Haute Tension

[Ellielator]

I could even read that review, I saw the praise in the summary and had to exit before something horrible happened.

This film is terrible. So the review was a bunch of hooey.


The thing that bothered me the most was that the writing outright sucked. The girls are barely more than bimbos right from their first scenes, so they're not even worth feeling bad about. And, you guessed it, that also includes them being not interesting enough to watch being put in "tense" situations.

By the way, this movie is about as tense as an episode of Sesame Street! Everything here is stock. Stock music, stock sleaze, stock psycho, stock blood & gore. It's like the director just pulled a bunch of crap off the shelves and stuck it together. Badly.

I can't believer the Mutant reviewer praised it! This movie is so bad, I'm surprised he wasn't making fun of it. Because, Lord knows someone has to find the humor in this overrated piece of trash. Because it just made me angry. I wasn't scared, entertained, or interested at all.

And I had such high expectations for it, too. I weighed all the other Horror message boards against the more respectable critics like Slant Magazine (who have had their occasional run-ins with temporary insanity - case in point, naming Maniac, 1980, as one of their top 10 films of 1980!) and Roger Ebert's pans of the film. God, WHY didn't I listen to the smart people?!

[PoolMan]

...

Did you just call Kyle dumber than Roger Ebert?

Seriously though, while I may not know the first thing about Haute Tension, reviews are opinion, compiled in article form. You don't have to agree with them, but that doesn't make them "hooey" either.

[TheLuckyOne]

I'll echo PoolMan's sentiments exactly, with the added bonus that my hair doesn't look ridiculous right now. I haven't seen Haute Tension and don't plan to, but Kyle generally knows his horror movies. Just different strokes, I guess.

-D

[Ellielator]

All I can say is that, movies rarely are so bad that I have to talk about them this way... but I would like to think I know a bad movie when I see one. And this is bad with a capitol rubbish. I've also seen my fair share of horror movies too. This is one of the worst. I don't know what people see in this piece of trash, but it's no good.

I think it might be that some people don't watch enough movies & TV from a lot of different genres and some people are so jaded that when something different or new comes along and it looks really... well, when it comes to horror, I think I can safely call it "hardcore" ... that they overrate it just because it seems darker or edgier than the stuff they're offered as alternative. And it may be "dark" or "edgy," but it's also a really bad movie.

It could have been a good movie, I guess. Texas Chainsaw Massacre worked without building good characters. But they weren't as insultingly bad as the ones in High Tension. And this director plays this film like he's doing a TCM influenced film but is too impatient to wait for what developed in those better horror films to come to the surface, and he just thinks that by starting the slaughter early that it will shock people or something. But this movie isn't shocking. It's nothing more than cheap and vulgar.

And like I said... not "tense." I mean (SPOILER) - when the killer gives himself head with a severed head... What, are we supposed to be scared? Shocked? Sickened? It's stupid and cheap. An interesting idea, maybe, in a Stephen King book. But it does not play well in this film. At all. In fact, again, where is the RIBBING of this movie? Sometimes, I would hope the Mutant Reviewers would come to my rescue and give this movie the humor beating it deserved. No? Instead I read what begins as a total wank-job. (NO OFFENSE, I have never used that expression before)

Why is it okay for the Mutant Reviewers to pick on some movies, but others are treated seriously? And why does it seem like it's the newer movies with the bigger budgets that are treated with respect versus the classics of yesteryear?

(If you don't agree with what I'm saying, please bear in mind that I'm trying to figure these things out. These are questions more than statements. The only statement I'm making - "this movie blows." So, I'd like to think of this as collaborative discussion. If anyone thinks I'm wrong, you can enlighten me)

[Head Mutant]

If I'm reading you right, what this all comes down to is (1) you hated this movie, and (2) you're very disappointed Kyle didn't hate it as well.

Unfortunately, you will never find a movie critic who will come down on your side for every film. It just doesn't happen. Readers of our site are either looking for recommendations, second opinions of movies they've already seen, entertaining reviews, or a mixture of the above. When you already have an opinion of a film, it's sometimes jarring when someone else saw things differently — that doesn't make it necessarily bad, nor does it invalidate your opinion. Maybe it might make you rethink things, or maybe you might come on the forum to express your views.

But what's important here is that you need to be okay with the fact that we all review movies according to how we see them, and not according to what we think people want to hear. There is no bias toward newer movies vs. older ones as a whole (stinkers come in equal measures over the years), nor are there any protective shields in place that protect so-called beloved cult classics. If a film sucks, we'll say it with plenty of adjectives. If we liked it, then why shouldn't we say so?

I'm just puzzled why you're so upset over reviews that clashed with your opinion. Nobody on this forum agrees with 100% of our reviews, and often the staff disagrees amongst ourselves -- that's why we encourage second and third reviews on many of our movie pages. If you hated Haute Tension, then fine -- state your case, and get that off your chest. But by going the extra step of tossing bewildering anger upon Kyle for having his opinion is... odd. It's what we do here. I know that I personally wouldn't like this sort of movie, either; but some people identify more with Kyle (who's a hardcore horror fan) than me (who angles more toward cheesy horror).

[kylerexpop]

honestly, i think a lot of the problem here is that We the Mutants get held up as the last bastion of moral integrity and cinematic enlightenment. which is at least partly earned, arguably, but also develops due to "innovative" and "shocking" creative choices, including "multi-genre reviews" and "neon green text."

unfortunately, there comes a time for everyone when their heroes are going to let them down. keeping it in the movie realm, i remember the first time i felt those acidy pangs along my stomach lining as i learned once and for all that even the best of film critics could be completely and utterly wrong: when i read roger ebert's 1/2 star review of 'mannequin.'

it was like my entire world crumbled and all the validation i was seeking manifested as a big pile of paper (similar to the mounds of shreds you get when you empty a full paper shredder) and was set on fire in front of me. 'mannequin' was my youthful ideal film; more than 'say anything' or 'the breakfast club' or 'caligula,' it was andrew mccarthy's depiction of a man who was first and foremost an artist that really spoke to me and communicated on a variety of levels: if you follow your heart and make art that's true to your soul, some day a really beautiful and inspired piece will wake up and you can date and eventually marry it.

i thought it was globally recognized as a great work. (i knew of the oscars, to be sure, but assumed then and now that it was rigged so that the great films that will always be with us [raiders of the lost ark, mannequin, barbarella] were ignored so that lesser films [children of a lesser god, ordinary people, last tango in paris] could get a little noteriety instead)

instead, i found out ebert was just the tip of the iceberg. 'mannequin' not only does NOT get the critical glory it deserves, but along with 'weekend at bernie's' is often pointed to as reasons andrew mccarthy "sucks." which, if you focused solely on 'weekend at bernie's 2,' becomes an interesting argument. but once you bring in 'st. elmo's fire,' it's like "wait a second, this guy is AWESOME and this is how i'm going to live my life right now: cynical and not really caring about anything while continuing to date (see: mccarthy in 'st. elmo's fire')

all of which is to say: i'm not really going to defend or denigrate what i said about 'haute tension.' mostly because i can't remember what i said, and i hate reading stuff i've written so i guess i'll never know. but i know exactly where you are (or seem to be) coming from: you feel strongly about a particular film, and then when a favorite and handsome movie critic is found to have given said film a review that is diametrically opposed to your own opinion, it's like the world has cracked open and revealed itself to be made of green cheese and then you're like "i thought the moon was made of green cheese? but the earth is? THIS DOESN'T MAKE SENSE!"

i go through the same thing every time someone comes into the comic shop and loudly proclaims, often for no reason, that "spiderman 2 is a masterpiece" (it put me to sleep). my only recourse is to respond just as loudly "we're closed" and/or try to convince them that if they lie down in the middle of a busy street, like that movie "the program," i'll give them a prize.

this is kind of a fun debate, actually. ask me more questions!

[TheLuckyOne]

ellielator said:

And why does it seem like it's the newer movies with the bigger budgets that are treated with respect versus the classics of yesteryear?

Well, that's just because I haven't finished my review of Ghost Rider yet. Give it time.

Seriously though, I don't know. I would have said if anything, we tend to be more respectful of "classic" movies than newer ones.

-D

[Ellielator]

Well, this is the sort of movie that poses a great deal of questions. So, here I go:


1. Why are the female characters so stupid?
2. Do most viewers think bimbo characters are more interesting to watch in a horror movie?
3. Do most viewers think bimbos are easier to feel sympathy for?
4. Why do the writer and director of this movie hate gay people?
5. What does it take to get respect for lesbians in the horror genre?
6. Does this movie have something against giving viewers main characters with personalities beyond that of brainless sorority twits?
7. Why was that nude shower scene necessary?
8. Have these filmmakers seen Sliver and why did they rip off it's superior masturbation scene?
9. Why does that "cornfield" scene have to show such technical inneptness on the part of the movie's crew?
10. Is that severed head head-job scene supposed to be disturbing?
11. In what way? That we think the filmmakers are wackos (but I don't)?
12. Why are the makers of this film so completely immature?
13. Why does blood and gore take the place of genuine tension and terror in this film?
14. Do the makers of this film actually think this massacre scene is shocking?
15. Why is the decapitation scene so crude and vulgar (not decapitations in general - this uninspiredly overlong one)?
16. Why in the hell do we keep cutting back to Marie upstairs, constantly, like her overly butch flailing around feels anything but silly?
17. Why is this movie so completely void of tension?
18. Why does the director decide to show us the most cliched slasher images in a less psychologically intriguing way, thereby making them feel absurd?
19. Did the director watch this film before having it distributed internationally?
20. Why would anyone put their name on this piece of trash?
21. Why did the director show us too much of the (first) killer?
22. Did he assume that this guy was scary, and not a fat, oafish, redneck trucker loser like he came off as?
23. How many times did this director see Jeepers Creepers?
24. And Texas Chainsaw Massacre (the original)?
25. Why didn't he learn anything from them?
26. Why does this movie feel more like a lame cartoon than a horror film?
27. Why does the "Trucker" killer bother getting in a sex conversation with the convenience store guy?
28. Is our real killer jealous of men?
29. Is that angle supposed to be original or compelling?
30. Did this director and/or writer ever have a girlfriend dump him for another girl?
31. Does this happen frequently?

[kylerexpop]

i couldn't even read your questions. there were a lot of them!

i guess my ultimate feeling on 'haute tension' is this: if you stop the film right after the scene in the nighttime outdoor greenhouse, it's one of the greatest and most visually stunning depictions of a "undetected girl forced to take on relentless slasher for whatever reason (in this case to save her friend)" ever put onto film.

a lot of time, writers and directors of horror films go way too out of their way to create unbelievable scenarios just to get scenes of pets (mostly cats) jumping in for false scares and having otherwise normal and intelligent characters completely neglect their peripheral vision for the sake of giving their killer a sense of stealth and omnipresence.

haute tension cuts off the fat and is like "here you go, and it looks very pretty." nice!

sadly, because of the *spoiler!* absolutely horrific plot twist near the end, so much of the good will the film has garnered goes out the window and you're forced to switch to "off" in your brain to avoid trying to make it all make "sense" in terms of what you've seen and what truly happened.

it hurts. it really does!

i forgot what my point was. oh, i enjoy talking about 'haute tension,' so this has been fun! but man, it'd be a whole lot easier to defend it if they hadn't made a completely bizarre and unnecessary storytelling decision near the end. yikes!

(although i will say this film was so better than its spiritual predecessor, dean koontz's 'intensity,' that it makes me laugh! and hope i spelled "predecessor" correctly. i just got up.)

[Ellielator]

captainkyle said:

a lot of time, writers and directors of horror films go way too out of their way to create unbelievable scenarios just to get scenes of pets (mostly cats) jumping in for false scares and having otherwise normal and intelligent characters completely neglect their peripheral vision for the sake of giving their killer a sense of stealth and omnipresence.

Wait a minute. If I have you correctly, I think you're talking about the comically tough superkiller who can't be killed... that's what this movie does. But are you saying that does or doesn't work for this movie?

I say, either would work. Depending upon how the movie is built. The whole thing. And I also say a director's higher intentions and respect for the audience is part of that. I've seen plenty of good "cat jumps in" movies that were great. Because they didn't cheapen the rest of the film (some of them). This movie is cheap to begin with and that, in my opinion, isn't respectful to the audience. Well, not much anyway. I also think this movie is horribly ugly, visually and stylistically. Remarkably so. I think people are responding to it's ugliness. Because it's much grittier than it is polished.

The plot twist in the end is stupid for sure. But without it, I don't think the filmmakers would have an excuse for that really disgusting voyeuristic 2fer shower / masturbation scene. I thought the film made complete sense. But that didn't help it any. In fact, it may be bizarre, but so is the rest of the movie. And not in the fascinating way. In the annoying way.

[kylerexpop]

we could probably debate this for days, using both "wit" and "conventional weapons."

but unfortunately, it really does come down to individual taste. you can say "__ is bad!" and i can say "___ is good!" and really we're both right.

actually, i'm glad you brought this up because i had sort of forgotten about how awesome high tension truly is. i think the final reel twist really slapped quite a bit of enthusiasm the film garnered among audiences (across the board, honestly) but now it's definitely overdue for a reappraisal.

hooray!

[Ellielator]

captainkyle said:

we could probably debate this for days, using both "wit" and "conventional weapons." but unfortunately, it really does come down to individual taste. you can say "__ is bad!" and i can say "___ is good!" and really we're both right.

Well yeah. That is true. Depending on how you look at it and how much you know about each person.

Maybe I'm not being fair with this movie. In some peoples' eyes. Because when the girls were so stupid and they didn't get any smarter, unless you count that sort of "In the Event that everything turns Survivalist" and you have to be Street Smart to make it - kind of way, the movie never made up for that. Like I couldn't see any of the movie's attributes because the beginning was so bad. For me.

But... the beginning was okay. The 'dream' opening. I feel like I'm being totally fair with this movie. I know what works. At least I think I do. I just still don't understand how they can take characters with Friday the 13th movie personalities and depth and expect that we're gonna feel for them in the decade of Saw and Hostel.

I mean - we have to watch this entire movie from the point of view of a girl who is seriously an idiot, and what's worse as we find out, a heartless pervert serial killer. That's not fair at all on the audience.

So... just so you know how I feel. Debate over. I haven't sold or destroyed the DVD yet. I will give it another spin. (AFTER the shower / masturbation scene) Maybe I'll see something you saw in it.

In fact, the only time I thought the movie worked was at the end. It kind of shows what stupid young people are basically headed for if they don't get smart - death or the madhouse. I hope when you watch this again, you see that the Ending isn't the problem.

You know... I kind of also judge movies by Real Life standards. Like - I'm apt to say any movie put in a somewhat realistic situation that has stupid characters in it is bad by default. That the filmmakers see the audience to be as stupid as the characters onscreen. Who am I to judge this way? Sometimes... the filmmakers are right about the audience being on the same level and no better than the people in the film. Sometimes, dumb people do watch dumb movies. I'd be pretty much fine with this if it were about a killer Genie or 50-foot Seagull.