I humbly present to you for consideration my horror film review blog.

If you like horror movies, or movies typically described as slasher flicks, supernatural thrillers, psychological thrillers, ghost stories, dark fantasy, and such then I hope you will enjoy the reviews of such films which I write and post on my blog called "Crypt of Fear."

I will not review "torture porn," but basically anything else designated horror is under my purview. I don't consider myself some kind of expert at film critique, however I have been a horror fan ever since I watched Alien when I was 13, and have seen many, many horror films so I do consider myself something of an expert on them. I also enjoy film in general and wanted to start a blog that reviewed horror genre films in a manner that wasn't fangoria style fanboy wankery.

Also, I am aware that there ARE professional film critics on ILX and was hoping of all hopes to get some feedback as to exactly how much I suck at it. So thanks in advance for that.

The website's address is: http://fearcrypt.blogspot.com

Also, I'm not too up on foreign horror, so any tips on those are of much value to me. If its released in the US, however, I will probably know about it. Thanks!

calum? is that you?

unfortunately, I am not the one you call calum.

What's torture porn? Like Saw? Hostel?

^^^stuff is terrible imho. really bummed me out when the horror genre took that particular turn

Ha, I thought about 'splainin' to him abt Calum, but I concluded it was too labored, boring, and confusing a tale.

Like abt Calum before he even posted this. Is no biggie tho, eh?

fyi: my best friend lance has the greatest horror site on the web:

http://www.kindertrauma.com/

and it even inspires me, writing-wise. and i'm , like, a total genius writer.

really bummed me out when the horror genre took that particular turn

Me, too. Eli Roth is On My List.

:O

I love that site, scott!

Is Jaws a horror movie? If not, what genre is it? It certainly doesn't seem like the films in Viceroy's blog.

lance also does great horror-derived paintings. like this one of jody from amityville:

http://lancevaughan.com/images/paintings/large/jody.jpg

http://lancevaughan.com/index.htm

(sorry, i'm shameless when it comes to promoting his stuff. i love it.)

What do those of you who are not fans of torture porn think about the "new wave of French horror" (Frontier(s), Inside, Them)? I haven't seen any of them, since my tastes run more to camp/supernatural (I am unreasonably excited about Drag Me to Hell, for example) and the much heralded "realism" is probably too real for me, but I sort of wonder where they fit into the spectrum for other people.

"Me, too. Eli Roth is On My List."
is this a list of people to torture?

Holy shit the picture of the Shining Furries! That is awesome.

xp ha, no my List of People I Don't Like. Very threatening, I know. (He's on the list because I liked Cabin Fever and so had high expectations.)

What's torture porn? Like Saw? Hostel?
― Philip Nunez, Thursday, May 14, 2009 11:37 AM

Yeah stuff like that. Eli Roth gets no love from me.

Them freaked me out.

My Little Eye was pretty good too.

I can get not liking unwholesome or prurient movies, but it seems really hard to draw lines within a proudly unwholesome and prurient genre, so I'm wondering how you would go about doing that re: torture porn. Is it just "enough, thanks" or is there something categorically distinct about them?

What do those of you who are not fans of torture porn think about the "new wave of French horror" (Frontier(s), Inside, Them)?

these are hella boring w/ the exception of them which is aight but not amazing. but i mean gore doesnt bother me and inside in particular was kind of pretty and art directed so the violence felt very removed and aesthetic and fake not like hostel

Is Jaws a horror movie? If not, what genre is it? It certainly doesn't seem like the films in Viceroy's blog.
― Daniel, Esq., Thursday, May 14, 2009 12:11 PM (18 minutes ago)

I would say Jaws is basically a horror film. It would fall under films that are suspense thrillers concerning things in nature that frighten us (like sharks). It doesn't seem like the films on my blog because people don't make awesome movies like Jaws anymore. However, there have been a lot of made-for-tv movies based on other Peter Benchley stories/novels that fit the horror mold much better.

BTW, Anyone ever see the horrible cash-in of Jaws called Orca, about a killer whale? It is downright awful.

Yeah, I saw Orca, when I was a kid. Just your mentioning it made me smile (for nostalgic -- not sadistic -- reasons).

I can get not liking unwholesome or prurient movies, but it seems really hard to draw lines within a proudly unwholesome and prurient genre, so I'm wondering how you would go about doing that re: torture porn. Is it just "enough, thanks" or is there something categorically distinct about them?

― Philip Nunez, Thursday, May 14, 2009 12:35 PM (3 minutes ago) Bookmark

I have personally drawn a line. It really has nothing to do with my not wanting to watch them - personally I'll watch almost anything. I refuse to deal with them because they marr the genre and they have absolutely no artistic merit in my opinion. I feel that they have come out of the genre but they are a breed of their own that I do not want anything to do with.

Saw I was actually not too bad of a film... "I know who killed me" on the other hand - there is really no reason to acknowledge its existence.

Is it just "enough, thanks" or is there something categorically distinct about them?

I was just thinking about this, actually, and I think the main difference is that torture-porn depicts regular people (not supernatural beings) causing pain to other, unlucky regular people in very specific and realistic detail, and lacks the camp or absurdity of slasher movies. So like where in Friday the 3th pt. VII you have Jason murdering someone by whamming her sleeping bag against a tree, which is absurd, whereas in Hostile, you have somebody getting her eyeball burned out with a blow torch. Or like Theater of Blood, which is a non-supernatural person committing a series of violent murders, but it's so ridiculous and fucking camp that it lacks the sense of real disgust that torture porn brings to me.

It's like in torture porn, the ENTIRE POINT is to showcase one person causing another person extreme, horrible pain. That is upsetting to me on a number of levels.

I'm pretty much with Viceroy, except I think Saw was a terrible movie entirely on its merits (not just because it was a proto-torture porn offering).

^^^ (xpost) thank you! this mirrors my feelings exactly!

yeah but when slasher movies were new, there were SO MANY people wringing their hands about "this isn't good horror, it has no suspense" - siskel & ebert, like every week, would go to great pains to let their audience know that slasher films were the most degraded form of entertainment ever. I suspect that "torture porn" will someday enjoy the same what-was-the-fuss-about love that slasher films enjoy today.

I think Ebert came around. Didn't he give thumbs up to that Nightmare on Elm Street where the actors + Wes Craven played themselves?

It's like in torture porn, the ENTIRE POINT is to showcase one person causing another person extreme, horrible pain. That is upsetting to me on a number of levels.

this is what makes "torture porn" pretty awesome i think i mean who is scared of ghosts and shit but ppl are evil and do horrible things something like last house on the left scares me a lot more than the exorcist

home movie w/ the dude from heroes is pretty great viceroy have u seen it?

Or like Audition - (SPOILERY IF YOU HAVE NOT SEEN THIS) that's a regular person, too, performing unspeakable acts on another regular person but it's also creepy and bizarre and the juxtaposition of the first half of the movie with the second half drives home what I think the ultimate point of a lot of "real people doing bad things to other real people"* movies is - that even the person you love the most and who is most perfect could be a hideous monster inside. That is scary!!!

*The ones that aren't revenge-based, anyway. Those I think are a little more gratuitous.

xp - heee speaking of revenge-based... Last House on the Left

It's been a long time since I've seen Audition, but I remember it as being exactly like Mary Poppins but with more lactating.

Sorry, I forgot my actual point, which is that Audition does that whole real people performing unspeakable acts thing without showing the acts themselves with this loving, fetishistic detail and as a result, I think, is much more frightening. I as a viewer am way more involved in the movie emotionally, because the movie gave me space to get emotionally involved, and I'm not suddenly back pedaling and covering my eyes because HOLY SHIT DRILLING INTO HIS CHEST.

xp See? Very subjective.

I don't think slasher films have aged particularly well for the same reason torture porn won't. Not much shelf life in shock value.

I'd pin the origins of torture porn more on I Spit On Your Grave.

80s slasher films are still pretty funny. At least, to me.

but yeah I think a lot of it comes down to the absurdist/camp value/humor that's pretty explicit in the Friday 13th/Nightmare on Elm St/Prom Night/whatever movies that makes them enjoyable. There's gross stuff, and definitely a lot of objectionable politics, but it doesn't seem to be as lovingly bound up (lol) in the enjoyment of versimilitude as applied to human suffering

I suspect that "torture porn" will someday enjoy the same what-was-the-fuss-about love that slasher films enjoy today.

the difference is these films aren't funny. part of the camp humor implicit in early slasher flicks is in how BAD a lot of the filmmaking and effects are. Stuff like Saw is big-budget, carefully crafted, and seriously presented and, most critically, it is too self-aware to be camp.

those jason movies were camp!

has anyone polled the jason series versus the ernest series

'inside' is my favorite so-called torture porn flick, but i think it goes beyond it some of the other shit, it's incredibly well-made. 'hostel' is really good too.

re: lactating mary poppins, sorry I was thinking of a completely different miike movie. It was shot on videotape like a reality show I think.
and the lactating is literal.

Audition was pretty explicit, I thought, and sort of revenge-based, but maybe more about feminist empowerment.
(That's what you get for indulging in retrograde domestic fantasy, Mr. Man!)

re: Saw, Hostel, the concepts are pretty ridiculous on its face. Hockey masked serial killer is way more plausible. Well, maybe not in space or versus a leprechaun.

I think Hostel has a lot more artistic worth than than your average Friday the 13th-esque slasher film. Writing off "torture porn" (ugh, smug pejorative genre naming) completely seems kind of silly.

There's definite intelligence behind Hostel, which makes it so morally repugnant/cowardly when it engages in the same conservative hero-revenge affirmation as Walker: Texas Ranger.

BTW that's a pretty rad font on your site, Viceroy

Well, without prying into its moral underpinnings (plenty of that in the Hostel or Roth thread iirc), the fact remains that their are actual things to think about in the movie. (xpost)

Also, J0hn D. OTM in regards to these films being maligned in the exact same way slasher films were in the 80's. "Dead Teenager Movies" I believe Ebert called them.

I disagree. I believe there is a fundamental difference between "torture porn" and "dead teenager movies." The former is designed to be realistic and believable, the latter are obviously not to be veiwed as something plausible. The distinction, to me, is between exploitation and expressionism.

Hostel and Saw never struck me as being realistic and believable. Perhaps their actual depiction of violence is (just like, say, Savini's work in the first F13th) but the surrounding context is just as absurd and exaggerated. Hostel is totally cartoony in parts.

It's interesting to note that a lot of 80's slasher films are written off as harmless and campy even though a lot of them were genuinely trying to be scary and gruesome but obviously failed or just aged poorly or whatever. But a film like Hostel which is trying to be scary and gruesome, albeit in a more aggressive ante-upping way, and actually kind of succeeds... that's problematic. I just don't think there's a huge difference between a slasher film and a "torture porn" film. At least in the latter the barbarity of the violence is given some genuine weight and examination. I suppose that can make it a lot less fun to watch, but I don't think that means it's any more questionable on a moral level.

The thing with a lot of the 80s slasher movies, is that the pacing is pretty quick. If one were to compare the depictions of violence to depictions of sex, the 80s fare would be some Benny Hill-type cheesecake, whereas the contemporary Hostel/Saw/whatevers are more like hardcore porn. Part of it is the pacing, I think.

they couldn't linger on the gore in the 80s, it mostly looked too fucking silly as it was, even with quick editing cuts

I think the biggest gripe I have about the whole thing is it being associated with "porn".

im down with both hostel movies

is this the part of the thread where i provide links to horrible tortureporn movies that make hostel look like citizen kane? maybe i'll wait...

i mean there is nothing new under this particular sun.

Haven't seen the second one Hostel. Actually maybe the only "torture porn" movies I've seen have been the first Hostel (decent) and two Saw movies (not so good). I'm just down on this whole dismissiveness of the entire genre because it seems pretty familiar and unfair. And yeah, the "porn" accusation kind of cheeses me. Like, if you make or enjoy this type of film, you are a sexual pervert. It's just simple-minded criticism. The vast majority of the people who go see these films see them because they provide the same tension and dread and suspense as any other horror film. I suppose there's a Freudian sexual component to it, but I'm sure the same can be applied to just about any type of horror/slasher/thriller/suspense film.

I can see the 'porn' thing as applied to horror/exploitation in that they are primarily vehicles for eliciting reptile-brain boners.

BTW Viceroy, what's the name of that sweet font?

Err that first part got kinda fucked up. "Haven't seen the second Hostel." xpost to self

hey its not my fault you consider "porn" an insult

i think if you are ignoring these movies because they are repulsive you are going to miss a lot - which is fine, but if you're running a horror movie blog i'd think you'd want to dig into the kind of sub-genres some people would dismiss out of hand because that's often where really interesting stuff lurks.

eh, where do you draw the line though. Nekromantic?

i dunno! just saying, in horror especially (like it's been argued upthread), the innovations are kind of supposed to be repulsive!

i don't think those sorts of films are necessarily any more violent or disturbing or graphic than, say, the worst violence in 'casino' or 'reservoir dogs' or the new 'rambo'

people who focus on the gore in 'hostel' miss out on how remarkable it is in terms of pace and direction

yeah, both hostels are really well-directed movies with a lot of thought behind them

rambo = definitely revenge-porn

also that spielberg nazi-hunting movie where james bond goes 'i only weep for jewish blood'

Nekromantic is hilarious.

first indiana jones movie is total ark porn

nekromantic 2 is just as hilarious.

i think i've made my peace with the fact that a lot of people don't like horror movies. you know? most people aren't really gonna care if they miss out on a well-directed gore movie.

the idea of a horror movie "fan" who is willing to dismiss a film like hostel makes me really sad

this would've never happened pre-internet

I guess that is just an inconvenient truth! xp

I am sorry for my posts

i've said it before and i'll say it just one more time, if you have a good story about childhood trauma involving a movie you saw when you were a kid or a t.v. show or a commercial on t.v., by all means write it down and send it to lance at kindertrauma. he posts all the ones he gets. although i don't know what he does with the repeat traumas... i know he gets LOTS of Poltergeist mail. there should be a support group for that movie.

Haha, Poltergeist mail doesn't surprise me. Why the hell was that rated PG? It's probably scarred millions of children.

PolterGeist

"the idea of a horror movie "fan" who is willing to dismiss a film like hostel makes me really sad"

not to gang up on the dude, but it made me sad that he disses fangoria fanboys on his blog. cuz i was once one myself. and it kinda makes me wonder who he thinks will read his stuff if he dismisses the majority of the horror blog reading audience out there.

but it's a free country!

I'm surprised Temple of Doom isn't up there on trauma-meter. Scary ethnic plucks out a guy's heart. Paulene Kael's off her nut on this one thinking this is great kiddy fare.

yeah im not trying to be mean or anything. having grown up on horror films and mags, i tend to associate it with enthusiasm and joy. that's not to say that one can't be critical or have personal preferences, but being so dismissive bothers me.

lance has a great defense/diatribe of temple of doom on the site:

http://www.kindertrauma.com/?p=373#more-373

temple of doom? more like puddle of mudd. HA!
your pal's essay reads a lot like Kael's if he wants to take it as a compliment.

For every Hostel there's like 10 'Turistas Go Home' or Texas Chainsaw remakes (maybe someone will rep for that one but the ugly misogyny of it all made me genuinely nauseous). I've never seen Hostel but Saw is like one of those Goosebumps 'choose your own adventure' rip-offs only with lots of queasy stomach money shots of rendered human flesh. Maybe it's the '90 percent of everything is crap' rule but, yeah, the shit is just so hateful generally it just makes me sad.

the texas chainsaw remake (didn't see the second) was horrendous

Ok, a lot of things I said are being misconstrued I believe.

By "fangoria fanboi" I didn't not mean kids or adults who like horror mags. Horror mags rule! Why would I insinuate that? Its basically a personal shorthand for someone who would give a movie, say, like "Bride of Chucky" a favorable review because "duuude! Its fuckin' Chucky!"

As for torture porn, yes - Hostel and Saw were innovative films that presented a new kind of narrative. Then hordes of trashy worthless exploitative shit came out that is basically two hours of a girl getting tortured (while wearing very little clothes of course! gotta have that sex/pain twist, dontcha?) by her boyfriend who is on the other line being nice to her or whatever. These movies are pointless garbage that do not deserve to be considered HORROR films.

As for this "no true scotsman" shit about Hostel and horror fans, oh well -- takes all kinds. I am not trying to be dismissive, smug or above anything, so I'm sorry if I come across that way.

but... Bride of Chucky is great!

A large portion of "torture porn" films are garbage just like a large portion of any other kind of films or garbage. I just think if you're serious about horror films it seems kind silly to dismiss everything in an entire subgenre.

xpost

in this guy's defense, I think he's using 'torture porn' as shorthand for 'sleazy crap' rather than specifically movies where torture happens.