performance but overall I do think it was a very well made movie. But the story did absolutely nothing for me.

To be fair, it was very intense... and I imagine it would be terrifying for most women to watch this movie. Or for people who can lose themselves in movies, I've never been able to do that...

In a way it's a compliment to the movie. When real horror movies that are designed to be horrific succeed, than they become horrific experiences or at lest uncomfortable ones. And this one succeeded in that regard because it wasn't enjoyable to me, it was hard to watch, and on top of that, there were no redeeming values in the story. There was no message, beyond the obvious, don't be a horrible mother message

 

[dissolved]

Fair enough, if one is able to put themselves into the characters shoes and wants to be scared then I can imagine the film being great. Beauty and entertainment is in the eye of the beholder.

For me personally, the story is always the most important part. I want to see films that are built on a solid foundation.

I wasn't thrilled with Elijah's performance but overall I do think it was a very well made movie. But the story did absolutely nothing for me.

To be fair, it was very intense... and I imagine it would be terrifying for most women to watch this movie. Or for people who can lose themselves in movies, I've never been able to do that...

In a way it's a compliment to the movie. When real horror movies that are designed to be horrific succeed, than they become horrific experiences or at lest uncomfortable ones. And this one succeeded in that regard because it wasn't enjoyable to me, it was hard to watch.

To me, the bolded is EXACTLY why I liked this movie.

Cheers!