How about ‘The Other’ (1972) featuring the great Uta Hagen? Twin boys with ‘Shining’-like supernatural abilities. It’s been a long time since I saw it last, but the birds-point-of-view scene stayed with me, as did the chilling mood of the film.
“I Was a Teenage Frankenstein / I Was a Teenage Werewolf” set. Those two were the first of a new kind of low-budget horror film.
E. Elias Merhige’s “Begotten” is another film I’d love to see Criterion put out.
I just ordered Dreyer’s Vampyr, so that’s a Criterion horror flick. I’ve not seen it, so I don’t know how horrifying it is, actually.
Would’ve loved to have seen what Criterion could do with Bob Clark’s “Black Christmas” (the 1974 original).
Pretty Poison
From Beyond
Rabid
Halloween (orig)
Lost in the Desert
The Hills Have Eyes (orig)
Psycho
Mad Love (not the horrible newish one, but the old one with Peter Lorre)
The Velvet Vampire
Someone mentioned The Brood, one of my all time favorite movies. (I like to watch it on mother’s day.) And also The Honeymoon Killers, which scared the crap out of me in a more grim, grisly, sickening way than all-out horror. The original Texas Chain Saw Massacre is still the most frightening horror movie I’ve ever seen. No chance of a fun little Herschell Gordon Lewis number like The Wizard of Gore, I suppose.
Ah! How could I forget:
Larry Cohen’s “Q: The Winged Serpent”
The Addiction. Tenebre. Rosemary’s Baby.
ROSEMARY’S BABY
DON’T LOOK NOW
Both are Paramount films, so the possibility of Criterion is not out of the question.
They have to be in Blu ray also.
I’ve mentioned it here before, but THE INNOCENTS with Deborah Kerr. The best Victorian-styled ghost story ever made, and very, very creepy. Just the way the films opens is oh-so-very creepy and sets the mood right away.
I agree with Jim. It’s scandalous that The Addiction hasn’t even been released on US dvd at all, let alone Criterion. That film is a masterpiece.
How about a Lugosi/Karloff box set / Dracula and Frankenstein.
Session 9 is a seldom seen but excellent “haunted house” flick which was shot in an abandoned insane asylum.
Bump for The Addiction.
Dear Jeb:
I agree with you. “Session 9” was awesome!
I’ll also say Session 9 is very strong, though I’m not so convinced it rates Criterion. But Brad Anderson really is worth watching—he’s very smart and accomplished with each movie getting stronger and stronger. In fact, in many ways is recurring citations of Hitchcock means that he is like a more consistent, more disciplined Brian dePalma.
Cannibal Holocaust is shit and more of a grand daddy of Mondo-cinema than of grindhouse
the reason there is “ultra-realism” in “Cannibal Holocaust” is because most of the animals are actually being slaughtered. Cannibal Holocaust is as scary as watching any documentary on slaughter houses or one of the “Faces of Death” movies. Its pointless, cruel, gross-out stuff. I will say that “The Blair Witch Project” borrows its basic premise from this flick. If your into animal cruelty than this is for you. I
Session 9 does not deserve a Criterion release.
-Dawn of THe Dead (original)
-Day of the Dead
-Night of the living Dead
-28 days later
-Rosemary’s Baby
I finally got a chance to see “The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari.” While I’m not a huge fan of silent films, I really liked it!
Blair Witch Project for sure, as well as Rosemary’s Baby, It’s Alive, Near Dark and The Exorcist.
Dear Joe Nelson:
I like your picks. Being a “theatre buff,” I truly enjoyed “The Blair Witch Project” as an experiment in improvisation.
To Evan, Blair Witch borrows a ton from The Last Broadcast, which is essentially the same movie, but about the Jersey Devil, if I remember correctly.
I’d like to see another box set along the lines of that Monsters & Madmen box, but more focused on campy horror.
Also, has anyone seen They? It wasn’t really a phenomenal movie, but it had some really creepy imagery in it. It’s one that I saw a while back and kept trying to think of the name of it because I could only remember bits and pieces about people being scared of the dark.
I just rewatched “The Texas Chain Saw Massacre.” I know it was a low-budget film, but it still gives me the creeps!
Define “torture porn.” I don’t understand why people insist on tossing that phrase around. It’s nonsensical much like other lazy terms used by critics such as “holocaust porn” and “poverty porn.”
With that said, many of the films mentioned so far are great movies, but they’ve already been released on DVD – some multiple times – with plenty of great extras. I’d hate to see Criterion waste their efforts on them.
There are a lot of terrific horror films that have NEVER been released on DVD in the US that I’d love to see Criterion make an effort to release instead. Hopefully some bored staff member will read this. My Top five picks would be:
1. Roger Vadim’s BLOOD AND ROSES (aka Et mourir de plaisir, 1960)
2. Lewis Allen’s THE UNINVITED (1944)
3. Alejandro Jodorowsky’s SANTA SANGRE (1989)
4. Philip Ridley’s THE REFLECTING SKIN (1990)
5. Nobuhiko Obayashi’s HAUSU (1977)
These are worthy selections for Criterion. They’re all superior films made by talented directors in desperate need of a DVD release and a wider audience.
Dear Kimberly Lindbergs:
The movies on your list sound interesting; especially “Blood and Roses” and “The Uninvited.” I’ll have to check them out!
I hope you get the opportunity to see Blood and Roses and The Uninvited, BNIES. Blood and Roses is one of Vadim’s best films and undoubtedly one of the most influential vampire movies ever made. The Uninvited tells a fantastic ghost story with some really innovative special effects for the time. You’re in for a real treat if you enjoy classic horror films!
SOMEONE for crying out loud needs to release a proper BLOOD AND ROSES. It may not turn out to be all that good, but it’s impossible to judge from the only available home video presentation: cropped to FS & edited on VHS.
If Universal hasn’t released UNINVITED (I thought they had for some reason), it’s another mark against them.
>>Define “torture porn.” I don’t understand why people insist on tossing that phrase around.<<
It’s been defined.
A film structured around multiple victims ala FRIDAY THE 13TH, except that the death scenes are protracted with the victim screaming, sobbing & begging for mercy while the killer slowly dismembers, slices off portions of the anatomy, removes organs, etc.
Just the the masked stalker films have been dubbed Goreno, these exercises in sadism have been termed Torture Porn because, like pornography, they feature just enough plot to get the film from one money moment to the next. They have no mesaage, no subtext, no redeeming social value.
I’m glad some others are eager to see Blood and Roses and the Univted finally get a DVD release.
Harry wrote: “It’s been defined.
A film structured around multiple victims ala FRIDAY THE 13TH, except that the death scenes are protracted with the victim screaming, sobbing & begging for mercy while the killer slowly dismembers, slices off portions of the anatomy, removes organs, etc.
Just the the masked stalker films have been dubbed Goreno, these exercises in sadism have been termed Torture Porn because, like pornography, they feature just enough plot to get the film from one money moment to the next. They have no mesaage, no subtext, no redeeming social value.”
That’s completely subjective.
The term was first used by Vincent Canby. A New York film critic whose knowledge and understanding of horror cinema, much less pornography, can be debated. The term is now bandied about as if it holds weight and I find it completely useless (much like “poverty porn” and “Holocaust porn”) when trying to seriously discuss horror cinema. It’s dismissive and extremely limiting.
To get some other insights into the term “torture porn” and the way it muddies the critical response to horror cinema I recommend reading Luke Y. Thompson’s piece from the OC Weekly.
at http://www.ocweekly.com/2007-09-06/film/why-torture-porn-isn-t/
RaySquirrel
Audition
and I don’t think it actually counts as horror but Orson Welle’s The Trial