I am about half-way through this movie (on demand) and, for the life of me, it seems so much, almost beat-for-beat like High Tension, it's not even funny.
shareI only watched the part up to the convenience store part, but I thought the EXACT same thing. I'm watching part 2 next, lol.
------------
Hey Jin! You better not be cheating on me!!
WOW! you guys read my mind! I have only seen part 1 as well (on demand) and High Tension is exactly the same so far!... Hmmm, maybe it's where High Tension comes from! Can it be that for once America had it's original horror idea??
shareEyeroll. High tension is a rip off of Dean koontz book with a twist ending.
shareI watched the entire movie yesterday. The first half is indeed extremely similar to High Tension. After the gas station the movie seems to start dragging on and on, and the only thing that kept me interested was McGinley's performance.
shareThats because High Tension is a rip off of Intensity.
shareHaha, I was totally thinking the same thing. I knew though, when the woman said she'd passed the RV that it was real.
We're pretty jaded nowadays, aren't we? Haha. Looking for evil in every corner. Makes you wonder sometimes if they aren't running out of good plots? When the plot of Intensity gets hum-drum, well... you know we're pretty jaded.
"...nothing is left of me, each time I see her..." - Catullus
WOW! you guys read my mind! I have only seen part 1 as well (on demand) and High Tension is exactly the same so far!... Hmmm, maybe it's where High Tension comes from! Can it be that for once America had it's original horror idea??
Uh, pretty bad example there. Alfred Hitchcock was British. Haha. I don't think even the most die hard Hitch fan (I'm one) would call him the originator of modern horror. However, I would damn sure say he refined it. Hitch only made one "horror" film, but that one film broke the mold. He is the master of suspense, not the originator of modern horror.
However, I do agree with you. America definitely holds it's own when it comes to good horror movies.
I think the poster is speaking of lately. Lately, it seems, Hollywood seems determined to co-op every horror idea from overseas. For example, Quarantine ([Rec]), The Strangers (Ils), The Grudge, The Ring and on and on and on.
Everybody steals from everybody. Anyone could argue that there hasn't been a (truly) original idea in horror since the days of silent films.
"...nothing is left of me, each time I see her..." - Catullus
Hitchcock was from Britain but he made most of his films in Hollywood, not to mention that's where he lived for decades. He was the master of suspense, not horror, big difference. Hitchcock made thrillers, that was his forte'.
'Intensity' is definitely a thriller, not a horror movie. The horrow genre is comprised of such films as 'The Exorcist', 'The Texas Chainsaw Massacre', 'Child's Play', 'Friday the 13th', etc.
There's no doubt at all about 'High Tension' being the plagiarized version of 'Intensity', and as the other person already mentioned in this thread, the ending twist was done simply to appear at least somewhat different from the material it ripped off in case Dean Koontz wanted to sue for copyright infringement.
'Intensity' was leaps and bounds better than the French clone.
There can be only one! -Conner Macleodshare
Hitch may have lived in Hollywood for decades, but he maintained his citizenship in England (which cost him a not inconsiderable deal of money in taxes) something he was very proud of. Hitch would definitely have called himself "British".
Hitch directed 27 films before coming to America, 24 "major" films, so almost half the films he ever made were in Britain.
I think you're arguing with the poster before me, because I - like you - agree that Hitch was not the master of horror. This is a great irritation of mine, because when I try to tell friends to watch some of his films, their first reaction is always "Oh, I don't like horror movies". They are greatly surprised when they watch Rear Window, or North By Northwest and discover that Hitch did not normally make "horror" films, but suspense films, or so-called "thrillers".
I also agree that High Tension (Haute Tension) was a rip-off of Intensity.
I think you have a pretty narrow definition of what comprises "horror". There is no doubt that Psycho is in the horror genre, and that Intensity fits neatly there as well. Both films are *more* than just horror films, but both have elements of the horror genre.
"...nothing is left of me, each time I see her..." - Catullus
The line between the thriller and horror genres is rather thin and quite ambiguous. I've been down this road many times before and rarely will one find people who completely agree on either side. Having said that, my take on it is that horror films tend to be greatly exaggerated and unrealistic if you will, while thrillers tend to be more within the realm of plausibility. Pretty much any film in which the antagonist is immortal, Jason Vorhees, Freddie Kruger et al., I'd consider it a horror film. Movies in which the antagonist is plausible yet over the top, I'd consider it a thriller, i.e. 'The Silence of the Lambs' or even 'Psycho' as you mention. Perhaps that's just my definition, but I'd say with a high degree of certainty that you can fit the vast majority of horrors in the former category and most thrillers in the latter.
I didn't feel the need to qualify my definition in my prior post, but hopefully that sheds more light on my stance.
There can be only one! -Conner Macleodshare
I didn't expect you to qualify your previous post, we're just talking here... no biggie.
I agree, the definition of horror is as diverse as the number of people defining it. To me, it becomes horror when graphic depictions of death appear on screen, or when blood is visible. Mainly though, if the machinations of death appear onscreen, it's horror.
However, it's really no big deal if we call this film or that "horror" until we start contending that this or that director, or this or that country "pioneered" horror, then the definition becomes more important.
My point was Hitch didn't "establish" or "pioneer" horror, and he certainly wasn't the "father" of horror. He was the father of suspense, or the thriller. He was the father, grandfather, and master of suspense. He had and still has no equal, and (in my mind) never will. However, with the making of Psycho I think he did *refine* horror and brought it into the mainstream.
The decisions he made in the production of Psycho still have reverberations in the industry. For example, the whole matter of making the film on a shoestring budget in the style of TV production. Also, the decision to use black and white (to save money) and to mute the impact of the blood being in color on screen. Moreover though, the style of filming he used wrung every possible ounce of tension, suspense and fear from the audience. He showed just how possible it was to manipulate an audience with what he called "pure cinema". Psycho stands head and shoulders above the crowd in that regard. It wasn't the beginning of horror in cinema, he wasn't the father of cinema, but Psycho put everyone on notice and set the bar for any such "horror" film that followed. In my opinion, few (if any) have risen to his level in this regard.
"...nothing is left of me, each time I see her..." - Catullus
Originally posted by Bladerunner:
I didn't expect you to qualify your previous post, we're just talking here... no biggie.
I agree, the definition of horror is as diverse as the number of people defining it. To me, it becomes horror when graphic depictions of death appear on screen, or when blood is visible. Mainly though, if the machinations of death appear onscreen, it's horror.
My point was Hitch didn't "establish" or "pioneer" horror, and he certainly wasn't the "father" of horror. He was the father of suspense, or the thriller. He was the father, grandfather, and master of suspense. He had and still has no equal, and (in my mind) never will. However, with the making of Psycho I think he did *refine* horror and brought it into the mainstream.
The decisions he made in the production of Psycho still have reverberations in the industry. For example, the whole matter of making the film on a shoestring budget in the style of TV production. Also, the decision to use black and white (to save money) and to mute the impact of the blood being in color on screen. Moreover though, the style of filming he used wrung every possible ounce of tension, suspense and fear from the audience. He showed just how possible it was to manipulate an audience with what he called "pure cinema". Psycho stands head and shoulders above the crowd in that regard. It wasn't the beginning of horror in cinema, he wasn't the father of cinema, but Psycho put everyone on notice and set the bar for any such "horror" film that followed. In my opinion, few (if any) have risen to his level in this regard.
There can be only one! -Conner Macleodshare
Indeed. It's a shame we really don't have any more Hitchcocks. For a while M. Night Shyamalan showed great promise but I feel he's slid down the proverbial ladder of mediocrity. I don't know if it's because he's tapped out creatively or if he's simply hit a lull in his career, but either way if he doesn't start to pick up soon his career will be relatively short-lived. Other than him, I don't know of any other contenders for the throne.
Just to add to the idea of M. Night picking up the torch from Hitchcock, I agree it's not likely to happen. M. Night's only film I consider in the ballpark as comparable to Hitch quality was The Sixth Sense, and that was over 15 years ago. Even that lifted a central premise from Tom Tryon's The Other. M Night is vastly overrated, in my book, much like Brian De Palma, who seemed to take an idea in a Hitchcock film and make his own 'version' of the film (Psycho as Dressed to Kill, Rear Window as Body Double, etc).
Anyhow, I digress. No contenders for the throne--Hitch was a pretty unique and consistent filmmaker, which is where I feel many drop the ball.
I thought that too so I looked it up, High Tension was made in 2003 and Intensity was made in 1997. So if anyone's ripping anything off it's High Tension ripping off Dean Koontz. Intensity is better, continue watching if you haven't.
shareGood grief, I am up to the gas station part and yes it's totally the same as High Tension (I mean, HT is the same as this). I'm glad someone said it was good though since I was going to quit, but I re-HEE-HEE-HEEly gotta watch Johnny C's performance.
------------------------
"Love means never having to say you're ugly." - the Abominable Dr. Phibes
Hmm. Not sure about this. Intensity and High Tension have some very very basic similarities....but they're COMPLETELY different!!! And yes, Intensity was filmed long before High Intension, and was a book before that. But really, they're only similar in the basic concept of home invasion murders. Wait until you've finished them both.....
shareYeah... We all have brains so no pass on the whole "waaaah they are different" they are frame for frame in similarity for the first half.
shareHigh Tension is a definite rip off of Intensity but the ending is way different. That may be part of why they got away with it but I think the biggest reason was that it was High Tension was filmed in another country. I think Australia. It has been so long ago that I can no longer remember.
shareHigh Tension is a French film, and it was filmed in Romania.
shareThis has been a common and totally apt comparison. I think it'd be foolish not to think High Tension wasn't inspired by this film/novel heavily. I remember seeing Intensity on TV when I was in junior high, and years later when I saw High Tension for the first time, I thought the exact same thing.
share