Hi all. I've been spending a lot of time lately catching up with horror classics from the 70s, and I was kind of impressed at the difference between titles, in terms of how they hold up. Bear in mind that I had never seen these movies before, so the whole nostalgia thing does not apply.
The main difference I saw was between two megaclassics: Halloween and TCM. The first one didn't do much for me. While I *liked* the movie, and could appreciate the craftsmanship of the direction and the performances (Donald Pleasance rocks), it just wasn't very *effective*. Tense, yes, but the moments where the tension was supposed to be explosively released by sudden violence just left me kinda cold. Overall, as I said, I liked it as a movie, but it won't be one of those movies I watch whenever I'm in the mood for Horror.
TCM was another story altogether. I liked it a lot, but more than that, it was still effective. It creeped me out when watching it for the first time, even though it's what, 30 years old? It STILL was mildly disturbing whem watching it with the commentary, fer Chrissakes.
My main question now is, why such a difference? The movies aren't so different, the amount of gore is comparable, the clothes and stuff that could date them are similar as well, etc. They're very similar animals. Why then the different levels of reaction? My guess is that Halloween, with all it's attempts to dehumanize the killer, succeeds too well and dehumanizes the violence. TCM, on the other hand, has killers which are a lot more fleshed out (heh). To me, Leatherface has a lot more character, in himself but also in his insertion in the family. The scene before the dinner scene, where they bring Grandpa downstairs, just freaked me out. The part where Leatherface kisses and caresses his Grandpa on the top of the head is key for me, as is his confusion early on at all these teens coming out of nowhere, and his deference to the Cook.
Anyone has anything they feel like adding to tihs? I'd really like to know if this experience is shared by someone else.
The main difference I saw was between two megaclassics: Halloween and TCM. The first one didn't do much for me. While I *liked* the movie, and could appreciate the craftsmanship of the direction and the performances (Donald Pleasance rocks), it just wasn't very *effective*. Tense, yes, but the moments where the tension was supposed to be explosively released by sudden violence just left me kinda cold. Overall, as I said, I liked it as a movie, but it won't be one of those movies I watch whenever I'm in the mood for Horror.
TCM was another story altogether. I liked it a lot, but more than that, it was still effective. It creeped me out when watching it for the first time, even though it's what, 30 years old? It STILL was mildly disturbing whem watching it with the commentary, fer Chrissakes.
My main question now is, why such a difference? The movies aren't so different, the amount of gore is comparable, the clothes and stuff that could date them are similar as well, etc. They're very similar animals. Why then the different levels of reaction? My guess is that Halloween, with all it's attempts to dehumanize the killer, succeeds too well and dehumanizes the violence. TCM, on the other hand, has killers which are a lot more fleshed out (heh). To me, Leatherface has a lot more character, in himself but also in his insertion in the family. The scene before the dinner scene, where they bring Grandpa downstairs, just freaked me out. The part where Leatherface kisses and caresses his Grandpa on the top of the head is key for me, as is his confusion early on at all these teens coming out of nowhere, and his deference to the Cook.
Anyone has anything they feel like adding to tihs? I'd really like to know if this experience is shared by someone else.
