You raise some good points that I should have addressed earlier. First, there have been a couple of films that were made in America, or did well here, that were more atmospheric and suspenseful than violent and gory. The Blair Witch Project and The Others are good examples. Both did very well at the box office, and got good reviews here as well. Though i will say, even with them I talked to an inordinate number of people who thought they were too "boring" and "slow-paced". Another thing you point out is that there *are* ultra-violent and gory films in those other countries I referenced. One has only to look at some of the supernatural/martial arts types films produced in Asia, for example, to see a lot of blood and stuff. I've read many reviews of disturbing Japanese films that I'll never see. I remember watching "The Heroic Trio" for the first time a few years ago, and my wife walking into the room and freaking out when she saw the kidnapped kids eating human fingers. But a fi lm that has blood, gore and even explicit violence isn't automatically bad or worthy of dismissal. As you and many others have pointed out, "Saw" is good for what it is. I still love John Carpenter's remake of "The Thing", which has plenty of crazy stuff in it.
I do think, though, that while other countries have more of a balance between the gory films and the suspenseful ones, America has shown a decided move toward the more overt over-the-top stuff for decades now. Look at really good franchise-spawning films like "Friday the 13th", "Nightmare on Elm Street", and "Halloween". Each was very good, and each resulted in subsequent films that lost the magic of the originals, while frantically upping the body count, blood, and sex. Sad when people see a film only to see what new ways people will be killed on screen (remember the horrible 3D "Friday the 13th" flick?) What do you think are the cultural differences between America and the rest of the world such that there's a much bigger need for superficial action, violence, and gore here? -------------- Original message -------------- From: "B. Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I think that the American psyche finds it easier to deal with the in your face gore rather than the psychological or supernatural stuff that works overseas. There are exceptions of course like the The Blair Witch Project and Session 9 from the U.S. which worked the psychological horror vein pretty well. The new wave of French ultraviolent movies(Frontier(s), Inside, Martyrs, etc.) and extreme Japanese cinema go for the blood and guts crowd as well. BTW Saw and Hostel aren't my cup of tea but they don't disturb me. The only movie that got under my skin last year was a French horror move called À l'intérieur aka Inside. That one was hard to watch. It was gory but that wasn't what got me. The violence against a pregnant woman is too hard to take at times. La Femme is easily the scariest horror villain in a long time and she actually is a sympathetic character in a lot of ways. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0856288/ --- In scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Agreed. Remember a year or so ago there was a news story published about a recent study on what kinds of horror movies scare people in different countries? I think Tracey published the article here. One thing it pointed out was that in Asian countries like South Korea, audiences found the disembodied sounds of children laughing to be extremely frightening. Americans didn't find that so much. It seemed to me that other countries' audiences were more into true suspense, atmosphere, etc., while Americans were about louder, gorier, more blatant stuff. > Wonder why that is? > > -------------- Original message -------------- > From: Bosco Bosco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > With horror films, gore or no, it's pretty easy. If it's made by an American Studio, it's most likely gonna suck. American horror films tend toward extreme suckage so often that they're rarely worth watching even if you get in for free. > > B > > --- On Tue, 11/18/08, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [scifinoir2] Don't See SAW > To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com > Date: Tuesday, November 18, 2008, 10:35 PM > > > Same here. I can't abide watching films that revel in literal blood and guts, dismemberment, and the like. > > ------------ -- Original message ------------ -- > From: "Justin Mohareb" <justinmohareb@ gmail.com> > > I'm one up on you. I haven't seen one, two, three, four, OR five. > > I mean, sure he doesn't get paid not to act, but I'm just not into torture porn. > > JJ Mohareb > > On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 9:27 PM, ravenadal <[EMAIL PROTECTED] com> wrote: > > The good news is SAW V has stalled at $81 million (SAW IV made $139 > > million). > > > > The bad news is Tobin Bell, who plays the diabolically ethical villain > > Jigsaw - who, incidentally DIED at the end of SAW III - has been > > signed to star in FIVE more SAW movies. > > > -- > Read the Bitter Guide to the Bitter Guy. > http://thebitterguy .livejournal. com >
