Modest Horror with Big Chills

[AndyC]

Been away from the board for a little while. Rather than catch up, I thought I'd just start a topic. There's a fair bit of horror talk going on, so here goes.

It seems to be the consensus around here that special effects in horror films aren't scary. I agree. CGI ghosts and monsters are cheesy, and slasher-type stuff is goofy. Jolting the audience is not scaring them. Disturbing them is not scaring them. Grossing them out is not scaring them. Not to say that I don't enjoy these things, in moderation, but I'd like to be scared too. Often, the problem is a case of filmmakers working harder, instead of smarter.

Movies that are able to retain some mystery, hide the exact nature of the menace, give more modest signs of its presence, and stimulate the imagination, can raise the hairs on the back of your neck. What are some examples?

The Blair Witch Project was all right, although it didn't really get to me until I got home and turned out the light.

My favourite example is The Changeling, with George C. Scott. Simple things, like a door opening on its own, unseen to Scott, but in view of the audience. A ball bouncing down the stairs. Shots through the attic window, as if something is watching. It's all pretty eerie. Having Scott all alone in a big, old, empty house reaches into some very deep fears many of us share. It's not even that the ghost is a threat, because it isn't. We are expected to be scared by the simple fact that it's there. Great movie.

[Paquita]

Whats really good for me is good SOUND!  I still really can't think of a movie that scares me enough to remember it as a scary scary movie bUTT the only thing that Still scares me to no end is video games.  cos im a fat nerd and do nothing but sit around playing rpgs and picking my nose.  butt resident evil was a really good scary game!! not because of the zombies tho. the scariest parts for me were going outside and hearing them all in the distance and not knowing if there was one close to you!  and also the music in the save rooms was really creepy cos it was like calming rest music in such horrible contrasting surroundings. and silent hill had a scary soundtrack cos it was kinda quiet but it sounded like things were happening and id get really scared and then id realize OHh! its just the music!  and i know no one but me has played kings quest 4: the perils of rosella but theres this part where rosella goes into a haunted house and the room on the second floor with the rocking chair and the crying lady still gives me nightmares!!  
all this junk putting pop songs in movie soundtracks is ruining them! less is MORE i dont wanna hear rob zombie when people are dying! i wanna hear THEM DYING!!! cos thats scarier!
love colleen

[The Burgomaster]

Another movie with some very scary images is SPIRITS OF THE DEAD. It is an anthology of short horror stories. Overall, the movie is okay, but one segment starring Terance Stamp is really creepy. He plays an actor who keeps seeing a ghostly, blonde-haired girl holding a red ball. Just the way she peers out from behind a lock of hair that hangs over one eye is very creepy. No CG effects, no axes, no intestines hanging out. Just a scary little girl.

[fireal]

Halloween is always a classic for big chills. there is no gore really just a big tense build up. The Ring ( Japanese Version) as well. Nothing really happens in most of that movie until the very end but you get this real sense of dread and foreboding from all the bleak scenes and character interaction.

[Mofo Rising]

I'd just like to say, when I saw the thread title, the first movie I thought of was THE CHANGELING.  I'd also like to say, even though I thought it was a great movie, the possessed wheelchair was pretty silly.

I also get more goosebumps from video games.  I think it's because I may die at any moment, ruining any progress I had made through the game.  The threat is more tangible.  (Also, KING'S QUEST IV was the first game I had for my first computer.  It's also the reason I know what the uvula is.)

[Paquita]

WOW! you played kings quest 4!!  see! games like that are what made me a nerd instead of a ho!!!  thats where i learned what a uvula was too!! wasnt the haunted house scary? and the graveyard??  its been a while and i was really young when i played it but it really scared me!

love colleen

[Peter Johnson]

Changeling is very good -- 2 others in this genre that I've enjoyed a lot would be the recent "The Others" and the film that inspired it, "The Innocents", with Deborah Kerr.  No gore in either one, just atmosphere.  Creepy as all hell . . .
Re. Sound for horror:  The greatest single pioneer in this regard is Alfred Hitchcock.  He recut "Blackmail", a silent, to include sound.  He was the first director to have people in a film react to an offscreen noise.  Also, see Val Lewton's "The Cat People".  This was the first film to have a girl start to scream & then a quick cut has her scream turn into the squeal of a bus braking.  Now we've all seen similar effects in many other films, but this was the first to do this particular one --
peter johnson

[onionhead]

My personal favorite is from 1963, b&w classic called "The Haunting"--no, no, not to EVER be confused with that CGI crapfest remake of last year, but the original, in which more was conveyed with shadows and muffled voices than could ever be with any onscreen horror.  In fact, director Robert Wise sagely elects to never reveal anything tangible in the house beyond a bulging door panel.  I have heard complaints that the film loses some steam towards the end, and that Julie Harris'  Eleanor was too whining and annoying to be effective as a central character--in my opinion neither is true, Harris does quite an admirable job in reflecting a troubled mind borne from a troubled life, and the ending is quite a fine tie-up.  A must-see if you haven't done so all ready.

[JohnL]

>WOW! you played kings quest 4!!

I never liked Sierra adventures, they seemed primitive compared to games from companies like Lucasarts.

[Paquita]

Bah! what do YOu know! the only lucasarts game i played was indiana jones and the last crusade and it was almost the same as the sierra games only not as funny! NOTHING beats quest for glory!

love colleen

[Mofo Rising]

JohnL wrote:
>
> >WOW! you played kings quest 4!!
>
> I never liked Sierra adventures, they seemed primitive
> compared to games from companies like Lucasarts.

You could say that, but you should realize that Sierra set the template for that type of game.  Way back when things were all text-based ("You are in a clearing in the forest.  Which path do you wish to take?"), the guy who founded Sierra created the first King's Quest game, which he states is the first graphic text-based game.  For the next decade, Sierra specialized in these adventure games.  Lucasarts only jumped in later.

That's not to say Lucasarts is some sort of weak copycat.  The Monkey Island games are some of my favorites ever.  You probably think Sierra adventures are more primitive because Sierra made some decision to stop producing adventure games while Lucasarts forged ahead.  I mean, there's a new Full Throttle coming out sometime soon.

Sorry for my off-topic rant.  Also, sorry but I remember very little about King's Quest IV.  I played that game like thirteen years ago.  I always preferred the Space Quest games.

[Paquita]

Of all the Sierra games ive played the kings quest ones were my least favorite but i really loved them! police quests were alright but got kinda too boring and serious.  and the space quests were my second favorites but the quest for glory series takes the cake for me!! and the fan game quest for glory 4 1/2 is  LOVE! you get to see BOOBS and do a centaur!! thats great!  i wish they never stopped making those! good graphics are ruining games! they should make those games into MOVIES!! space quest the movie would be SO good! i suppose it might be kinda like spaceballs but thats okay spaceballs was a good enough movie to be copied off of.. and a quest for glory movie would RULE THE WORLD! the guy that played rocky in rocky horror would have made the BEST hero!! i suppose i should have thought of that and responded to that "game into movie" post..eh well.

im really sorry for getting off the topic too its my fault!.. its a really good topic!! (not my off topic topic but the on topic topic) but i ruined it with my poo.. im sorry!

love colleen

[JohnL]

>Bah! what do YOu know! the only lucasarts game i played was indiana jones
>and the last crusade and it was almost the same as the sierra games only not as
>funny! NOTHING beats quest for glory!

If you want funny, you should try the Monkey Island games. Indiana Jones (Last Crusade and Fate of Atlantis) didn't have as much humor.

>You could say that, but you should realize that Sierra set the template for that
>type of game. Way back when things were all text-based ("You are in a clearing
>in the forest. Which path do you wish to take?"), the guy who founded Sierra
>created the first King's Quest game, which he states is the first graphic text
>-based game. For the next decade, Sierra specialized in these adventure
>games. Lucasarts only jumped in later.

True, I suppose, but even some of the later games didn't impress me much. Of course I really only tried playing the Leisure Suit Larry games.

>That's not to say Lucasarts is some sort of weak copycat. The Monkey Island
>games are some of my favorites ever. You probably think Sierra adventures are
>more primitive because Sierra made some decision to stop producing

Actually, I was thinking of Lucasarts' earlier games like the original Monkey Island. Also, I played these games on the Amiga rather than an IBM/DOS system.

Lucasarts games had appealing graphics while the Sierra games I saw had ugly graphics full of pastel colors. Lucasarts games were nicely ported to the Amiga with virtually no slowdown and minimal disk swapping if you played from floppy.  Sierra games would slow down to half speed if there was anything else animated on the screen besides your character, making just crossing the screen an exercise in frustration. Of course that's after the 3 disk swaps and 2 minute loading time for the next location.

My biggest problem with them though was that rather than a feeling of exploring a mini-world, each screen was a self-contained area with one specific goal. There would be a limited number of things you could do on each one and then that location would go 'dead' with nothing more to do. Characters wouldn't talk to you, machines wouldn't work and your character wouldn't be allowed to do anything. I remember wandering around one of the LLL games for about an hour with absolutely nothing to do.

Then you have the 'games' released by Dynamix under the Sierra label, like Willy Beamish and Heart of China. Better graphics, much worse play. Select a perfectly innocent action that *SHOULD* be safe and it triggers a long string of actions which you have no control over and which invariably end in your death. Open a door? No problem. Then a ball bounces out and rolls down the hallway. You chase it and crash into a guy who calls you an idiot. You punch him in the face and he kills you. Yeah, I saw that coming! Or someone asks who you are and your choices are "What's it to you punk?", "My name is John Doe, nice to meet you." or "Who are you?". Of course two of those will get you killed, and it turns out that the punk line is the proper one to use.

>adventure games while Lucasarts forged ahead. I mean, there's a new Full
>Throttle coming out sometime soon.

I've never played the first one. I played the demo of it when it first came out (on a friend's system) and I didn't like the simplified interface.

[Paquita]

Leisure Suit Larry SUCKS@ thats whats wrong! play quest for glory!

love colleen

[Mofo Rising]

JohnL wrote:
>
> If you want funny, you should try the Monkey Island games.
> Indiana Jones (Last Crusade and Fate of Atlantis) didn't have
> as much humor.
>

Agreed, but it wasn't supposed to.  SAM & MAX and THE DAY OF THE TENTACLE were two very funny games.

>
> My biggest problem with them though was that rather than a
> feeling of exploring a mini-world, each screen was a
> self-contained area with one specific goal. There would be a
> limited number of things you could do on each one and then
> that location would go 'dead' with nothing more to do.
> Characters wouldn't talk to you, machines wouldn't work and
> your character wouldn't be allowed to do anything. I remember
> wandering around one of the LLL games for about an hour with
> absolutely nothing to do.
>

That may have been a problem with the LLL games.  I know the QUEST FOR GLORY did a good job of creating a playable world, at least for the time.

>
> I've never played the first one. I played the demo of it when
> it first came out (on a friend's system) and I didn't like
> the simplified interface.

All the later Lucasarts games went to this format, varying a bit for each game.  I thought it was good, in that they got rid of the text base.  Although this was a better update for Sierra games.  (If you remember "Do not recognize command" messages.)  Even later Lucasarts adventure games even went to a 3-D world, I assume to appeal to console gamers.