Julie Walker

I wound up watching the Producers Cut of Halloween 6: The Curse of Michael Myers on Youtube, since the link was posted earlier and I had no idea it was available for viewing in full. Though the person uploaded everything in 9 parts until the ending, but someone else had uploaded the ending in two parts. So you can view the entire thing on there if you decide to check it out.

Anyway after finally seeing this infamous alternate cut of the film. Here are my opinions...



...,so overall the theatrical cut is actually the better version of the film. An even better version could result if some of the P.C. footage were added to the theatrical cut to flesh a few things out. Since there are some nice moments in the P.C., but overall the theatrical cut is far more effective.

The atmosphere of the film is what really makes it work, despite being a flawed overly plotted confusing film in general that tries to explain things best left up to the imagination. Things are just a tad less revealing in the theatrical cut and there are more questions than answers. It's a mess I guess, but an interesting one that's entertaining at least even if it's not a great film by any means. But that's what happens when you continue a film with an originally very simple uncomplicated premise and try to milk it to death.

I also hated this film greatly when I first saw it on pay per view when it was first released. It was a big "WTF" film almost similar to the sucker punch that is "Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Next Generation". But after viewing it a couple times on t.v. over the years, I wound up liking some things about the film like the guitar score and the atmosphere. So on it's own terms, it's a decent film.

caligulathegod

That you are putting Texas Chainsaw Massacre and Casablanca in the same discussion is a bit of a clue that you probably won't get TCM. There's no level on which someone can put Casablanca and Texas Chainsaw Massacre together. It's a bit like saying, "I had never really heard Jimi Hendrix before other than the two or three cuts they play on classic rock radio but after listening to his albums and live shows I can see why he is considered the preeminent guitar player of all time. I also had never heard the Ramones either, but I was seriously underwhelmed by their simplistic and repetitive arrangements, lack of virtuosity, insipid lyrics, not to mention the cliche sound that is better performed by bands like Green Day or even the Clash."

TCM is basically the Ramones of film. It's crude, largely stupid, simplistic, ugly, loud, obnoxious, etc. The Ramones barely knew how to play their instruments and Joey never hit a key in his life, but they are one of the most influential bands of all time. Bands like Green Day wouldn't even exist today if it weren't for the Ramones. Like the Ramones, TCM created the cliches. It is supposed to be a slice of life. If you were a fly on the wall in the van, you aren't going to learn the hopes and aspirations of the people in it. They are just young people on their way to stay in an old house. None are particularly likable. We really don't get to know much about them, just that something terrible is going to happen. That's all we know and that's all we need to know. When you have a title like that, you know what you are in for. There's no pretension to it at all. The budget came from the mafia and the profits made from Deep Throat. Despite all of this, there is indeed art to it. Other than the general mood of dread, there are great artistic moments I love in the film. The opening of the film with the flashbulbs taking pictures of the grisly art with the news voiceover. The monologue from the drunk at the cemetery and how he is photographed upside down, The shot of the van ever so tiny against the hot Texas sky as they pick up the hitchhiker. The dolly shot under the swing that follows Pam to the house. The sudden appearance of Leatherface. Jim Seidow's entire performance. The dinner when they get to the part where Sally completely freaks out and the extreme closeups of her eyes. Then of course, the set design.

Also, one has to consider the time when it was made and the national zeitgeist. Viet Nam was winding down, Watergate was heating up. It was barely a decade since the Kennedy assassination. Films were starting to get more graphic in these early years of the ratings system that supplanted the old Code. TV news was starting to get more graphic, as well (a year later would see the first broadcast of the Zapruder film), and tabloids reported more and more unsavory stories. I still remember the incredibly lurid True Crime magazines that littered the newsstands. TCM doesn't seem so much like a film but nearly a documentary. People weren't used to the gimmick of the fake "true" story, yet. While they are dated, the characters were very much of their time.

Just like Punk Rock, you either like it or you don't. It's not really something to "get." There's nothing wrong with that. On an aesthetic level, it's not really defensible unless you already have a predilection toward the genre. If it is cliche, it's because it created the cliches. It was one of the first slasher films. It introduced the use of tools into murder, especially the chainsaw. That particular tool is now diluted thanks to Scarface, parodies, and local haunted houses, but at the time it was the most shocking instrument possible. So extreme in its potential violence that it borders on abstract. The acting is not the best, but Sally's terror is palpable. Half the blood on her outfit was real.

I'm not trying to convince you to like it so much as not dismiss it. It is a very influential film in what is largely a trashy genre. For me, it is the ultimate example of what it is. It was made on a shoestring by amateurs both in front and behind the camera. Thirty-six plus year later, it is still discussed while many other films languish forgotten. I just thought it unfair to be held up to Casablanca. A tarantula will never be as cuddly as a puppy, but there are those of us who love tarantulas.

davidh777

^ I thought you were talking about Turner Classic Movies

Travis McClain

You make a good point. Although, I think there are some items that will eventually lead to repetition (such as the already-discussed X rating category, where there is a finite number of options from which to choose, or some of the specific actors or directors, some of whom are already dead or retired).

I'll have to wait until I get around to watching Kubrick's The Shining before I can really respond to this, but I think I get your point. There's nothing in Massacre that I can point to and say, "Well, that's just bad film-making." It just felt...perfunctory, I suppose is as good a word as any.

The only reason I won't lobby for its acceptance here is that in my mind, it's a Thanksgiving night tradition and I've got my eye on the Holiday Challenge already. (Assuming that I'm not barred from participating by 22 November!)

Let me stop ya right there. (That doesn't really play nearly as well in a forum post as it does in verbal conversation, does it?) Firstly, I believe any two things can be compared and contrasted, regardless of their seeming differences. In fact, it's those one-on-one discussions where there's little obvious in common that often yield the most rewarding explorations. But that's more of a general philosophy of mine and not specifically relevant here.

The point is not which did I select, or even how I felt about either film, but rather that it is intimidating to come into a first time viewing of any such "classic" of cinema because legions of viewers before you have already affirmed its timelessness and greatness. Several people who have dedicated much more of their time to exploring film than I have--including some very serious Horror fans--have leaped to my defense about being left cold by Massacre. It's personally encouraging, but my point isn't about whether I'm alone in not going gaga for this one film. Rather, my question is how any of us handles going into a film with such an established reputation--especially when we're in the minority.

Fun fact: that voiceover was by John Larroquette! Also, if anyone's willing to dig far enough back to find my original post, you'll see I did praise the production design. That bench made of skeletal remains was crazy cool.

I find this interesting not because it offers me a new context for placing the film (I was born in the late 70s, but I'm as familiar with the period as one who did not live through it can be and that will have to suffice), but because it touches on some recent criticism about Secretariat. Namely, that the film deliberately ignores the aforementioned social strife and anxiety in favor of a saccharine tale about a plucky woman and her horse. You'll never get an argument from me that being able to place a work of art in its proper historical context is important, and I'll be sure to make more of a concentrated effort to evaluate the film in this light the next time I watch it.

I would argue that there is always something to "get" about any work of art. What that is, of course, and what the aspirations of that art may have been, may not be the same thing. The Texas Chain Saw Massacre may have aspired to be a commentary on the wanton, absurd inhumanity of man and its audiences may have only "gotten" it as a slasher film. Or perhaps the other way around, or something entirely different. But to suggest that one must "have a predilection toward the genre" in order to find it "defensible" sells short the film, as well as the very nature of film criticism and discourse.

Again with a qualifier about the Horror genre: "trashy." This is precisely why I felt Casablanca was a perfect film for the purpose of this discussion: the Romance genre is largely considered just as "inferior" (my word). Mention the term today, and you conjure the term "chick flick" or "rom-com" and images of Kate Hudson and Matthew McConaughey. If Casablanca can transcend that derogatory connotation, then why can't The Texas Chain Saw Massacre likewise rise above such a derisive view of Horror?

As always, I'm appreciative of those who've continued this discussion. I have no idea where this will eventually lead any of us, but it has easily been my favorite topic of discussion on this forum all year long based solely on the enthusiasm of others and the depths of shared insights. You may now return to your regularly scheduled thread.

The Reaper

Just finished watching 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams. Ugh, one of the biggest pieces of shit I've seen yet.

Trevor

Good to know. If he actually defended it I'd be hesitant to watch any of his other work.
Unfortunately, I think I bought this at Big Lots awhile back, and my OCD compels me to watch everything I buy at least once. But it won't make it to the top of the queue anytime soon.
True, but there are always at least ten or so choices, and I have no problem watching a film/short once every ten years. And on the actors, most of the "classic horror" actors on the previous checklists have dozens of qualifying films. Can't fathom a horror challenge actor checklist without Karloff, Price, Chaney, et al. They will be on my checklist every year.
Amen! The whole "you just don't get it" argument is ridiculous in any context, imho.

shadokitty

I have a question about Interview With The Vampire. I watched it last night, but it didn't really seem horror like other than the fact that it dealt with vampires and imdb doesn't even list it as horror under any of its genres. I am hesitant to count it. I just wanted to get some second opinions on whether anyone else has counted it in the past or would count it.

caligulathegod

It doesn't bother me if you like the film or not. There's just something kind of unfair about contrasting one's enjoyment at first viewing of one of the most beloved time-tested classics (one of my all-time favorites, too) and quite nearly as perfect a film as film can get and a low budget exploitation film about a retarded maniac chasing unlikable hippies with a chainsaw. You either have a taste for it or you don't. Of course you are going to be more impressed by Casablanca.


That's really as much as anyone can ask for any film. Even a film like Casablanca, if you have no experience with or don't particularly care for 40s films, is probably not going to impress you. But especially when the criticisms seem to be about its very nature (its simplicity in plot and characterizations) and what was so influential that what made it special has been so plagiarized that it loses its impact if you compare it to its progeny. Going back to the Ramones, if placed against other punk bands like the Sex Pistols or Clash, they are just one of the crowd and not as particularly skilled as some of their peers. But when one places them in the context of when they appeared on the scene and what music was like (predominately highly produced prog rock like Yes, Pink Floyd, Emerson Lake & Palmer, etc.) their simplicity and straightforwardness is easier to appreciate, even if you prefer what they were rebelling against. And one can see what their influence really was. Without Chainsaw, there would not have been a Halloween or Friday the 13th, or even SAW.



Again, a bit unfair. Horror IS a trashy genre. There's classy Horror, and there's trash. Horror films tend to be low budget, with the least experienced filmmakers and actors. While there are some very good ones, most are made for what is assumed to be a non-demanding audience. The three Bs: Boobs, Beasts and Blood are often the reason Horror rarely loses money. Some of us love it because it's trash. Trash does not mean bad. Trash is an aesthetic. You are talking to the host of the Drive-in/Exploitation challenge. I love trash but I'm not going to pretend it's something it's not. Some Horror films are indeed allegories, and some are purely exploitation. There's a beauty in that. But my point is, if you aren't a big Horror fan (as you admitted you weren't), then you might not appreciate some aspects of the genre as those who are fans (different tastes not withstanding- TCM is generally well regarded as a genre film so dissenters are in the minority)


Personally, I think it does. I'm not the one saying it stinks. Plus, I don't think trashy is derisive. There's a lot to be said for trashy. Some of the hottest girls are the trashiest. You may not marry one, but they are awfully fun. But I will watch and enjoy the worst horror film easily over the worst mundane film.

Definitely. I don't think I'll change you or anyone else's mind on TCM, but it will always get a defense as long as I'm around. I consider it one of the most prototypical horror films ever made. As stripped down to its essence as Blitzkrieg Bop is to Rock and Roll.

caligulathegod

That's why I don't trust IMDB as an ultimate signifier, as was tried in the past. It misses the obvious ones like this. It's a good guide, but not a final arbiter.

Trevor

Exactly. Interview With The Vampire is obviously horror, no need to question it.

shadokitty

^ Thanks for the input you two. I've learned not to put so much stock in IMDB now. Thats what made me began to question whether or not to add it to my list. I'll go back and add it to my list right now.

shadokitty

It's amazing how many horror movies Netflix has on streaming view that didn't get pulled for October. I just now added a bunch of them including among others Zombieland, His Name Was Jason, and American Werewolf in London, along with a bunch of others bringing up my instant queue in horror movies up to 9 right now. I just hope they work, as I didn't have any sound when I tried streaming My Name is Bruce.

The Man with the Golden Doujinshi

I watched this on Hulu for the challenge last year. Never heard anything about it previously but it did reaffirm my belief that no DTV horror film needs to be watched unless I absolutely know what it is I'm getting into. Good stories don't necessarily mean good execution.

The Man with the Golden Doujinshi

A Bell from Hell was pretty good but watching the DVD version that's cut, kind of sucked. Showing a slaughterhouse is ok but lets cut away right before we show any breasts

Chad

I learned my lesson yesterday with Spellbinder, an '80s DTV film about satanists/witches in L.A. starring what's his face from Wings and Mrs. Travolta. Not a bad film per se, but it really lacks in originality. In fact, if you've ever had the pleasure of watching the far superior you'll predict the "twist" ending within the first 15 minutes. The main attraction is without a doubt Kelly Preston's two topless scenes.

Dick Laurent

Major respect for Ramones references AND a lyrical quote. I may just have to friend-request you on Facebook.

bse

Trevor - what is the exclusive Friday the 13th bonus disc documentary? what was that included in? I need to track that down ASAP. I've been watching all the bonus features on the Deluxe Edition DVDs (Lost Tales from Camp Blood and The Crystal Lake Massacres) but if I'm missing out on something, please let me know, as this is my favorite horror franchise, and I need everything...

Travis McClain

My rule of thumb is: was I led to believe it would fit the theme of the challenge in the first place, and did I spend the time to watch it? For instance, I watched Circus of Fear because it was one of six movies collected in a two-disc compilation labeled as "Price/Lee Horror Collection." It's really just a whodunnit, and I'd be very hesitant to say there's much in the way of Horror to be found. But, I was led to believe it would fit the theme and I spent the time to watch it, so it went on my list.

This is part of my argument, though: that the whole world expects you to admire and adore the Casablancas of cinema. In the realm of Horror, The Texas Chain Saw Massacre is such a film. Why is the latter held in such high esteem only in the context of its own genre? Now that I think about it some more, perhaps a better question for me to have asked is: are there any Horror films that do exist on the same tier of all-genre films as Casablanca? Jaws, Psycho and The Exorcist all come to mind offhand. Any others?

It's been an implied condition of my argument all along that there are, in fact, people who would not be charmed by that or any other film, regardless of its legions of devotees or the numerous tomes written in praise of it. How, then, does one go about saying to the rest of the world, "I don't get it?"

I'm confused here, because I felt that both films had been been seminal over the years as far as subsequent films attempting to duplicate them. I have not taken the position that the imitators have diminished either of these two iconic films, nor would I take that position.

I'm sure it's a brilliant comparison, but it's rather lost on a guy who doesn't listen to the genre at all. Being, however, a longtime fan of outlaw country, I think I get the gist of what you're saying. (Attempted analogy spoiler'd for length; feel free to ignore.)



Inarguably. That's why I felt the film was well suited for a one-on-one with Casablanca.

I'm not presumptuous enough to insist that every work of art need to aspire to make a poignant commentary on the human equation; art for the sake of art or distraction or mere amusement is perfectly valid. But I wonder if there isn't a sense that the rest of the film criticizing world hasn't demoted the Horror field to the point that Horror regards itself as nothing more than a base genre not to be given "too much thought." That seems...wrong...to me.

But then, I was emotionally affected by Up, no matter how many people like my mother-in-law want to tell me, "It's just a cartoon." I don't believe that the nature of a film's medium or aesthetic should be held against it; either it succeeds in evoking a reaction or it does not and that's the starting point for criticism.

I'm not a Horror fan, that much is certain; but I hope at no point you or anyone else felt as though I came into this for the purpose of being an Armond White wannabe! I'm fascinated by a lot of the literary horror tales; Shelley's Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus is flat-out great. Poe's "Ligeia" is one of my favorite short stories of all time. I'm fascinated by storytelling that preys on, and exploits, our innate fears. I've been a challenge participant before, but this is the first time I've really made a concentrated effort to study the genre while participating.

As for the high esteem in which Massacre is held within the genre, I'm pretty sure I've already acknowledged that as a key reason I felt it appropriate to contrast with Casablanca in the first place.


That's signature material!

Dick Laurent

He may be referring to the "Jason Forever" doc that was included in VERY limited supply as a Best Buy exclusive ( pic ) when the full box set was released. I actually made a copy of that disc, and sold it to cover the cost of the set, which at the time was about $45. It's a short doc, but cool. Thanks to eBay I sorta got a free F13 set.

Of course, my apoligies to Trevor if this is no where near what he's referring to.

Trevor

Remember the Friday the 13th collection boxset that came out back in 2004 collecting the first 8 films?

It had 5 discs. Two films on each of the first four discs, and extras on disc five. Well, at Best Buy only, selected copies had a bonus 6th disc with a documentary called Jason Forever. It took me forever to track one down. It's one of the rarer store exclusive discs.

Edit to add: Doh! Dick answered while I was writing/researching this post.

bse

Thanks for the info guys, looks like tracking a hard copy down is going to be impossible, but I've found it on youtube.

asianxcore

2 films away from beating my entire total from last year's Challenge

Dimension X

I'd say Halloween owes more to Black Christmas (1974) or Carnival of Blood (1970) than it does to The Texas Chain Saw Massacre.

ViewAskewbian

Just watched Night of the Lepus last night. What were they thinking?!?!

SethDLH

Just started my 39th film of the month- The Haunting In Connecticut. I like the pace I'm on but I can't wait to get my DVD shelf up and arranged later this week. These on demand movies have been reallly hit or miss and there is a lot of I'm looking forward to watching out of my collection for the first time.