Really... this was good? This was horror? As in, good horror? Maybe the others here can see something in this stuff that I just can't. No offence intended, but Kaidan worked like a lullaby on me. A classic, maybe... but horror, no.
share[deleted]
I wasn't aware it was EVER called a horror film. Stories with supernatural themes, yes, but who called it a horror film?
shareA few have called it a "horror film" including some on this site. I think it can be classed as a "horror film" just as the book by Lafcadio Hearn is usually classed as a Horror anthology. It may not be gorey or scary but that is not the only definition of "horror" (and many of the stories have the clichés of traditional horror, or ghost stories), though I think "folklore film" would be more apt as these aren't just weird tales written by some modern author but actual tales from the folklore of Japan.
"Nothings gonna change my world!"
The stories are from Japanese folklore, the old tales which they were told as children etc.... so for a Japanese person they would have more meaning and probably act more as a horror movie.
For Westerners they wouldn't see this as scary, they'd see it as quite stupid and generally too far fetched to be scary. The general differences between Asian horror and Western Horror is the reality thing, most Asian horror is based around supernatural, spirits etc... where as Western horror is based around killers, zombies etc..
The stories in this movie are ones which Japanese children would probably hear from their grandparents when growing up, old folktales which have just been around for generations.
Also we need to take into account the time this movie was made, most classic horror movies don't scare half as much as they did the first time they came out. When looking at classics like Dawn of the Dead, Texas Chainsaw Masscre, The Exorcist. They were scary at the time but if you look at them now you could almost laugh, as most would say "its so fake".
Modern day horrors have many benefits with special effects etc... Kobayashi when he made this used what he could to make a scary, and at the time it would've been quite a scary movie for Japanese people, but looking back now I'm sure there wouldn't be a great deal who found it scary.
Kobayashi had a lot of talent, he had good ideas and he was generally a very good artist/director. His movies use brilliant colour, he really is a standout director and really deserves to have his work shown more.
The general differences between Asian horror and Western Horror is the reality thing, most Asian horror is based around supernatural, spirits etc... where as Western horror is based around killers, zombies etc..Zombies, an everyday struggle in Joe the Plumber's life.
''For Westerners they wouldn't see this as scary, they'd see it as quite stupid and generally too far fetched to be scary. The general differences between Asian horror and Western Horror is the reality thing, most Asian horror is based around supernatural, spirits etc... where as Western horror is based around killers, zombies etc..''
That is not quite true, in England, and most of Europe, there has been a long tradition of supernatural tales and still is today. Many European folktales have direct parallels with those of Japan too. The difference between ''Western'' and ''Eastern'' horror is too over-exagerated.
"Namu-myoho-renge-kyo"
Europe, Africa, and Asia are on the Eastern side of Earth.
Canada, Mexico, and South America make up the Western side of the Earth.
With that said, the above-poster was indeed wrong. There isn't a difference between "Western" horror and "Eastern" horror (aside from the fact that Easterners do it better).
As for England, well, here's how I feel about those guys: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0098672/board/thread/203753962
I'm not a control freak, I just like things my way
It is horror! It is just a different type of horror.
It is not gore.. It is not cheap loud sound effect scares.. It is not grotesque...
But it is atmospheric and expressionistic horror.
If you find these terms artsy fartsy, I can say this film is not meant to scare but rather depict traditional ghost stories.
...
Actually thinking in these terms I really think Hansel & Gretel should be labelled as horror too...
good day.
I am not going to lie the stories are quite a bit slow almost sluggish in pace at times, but the film was really good none the less.
share[deleted]
Yeah it seems these days a growing number think horror must equate with gore or shocks.
shareKwaidan is a classic! I love the flick. And im a early 20s college student who grew up watching gore flicks like The Evil Dead (but then again i was also a fan of kurosawa, David Lynch, Jodorowsky and other artsy filmmakers) and i think this is one of the most effective scary movies ever made!
I found this movie incredibly boring, finally a cure for my insomnia.
shareit seems these days a growing number think horror must equate with gore or shocks.
it is psychological horror - the best type.
----------
"Common sense is not so common."
- Voltaire
[deleted]
yep i caught this tonight and i kept falling asleep ... although i was really tired
found the first story sad and achingly beautiful and some of the visuals in the middle 2 were excellent
but the tale-telling just lagged so much it was difficult for me after a full shift
the last one with the story within the story worked well
in all i would have to have a tall coffee to make it through this ...
glad though that the theatre performance was well attended ...
a real movie-goers piece
_____
it frequently gets too weird for me
RIP HST 1937 - 2005
[deleted]