THE VAULT OF ILX Top 100 HORROR Movies Poll Voting Thread (voting closes May 9 *~*~*~*2012*~*~*~*)

We watched Breaking the Waves like... eleven years ago? and I still remember watching this movie, and being like, well, this woman is a fool but let's see where it all goes, and the end happened and I spent about an hour sobbing on the couch and probably wasn't right again for a couple of days and since then, I've had a strict no LVT policy.

― Polly biscuit face (carl agatha), Friday, April 20, 2012 5:22 AM (5 hours ago)

When it was over, as the light played on the bridge and then the credits rolled, I wept uncontrollably. This wasn't the brief, misty-eyed tearfulness I sometimes experience in response to children's films and other forms of cheap, sentimental uplift. These were full, wracking, heartsick sobs, and they lasted for quite a while. I'd never before and have never since had that response to art of any kind. Afterwards, I didn't feel angry any more. I felt drained, and in feeling drained I felt strangely calm and clear, purged and refined, as though I'd successfully navigated some sort of meditative ritual. It's the only experience I've ever had that even vaguely resembles what people call "catharsis", and it was hugely valuable to me.

I'll defend martyrs as being a thoughtful, self-reflexive hall of mirrors. the torture on display is not for sadistic pleasure or kicks, which is what we assume when the film begins. as its characters' motivations become clearer, our own motivations for watching are called into play. and laugier doesn't shove it down your throat, or pull any aesthetic dirty tricks like a haneke or von trier. he constructs a plot to keep you guessing but doesn't lead you around by the nose, never tries to seduce you into enjoyment or complicity, and - this is critical - doesn't patronize the audience or his characters. it's interesting how the film revels in grotesque intensity but never feels cheap or sordid, and how that overtly arty and clinical approach still manages to remain squarely in the horror genre.

― diamanda ram dass (Edward III), Friday, April 20, 2012 9:16 AM (1 hour ago)

For what it's worth and imo, the way Lars von Trier seduces us "into complicity" with his melodramatic agenda is one of the most brilliant things about Breaking the Waves. We are told up front that we will be manipulated, that we will be made to feel things. The film is very clear about this, and I respect its clarity. It allows us to say, "No, I am not so easily manipulated. I refuse to feel what you so obviously want me to feel." It solicits an oppositional response, and this in turn allows von Trier to play the incredible trick of making us feel exactly what he wants anyway, despite our awareness of the game being played. He manages to manipulate our emotions without playing any "tricks", with all the cards on the table, admitting all along exactly what he's up to. Von Trier even mocks his own appeal to emotion by calling attention the protagonist's fondness for cheap, sentimental, "spiritually moving" bric-a-brac. And the emotional reward (or punishment, if you prefer) he finally offers is profound. Or so it seems to me.

I don't see Martyrs as doing anything anywhere near as clever, perverse or daring. But that's more a matter of taste than relative "quality". I expect that others will see things differently.

yeah lars von trier sucks dude

wow that was long. sry all...

anyway, i was super hungover and depressed when i saw deadgirl, so maybe that affected my judgment. now that you mention it, edward, it is quite similar to mckee's the woman, and i dug that one. should probably see it again, in a less grouchy and sensitive frame of mind.

ignore me on deadgirl until i rescreen

sorry I could not resist punchline

I've been a horror fan for over 30 years, I've seen a lot of subgenres come and go, and the past 10 years have been an embarrassment of riches. anybody complaining about the current state of horror needs to check themselves. ...asian ghost stories, zombie innovations (I'll reel off my standard list - the 28 movies, pontypool, deadgirl, the signal, the end of the line), and plenty of quality outliers (sauna, home movie). plus extreme horror has delivered its own set of triumphs among the copycat gruelfests, and at a higher rate than slasher films or 90s-meta ever did.

that so much of modern horror is based on a knowing helplessness (e.g. a victim strapped into a torture dungeon) rather than on fear of the unknown accurately reflects our 21st century position. we know everything now, an enormous world of information is available to us with a brief swipe of our fingertips, yet terrorism and war abound and our daily happiness is at the mercy of global economies and market forces beyond our control. as our collective roles in society are defined as passive consumers of information, the terror is not some ancient unknowable evil, or in the suspense of being hunted - it is in "how much will I be shown / how much can I endure?" the tools are laid out on the table in plain view, the straps unsubtle, the ritual inevitable.

that's also a pretty brilliant defense of the function of helplessness in contemporary horror. i'm not sure i completely buy it, but it's certainly compelling, and i applaud the construction.

Yeah, I was impressed by that second paragraph. Definitely an interesting way to consider it.

right or wrong, I def see the rise in torture porn coinciding with post-9/11, new american feelings of helplessness. oddly enough, this occurred to me after defending salo for years on movie fan messageboards after criterion reissued it in the late 90s. americans in particular seemed to have a difficult time accepting the film, hated the lack of agency of the characters. unfortunately I don't have the time right now to explicate much further but y'all can prolly connect the dots...

definitely agree that the rise of "torture porn" in america seemed/seems at least in part to have been a response to 9/11. that agenda is made quite clear in films like hostel and turistas - also in the way the american flag, a mobile home and an isolated family function symbolically in aja's hills have eyes remake. i've tended to see the post 9/11 condition of symbolic american-ness in horror films as being one of uncomprehending isolation in hostile surroundings. i'd honestly never considered the way that the physical state of complete helplessness and entrapment might also be an expression of the same anxieties. it does make sense now that i think about it.

while we're on the subject, and lol @ me reading waaaaaay too much into things, i was struck at the time by a scene that appears in both hostel and the hills have eyes, the two most explicitly intentional "post-9/11" horror films i can think of. it may be that i'm misremembering things, but iirc, in both films a protagonist character is trapped, bound and tortured. during the torture sequence, two of the fingers on his/her right hand are cut off [cue drudge sirens]. it's almost too ridiculously on-the-nose to mention, but i was kind of blown away at the time by *the symbolizm*.

i'm not sure that the symbolism would have been so striking to me if the act of seriously maiming a protagonist wasn't, at the time, such a surprising transgression in pop horror. prior to the extreme horror boom in american pop horror, to really and truly survive in the genre was generally to survive (more or less) intact, both physically and psychologically. to see the protagonist irreparably maimed therefore came as a terrible shock, because it made clear that "intact" was no longer an option. you couldn't go through the experience of horror and come out on the other side the same person. to endure horror was to be changed, to be broken, perhaps ruined forever. this also seems like a post 9/11 response, now that i think about it.

I'm liking the direction of this discussion. I'm also no less wary about watching anything the slightest torture porn-y. Although, given the breakdown of post-9/11 extreme-ish horror tropes, it occurs to me that I may actually be a fan of what could be classified as psychological torture porn (which I would've never previously thought to label stuff like The Tenant and Inland Empire and Possession as such, even though a large part of why I enjoy them is the shared experience of audience and protagonist simultaneously being raked over psychological coals).

Keep meaning to check this one out.

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51h3jlkkhaL._SL500_AA300_.jpg

yeah, had never heard of that. sounds great.

it occurs to me that I may actually be a fan of what could be classified as psychological torture porn (which I would've never previously thought to label stuff like The Tenant and Inland Empire and Possession as such, even though a large part of why I enjoy them is the shared experience of audience and protagonist simultaneously being raked over psychological coals).

otm, especially in that those are three of my favorite films, horror or not. and now that you mention it, most "torture porn" is ultimately about the psychological experience more than just the gore or even what i've called "the spectacle of suffering". after all, gore alone can't rake us jaded moderns over the coals. what i find troubling about torture porn is the psychological experience it forces me to endure. that and the spectacle of suffering, pervasive misogyny, tough-guy nihilism, etc...

i cant believe i didnt vote for spoorloos :\

thinking about it. loved it at the time, but it's been so long.

Oh no--I want to vote for the original Stepford Wives, which no one nominated. If it's okay, Eric, I'm going to send an addendum with five more films you can just tack on at the end.

I don't know that psychological stuff can ever really be compared to 'torture porn'. There is something in the explicitness of the latter that seems more objective, where psychological stuff may really resonate with one person and fall flat with another, because it just can't operate in that objective field quite as well.

Spoorloos is going to be reasonably high on my ballot. I don't think that the first half is that great, it seems quite banal, but that banality ensures that the second half/ending makes me crumple all the more.

Didn't know what you were both talking about till I looked it up. Pretty sure I saw the original on TV once; definitely saw the little-regarded remake (same director, weirdly enough).

Yeah, I think it was one of those 'move to America, remake your hit' scenarios. But ffs, they ruined it so bad.

those [The Tenant and Inland Empire and Possession] are three of my favorite films, horror or not.

contenderizer, I'm gonna double up on my earlier recommendation of Images just for you. I share your love for those three films, and Images is in much the same vein.

Just finished watching Deadgirl. Ugh. Well-made, but...hmm. I openly acknowledge that there are people in the world who are generally awful and I don't really need to see movies that just underscore that awfulness. Really persuasive argument for the forced castration of the entire male gender, though, if that's your thing.

^ that was my response. admired the craft, intelligence and willingness to pursue an idea to its logical extreme, but i didn't enjoy the experience one bit.

voted. morbz will be happy to hear that my #1 vote was for a silent foreign film from 1920

The Golem?

The Golem was my #5. My #2 was also a pre 1940s foreign movie.

Forgot to vote for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dybbuk_(film) - would've been in my top 25 for sure.

Eleven ballots now and a tie at #1. For fun.

sort of regret getting all po-face srs about breaking the waves, catharsis and those "full, wracking, heartsick sobs" up there. sheesh, me. it's all true, and i wanted to be matter-of-fact rather than coolly faux-casual & self-mocking, but i have a tendency to slip into dewy-eyed, handwringing earnestness when i don't watch myself.

note to future self: don't do that

No prob, dude. I had the same reaction to Tree of Life and reported as much on its accompanying thread. Dewy-eyed handwringing solidarity.

write in for Hitchcock's Frenzy

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qPKBV5QPzP8

As soon as I finalize an addendum to my list, I'll be writing in the original Mummy, directed by Karl Freund (who was the cinematographer on famous Lang and Murnau films...and I Love Lucy!)--completely slipped my mind during nominations. Very, very atmospheric. Kael: "No other horror film has ever achieved so many emotional effects by lighting; this inexpensively made film has a languorous, poetic feeling, and the eroticism that lives on under Karloff's wrinkled parchment skin is like a bad dream of undying love." I've never seen Freund's Mad Love with Peter Lorre.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbkuJrTPa4I

i saw mad love last year and thought it was kind of awful. would like to see the 32 mummy again as it's been forever, and i do remember enjoying it

Mad Love looks pretty crazy. It shares Gregg Toland with Citizen Kane, and Kael plausibly suggests that Welles may have based his look for Kane as an old guy on Lorre.

http://cdn2-b.examiner.com/sites/default/files/styles/image_full_width_scaled/hash/8e/7b/ck8.jpg http://i1059.photobucket.com/albums/t427/sayhey1/1935-mad-love-3.jpg?t=1335124356

I'd forgotten about this--surprised it wasn't nominated for the title alone:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEgq22jLho8

I saw it on TV years ago. More early-'70s esoterica: The Pyx, a Canadian film with Karen Black and Christopher Plummer that used to play on TV here regularly. If you're interested, this seems to work.

if i had waited to submit my ballot until after i saw cabin in the woods, it would've for sure made my list. at least somewhere in the top 50

Oh crap nobody nominated The Asphyx either!

Haven't seen "Frenzy" since high school, going to rewatch it, thanks abanana.

Frenzy WAS nommed iirc.. I had included it on one of my nom lists & removed it after searching the page to discover someone else had listed it. It is indeed missing from the master list upthread, but if it was in fact on the nom list, it should be fair play, right Eric H?

I thought write-in votes were fine, the noms list was just for memory-jogging, right? So you can vote for anything, but it's less likely to make it into the top 100 if it isn't on the list. Or am I wrong?

ok here is where i stan for THE CHANGELING (awesomely spooky 1980 haunted house flick starring George C. Scott - NOT the Angelina Jolie joint). In the interest of perhaps persuading a few of the uninitiated among the electoral constituency to check it out before voting, here is a YouTube w/ the first 15 minutes!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUKE_CGOjnE&feature=related

Not sure why Frenzy was left off the list, but yes, any movie is fair game, really.

Oh crap nobody nominated The Asphyx either!

― i love the large auns pictures! (Phil D.), Sunday, April 22, 2012 7:17 PM

I thought about it, not sure why i didn't. I wouldn't vote for it but it's a good flick. kind of obscure I guess? super-unique premise.

re: the asphyx and the pyx (oddly similar names)

these were tapes that every video store had back in the 80s & early 90s, and i probably picked them up 20 times each without ever renting either. i deliberately gave them the skip because the packaging was so sad, and i'd learned to distrust tapes without credibly horrific screenshots on the back.

http://vhscollector.com/sites/default/files/vhscovers/Asphyx(Small).jpg

xpost

So much effort went into that monster, i.e. conjuring up an equal opportunity phallic/vaginal beast.

the dude on the asphyx cover looks like Carl Sagan.

Ok so I sat out the torture porn discussion on this thread partially because I don't want to be that guy and partially because I've prob already said most of the stuff I would say on that other thread but I will say that a) anyone w/a serious interest in the genre has to confront this stuff on a deeper level than hold on a second this is too long for a zing post

sorry that was driving me crazy - to continue, if you have any sort of interest in the genre, the gulag placing of viewer defined torture porn is an empty cipher. giallo stuff is crazy, violent, misanthropic, and mostly anti-woman, but its gotten to the point of art acceptance so that gets a pass. texas chainsaw massacre gets a pass. but on some sorta sliding scale martyrs/hostel/saw/the butcher/toe tag/guinea pig are eventually devalued as empty or debased or wrong or reprehensible. i dislike several of those examples, but i dislike them because of their qualities, not their membership in a group. the fact that this happens withing peeps that are aficionados is kind of weird to me and seems like a capitulation to the idea that horror is a guilty pleasure or wrong in some way, unless it has been elevated over time. deadgirl for me is a case in point - it is unpleasant, and it is nihilistic, but it is a million miles from thoughtless or prurient. i dont expect people to be as convinced of its value as i am, but i think that the reductive way it gets discussed is sort of willful at times - it is unpleasant, it is uncomfortable, and it says terrible things about people and their capacities for the worst possible scenarios. but that nihilism is too easily dismissed (i fear) when it is wrapped in the context of a horror film, because then it can be easily discarded as baseless or pandering to an audience. i liked cabin in the woods a lot more before i read the various interviews where the creators talked about how they were critiquing the laziness and excessiveness of modern horror, because when viewed in that way, it seems pretty clear that they actually want to bowlderize horror, bring it back to the point where it was jokey and safe and fodder for teens being edgy with a knowing nod from their parents sitting upstairs and making popcorn. ignoring edge-treading gonzo unsafe horror in favor of winkwink thinking person stuff like pontypool or the genre lapping exercises of house of the devil or drag me to hell or the well mannered nordic sanitization of let the right one in (several of which i like, one of which i love) seems to smack of the same shame based self-loathing that makes game geeks talk endlessly about how video games are art, or can be. Texas Chainsaw Massacre is an ugly human hating monster that was further out of bounds of society at the time than martyrs or human centipede could ever hope to be, and acting like these films have somehow crossed some new line is straight up revisionist history.

jj otm!

I agree with you to the extent that anyone's making the argument that you're countering, jjjusten. I personally don't care to watch a lot of that more extreme stuff because it's maybe just too much for me. I wouldn't place any qualitative value on that "too much"-ness, though, or make any claims that it's worthless trash because I'd prefer not to watch it. As I said upthread, I seem to enjoy the psychological equivalent of those more extreme horror movies, but I wouldn't blame somebody one bit if they were, for example, too uncomfortable to sit through Possession. And if that person were to saddle their discomfort with a negative qualitative judgment, I'd have to assume that their gut-level revulsion played as much of a role in the critique as their critical faculties did. I think some people are always going to equate 'deeply unpleasant' with 'bad'.