Most Overrated And Underrated Horror Films!?

[Catastrophe]

Originally Posted by Emo-rtal Beloved

The Birds is overrated and Ils is underrated?

If anything, Ils is overrated. I was pretty disappointed with it when I finally saw it. Whereas I find The Birds to be absolutely riveting.

[Heathen]

Overrated: Martyrs -- Its piss-poor cinematography acutally confused most reviewers, who claimed to love everything about it, regarding the visions.

Underrated: My Name Is Bruce -- It's funnier than most of AOD, which itself is quite funny.

Originally Posted by Yggdrasil

Underrated:
Noroi - The Curse (2005)

That was soporific.

[ves-pertine]

Originally Posted by Catastrophe

If anything, Ils is overrated. I was pretty disappointed with it when I finally saw it. Whereas I find The Birds to be absolutely riveting.

Yeah? That's cool, I mean, I liked it...once the birds started attacking anyway, because it had fairly tense moments, but it took so long for anything to happen and all for these banal, never-visited-again details and a boring, maudlin story.

Originally Posted by Heathen

Overrated: Martyrs -- Its piss-poor cinematography acutally confused most reviewers, who claimed to love everything about it, regarding the visions.

Agreed!

Underrated - Eden Lake, Let's Scare Jessica to Death + Suspiria (not by horror fans, a lot of the general public just haven't heard of it).

[Emo-rtal Beloved]

Originally Posted by ves-pertine

It'd be pretty hard for Ils to be anything but underrated at least to the general public who usually give the 1000 yard stare to watching a foreign film. Do you know a lot of people who love it or something, is it overrated to you?

I think the purpose of this thread is to share our opinion on whether or not a horror movie is overrated or underrated to us, not to the general public. if general public is our aim, then half of the horror movies produced in history is underrated.

Originally Posted by ves-pertine

The Birds started Hitchcock's slump to me (1963 - 1969), I find it boring and ill-paced until the birds start attacking (and there's little rising action, they all start at once), and unrealistic -- Hitchcock was normally a pro at blending the natural + supernatural (think Vertigo, where it turns out to be a red herring and Madeleine isn't possessed by a ghost; it was all a scam) but he throws that out the window when suddenly these supercharged terminator birds emerge from the sky and two can kill a man by flapping their wings on him.

Wait a minute, since when it says Hitchcock has to be realistic? Is that a rule written somewhere? If it is, I must have missed it. Just because a director is used to one style of directing does not mean he cannot broaden his range. If we go by your logic then what does that say about Robert Wise for example?

And you're the first person I've ever read saying there was a supernatural element in Vertigo (scam or not). I think it's a general understanding that Vertigo has no blending of supernatural + natural element at all. We all know how the story ended up, don't we? Besides, Vertigo wasn't horror.

Originally Posted by ves-pertine

Crows are frail...their bones are air bubbles, that's why they can fly. I suspend my disbelief as much as the next guy, but come on, this is Hitchcock, it's beneath him.

Yeah, but it's not like only three or four crows were attacking. There were hundreds of them and they were not only crows, there were other birds as well like seagulls. I would have been freaked out as well if a 100 birds ganged up on me.

Originally Posted by ves-pertine

Some of the character development is unnecessary because it doesn't change the bird scenes while a great script will provide you with details or character traits until the rising action and then somehow re-visit them during times of tribulation. e.g. the subplot of the mother not liking any of her son's potential wives, but through being attacked by the birds and helping one-another, beginning to feel a stronger bond with Melanie (cliché as hell and far beneath Hitchcock but there you have it).

That's one of many minor details exposed in the long build-up, many of which play no significant part when the crux of the story begins to unfold, like Melanie being a party animal and hanging out with the wrong type of people...okay, it isn't brought up later so what was the point?

Yeah, in the start of Psycho there was an implication that Sam Loomis was not fine financially, which became the basis of Marion Crane's whole vaganza (and her untimely demise), but it was never touched again until the end, did that bother u as well?

The thing is, the mother's dislikes towards her son's potential wives & Melanie being a partygoer were only slightly implied, which is why it's best to treat them as trivial and not make a big deal out of 'em (just like how no one made a big deal of Sam Loomis' financial condition). Besides, it is indeed REALISTIC that in time of needs and troubles, people bond rather quickly.

Originally Posted by ves-pertine

Hitchcock, slump aside, was always a master of buildup and foreshadowing and balancing decorative vs. substantive character traits (Psycho + the "mother", Strangers on a Train + Bruno's short but systematic narrative of his family history when he first meets Guy).

In which he did again in the Birds, giving us a good 45 minutes of character building so we can actually feel something for them instead of showing useless things about them in less than 20 minutes before having the antagonists rush and attack them before we could even relate to them (google Funny Games or any modern era home invasion horror for this bad example).

Originally Posted by ves-pertine

Oh, and the ending. Jesus Christ...uhh it's over I guess.

What's wrong with the ending? Are u not just used to ambiguos ending or you're gonna say it's not the usual Hitchcock ending?

Originally Posted by ves-pertine

Normally, Hitch weaves a story around a MacGuffin. In The Birds, the story is the MacGuffin...it's the birds. The only semblance of a story the movie has is the budding romance in the first half, but its only job is to get Melanie to Bodega Bay. I'm used to his films being pretty multi-layered and woven throughout which is why this one doesn't sit well. It's meant for popcorn, and doesn't offer much.

Yeah, Marion stealing the money was also a tool so she could go to Bates Motel also. Does that one taste like popcorn too for u?

Originally Posted by ves-pertine

I know it's the emperor's new clothes answer to love The Birds because it's Hitchcock but I thought it was just an okay movie and definitely a decline by his standards.

It's okay if u dislike The Birds(no one is obliged to like it), but it's far from overrated or a decline for Hitch.

Hell, I think Lolita, Eyes Wide Shut, Barry Lindon, and The Shining are all ho-hums, but I don't think it means Kubrick lacks any directing skill because I think Paths of Glory, Full Metal Jacket, Spartacus, and A Clockwork Orange are very well made movies.

Originally Posted by Catastrophe

If anything, Ils is overrated. I was pretty disappointed with it when I finally saw it. Whereas I find The Birds to be absolutely riveting.

Originally Posted by Heathen

Underrated: My Name Is Bruce -- It's funnier than most of AOD, which itself is quite funny.

I agree MNIB is underrated, but what is AOD?

Originally Posted by ves-pertine

Underrated - Eden Lake, Let's Scare Jessica to Death + Suspiria (not by horror fans, a lot of the general public just haven't heard of it).

I'm a horror fan but I think Eden Lake is beyond wearisome. Didn't find a single eerie scene in it.

[Mogwai]

@Emo-rtal Beloved...
You've got this nasty habit of replying to (sometimes literally) dozens of people all within one post...
Do you really think that your counterclaim's are that exciting to read that anyone can be fucked to read through the 50 ft walls of text that you regularly pollute threads with?
Nae cunt reads them pal.

[romanthemysterian]

I think Iils is pretty evenly rated. Not bad, not great. But probably one of the better home invasion flicks.

My Name is Bruce was ok, but nothing special. I think it was a little too self aware for its own good.

[ves-pertine]

Originally Posted by Emo-rtal Beloved

I think the purpose of this thread is to share our opinion on whether or not a horror movie is overrated or underrated to us, not to the general public. if general public is our aim, then half of the horror movies produced in history is underrated.

Well, I don't know what "us" is -- I haven't been here long, no clue what's praised and panned on this forum.

The horror genre period is underrated tbh.

Wait a minute, since when it says Hitchcock has to be realistic? Is that a rule written somewhere? If it is, I must have missed it. Just because a director is used to one style of directing does not mean he cannot broaden his range. If we go by your logic then what does that say about Robert Wise for example?

Hitchcock narrowed his range for The Birds. Everything is at face value, the plot is thin as paper by his standards (Melanie goes to the Bay. Birds attack. The end.), extended by a lot of filler, scarce efforts to foreshadow or leave clues that can later be challenged or revealed (which again was usually one of his specialties: taking a seemingly insignificant detail that drives a plot twist later on). I didn't say he had to be realistic because he often wasn't, I said he had a magic of balancing the real + supernatural, and he does. The Birds just doesn't do it well.

One of the few areas I feel Hitch did experiment with his directorial style was his decision to make The Birds fairly music-less. It turned out to be a flop haha, a score would have heightened the feeling of dread, but I digress: he tried a different approach.

And you're the first person I've ever read saying there was a supernatural element in Vertigo (scam or not). I think it's a general understanding that Vertigo has no blending of supernatural + natural element at all. We all know how the story ended up, don't we? Besides, Vertigo wasn't horror.

I'd totally argue for supernatural undertones in Vertigo.

Yeah, but it's not like only three or four crows were attacking. There were hundreds of them and they were not only crows, there were other birds as well like seagulls. I would have been freaked out as well if a 100 birds ganged up on me.

I know, but there's a scene where two crows kill (apparently) a man by landing on him. It's fucking hilarious actually.

Yeah, in the start of Psycho there was an implication that Sam Loomis was not fine financially, which became the basis of Marion Crane's whole vaganza (and her untimely demise), but it was never touched again until the end, did that bother u as well?

No, because it does serve a purpose. Obviously all characters have decorative and substantive traits to make them realistic, I'm saying that a lot of the details in The Birds were filler, more than most Hitch films. I don't think it has a strong script.

The thing is, the mother's dislikes towards her son's potential wives & Melanie being a partygoer were only slightly implied, which is why it's best to treat them as trivial and not make a big deal out of 'em (just like how no one made a big deal of Sam Loomis' financial condition). Besides, it is indeed REALISTIC that in time of needs and troubles, people bond rather quickly.

It's no big deal at all tbh...just feels cliché and by-the-numbers (the budding romance), and as a Hitch student I'm not used to that in his work.

In which he did again in the Birds, giving us a good 45 minutes of character building so we can actually feel something for them instead of showing useless things about them in less than 20 minutes before having the antagonists rush and attack them before we could even relate to them (google Funny Games or any modern era home invasion horror for this bad example).

One of the reasons I feel the character development is so off is that Melanie, the protagonist we're expected to empathise with, is cold and detached throughout the film. The school scene is a good example of that.

What's wrong with the ending? Are u not just used to ambiguos ending or you're gonna say it's not the usual Hitchcock ending?

It's not a good example of an ambiguous ending...Psycho is a good example of an ambiguous ending...so's Rope. The Birds ends out of nowhere and is the last example of its mediocre pacing: it's so "we're-out-of-paper-roll-the-credits".

Yeah, Marion stealing the money was also a tool so she could go to Bates Motel also. Does that one taste like popcorn too for u?

No. Plot actions inspire further plot actions, her stealing the $ obviously made her a false protagonist and her character more layered. There was no depth about Melanie or her trip to Bodega Bay.

[Deadly Fiend]

Originally Posted by Heathen

Overrated: Martyrs -- Its piss-poor cinematography acutally confused most reviewers, who claimed to love everything about it, regarding the visions.

I didn't mind it. Love that film.

[McQueen]

Originally Posted by Mogwai

@Emo-rtal Beloved...
You've got this nasty habit of replying to (sometimes literally) dozens of people all within one post...
Do you really think that your counterclaim's are that exciting to read that anyone can be fucked to read through the 50 ft walls of text that you regularly pollute threads with?
Nae cunt reads them pal.

....

[Emo-rtal Beloved]

Originally Posted by Mogwai

@Emo-rtal Beloved...
You've got this nasty habit of replying to (sometimes literally) dozens of people all within one post...
Do you really think that your counterclaim's are that exciting to read that anyone can be fucked to read through the 50 ft walls of text that you regularly pollute threads with?
Nae cunt reads them pal.

Originally Posted by ves-pertine

Well, I don't know what "us" is -- I haven't been here long, no clue what's praised and panned on this forum.

The horror genre period is underrated tbh.

That I wholeheartedly agree.

Originally Posted by ves-pertine

Hitchcock narrowed his range for The Birds. Everything is at face value, the plot is thin as paper by his standards (Melanie goes to the Bay. Birds attack. The end.), extended by a lot of filler, scarce efforts to foreshadow or leave clues that can later be challenged or revealed (which again was usually one of his specialties: taking a seemingly insignificant detail that drives a plot twist later on). I didn't say he had to be realistic because he often wasn't, I said he had a magic of balancing the real + supernatural, and he does. The Birds just doesn't do it well.

So, Hitch just toned down his usual complex storyline. Again, whoever said he wasn't allowed to do that? Just because his storyline is usually heavy does not mean he cannot use a lighter storyline in one of his movies.

Originally Posted by ves-pertine

One of the few areas I feel Hitch did experiment with his directorial style was his decision to make The Birds fairly music-less. It turned out to be a flop haha, a score would have heightened the feeling of dread, but I digress: he tried a different approach.

i beg to differ, man. To you maybe it's ineffective, but to me or any viewer that does not dig deeper to the technical aspect, it IS effective. I think this technique of not using too many music in a horror movie is also applied by Robert Wise in The Haunting that came out the same year, and it delivered even more than in the Birds in my book.

And after going through imdb, I found some new opinions about this as well:

1. Hitch's irony, which is a part of his black humor element. Birds are noted for their singing--they make music--but these birds didn't have music on their minds. More irony to have the school children singing/chanting that mysterious sounding song--as the birds were quietly massing.

2. Although music has its place and can enhance a moment, the default use of music score in TV and films tends to undermine the drama more often than not, keeping the audience at an arm's length from what's going on.

But oh well, we have disparate POV. Nothing wrong with that.

Originally Posted by ves-pertine

I'd totally argue for supernatural undertones in Vertigo.

Let's just agree to disagree, then.

Originally Posted by ves-pertine

I know, but there's a scene where two crows kill (apparently) a man by landing on him. It's fucking hilarious actually.

Maybe it also has to do with the height of the crowds when they were flying.

Originally Posted by ves-pertine

No, because it does serve a purpose. Obviously all characters have decorative and substantive traits to make them realistic, I'm saying that a lot of the details in The Birds were filler, more than most Hitch films. I don't think it has a strong script.

And there were characters that did not act realistically in the movie?

Originally Posted by ves-pertine

It's no big deal at all tbh...just feels cliché and by-the-numbers (the budding romance), and as a Hitch student I'm not used to that in his work.

Now that you know it, better get used to it, homie.

Originally Posted by ves-pertine

One of the reasons I feel the character development is so off is that Melanie, the protagonist we're expected to empathise with, is cold and detached throughout the film. The school scene is a good example of that.

Is it a written rule that every protagonist has to be sympathetic? The truth is, in real life, not everyone is likable. So if Hitch chose to employ someone who is unlikable for his lead, it's still realistic.

Originally Posted by ves-pertine

It's not a good example of an ambiguous ending...Psycho is a good example of an ambiguous ending...so's Rope. The Birds ends out of nowhere and is the last example of its mediocre pacing: it's so "we're-out-of-paper-roll-the-credits".

The Birds obviously has an ambiguous ending, in a sense: where do the characters go from here if this world is ruled by birds?

It's the same concept with the ending to Day of The Dead original or Dawn of the Dead remake.

Originally Posted by ves-pertine

No. Plot actions inspire further plot actions, her stealing the $ obviously made her a false protagonist and her character more layered. There was no depth about Melanie or her trip to Bodega Bay.

Let's say there is no depth about Melanie or her trip, so what? The focus of the story is the attack of the birds, anyway. Things like that should be considered trivial.

BTW, this has been a good discussion.