The Arrow Thread

[Demdike@Cult Labs]

Originally Posted by Nosferatu@Cult Labs

As I said, I was going by what you'd call a 'critical consensus', not a fan forum opinion!

I am pretty much on my own with that opinion , even though most Romero fans do now rate the film.

[Rob4]

Originally Posted by Demdike@Cult Labs

Kirk Douglas in Holocaust 2000, Charlton Heston in The Awakening.

The universally unloved remake of The Haunting had a proper A-list cast as did What Lies Beneath and Wolf.

Donald Sutherland and Julie Christie in Don't Look Now, and then Sutherland did Invasion of the Body Snatchers and Christie Demon Seed.

the seventies were a good decade for stars in horror but the point is correct that A list have generally avoided the genre.

[Demdike@Cult Labs]

Originally Posted by Rob4

Donald Sutherland and Julie Christie in Don't Look Now, and then Sutherland did Invasion of the Body Snatchers and Christie Demon Seed.

the seventies were a good decade for stars in horror but the point is correct that A list have generally avoided the genre.

The point is correct unless you refer to major studio horror output. Generally they have often featured a 'name' or two. - The Devil's Advocate, Salem's Lot, Misery.

Even films like Night of the Demon were sold with a name like Dana Andrews in tow.

[nosferatu42]

But the difference is the old stars actually made a living and specialised in these films, often turning in nuanced performances and raising a cheesy horror above it's worth and turning it into something classy.
Peter Cushing for example always gave a good performance even in a really shite film.

When a big film star turns up in a horror these days it often lessens the impact because the filmmakers are pandering to a big name, toning down the horror aspect and their performances are often restrained as to not ruin their star power.

Old stars made it their business, and business was good.

I agree it is good to have no name stars in horror generally as we are not expecting anything, it puts us on edge slightly and surprises us when a good performance appears especially in low budget horror like Texas chainsaw massacre etc. It makes a story seem more real when it works.
But a few competent new horror stars would be nice.

Too many horror films these days have sub par porn style actors that make the films unwatchable to me.

[nosferatu42]

Originally Posted by Demdike@Cult Labs

The point is correct unless you refer to major studio horror output. Generally they have often featured a 'name' or two. - The Devil's Advocate, Salem's Lot, Misery.

Even films like Night of the Demon were sold with a name like Dana Andrews in tow.

Stephen King films are a different matter entirely because he is such a money making behemoth and has a huge following.
A big star in one of his films is not taking a risk.

[nosferatu42]

Most of the films Nos no.1 mentioned were based on bestselling books as well, so it really is stars jumping on the bandwagon.
Otherwise they were directed by well respected directors.

[Rik]

Originally Posted by nosferatu42

But the difference is the old stars actually made a living and specialised in these films, often turning in nuanced performances and raising a cheesy horror above it's worth and turning it into something classy.

Peter Cushing for example always gave a good performance even in a really shite film.



When a big film star turns up in a horror these days it often lessens the impact because the filmmakers are pandering to a big name, toning down the horror aspect and their performances are often restrained as to not ruin their star power.



Old stars made it their business, and business was good.



I agree it is good to have no name stars in horror generally as we are not expecting anything, it puts us on edge slightly and surprises us when a good performance appears especially in low budget horror like Texas chainsaw massacre etc. It makes a story seem more real when it works.

But a few competent new horror stars would be nice.



Too many horror films these days have sub par porn style actors that make the films unwatchable to me.

That was my initial point, we don't have any Horror stars like Price, Cushing, Lee, Karloff etc these days

[Demdike@Cult Labs]

Originally Posted by nosferatu42

Stephen King films are a different matter entirely because he is such a money making behemoth and has a huge following.
A big star in one of his films is not taking a risk.

Basically a big star in any studio horror isn't taking a risk.

You were quite right about the likes of Cushing specialized in horror.

Not Christopher Lee though. He never made a single horror film according to his book. They were all fantasy.

[The TENANT]

A good horror film, for me, is not one that entertains but one that truly frightens me and gives me that ever so rare feeling that you don't want to turn the light out before bedtime.

As a horror aficionado these films are few and far between.

On the point about big names in horror, I think that the most effective films are those with no names in there; and by dint of that fact the film is naturally more believable as you can imagine that the characters and, consequently, the story are real.

TCM is a classic example of this point. If there were any names or recognisable faces in it, it would not have been anywhere near as effective. You'd instantly have sat there and said, "Oh, it's him again - wasn't he in such-and-such kitchen sink drama? Isn't he doing well for himself now...this is a completely different role. I wonder if he's a method actor...." and hence the whole premise of the horror film i.e. to scare the viewer has gone out of the window.

[Justin101]

Originally Posted by Demdike@Cult Labs

Not Christopher Lee though. He never made a single horror film according to his book. They were all fantasy.

He was also unaware that there were naked people cavorting behind him when he filmed Eugenie