Customer Reviews

The Rise and Fall of the Horror Film

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

I would agree with the last two that the first reveiwer is a bit harsh, but it isn't a very good book. As both of the reviewers are from Tucson, I would guess that they know or have Dr. Soren as a professor and feel an obligation to give his book high marks. The book is full of errors and is not particularly well written. As course notes, it may be a handy resource, In fact I suspect that this book is just a typed version of his lectures. As fun or educational reading, it's a snore.

there are many problems with this book. like most books that cover early to current times, the bulk of this book concentrates on early films. it isn't until two thirds of the way through does it cover current films. the book spends an inordinate amount of time giving almost scene by scene descriptions of the early movies (the ones soren likes, of course). it would of been more helpful just to describe the whole movie. he leaves out classic movies of alienation such as Invasion of the Body Snatchers, Day the Earth Stood Still, I Married a Monster from Outer Space, to name a few. soren spends one sentence on one of the greatest horror movies of our time, the Excorist, calling it "putrescence-spitting". talk about missing the boat. hopefully he or others will listen to the directors commentary and realize this was a well done movie and not just "shock value." of modern horror movies he talks about irrelevant films such as Snuff. how many people actually seen Snuff? soren belabors the worn out cliched "sex and violence" themes, which is too, irrelevant. how much is too much? the downfall of horror is poor scripts, horrible dialogue and my big grip, mixing humor. evil dead 2 is the only movie that worked with, yet time after time, comedy gets mixed into the shows. sorens book is employed less as a measure or critique of horror, than a justification for censorship and the whining of "disgusting cinema." check out "killing for culture" by david kerekes for a better and more thorough look at horror movies.

...The book isn't the be all end all that some claim, nor is it a horrible book. The important thing is that as a reference and a general introduction to some of the historical topics in this field it is good. As to those who claim Soren makes unfounded claims, maybe you should check his credentials. The man has both a Masters and a PhD from Harvard, and has had more prestigeous positions in art and archeology than you ever will in your lifetime. Last I checked, that makes him a bit more of an authority than some...

Let me begin by saying that I have taken a class with Dr. Soren and that he is an incredible lecturer and acadaemic. HOWEVER, this book really is pretty disappointing. The title is intentionally provocative and misleading, something which Dr. Soren readily admits to in class. Furthermore, Soren admittedly hates most horror made post-1960's and sees "Fiend Without a Face" as the pinnacle of the horror genre. To his credit, Dr. Soren wears his biases openly, but if you are lookinig for a critical/theoretical examination of horror or an overview of the genre, I would suggest you look elsewhere.

The real horror of this book is the poorly planned drivel it contains- Soren floats from topic to topic, fact to fact with little to no transitions, interspersing an unfounded opinion here or there- Classifieds are a more thought provoking and entertaining read.

I don't really think the bad reviewers understand art all that much. Another thing is why would Soren need to bring up Invasion of the Body Snatchers, Day the Earth Stood Still, I Married a Monster from Outer Space? They have nothing to do with his arguement nor were they artistic master pieces. By this reviewers logic Soren shouldve thrown in Star Trek and Star Wars. Also To say that The Exorcist is one of mankinds artistic master pieces takes a lot of guts. That movie has some of the worst special effects I've ever seen! I laughed my sox off watching it. It is by no means comparable to the classic horror films of yesteryear. Second of all these people are more concerned with what he didn't metion as to what he actually did metion. Its like they just skimed the pages to find mention of their favorite movies. And because Soren didn't metion their favorites they give it a low rating and say it was terrible and just an attack on todays gore fests. When he only mentions todays gore fests in like the last chapter. His book covers a great deal more. He reviews a lot of foreign movies that had particular ties to art movements in history. Like the german expressionest movement that was a defyance against the horrible lives people had after world war 1. Germany probably hit the hardest by the great depression was pleagued with real and terrible horror when people went mad killing themselves and eachother. The movies made by german expressionists were on a different level altogether than hollywood's pathetic trash. They were art projects not money projects. He goes over lots of other art movements as well, and their influences on film. The problem with today's films is there is no major art movement propelling them. their is no major art movement anymore and this book is ment to help people appreciate old films and hopefully be encouraged to make artistic films rather than films centralized on grossing you out or scaryness factors. Its about art appreciation and not art critisism. You have to look at the bigger picture and not wether he mentioned your favorite movie or not. He had lots of films he left out that i would have been interested in reading about but they werent central towards his arguement. You cant simply review a movie based on the acting, directing, special effects, and music! Even tho that is what most reviewers do now a days. thats like reviewing a book on the amount of different words it uses or complaining if it is to difficult to understand. Movies are more than just the acting and story. This book explains what else movies need to be about. That they can be active participants in revolutionary ideas and movements like german expressionism. They dont need to be blockbuster over the top with extreme gore and blood. Too many films rely on blood and guts for their shock value and rarely create a whole world of intense suffering and pain where everything in it actors and set are dismayed and frustrated. The old slasher films from the early 90s did not acheive this. instead they just saw how many naked girls they could film while the killer or monster or whatever came in with a chain saw and started killing people. Evil dead is a comedy. To even try and begin to put it in a catagory with Alfred Hitchock and Fritz Lang is simply moronic. There were plenty of these films during the 40s and 50s as well but they werent the only films around and they certaintly werent critically aclaimed like they are now. The problem is with people like Siskel and Ebert that don't actually review films even tho they say they do. They simply say wether or not they liked it which has nothing to do with the overall goodness of a film. They are minimalist reviewers and rarely look past the meanings behind the films. Take for instance the meanings behind the types of films that come out. In the late 20s Fritz Lang warned us about dictators and their power over people in his master peice Metropolis. Then in during the great depression there was a lot of vampire and other monster like creatures where mankind had become monsters either by a bite or being brought back from the dead like a mummy or frankenstein's monster. The 30s were a time of great lawlessness full of bank robbers and mobsters. There were also a great deal of movies made for the surrelists movement that gave movies psyco killers and ideas behind psychoanalysis. Than after the atomic bomb their were lots of movies about gigantic gadzilla mosters that were the result of some radioactive thing, and the space age brought even more in with aliens and other fantastic new creatures. Alfred Hitchcok created a whole bunch of films that delt with surrilism he even worked with Salvador Dali. The 70s saw a bunch of slasher films that delt with the serious issues of fear that we had towards eachother and how we were desensitized by things like constant coverage of the vietnam war. Even now the films we see are about our culture. Movies about ghosts and spirts deal with our culture's desire to live forever. And movies about violent crime and serial killers deal with what is actually happening in our society. No one takes monster films serious anymore and we see a strange mix of things based on magic and science this again has to deal with in our culture that people are now starting to question the authority science has and how much we really know about the world. Even computers are being used in horror films now. We are afraid of them becoming smarter than us then deciding they wont need us. Movies seem to flow with mass histaria and simply change with what happens in the world. And Soren's book explains that the deep artistic meanings behind a lot of older films has been lost and that there is a vacume in the current film industry that only seeks to further destroy film. But I personally think movies have started to make a slow comeback since this was written. I dont think todays films can compare with some classic art works of the past but I would recomend this book to people that appreciate art and would like to further their appreciation and learn want these great movies were really about. But if you think of yourself as the next Siskel or Ebert this is not the book for you.