Best Horror Film of 1986 (part 8 of a series)

The Fly. TCM2 is really a comedy, in my book.

Chopping Mall and Zombie Nightmare are both hilarious and must see, btw.

Demons 2. I'm a creature of habit.

Wow, I missed a lot from this year. Have only seen:

Aliens
April Fool's Day
Crawlspace
Critters
The Fly
Friday the 13th Part VI: Jason Lives
From Beyond
House
Invaders from Mars
Maximum Overdrive
Night of the Creeps
Poltergeist II: The Other Side
Psycho III
TerrorVision
Vamp

My heart tells me to go for Aliens, my head says The Fly, and my inner 16-year-old is still snickering over the kid getting run over by the steamroller in Maximum Overdrive. Plus, Invaders from Mars has Louise Fletcher being eaten by a giant Mars monster.

Still, gotta go with Aliens.

BTW, if you've never seen TerrorVision, you absolutely must. It's AMAZING. Gerrit Graham, Mary Woronov, Jon Gries, a porn star and an insanely silly monster.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TxkELa9w2j4

oh man this is much harder than 85

man if aliens qualifies it seems like blue velvet could

Seriously. Aliens has horror elements but its an action movie.

The Fly!

anyhow voted tcm2 but quick shoutout to this -
<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/8RkH1N9VlrY&hl=en_US&fs=1";></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/8RkH1N9VlrY&hl=en_US&fs=1"; type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

guh - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8RkH1N9VlrY

a lot I haven't seen on here. probably the most obscure/minor thing here that I have seen is Neon Maniacs, mostly cuz it was shot in SF and features a chase scene on a MUNI train. also some very campily costumed radioactive mutants cavorting around the Presidio. pretty shit film though.

Went with the Fly

love some of the titles I haven't seen tho (Killer Workout lol)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7K44PqV2Idk

I remember Class of Nuke 'Em High being very entertaining, but (like pretty much every Troma movie that's made its way into one of these polls) nothing that really resembles horror.

I'll have to go hella mainstream and say Aliens or The Fly. I would love for someone on ILX to send me a copy of this wonderful and watchable Texas Chainsaw Massacre II they're such big fans of. The one I watched was one of the worst movies I've ever seen, so I assume I must've seen some chopped and screwed version or something.

thank god for that split second of cutaway to next scene cuz if it had ended w/ implied 'and then this steamroller chases a kid on a bike while this ac/dc song plays' i was totally going to watch maximum overdrive this weekend.

I have fond memories of Class of Nuke 'Em High (radioactive weed that turns jocks into murderous mutants!) but haven't seen it in years. agree that it's horror only in the most nominal sense, it's more like a parody.

Some of the best titles to ever grace VHS boxes came from this year.

Chopping Mall
Class of Nuke 'Em High
Killer Workout
Neon Maniacs
Rawhead Rex
TerrorVision

The Fly is a pretty easy vote.

Poltergeist II represents one of the biggest drops in quality from the original ever.

apparently you've never seen exorcist II

at least poltergeist II has julian beck going for it

watched from beyond recently, some of the fx are kinda cheezy but it has held up pretty well on the whole

man i am trying to figure out if 13 year old me was right about the believers being really good and pretty terrifying - worried i am mixing in some serpent and the rainbow/angel heart
good vibes and confusing myself

13yo you was wrong, the believers is awful

thank god for that split second of cutaway to next scene cuz if it had ended w/ implied 'and then this steamroller chases a kid on a bike while this ac/dc song plays' i was totally going to watch maximum overdrive this weekend.

Yah but that next scene has a really, really annoying Yeardley Smith (Lisa Simpson) in it, so it's still worth your time.

big budget hollywood garbage, the scariest scene is a household accident in the beginning

xp

Has anyone actually seen "Rawhead Rex?" I've read the Clive Barker story, which had a line that always stuck with me, in which the titular monster kills a little boy: "He was sick down its throat as it bit the top of his head off." If the movie can deliver on that, I'm renting it ASAP.

The Fly is on here but not Blue Velvet, and most people would agree with that. For me, The Fly has the superficial conventions of monster-movie horror--and is of course a remake of an infamously cheesy '50s horror film--but in fact has virtually nothing in the way of actual scare scenes (I can think of one). Blue Velvet has none of the conventions, but Frank Booth's first appearance made my heart pound more than any horror film of the past 35 years, and Frank himself is just about the greatest non-monster monster in any movie ever. They're both great films, but I find it interesting that one is immediately classified as horror, while the other is generally viewed as existing outside the genre.

I thought about including Blue Velvet, but ultimately decided that was a slippery slope. Plus, these polls are limited to 50 selections, so kind of feel I should stay within fairly strict perimeters of the genre.

lynch's films are terrifying but I couldn't in good faith call them horror films

Absolutely understand--the slippery slope is always a problem. By the way, I saw a different House last week, a Japanese horror film from the late '70s that was sheer lunacy. Truthfully, the trailer's better than the film itself.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NN0HVJ5tkIM

I thought I remembered that Killer Workout had an awesome poster & looking around for it, I found that I had confused it w/ Death Spa!

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_LZ92yTgKeAQ/SMFocuqn24I/AAAAAAAAEc4/4_K7vz_OIxA/s1600-h/deathspa.jpg

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_LZ92yTgKeAQ/SMFocuqn24I/AAAAAAAAEc4/4_K7vz_OIxA/s1600-h/deathspa.jpg

http://www.coverbrowser.com/image/vhs-videos/2387-1.jpg

omg

zombies gotta keep in shape too eh

Man, I loved House at the time. My cousin and me watched it again and again on video that winter. I'd dread to see it now.

The Fly might be the best film of '86 (never a big Blue Velvet fan).

Rawhead Rex absolutely does NOT live up to Barker's story. it's a wretched film. Barker's concept of a pre-Christian hyper-phallic deity gobbling its way through the British Isles translated into a disjointed series of stalk-and-chomp scenes featuring a hulking, utterly unconvincing man in a suit and mask with glowing red eyes. still, i'd kill for a copy of it on DVD.

no zombies in Death Spa - aka Witch Bitch. just a supremely pissed-off ghost responsible for a number of memorably juicy kills (by blender, flying frozen fish, acid shower, butterfly machine, and exploding tiles and mirrors).

recently revisited Witchboard. it has held up well. TBH, all i remembered about it was Tawny Kitaen's flash of full-frontal nekkidness. which is still there. but it's Kathleen Wilhoite who steals the show as a punked-out psychic. hokey ending disqualifies it from Best of '86 contention.

Raiders of the Living Dead is one of the worst movies of all time.

really like Anguish and Neon Maniacs in spite of their many shortcomings. so it's between The Fly and From Beyond for me. The Fly is far and away the better film. but From Beyond has Barbara Crampton in S&M get-up and Jeffrey Combs sucking out eyeballs. gonna have to sleep on this one.

Nightmare Weekend is the other worst movie of all time. certainly the most incomprehensible.

elsewhere, we have...
Terrence Stamp and Elizabeth Shue squaring off with a super-intelligent chimp (Link);
Tim "Joe Gage" Kincaide overcompensating as a "straight" director by throwing all of the naked virgins in NYC into a tub of alien spooge (Breeders);
Japanese pinku insanity with a mud-slathered rapemonster boning amateur porn filmmakers to death (Entrails of a Virgin);
30-something Brits poorly play-acting as American teens picked off by a mean-spirited slasher (Slaughter High);
Ken Russell's puerile Shelleyan fantasia (Gothic);
the giant safety pin aerobicides of Killer Workout;
and the immortal, if grammatically questionable, tag line, "Please do not disturb Evelyn. She already is." (the ultracampy MMM).

whatta rollercoaster year in horror.

is that Jiri Barta's Pied Piper. freakin' LOVE that one. but it's a real stretch to call it horror.

just noticed Night of the Creeps. goddamnit. a very strong contender.

The Fly might be the best film of '86 (never a big Blue Velvet fan).
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius)

Agreeing with you happens so rarely, it's that much more exciting when it does happen.

from beyond is so sick

This year has a lot of great B-rate fun. House, Night of the Creeps, Witchboard, Critters ... and Invaders from Mars, while overshadowed by TCM2 here, is pretty sweet if only for the spectacle of Oscar-winner Louise Fletcher swallowing a frog whole.

"Rawhead Rex" sucks. One of those terrible monsters with such a stylized toothy mouth that it can't even chew properly in its bite-off-your-head moments. "Maximum Overdrive" is maximum stupid, too, and only worth it for the AC/DC. But some of these other ones, genre straddlers or not, have aged really well: "Aliens" and "The Fly" are both masterpieces.

Better than it could have been: "April Fool's Day." Which suddenly reminds me that when I was little, I used to go to this sort of Amish market. The market had this fly by night bookseller that used to sell paperbacks with the covers ripped off, something like 5 for a dollar. Ten-year old or so me was really into buying, for no good reasons, novelizations of horror flicks, which means that of this batch I have read, no joke, the novelizations of "April Fool's Day," "Friday the 13th Part VI: Jason Lives," "Aliens" and "Poltergeist II." And no, the books are not better than the movies.

Hey, just noticed "Vamp" in this list. Grace Jones!!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfVewf36ugs

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

i have no problem accepting aliens as horror, gets my vote

but damn the spooky guy in Poltergeist II almost tipped it

The Fly is arguably not horror either. That thing is a straight up tragedy. Really bums me out. I love how it just ends right as we reach the saddest moment-- yeah, that's it fuckers! Life sucks!

OMG Absolutely understand--the slippery slope is always a problem. By the way, I saw a different House last week, a Japanese horror film from the late '70s that was sheer lunacy. Truthfully, the trailer's better than the film itself.

― clemenza, Thursday, July 29, 2010 9:17 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark

Thank you so much, this is so awesome.

The Fly is on here but not Blue Velvet, and most people would agree with that. For me, The Fly has the superficial conventions of monster-movie horror.... Blue Velvet has none of the conventions, but Frank Booth's first appearance made my heart pound more than any horror film of the past 35 years, and Frank himself is just about the greatest non-monster monster in any movie ever.

― clemenza, Thursday, July 29, 2010 1:55 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

I thought about including Blue Velvet, but ultimately decided that was a slippery slope. Plus, these polls are limited to 50 selections, so kind of feel I should stay within fairly strict perimeters of the genre.

― Darin, Thursday, July 29, 2010 2:10 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark

see, this is where i get off the horror purist bus. cuz while i agree that the fly ought to be considered a horror flick, i'd put blue velvet in that ballpark, too. and as he progressed, lynch only gets more and more horrof-ific. to my mind., lost highway, mulholland dr. and inland empire are the THEE best and most iconic PURE horror movies of the last couple decades. the failure of horror, as a culture, to accommodate this (while making room for tons of non-scary thrillers like saw) = the biggest failure of imagination and aesthetics in genre filmmaking we've seen in decades. lynch IS a horror filmmaker, and his best movies are simply the best horror movies anyone's made since polanski in the 70s.

lots of edits to above, most crucial = "lynch only gets more and more horror-ific. to my mind, lost highway..."

but damn, if dead-end drive in (a character-driven drama with no horror/gore content whatsoever) and aliens (combat action) get to pass, then blue velvet definitely should.

my pick from these = the fly, or maybe gothic. ken russell on some kind of incredible roll in the years between the devils and the lair of the white worm.

klaus kinski in crawlspace also worth more than a passing mention. not a great movie, but a brilliant fucking performance.

just reading this list really takes me back to a different time. so many nostalgic picks. really tempted to vote for house, but i have to go with the fly. it's too good to be on this list, imo.

i dunno, maybe it's just because I didn't find Blue Velvet particularly scary at all, but I don't see it as a horror film, in the way that case could be made for something like Peeping Tom.

I remember being disappointed by Link, but I forget why

^ this. dividing line being, again, a fascination w the ghoulish & grotesque

this in large part is what makes a movie like robocop feel like a horror film, though it's obviously not

if Shelly's Frankenstein is Horror, then so is The Fly

No answers, just questions. Is Night of the Hunter a horror film? Twin Peaks (TV series)? Hour of the Wolf? There was a horror-film series at one of the early-'80s Toronto Film Festivals--I can't remember if it was programmed by Cronenberg or Robin Wood--and Hour of the Wolf was included, as was Forbidden Planet. I'm not sure if either would qualify under some of the criteria spelled out here.

x-post Again, if memory serves, Jeff Goldblum kills no one and attacks only that one dude, and said dude (who survives, btw) is wielding a shotgun, hoping to kill him. So hardly some monster on the rampage.

Frankenstein is similarly tragic, I suppose, but the difference is the monster is, you know, cobbled together from dead parts and brought back to life. It's slightly less tragic because we know the monster is made of murderer parts. With "The Fly," we see the before and after, and the after is definitely sad, not least because the main (sole?) victim is the couple's relationship.

"Night of the Hunter" is a thriller. "Twin Peaks" has glimmers of horror, but it's mostly just nutty characters. "Hour of the Wolf" - is that Bergman or Haneke? Bergman, right? What am I thinking of?

I get what yr saying about the fly being an inherently tragic/sympathetic figure

but that's part of the story, even in the original, which is definitely a horror movie, I mean this is one of the most horrifying scenes in film history

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kqYDRxdgnC0

x-post Again, if memory serves, Jeff Goldblum kills no one and attacks only that one dude, and said dude (who survives, btw) is wielding a shotgun, hoping to kill him. So hardly some monster on the rampage.

Frankenstein is similarly tragic, I suppose, but the difference is the monster is, you know, cobbled together from dead parts and brought back to life. It's slightly less tragic because we know the monster is made of murderer parts. With "The Fly," we see the before and after, and the after is definitely sad, not least because the main (sole?) victim is the couple's relationship.

"Night of the Hunter" is a thriller. "Twin Peaks" has glimmers of horror, but it's mostly just nutty characters. "Hour of the Wolf" - is that Bergman or Haneke? Bergman, right? What am I thinking of?

hour of the wolf is bergman, time of the wolf is haneke

if Shelly's Frankenstein is Horror, then so is The Fly

when you look at the building blocks of horror as a genre (ghost stories & grimm's-type fables, stoker's dracula, shelley's frankenstein, stevenson's jeckyll & hyde, nosferatu & german expressionism, universal studios horror flicks of the 30s and 40s) you see a lot of emphasis on character and even some sympathy for the monstrous. cronengberg's the fly seems 100% in line with the tradition, not a variation or an outlier of any sort.

I'd call hour of the wolf a horror movie, it's a ghost story

hour of the wolf is 100% completely and totally a horror film. can't imagine any criteria by which you'd exclude it. it even takes pains to establish explicit links to the genre (the very lugosi-esque shots of the bird creature, for instance). plus yeah, it seems to be a ghost story, one of the most traditional horror story forms.

would say that night of the hunter and twin peaks have a lot in common with horror, and that it seems reasonable to describe NotH as horror film of a sort, but neither really fits comfortably into the genre.

this discussion is making me want to watch the 1958 version of the fly

oh look both versions of the fly are streaming on netflix brb

when I was a kid that 58 version of the fly freaked me out so fucking bad, like 100% terror at that ending. and at this frame:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_Yn-A3bddDcc/SwOWO0BfD6I/AAAAAAAAAHM/gHRsriIY7Jk/s1600/the_fly_1958-779691.jpg

Sympathy is totally a part of lots of horror. But again, I'm curious: what about "The Fly" constitutes horror besides the effects? It's not scary, it's not suspenseful, it's not evil or dark or menacing. And no one gets killed but the monster, who does it to himself (as with the original).

Again, stressing, I totally get why this gets called horror. But I'm trying to pinpoint just why the tag comes so easy to a movie not so easily categorized as such.

Put more simply, I guess, from another angle: does the presence of a monster always = horror?

almost always - especially if the monster's appearance is horrifying - if it inspires, or seems intended to inspire, feelings of disgust. a monster is kind of the physical emblem of horror - he is the real-world totem for feelings of horror. monstrousness is like the #1 most interesting concept in literature/film to me and I will go on like an undergrad about it for days

what about "The Fly" constitutes horror besides the effects? It's not scary, it's not suspenseful, it's not evil or dark or menacing.

have tried to suggest the film's ghoulish focus on & fascination with brudle's condition makes it horror, but also consider the way the telepods are 1st presented. ominous music, low-angle photography, stark lighting, scary design, clouds of almost comically horror-gothic fog. i think the film makes its adherence to the formal qualities of the genre very clear from early on. and then there's the dream sequence, which pushes into territory that anyone would think of as pure/true horror. though that sequence it short, it resonates, lingers over the rest of the film. and the final action/kidnapping/confrontation scenes ARE suspenseful, dark and menacing. brundle sees the emergence of the animal consciousness within himself as something terrible, something pitiless that will destroy not only him but those around him if he lets it. in that sense, the film is about evil, too. it's about the passive evils of both technology and nature, presenting "humanity" as this fragile dream ("i was a fly who dreamed he was a man") that attempts to excuse itself from the fundamental horror of biology.

I guess that's a good point. Those telepods are pretty menacing/"evil," even if they're not actually evil.

Though it is a slippery slope, I suppose. If it weren't played as satire, would "Robocop" indeed be a horror film? It has even more shades of Frankenstein than "The Fly."

when you look at the building blocks of horror as a genre (ghost stories & grimm's-type fables, stoker's dracula, shelley's frankenstein, stevenson's jeckyll & hyde, nosferatu & german expressionism, universal studios horror flicks of the 30s and 40s) you see a lot of emphasis on character and even some sympathy for the monstrous. cronengberg's the fly seems 100% in line with the tradition, not a variation or an outlier of any sort.

YES.

what about "The Fly" constitutes horror besides the effects? It's not scary, it's not suspenseful, it's not evil or dark or menacing.

This is just your opinion, though. I think it is scary (if for nothing else than the theme of one's body and mind undergoing such a horrendous change, but there are also genuine scares along the lines of the birth-dream etc), there is suspense, and it's definitely dark.

Also:

If it weren't played as satire, would "Robocop" indeed be a horror film? It has even more shades of Frankenstein than "The Fly."

You've kind of answered your own question here. If Robocop was an entirely different film but retained the concept of a robot-man hybrid then it could be horror, yes. But it isn't an entirely different film, it's Robocop.

So the reason "The Fly" is horror the lack of LOLs?

I think any scares in "The Fly" are purely metaphorical, barring the occasional kid convinced the Brundlefly is real and is going to get them. But clearly opinions vary. I still think it's more broadly horrific, which is why I first brought up both "Elephant Man" and "Safe," two sorta extremes of the same idea, one gentle, one disconcerting, neither horror at all.

yeah it mean it seems like your definition of "horror" is extremely orthodox - the presence of other elements "dilutes" the horror quantity for you, etc. I think there's plenty of horror that doesn't provide scares/chills at all but just gives a vague sense of unease (Robert Aickman is amazing with this). It's a broad genre, not a limited one.

Also Josh, weren't you one of the people scoffing at the notion of ppl being scared by A Nightmare on Elm Street? I think maybe your ability to not be horrified plays pretty heavily into how you define horror.

So the reason "The Fly" is horror the lack of LOLs?

Er, no. Not at all. What I was saying was that in order for Robocop to be a horror film, it would have to be written, shot, directed and edited completely differently to the way it is. However, the main premise of a man-robot killing machine could be turned into horror, but it would be a completely different film.

I think any scares in "The Fly" are purely metaphorical

How is this different from many other canonical horror films?

the fly w/ lols would basically be an american werewolf in london and still horror

What? The Fly by Cronenberg has plenty of lols - not as many as Robocop - which is played more as a satire and less as a horror movie.

Never would have guessed Trick Or Treat was as old as April Fool's Day for some reason

monstrousness is like the #1 most interesting concept in literature/film to me and I will go on like an undergrad about it for days

― gross rainbow of haerosmith (underrated aerosmith albums I have loved), Friday, July 30, 2010 10:47 PM (Yesterday)

oh dude my final thesis as an english major (before deciding lol english i should be a philosophy major thats where the ladies are at) was about exactly this, looking at the definition of monster antagonists and how their proximal "difference" is what establishes them - ie why is grendel way more creepy and rong than his mother for most readers - it is a subject that totally fascinates me.

i of course never finished the paper because i am lazy as hell.

I've mostly been thinking out loud here. I'm pretty sure I've always considered "The Fly" horror, too, until it popped up here and I asked myself why. It's actually trickier than I had imagined. Like, again, "Dead Alive" is (intentionally) funnier than most comedies, but it counts as a horror film and not a comedy. Or at least a horror-comedy, which I guess the presence of zombies will automatically get you. At least "Shaun of the Dead" was wise to call itself a RomZomCom, which kind of circumvents the horror field at all.

By "The Fly" not being scary, by the way, I mean it sort of generally lacks jumps and suspense and stuff. Mood and malaise galore, but the "horror," as such, is almost entirely of the OMG look what's happening to him could that happen to me? variety, which is a different kind of scary. Agreed it's an underlying theme of many many horror flicks, but I guess many of those horror flicks are similarly ambiguously (minus the presence of a gooey monster as tip off). Once again, there's no "evil," as such in "The Fly," and the events are always played with sadness and tragedy rather than convention dead, which lessens the menace of the monster, particularly because, once again, no one dies but the monster. How often is that the case in horror films?

The lack of scares thing is sort of related to that famous John Carpenter anecdote where he notes the most visceral audience reaction provoked by "The Thing" was the close up of the dude slicing his own thumb open for the blood test. For all the creatures and killing and gore and "proper" scares, that was the scene that made the audience squirm. I guess Cronenberg in particular likes to walk this thin line himself. So many of his films are totally horrific and squirm inducing - "Dead Ringers"! - but not many are formally (or easily) categorized as horror.

Once again, there's no "evil," as such in "The Fly," and the events are always played with sadness and tragedy rather than convention dead, which lessens the menace of the monster, particularly because, once again, no one dies but the monster.

And one very unfortunate test monkey.

The Fly might be the best film of '86 (never a big Blue Velvet fan).
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius)

Agreeing with you happens so rarely, it's that much more exciting when it does happen.

― 2 + 2 is vah-gi-nah (Eric H.)

Awwww, you say the sweetest things once or twice a year!

also from '86, in the same vein as Death Spa...

http://www.obscurehorror.com/aerobicide4.jpg

Automatic thread bump. This poll is closing tomorrow.

We've now reached the point in this series where if I have not seen some of these (about 50% in this case), I at least am familiar w/ most of the titles from pouring over the horror section of my local video store bw the ages of 10-14.

Whoever pointed out Julian Beck as a saving grace of Poltergeist II is otm. I would never vote for it overall (pretty shit aside from him & the Geiger worm), but dude was creeeeeeepy. That translucent skin - I don't think that was makeup.

A lot of these that I dug as a kid are also probably crap (Chopping Mall, Critters, Rawhead Rex, Troll, Witchboard, April Fool's Day, House, Demons 2) - maybe not in some cases, but I can't recall most of them well enough to make a proper call.

The Fly will win & it deserves to. Aliens is obv great as well, but I don't think of it as a horror flick, really.

Going w/ TCM2 b/c it is one of the best, most madcap fucked up horror comedies.. of the 80s? Ever? The sequences w/ chainsaws on the highway & at the radio station & Bill Mosely w/ his steel plate & coat hanger! Dennis Hopper in full scenery-chewing mode laying waste to the compound (sunken amusement park!). It was the only tasteful way to make an actual sequel to the original imo.

got my vote 2 - what a good & enjoyable movie it was, and really the only way to follow up on the original without looking like an asshole

Automatic thread bump. This poll's results are now in.

huh.

def would not even make my top 10. (voted TCM2 btw)

someone needs to explain their vote for Entrails of a Virgin.

the version I saw didn't have all this nsfw work stuff that is on youtube.

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

also, I don't know why I voted for it, because the top three winners are all better. Nice wrestling scene though.

really NSFW

WHOA

uh holy shit wtf

can't imagine that's gonna be up for long

Going w/ TCM2 b/c it is one of the best, most madcap fucked up horror comedies.. of the 80s? Ever? The sequences w/ chainsaws on the highway & at the radio station & Bill Mosely w/ his steel plate & coat hanger! Dennis Hopper in full scenery-chewing mode laying waste to the compound (sunken amusement park!). It was the only tasteful way to make an actual sequel to the original imo.

otm, glad someone said it. one of my favorite movies of ever, and easily the best thing tobe hooper ever put his name on. so funny, crazy, incoherent & brilliant. though i'd recently posted a similar defense ITT, but i guess not. maybe in one of the (many) other horror threads? dunno, too much threads to keep track of...

on 1981 thread, sparked by the funhouse iirc?

Speaking of "Entrails of a Virgin," this is the best movie of whatever year it was made in:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XE54kTxAGcc&feature=player_embedded

sup

http://static.zoovy.com/img/redford/W414-H414-Bffffff/2/269968_1020_a.jpg