ok lets all shit our pants to something new: post 2005 horror film thread

I generally prefer horror films where I don't know what's going on.

i think last will is a pretty clear narrative, actually! figuring out what is really happening is just held back until the final moments, and its what makes the movie really profoundly touching and sad. in its own weird way.

Wait, so what is happening? I couldn't figure out why he was so chipper at the end.

well im trying how to give you my take on it without going monster spoiler on everyone, but im kind of drawing a blank on how to do that.

there's a monster?!

Assuming, for the same of argument, that there is a monster - no spoliers, just talking hypothetically here - then what the hell was up with the totally for the sake of argument monster?

There's just so much ambiguity, but I'm totally lost as to what it's supposed to add up to.

It's a 2001 movie, so forgive me, but you've got to check out SUSPENDED ANIMATION. Starts out like MISERY, then becomes a DePalma-esque obsession thriller, except it's directed and lit and scored like a Lifetime movie. It takes the strangest plot turns I've seen in a while and has perhaps my favorite teen delinquent of all time. Words fail me. It's streaming on Netflix.

from the director of Let's Scare Jessica to Death. i didn't care for it, but it's definitely different.

I made a sort-of related listed thread:

Can you name 10 "great" horror-comedies?

http://mediamaps.esri.com/geography-of-horror/

Just watched Last Will and Testament of Rosalind Leigh and yeah, that was really good! It skillfully employs one of the horror tropes that always scares me that I won't mention because it may be a spoiler but gah. GAH.

In a very early scene there is a mysterious creepy noise that in another movie would probably resolve in a jump scare of sorts, but doesn't here, but right about where that jump scare would be, the baby gave me a HUGE KICK and I made a ridiculous screaming yelp noise. In summary: LW&TofRL: so much tense atmosphere, my own fetus scared me.

Oh - that house was amazing and I would totally let Rosalind Leigh decorate my home and landscape my yard. I'd get someone else for pool maintenance, though.

yeah RozLee is really good, very heavy on the tension like everyone says and that ending is heartbreaking. I was like "Damn, I should really call my mother."

I have Lords of Salem to watch either tonight or this weekend :D

They showed the first half of The Conjuring at lunchtime today at work -- I enjoyed it! Corny, but I had fun.

made rosalind leigh our halloween watch. found the end a little deflating when it came but enjoy it more as I let it sit. like it went from whatever it was to something else entirely, but that something else wasn't bad either. sadder and sweeter and less scary but not bad. or pretty much: jjusten otm.

ps josh if, just speaking hypothetically, this had been the kind of movie that would involve monster, imo it would also be the kind of movie where that monster's presence would be accounted for unambiguously.

but hey i thought mulholland drive was pretty straightforward so what do i know.

When everybody in the world sees this movie I want jjjusten to post his take bc I too have a take (also thought it was unambiguous) and I want to see how wildly different all our takes are.

Also there is one part near the end that nearly put me over the edge (not a jump scare. LL knows the part) that I could not stop thinking about as I was trying to go to sleep last night.

the bit where she says his name in the garden

had me like >>>>>>>

xpost I thought said hypothetical monster was totally unambiguous. Is that the wrong take? Had it been more clearly ambiguous, imo, I might have gotten more out of this flick. I guess I wasn't sure what the monster was supposed to be/represent? Because there was enough spooky supernatural shit at work that I wasn't sure what I was meant to take from the guilt trip side of the film. Or, for that matter, why the guy kept waking up on the floor. Or what pills he was taking. It was all very elliptical, I though, which can be good, but I wish I knew if I actually missed something vs. whether I'm looking for something that isn't there.

that's what made it good!!
the pills? the slime-licking? the guilt? his confident cooking skills? i don't really care to try to figure out what it all means. all of it was there for the viewer to interpret. it beats being bonged on the head by skinny angry witch ghosts.

I can't really get with that at all. If leave too much to interpret then there's nothing actually there. I guess it all depends on how much you trust the perspective of the camera in this, though I tend to think what's shown to us, especially absent the presence of the protagonist, is "real." It's lame if you just show, say, a ghost floating around, and then try to argue it's all in the head of someone not present.

the person who wielded that camera did a really great job, imo. i trust that person!

Like, is what he sees, and rewinds on the VHS supposed to be up for interpretation? How about the manner of death of his mother? The neighbor talking about the animal? The hypothetical monster creeping around while he sleeps? All that stuff. It's too concrete to be ambivalent, but too confusing to be concrete, especially once you toss in pills and passing out and things going growl in the dark.

The camerawork was cool.

Yeah I dunno, none of that bothered me much. The camerawork was really cool, the set dressing was cool, it was scary, the actor was good, Vanessa Redgrave A+ choice, I didn't feel insulted or disgusted by anything, that alone would have been enough for me. Maybe I have low standards? (I don't think so, but maybe I do)

I don't think so. I have low standards, but I would not say that you do.

I actually just took everything that happened as literal in the world of the movie and metaphorical in the world of making the movie (kind of like how we are to take the events of the Exorcist as literal, but also understand there are metaphors for Father Karras's loss of faith and guilt over his relationship with his mother). So these things happened to Leon, but they also were meant to represent his emotional issues about his strained/estranged relationship with his mother.

yes, and her possible delusions that came real?

OK if we're just straight up talking about it ... there was something at the end that made me think that maybe the whole story of Leon visiting was all in the mind of Rosalind as she was dying - like she was imagining a redemption for Leon that allows him to be happy, and forgiving him for his lack of religious belief. But I don't remember specifically where that interpretation came from - I guess because a literal interpretation wouldn't be as satisfying without a little more explanation? But either way, I enjoyed the movie and am OK with it not totally making sense.

Oh that actually makes a lot of sense w/ the voiceover at the beginning.

I kinda thought it might be dementia?

My feeling was similar to NA's. A story Rosalind is telling herself.

i am also in NA's camp

some slight differences in interpretation but the key thing being that Leon never goes to that house at all. There's a clear exterior shot that establishes this at the end of the movie.

I figured that was just "later" since on the way out he said to sell it all. But nope, you are all making even more sense.

Now I want to watch this again.

YES I AM A FUCKING GENIUS YESSSSSS

okay so if we're doing this jjusten otm. this is a ghost story in the most literal sense. QED.

and it's not about forgiving Leon for lack of faith, it's about mistakes and regret and learning too late that love (which = god after all) is more important than belief.

if what the purely hypothetical monster was supposed to be/represent was unclear you definitely missed something in the final voiceover.

Just say it. Come on. Say what the monster represented.

CAPITALISM

DEMENTIA

http://lostpedia.wikia.com/wiki/The_Monster/Theories

PRIDE, duh.

http://smollin.com/michael/tmonstr/mon011.jpg

I DARE some young aspiring horror filmmaker to pull off what Grover did there.

M. Night, eat your heart out.

Again, not post-2005, but for those who enjoy low-low-budget stop-motion horror (like the original EVIL DEAD or EQUINOX), you gotta check out WINTERBEAST. So much stoopid fun.

I liked "Magic Magic." Really well-acted and effective and depressing.

Finally watched 'My Amityville Horror'. Felt like the director cheesed it out a bit much with the overdone sound effects/music cues. But I found Daniel really fascinating and a v sad protagonist. The part where he was talking about constantly having to play the role of protector *for himself*, that he was never really able to enjoy much of a normal childhood, that really got to me. George really did a fucking number on him, jesus.

The stuff with Lorraine Warren was ! and O_o

finally saw stoker last night (the american debut of Park "Oldboy" Chan-wook), which has its own thread but only one post from someone who's actually seen it, so posting here. Highly recommended to old-school auteur theory types, as you can really see the director chafing against the material. First half of the movie is loaded with abstract portent, shit like Mia W creepily a hard boiled egg on a table so that the shell crackles after a funeral, people can't open a door without signaling "that ain't right," and it seems like its going to build into a grotesque peak when suddenly exposition comes barreling forth and all that ambiguity goes out the window. So whether you see it as a self-indulgent director fruitying up a strong Hitchcock homage or a visually striking director hampered by a b-movie thriller script, it's one of the clearest examples i've seen recently of the two being at odds.

Some would debate whether it's horror but there's death, lotta modern dark "gothic" shit and the title made everybody think it was a vampire movie, so

Finally saw Lords of Salem tonight. SUPER into it. Definitely a new fave.