Comments on: Time Magazine is crazy. And wimpy.

By: jinjue

jinjue — Thu, 01 Nov 2007 19:23:58 +0000

I’ve heard of the list but until now I didn’t actually see it. But now that I have, I have to say that I’m pretty surprised that the list managed to include both “Bambi” and “Men Behind the Sun”. Regardless of how I feel about the films on the list themselves, that alone is very bizarre to me. Not that I would include either; “Bambi” is, to put it bluntly, not what I would personally consider to be a horror film, and “Men Behind the Sun” is, while notorious, not the worst when it comes to that sort. It is a pretty hardcore movie, but, and not one that I casually watch or lend out.

As for the rest of the list, while I disagree strongly that many of these films should be in the top 25, I do have to give them some props for having a pretty good range. With a few exceptions, this is a list that I would consider a good starting place for people to get into watching horror films.

By: Malache

Malache — Thu, 01 Nov 2007 15:33:04 +0000

Horror Doesn’t have to be Blood and guts or make you jump all of the time. Most of it could be just suspense. Take a look at Blair Witch for example. Most would consider it to be a horror movie, but in actuality all it is is a suspense flick if you break it down. All of the campers are scared out of their minds, wondering where their friends went and who was going to disappear next. Not much if any blood in it as I recall, but most would consider it to fit into the “Horror” Genre.
So You kind of have to take this list with a broader mind. People in 1895, who werent the jaded videophiles that we are didn’t know what a movie was, nevermind seeing this GIANT train coming right for them on a stage. And as far as Bambi goes, for what is supposed to be a kids movie (as most Disney Flicks tend to be) there are some pretty adult and scary scenes in that movie that could be terrifying for a kid anyway. “Horror-ble” situations such as the loss of ones parents or being trapped in a fire with nowhere to run?? And let’s not forget about having a skunk and a hyperactive bunny follow you around all day… Dr. Timothy Leary might have had something to say about that one.

There is a fine line as to what could be considered Horror. And everyone has their own defintions, I mean, look at the pages and pages of debate over “Fast Zombies (28 Days Later) vs Slow Zombies (NotLD)” ?? No one is scared of one or 2 slow Zombies… you just out run em, theyre only dangerous in larger groups. But one or two fast running undead motherfuckers? Now the tension and Horror level is right up there, you don’t need a group of ‘em.

And personally there is one movie that was left off of that list that is so spine tingling, so goosebump inducing, SO TERRIFYING that it should have been number one on that list. And that movie is called???

…Steel Magnolias…… ’nuff said!!

By: Dan

Dan — Thu, 01 Nov 2007 14:48:26 +0000

I got as far as the inclusion of RED DRAGON and couldn’t go any further.

By: Bryan White

Bryan White — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 19:26:19 +0000

Well, that’s the problem, isn’t it? At what point do we begin wading through semantics? On one hand, they have some undisputable horror movies on the list. And Bambi and that Lumiere Brothers train flick aside others I wouldn’t be so quick to categorize into any one particular genre. I consider Diabolique as much a horror movie as I do Rebecca. It has elements and Paul Naschy saw fit to add even more horror to it with Panic Beats but it’s really more a thriller than anything else. A movie that relies on tension and paranoia more than fear.

That’s dangerous territory, though, because you start asking questions such as: Are gialli actually horror movies or was Mario Bava an Italian Alfred Hitchcock? That’s dangerous thinking, right there.

By: Some random guy

Some random guy — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 19:14:04 +0000

They seem to have psychological thrillers confused with horror.

By: T. Rigney

T. Rigney — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 18:38:53 +0000

I’m sure Richard Corliss thought he was being quite the clever little boy when he added “Bambi” to the list, but its inclusion only proves that Time Magazine shouldn’t waste its time with articles such as this. Nice try, though.