Re: Really? You've NEVER seen that Classic Film?
Posted: February 28th, 2023, 5:36 pm
https://www.silverscreenoasis.com/oasis3/
https://www.silverscreenoasis.com/oasis3/viewtopic.php?t=7315
Laffite, I wonder if The Old Dark House (1932) might be a horror film that you would like. It's based on a play by J.B. Priestley and features an assortment of creepy characters and no gore. It also includes many traditional horror movie tropes. And Lawrence Olivier's then mother-in-law plays one of the most singular characters!
Yo, Laughing Boy!
Interesting lists. Not a Horror fan, so have only seen a few of these. On the older list, was surprised to see The Uninvited (1944) - that strikes me more as mystery with a ghost. And The Birds (1953) and Psycho (1960) are, well, just Hitchcock. Now 13 Ghosts (1960) I remember seeing as a kid at a theater with the stupid colored glasses that you could use or not to see the ghosts. I wasn't scared ... or impressed. I've seen Dracula, Frankenstein and The Cabinet of Dr Caligari mostly just for historical context.
Think I'm the opposite. If it's not rap or rock and it's classified as a Musical, I'm right there to watch it.
I'm not much of a Robin Williams fan, so doubt RV would be of much interest to me since a synopsis lists it as a road trip comedy, but I'll agree that Awakenings IS a wonderful film. It's a touching pic based on the real efforts of a doctor to bring catatonic patients back to reality.
I'd classify that film more as a fantasy/adventure rather than Horror. Have the entire series, but have only seen the first couple.Masha wrote: ↑February 28th, 2023, 3:22 pm laffite: Perhaps you might consider horror with no gore. I have been told that most men find: Anita Liberty (1997) to be quite horrific due to the primal fear of having a person such as that in their life. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gLHGzN-NBX0
TikiSoo: I understand well that the: "misunderstood child has special powers" schtick might not appeal to you. I will be sufficiently forward to suggest that you nevertheless watch: Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (2001)
Our turnables back in the day weren't so fancy, so we used 'em.
There's no reason that laffite should like horror movies! People like what they like and don't like what they don't like. I don't see the point of trying to convince or persuade someone to try something if they don't really want to. The "eat your spinach" approach is never good for winning hearts and minds, IMO.LawrenceA wrote: ↑February 28th, 2023, 12:04 pm As I said before, it's quite likely that you won't find one that changes your overall opinion of the genre, and that's something you'd probably do better to accept . . .
Here's a list of older horror titles that you could try out that are less likely to have extreme content:
https://letterboxd.com/lawrencea/list/1 ... 1920-1969/
And here's a list of newer titles that may contain more "R-rated" material:
https://letterboxd.com/lawrencea/list/1 ... 0-present/
The lists of horror films I posted above are not meant to reflect my favorites, but rather the titles I think best represent the history of the genre and the more important titles throughout the years. There are a few listed that I didn't personally care for (Blair Witch Project, Paranormal Activity, Cannibal Holocaust), but are nonetheless noteworthy milestones in the history of horror films.dianedebuda wrote: ↑February 28th, 2023, 7:31 pmInteresting lists. Not a Horror fan, so have only seen a few of these. On the older list, was surprised to see The Uninvited (1944) - that strikes me more as mystery with a ghost. And The Birds (1953) and Psycho (1960) are, well, just Hitchcock. Now 13 Ghosts (1960) I remember seeing as a kid at a theater with the stupid colored glasses that you could use or not to see the ghosts. I wasn't scared ... or impressed. I've seen Dracula, Frankenstein and The Cabinet of Dr Caligari mostly just for historical context.
On the newer list, I remember seeing and being bored by The Blair Witch Project (1999); being disappointed in The Autopsy of Jane Doe (2016) because I thought it would be a scientific crime mystery, and really enjoying The Sixth Sense (1999). I've seen Final Destination (2000) and some of the sequels mostly because I was intrigued by the inventive ways that Death reclaimed those who had escaped it previously.
Now the Stephen King entries are a mixed bag for me. I had watched and enjoyed the unlisted The Dead Zone (1983) several times before I realized that it was based on King's work. So I started collecting and reading his novels. When I watched The Shining (1980) after having read it, I hated it and classified it as Jack Nicholson mugging for the camera. King didn't like it either, so the later mini-series was much, much closer to the book and I liked that. The only other one that I recall watching was Carrie (1976) which seemed like it had a good cast, but the story was pale compared to the book. After that, I pretty much avoided movie versions of his work except the very good The Stand (1994) mini-series.
Our turnables back in the day weren't so fancy, so we used 'em.
Laffite and I go way back, so I give him the benefit of the doubt as to his sincerity.EP Millstone wrote: ↑February 28th, 2023, 7:33 pm Now, LawrenceA, really. Why bother? laffite does not really have "a desire to know a horror movie that [he] might enjoy." He just wants to needle and poke folks discussing movies that he doesn't like because he feels left out of the conversation.
And there's no reason that laffite should like horror movies! People like what they like and don't like what they don't like. I don't see the point of trying to convince or persuade someone to try something if they don't really want to. The "eat your spinach" approach is never good for winning hearts and minds, IMO.
My biggest problem was that the focus was changed from the kid and his ESP to Jack's trip into dementia.
The newer version is not worth your time, IMO.
Well I was going to say that maybe my day goes back further, but I'm only 74 compared to your 123.
To clarify, I was referring to the recent version of The Stand, and not the more-recent series version of The Dead Zone, although from what I saw of that, it's a skip, too.dianedebuda wrote: ↑February 28th, 2023, 8:34 pmMy biggest problem was that the focus was changed from the kid and his ESP to Jack's trip into dementia.
The newer version is not worth your time, IMO.
Well I was going to say that maybe my day goes back further, but I'm only 74 compared to your 123.
I also have never seen HOME ALONE.
Damn Yankees and The Pajama Game were in rights limbo/hell for a very long time. It's only been in the last year or two that they've been more readily available in the US.skimpole wrote: ↑March 1st, 2023, 3:19 am I've never seen Home Alone.
I have seen every best picture winner.
I have seen 99.9% of theyshootpictures.com top 1000 movies of all time: https://theyshootpictures.com/gf1000_al ... _table.php
I have seen 260 out of 264 of Sight and Sound's top 250 movies of all time (there's a 22-way tie for 243rd): https://www.bfi.org.uk/sight-and-sound/ ... s-all-time
Leaving aside this year's nominees (there are four of which I haven't seen, but which I plan to), these are the last 10 best picture nominees I have not seen, going backwards in time:
Chocolat
The Green Mile
The Postman
Tender Mercies
The Turning Point
A Touch of Class
Hello Dolly!
Alfie
The Russians and Coming, the Russians are Coming
Decision before Dawn
And I have never seen Brigadoon, Oklahoma or Damn Yankees. They never appear on TCM Canada.