last house on the left

[rocketmaster]

What's your definition of "emoting" reved? Do you mean overly theatrical and hammish?

I think David is utterly convincing and natural in his baddie roles. That's what makes them chilling!

[badmoonarisin'325]

I also have to agree. I do think David would add a lot more passion to the role of Mr. Collingwood than Gaylord St. James did...there were times when he looked a bit unsympathetic and/or like a confused old man. I mean, come on, if your daughter died, would you act as jaded and unsympathetic as he seemed to? I think Mr. Hess could add a lot more to the role than was previously shown. As for my thoughts on who would play anyone else...well, there's no one else who could add as much thought or conviction to the roles as the original cast did, in my opinion.

[Tard]

I know I'm eventually going to stick my foot somewhere down my throat with this reply, or get on someones shit-list; BUT...

To answer Rocky's question, there are moments in Davids movies, ocassionally, when his acting doesn't seem to 'mesh' with his character. Perhaps I'm thinking his characters too deeply, but many of Davids characters switch moods too swiftly, hinting deeper layers to their psyches, which the script or shooting-schedule just doesn't allow him to explore. His character in HitchHike 'hinted' so much, and very little of that characters past was ever brought to light.

Hehee, if only exposition were easy. David Lynch seems to have a good bead on exposition and flashbacks (see 'Wild At Heart' again, and some scenes in his 80's season-filler TV-show 'On The Air'); I think if Hess somehow got a role in one of that other David's projects, he could totally flesh-out a character that audiences would appreciate (beyond the 'genre' market).

[sharontate]

........I was not very young, about 28, when I saw this brilliant movie the first time.....together with my brother.....so I was not really shocked, but very impressed of the speed, the suspense.......and krug, of course!....but when I saw my first "splatter movie", I was 20 and it blew me away! even if there were no really sfx in.....but so disturbing! it was "the texas chainsaw massacre" by tobe hooper.......

I live in france...

bisous!

[Tard]

Along with Nightmare on Elm Street, also wasn't very impressed with TCM. Slasher movies really don't do it for me. Always went for the more psychological killers, like SE7EN and Silence Of The Lambs.

[sharontate]

tcm is not a typically slashermovie, to me.........and there is a little bit of psychology in, to........just see this deranged family, without work, driven mad, and then this grandpa, who killed first animals in a slaughterhouse and then people like animals.......not to compare with, ahem, teeniehorror like "freddie"!!
the silence of the lambs is, of course, a brilliant movie, but more thriller than horror, but categories are not always easy, hum?
I am not the best in english.....

*nice evening to everyone*

[Edwardt]

Yeah, I agree with that. I'm no fan of the slasher movie at all, particularly the Friday the 13th movies, which I thought amounted to lazy, mercenary film-making at its most irresponsible and the closest thing I've seen to violent pornography (and, believe me, I'm no prude or shrinking violet when it comes to cinematic violence). I saw TCM in 1979 and it affected me pretty profoundly. Perhaps it was because it had a similar documentary feel to it as that of LHOTL. Also, it didn't employ a lot of armchair psychology and pseudo-moralizing, which marred a film like "In Cold Blood," in my opinion. If you have to spoon-feed and explain everything to the viewer, what's the point? In TCM, the killers were presented pretty much as they were and any conjecture as to how they ended up like they did was left to the viewer. Obviously, you can factor in things like socio-economic conditions etc., like in LHOTL, but things weren't spoon fed to the audience. I read one review where a similar criticism was made of Hitchcock's "Psycho." The reviewer noted that the finale with Simon Oakland as the psychiatrist explaining why Norman Bates acted as he did was superfluous, as such madness and horror is never really explicable. Psychologists, sociologists and theologians have been trying to explain for centuries why mankind indulges in the evil and barbarity they do, with little success. Of course, it's a thin line that only the most skilled or astute filmmaker is able to traverse successfully. For the same reason, a film like "Halloween" never held much interest for me. You have a human killing machine in a mask, armed with a knife. At least imbue the character with a little personality ala Charles Manson or Ted Bundy. Otherwise, you might just as well make him Frankenstein or Dracula. TCM wasn't necessarily a film that haunted me over the years like LHOTL, but it was definitely effective and I always thought it was a great low-budget movie, the kind they just don't make anymore. It's a shame Tobe Hooper has never done anything remotely comparable in the years since.

[Edwardt]

As a sort of codicil to my last posting, I should mention that, while I enjoyed Silence of the Lambs, the characters never seemed genuine or particularly authentic. The author made Hannibal Lecter a composite of too many different psychological types- a little Ed Gein, a little Ted Bundy, a little organized killer, a little disorganized killer, etc. An FBI profiler whose name unfortunately escapes me (might have been Robert Ressler) said such a character, while entertaining and scary in the movies, probably couldn't exist in real life. As much as I like and respect Anthony Hopkins, I wish they had continued to use Brian Cox in the role. To me, Hopkins was a little too larger-than-life, a little too comic-book villainous, in the role. Cox seemed more realistic when he played the part in "Manhunter."

[sharontate]

hey ed t, thanx for your detailed reply....!! yeah, I must confess the magnificent dr lecter is a little bit overrated in the movie.......too brilliant to be true, maybe! but although I think "the silence of the lambs" ist the best movie from the 90ies!! the 90ies were a very bad decade in filmmaking.....matrix 1 is the other special movie, but look at the rest and the awful design!! *shiver*.......to me, most 90ies movies have no "soul"....and no charm! even a trashmovie can be good entertainment, when it has just charme! logic....
(please don't matter with my english!! I come from french country.....) [img]graemlins/sheep.gif[/img]

yeah, this slashermovies like "halloween" are superficial, I mean, boring and no sharp characters! not horrible at all! not even for me, when I was teenie.....I began my love for "horror/thriller/special"-movies with christopher lee, peter cushing... and classic hammer movies when I was 11, like "the plague of the zombies", "frankenstein created women", "dracula - prince of darkness"....... [img]graemlins/heart.gif[/img]

today I like very much asian cinema, but I start with it...movies from tsui hark or takashi miike, of course.......

and, hey, something to you, david: if you were younger I'd like to marry you... [img]graemlins/cat.gif[/img]


[img]graemlins/heart.gif[/img]

[img]tongue.gif[/img]

[Edwardt]

I got started with the Hammer movies when I was a kid. In particular, some of the imagery from "Brides of Dracula" stayed with me for years. I thought David Peel was under-rated in the role and I was in love with Andree Melly as a female vampire (I guess I was warped even at that young age). At their best, these movies were superb in terms of atmosphere and ambiance. Unfortunately, it was almost criminal the way they quickly degenerated over only a few years and squandered their enormous potential. You have Christopher Lee as Dracula and relegate him to the status of a non-speaking bit player while focusing on an insipid romance that no one really cares about (As in "Dracula has risen from the grave")? It is true that I was capable of enjoying even the trashiest of their entries. Indeed, "Lust for a Vampire" is one of my favorites, although that's probably more because I had an adolescent crush on Yutte Stensgaard. But who can say why some movies appeal to us and others don't? Sometimes it's a matter of time and place, I think. I have a reverence for older movies, the ones I sort of came to age with. Being as objective as possible, I just think they took more care and made better movies with far less money back in the late 60's and early 70's, far more progessive and engrossing movies, than they make today. I understand the nature of the movie-making business has changed dramatically in the last few decades, but I get depressed more often than not when I go to the movies today. Oh well...that's why they invented the DVD player, I guess.