Yes, I have the soundtrack album for the Twisted Nerve.  It is excellent music though I have no idea of how good the film is. 

M. R. James is the greatest ghost story writer of all time, probably.  His stories were ultra-subtle and extremely creepy - the way you would think a real ghost would be. Like someone will see a figure, just standing on a street corner, and only realize much later that it was a ghost.  The Sixth Sense is definitely in the M. R. James tradition.  Also, the original Japanese versions of Ringu (The Ring) and Ju-on (The Grudge) which were absolutely DESTROYED by the damnable American dumbed-down remakes - in which all the M. R. James subtlety and therefore all the actual fear were lost -  and which no one seems to notice are bad and a travesty of something great. 

There are a couple of American films fairly recently that really throw me. Don't really know how to categorize them. Based on the films, I think the music works extremely well and these films are beautifully photographed in my opinion. These two films are in the bogey man genre - ummm I can't remember what they're called. I'll look it up.

Edit: I can't look them up because I don't know what they're called and don't recall any actors names....so - the second one takes place on a school bus that has it's tyres blown out.

@PaulR said:

There are a couple of American films fairly recently that really throw me. Don't really know how to categorize them. Based on the films, I think the music works extremely well and these films are beautifully photographed in my opinion. These two films are in the bogey man genre - ummm I can't remember what they're called. I'll look it up.

Edit: I can't look them up because I don't know what they're called and don't recall any actors names....so - the second one takes place on a school bus that has it's tyres blown out.

Complete guess based on the "bus" and "bogey man" mentions - Jeepers Creepers?

M

Yes Mosso - you got it in one!

Well glad to be of some help!

I didn't actually see the 2nd film. I did enjoy the first one, at least up until the point when we finally got a look at the "monster". After that I thought it became more like a run-of-the-mill monster flick. My tastes in horror are definitely influenced by a viewing of Alien as a youngster - the less you see of the monsters the better!

M

@mosso said:

Well glad to be of some help!

 My tastes in horror are definitely influenced by a viewing of Alien as a youngster - the less you see of the monsters the better!

M

Uh-oh - now you've gone and done it!  [:D][:P]

@mosso said:

I didn't actually see the 2nd film. I did enjoy the first one, at least up until the point when we finally got a look at the "monster". After that I thought it became more like a run-of-the-mill monster flick. My tastes in horror are definitely influenced by a viewing of Alien as a youngster - the less you see of the monsters the better!

M

So what did you think of Cloverfield?  As far as I remember, Cloverfield is musicless until the very ending credits.  If you haven't seen it, go check it out.  Very innovative.  In total, I think the monster is only visible for some thirty seconds. 

@mosso said:

I didn't actually see the 2nd film. I did enjoy the first one, at least up until the point when we finally got a look at the "monster". After that I thought it became more like a run-of-the-mill monster flick. My tastes in horror are definitely influenced by a viewing of Alien as a youngster - the less you see of the monsters the better!

M

So what did you think of Cloverfield?  As far as I remember, Cloverfield is musicless until the very ending credits.  If you haven't seen it, go check it out.  Very innovative.  In total, I think the monster is only visible for some thirty seconds. 

Yeah I already saw Cloverfield. It was basically the Blair Witch Godzilla Project (I'm pretty sure that's how they pitched it to the studios). I remember thinking the handheld camerawork helped it feel more "real" (although I know some people who said it gave them motion sickness) and the effects were, of course, great. I seem to remember the kids were kinda stupid (lots of the "let's split up" factor), but hey, isn't that par for the course where a horror movie is concerned?

I'm pretty sure all the same cliches apply to Alien. I just wasn't aware of them when I first saw it!

"Guy's - I've got a great idea! There's a vicious alien hiding in the air ducts so why doesn't just one of us go in there and flush 'em out?"

"I dunno Cap'n - won't it just, like, eat you?"

"Don't be daft - I've got a homemade flamethrower"

...and so on...

M

 You're right about not showing the monster.  Nowadays all they do is show the monster.   "Show me the monster!" screamed the producer.  I like the film that "Alien"  was stolen from - it was called "It the Terror from Beyond Space" and was much better than the later overblown, overly expensive potboiler everybody thought was so amazing. Oh look!  Sigourney Weaver's got her underwear on! Oh look - the alien popped out of the guy's chest!"  ZZZZZZzzzzzzz.........

In the days of Val Lewton, like in Cat People, Seventh Victim or I Walked with a Zombie, the whole idea was to use imagination instead of special FX.  Though they were trying to use their low budget frugally, it also applied to the way those stories were done in general, suggesting everything including the psychology, settings, etc.   By the way those films also have great scores by Roy Webb, a little known composer today.

You have to understand that I'm  so completely shallow, that Sigourney Weaver in her underwear is usually good enough for me. What's disappointing these days is that Ridley Scott tends to go for overblown CGI and that bores me to death. This 2012 thing looks like s h i t to me. However. John Carpenter's The Thing is absolutely great in my view. As is Escape from New York - the Snake Plissken character is perfect Americana of the 80's.

"What are you doing up there Snake?"

"Playing with myself - I"M GOING IN!"

I love it when Yanks are 'going in'. [:P][:D]

Yeah - Terror from Beyond Space is a great film ( I think they set fire and then electrocute the 'being' in that one - and that's always good for me) and Quatermass 50's tv took a lot from that. I remember being left alone in the house in the 50's when the only tv channel then was the one BBC channel - and the tv production of Quatermass came on (you would get Champion the Wonder Horse, Whirlybirds and then Quatermass in those days). Haven't recovered to this point. There are far too many tv channels nowadays, so one tends to get mass produced crap being delivered most of the time - including films that are simply made for dvd and tv.

I watched the 1940's production of Jane Eyre last night actually - that is brilliant and brilliantly produced and photographed. Music is by Bernard Herrmann (quite eccentric music) and it's well worth watching just to remind oneself of what it was like before pandering to uneducated morons became the norm. 

@PaulR said:

What's disappointing these days is that Ridley Scott tends to go for overblown CGI and that bores me to death. This 2012 thing looks like s h i t to me.

Ridley Scott didn't do 2012, and if you look at his list of recent movies, very few are FX heavy.

Carpenter's The Thing is the maybe the most truly scary "monster movie" ever made.  It uses the actual story by John Campbell, instead of the silly version that was so distorted in the 1950s film. Though the 50s film is also great, but mainly in its acting and dialogue and pacing, rather than being actually frightening.   But John Carpenter's film is simply the most hideous, damnable story imaginable,  done perfectly.  It is a thousand times better than Alien, but was a bomb at the box office.  Just like Big Trouble in Little China, which was a thousand times better than Indiana Jones and bombed.  Critics hated both flms - showing that critics are morons.  John Carpenter had some bad luck on those films, though they are now called "cult classics."  

On Jane Eyre,  that production is spectacular, over-the-top Uber-Romantic with Orson Welles fantastically good as usual.  It is aggravating that the story had to be cut down to feature length.  Like Olivier's Hamlet - they are both the best films ever made of those subjects, but unfortunately had to be done in a very abridged form.   Hamlet was cut in to about half length to fit the feature length format.  Too bad that Olivier could not be allowed to do the same full-length version that Branagh later did, not so well.

@William said:

 You're right about not showing the monster.  Nowadays all they do is show the monster.   "Show me the monster!" screamed the producer.  I like the film that "Alien"  was stolen from - it was called "It the Terror from Beyond Space" and was much better than the later overblown, overly expensive potboiler everybody thought was so amazing. Oh look!  Sigourney Weaver's got her underwear on! Oh look - the alien popped out of the guy's chest!"  ZZZZZZzzzzzzz.........

In the days of Val Lewton, like in Cat People, Seventh Victim or I Walked with a Zombie, the whole idea was to use imagination instead of special FX.  Though they were trying to use their low budget frugally, it also applied to the way those stories were done in general, suggesting everything including the psychology, settings, etc.   By the way those films also have great scores by Roy Webb, a little known composer today.

Actually, Alien was a fairly low budget movie for science fiction, it only cost 11 million.  It's funny to see criticism of Alien since it is considered by many to be one of the best scifi films ever made, and it is specifically praised for getting maximum suspense out of not showing the alien much and relying more on the psychology of the situations.  The Thing wasn't much lower budget, and it probably has a comparable amount of FX (and considerably more gore, which is what got it many of the bad reviews).  I haven't seen Big Trouble yet, but I'll have to check it out...but I'm skeptical it could be that much better than Raiders, which pretty much nailed that genre.

The Thing is a well deserved cult classic.  Also, the pulsating electronic score by Ennio Morricone and John Carpenter (uncredited) is one of my favorites.  Thanks to video and DVD The Thing did finally turn a profit and earned its rightful place in the lexicon of classic spook flicks.  On Halloween, here in the states, some isolated movie theaters run The Thing to sold out crowds. 

I'm afraid I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with you on Big Trouble in Little China William.  Although it was better than all of the stupid martial arts revival movies of the 80's and I generally liked the film, Big Trouble.. wasn't better than Indiana Jones.  I think it was just too gimmicky.  Maybe if they had kept the original screenplay and left it set in the old west instead of contemporary San Francisco it might have made a difference.  On second thought, Big Trouble... is better than Indiana Jones 4, The Curse of the Big Shinny Alien Skull, or whatever it's called.

There are two recent spook movies that I find refreshing in a pretty stale genre.  One is called Wind Chill which has some logic problems and unnecessary scenes but it's a good jump out of your seat old fashion ghost story.  The other one is a British production (I think) set in the Appalachian Mountains called The Decent.  It wasn't that scary and the ending was lame but it sure was creepy as hell.

Oh what were we discussing on this thread again? 

@mike connelly said:

It's funny to see criticism of Alien since it is considered by many to be one of the best scifi films ever made

 Well, talking about $11 million is inappropriate, since you are comparing $11 million in 1980 dollars with current dollars first of all, and secondly you are buying into the insanity of union-made Hollywood films which require an entire crew to film anything, no matter how simple, and require hundreds or thousands of people to do what one person - i.e. Ray Harryhausen - used to do all by himself. 

@jasensmith said:

I'm afraid I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with you on Big Trouble in Little China William.  Although it was better than all of the stupid martial arts revival movies of the 80's and I generally liked the film, Big Trouble.. wasn't better than Indiana Jones.

Well it is a matter of taste, but the reason I think it is so much better is it is so funny and hip with cool Chinese dudes and Kurt Russell acting like an irritable John Wayne.  Indiana Jones is totally unhip and just a lot of high-production values applied to a 1940s serial (which I would rather see in the originals).   Big Trouble has some priceless humor in it, with Kurt Russell being ultra macho even though he is totally incompetent and clueless.   Also, great dialogue which you never get in a Spielberg film - such as:

"When some 8 foot tall maniac shoves the back of your favorite head up against the bar-room wall and looks you crooked in the eye and asks "Have you paid your dues?" -   well, you just look that sucker right back in the eye and you tell him what ol' Jack Burton always says at a time like that... 

"Have you paid your dues Jack?"

"Yes sir, the check is in the mail."

One of the great joys of Carpenter's work is to see what he does with different budgets and actors that are not very well known, over his time as a film director. Sometimes non-existent budgets. Assault on Precinct 13 is an extremely low budget affair - but a great film. The remake is glossy with lots of named actors - but doesn't have the same impact as the original. The scene with the little girl and the ice cream vendor sticks out, for example. Remakes are rarely any good. Because films are very much part of their time and the many reflections of society etc etc. And also because most remakes today seem to have a video game in the back of it's mind. Incoming revenue is the name of the game.

When Carpenter got hold of a budget it could either be great or a straight fold. Critics liked the low budget Halloween - I couldn't stand it - way too many loop holes. He's a great director though and I like his music on the old analogue Moogs etc.

I like the way Carpenter makes Americana. He makes American films pure and simple. He doesn't, seemingly, try to please everyone in the world. That's what I admire about French cinema. They make films for France and to me that's shows a great deal of integrity. Sweden is the same on a smaller scale with great directors like Ingmar Bergman.

The amount of budget available for films shouldn't matter. Most high budget films are fucking crap anyway - so where's the criteria in that. Most low budget films can be even worse. You will make a good film regardless of the amount of money spent in my view.

With Alien, I think Goldsmith's score to that was better than the film. The photography was great and just about everything else - but the film is not in any way original. Just extremely well done. Probably Ridley Scott's best film - which was when - 1979?

@William said:

I like the film that "Alien"  was stolen from - it was called "It the Terror from Beyond Space"

I'm gonna have to look that one up - any film that inspired Alien has got to be worth a watch! The only one I was consciously aware of was John Carpenter's low budget debut "Dark Star" which was written by (and starred) Dan O'Bannon (who later wrote Alien). O'Bannon's idea for Alien came from a small part of the movie where the ship's pet (an alien brilliantly realised by the FX department as a beach ball with feet attached) runs amok in the ships airducts. Be warned though - you'll never be able to take Alien seriously again.

M

@jasensmith said:

The Thing is a well deserved cult classic.  Also, the pulsating electronic score by Ennio Morricone and John Carpenter (uncredited) is one of my favorites.  Thanks to video and DVD The Thing did finally turn a profit and earned its rightful place in the lexicon of classic spook flicks.  On Halloween, here in the states, some isolated movie theaters run The Thing to sold out crowds. 

                                                                                                                  

I'm afraid I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with you on Big Trouble in Little China William.  Although it was better than all of the stupid martial arts revival movies of the 80's and I generally liked the film, Big Trouble.. wasn't better than Indiana Jones.  I think it was just too gimmicky.  Maybe if they had kept the original screenplay and left it set in the old west instead of contemporary San Francisco it might have made a difference.  On second thought, Big Trouble... is better than Indiana Jones 4, The Curse of the Big Shinny Alien Skull, or whatever it's called.

There are two recent spook movies that I find refreshing in a pretty stale genre.  One is called Wind Chill which has some logic problems and unnecessary scenes but it's a good jump out of your seat old fashion ghost story.  The other one is a British production (I think) set in the Appalachian Mountains called The Decent.  It wasn't that scary and the ending was lame but it sure was creepy as hell.

Oh what were we discussing on this thread again? 

I loved The Thing - along with Alien they were the first films to scare the cr*p out of me. The CD version of the score is Morricone at his best but quite a bit of it didn't make the final cut. Interesting you mentioned The Descent as I did find that good (and creepy).

I think it's a bit unfair to directly compare Raiders and Big Trouble - they're both paying homage to serials but Raiders is played straight and Big Trouble has it's tongue firmly in it's cheek. It might be better to compare Raiders and Escape From New York (and I hesitate to say it but I also prefer Raiders [;)] ).

M