TERROR EYES 1989

A group of friends sit around a campfire telling scary stories to help inspire one of them to write a horror movie. I'd give it a D out of a possible 6.

Sounds "D" for dreadful. Hey, did you ever hear the ghost story "A Derelict"?

For one thing, the acting is super over the top and unbelievable, and - while it was probably on purpose - I just don't think it worked. While watching it I just kept thinking about the actors and the way in which they were acting, and for me the sign of a good film is that I forget these things and am able to believe that the characters are real. Dialogue was nothing special. I found it difficult to invest in any character or believe what they were going through, perhaps because of very little character development. And while I would understand the focus being more on the horror and the gore or the kills for this genre of film, there is minimal horror and the gore is really very mild. The effects aren't great (but what can you do, it's a low budget film from the 70s - so I'm not so bothered about that one). I get that it's a classic piece of cinema, and by no means do I think that it is a terrible film, but to me it doesn't quite live up to/be deserving of its hype.

No, but I'm going to Google it right now.

I googled it after i posted, but didn't find any by that name (not surprising because i heard it from my sister when I was a kid). I had to type in "ghost story and licking" and found it quick.

It goes by The Licked Hand on wiki.

I checked out some of the variations, but didn't find one exactly like i heard it. The version i heard was the best ::cool::, with the effective "drip, drip, drip" house search, which really mounts the tension and puts you there effectively.

We called it, "A Derelict". As a kid, I thought that was the lunatic's name "Aderelict".

Anyway, apparently this ghost story, with an urban legend feel, really got around in the late 70s/early 80s. Figured you might have heard it too.

David M. Brown copyrighted it in 1980, published 1982. I know for a fact I heard it before 82 (before winter 1980). I could have have heard it in 1980, but I don't know how Brown got it out there... that I would have heard from a kid. Interesting.

Anyway, per wiki, "There is a forerunner in the 1919 story 'The Diary of Mr Poynter' by M. R. James, where a young man absently strokes his dog (as he thinks) while reading an old manuscript account of the sinister death of a young student obsessed with his own hair. Of course the creature crouching at his side is not the dog."

Ah, cool, thanks, Fava! I know what you're saying about lack of character development.

As you just said yourself, about TCSM as a Horror film, rather than a "Film", so to speak... I think that's where TCSM is receiving its praise and notoriety.

As you already know, Horror films are often assessed differently, like the way Comedy films are assessed by 'how funny they are', rather than the traditional cinematic benchmarks of acting and whatnot.

Specifically the acting -- and this is just my opinion of course -- overall I thought it was effective and otherwise believable. There were some lines delivered that sounded stagey, but I think that's partly the audio -- strange as that sounds -- because the stylistic way this was shot was pseudo documentary, where the mic pickup direction was (often) from the camera POV. To produce a "you are there" effect.

That "you are there" effect was very effectual on me.

Likewise, I thought the lead role of Sally was extremely effective, in that her visceral emotions seemed raw, accessible and authentic to me.

The villains were generally over-the-top, but if "real" you'd expect them to be. Plus, at the time, many people openly acted more animated in public.

I agree, there's little character development, which makes it harder to care about the characters (in a traditional story way); but again, the Cinéma vérité style effectiveness comes from you (viewer) dropping in abruptly, rather than a traditional character-driven story ramp.

Horror-wise... it was extremely horrific to me. I felt trapped. Obviously I thought it was effective as a Horror genre film.

Gore and special effects... it's interesting, Hooper (director) was shooting for a PG rating. Hooper often used traditional shot techniques to infer the violence, which I generally prefer & find more effective. Still, the (inferred) violence is straight-up over the top... I mean it's a freaking nightmare. The content is so not PG.

Anyway, I just thought I'd share with you why I thought it carries high ratings and notoriety.

Interesting view, and I agree with a lot of your points - thanks for your reply::smile::. As you said, if I were to rate it as a horror film, rather than just as a film, then I would perhaps give a little more merit. And I see what you're saying about the character development, honestly I don't know that a traditional build up would have worked anyway. Although it would have been nice to see a little more in terms of development/character depth, I think that, for me, it's personal preference as much as anything else that stops me from being able to love this movie.

I'm also all for traditional techniques when it comes to violence and gore. Especially with newer films going a lil too crazy with the CGI. It's not nearly as cool or authentic. Takes away the magic.

I did actually find a story called " a derelict " about an abandoned ship another ship comes upon and when the sailors board it to explore, they find that the whole ship has become a gigantic living fungus of sorts that consumes those who touch it. I didn't find the actual story, just a wiki description.

My "A Derelict" was The Licked Hand, just a slight variation, which was published as Bedtime for Sam.

Did you ever hear this ghost story: Bedtime for Sam? (you can read it here, it's just a page long)https://www.wattpad.com/169961434-te...edtime-for-sam

OUTLAND (1981). Good sets/FX, but this flick is really HIGH NOON in space. Sean Connery good as usual, but film struggles. **1/2