Garden State is a terrific pick. That movie is really lame and has excellent music.

In another reading of the film, one that uses the basic motifs and structure of the fairy tale, it's possible to see Hannibal as the Fairy Godmother. The cryptic clues enable the hero to make her way in the world using her wits.

Doesn't "other-worldly" = "supernatural"? Of course, try to find a horror film that has completely natural elements. The category should probably be a horror movie without ghosts. However, I don't really have a problem with a bit of genre bending.

That's why I wanted to know soon rather than be patient, but I'm challenging it no matter what bc it opens up horror to be most psychological thrillers

Anyway, since it was already taken and it's controversial I'll take something else instead

I'm not a fan of westerns...there are only 2 I like so I'll nab my favorite one here...I know it's a deep category so poor strategy to use an early pick on it, but my lack of depth here forces my hand

I'll take a movie that is one of my favorites regardless of genre...from my favorite directors so not surprising I liked it even tho it's a western

I really like when they do scenes like the girl negotiating in the store 5 mins in...reminds me of other great scenes in other UNDRAFTED movies of theirs

I take the coen bros remake of True Grit


So far:
Bruce - Sin City
SF - Maltese Falcon
Zombie - Young Frankenstein
74-76 - Monty Python Holy Grail
Western - True Grit

yeah i know right?!

A movie from the years 1974, 1975 or 1976 without Scorcese, Coppola, Hoffman, Redford, Stallone, Beatty, Lucas, DeNiro or Woody Allen

F for Fake (1973)

Orson Welles last great movie. write-up later.

I actually considered Silence of the Lambs heavily but didn't want to get in to this whole debate so ended up going with Texas Chainsaw Massacre.

Westerns are awesome. Hollywood problably would have crashed or never became what it was today without Westerns...Fantasia, Army of Darkness, the Shawshank Redemption and blade runner. Westerns and those other 4 movies are what made hollywood possible

riteup to come. For the category of pre-1950 color, Oscarless film, I choose Tex Avery's little mastepiece Red Hot Riding Hood.

So, how is this 1974-1976? It premiered worldwide in Sept 73 and in the US Feb 77. Does this open up the category to any film that was playing on any screen worldwide between 1974 and 1976??

Somebody's gonna have to 'splain to me the difference between the two, at least for the purposes of this draft. Or the difference between Silence and Psycho, for that matter.

in his write-up he even put that it was released in 1973...

sorry, not eligible if it was released in 1973. Pick again!

Guys, the whole point of this draft is to have fun and bend the rules of genre! If someone wants to say Silence of the Lambs is a horror film, and can back it up as to why in his defense, then I'm all for it.

Although, I do like it in the category of "clothing."

Yeah, it's awesome for clothing and iffy for horror

I'm all for justifying bending definitions (like shawshank for color) it's just that this is more opening a whole genre (thrillers) up than bending definition for a specific movie

if a thriller has a lot of macabre in it, i see no problem with classifying it also as a horror

the bitching about what is and isn't horror is kind of pissing me off. We're supposed to be having fun here. I was expecting to see a bunch of crazy/awesome picks for horror with great write-ups to defend them, not people picking standard horror movies and everyone chewing them out because they're "thrillers" (while swirling a glass of sherry in their hands). Hell, had I seen Chuck and Buck before making my pick I would have picked that for the horror category (and I would have had a great write-up too!).

I figure that we're looking for any scary concept that can be somehow explained through contemporary science. For instance, life on other planets is a theoretical possibilty, through the study of biology and astronomy. It is a real possibilty, even if we don't experience it personally. And evolution has given us some pretty scary and unique predators. So the idea of a scary predatory alien can be explained without having to resort to metaphysical concepts. They would be other-wordly.

Science, though, cannot explain vampires or werewolves, at least not of the celluloid variety. There is no serious theoretical underpinning for their existence. They would be supernatural.

Or at least that's how I see it.

I think if a movie horrifies you, it's a horror?

I guessed that it would be only a matter of time before something from Looney Tunes showed up in this draft. Dat be a stretch, for me, but technically these were movies, and were produced as such...

My bad, dat be MGM. Didn't Avery also make roughly this same cartoon while at WB?

omg wtf is wrong with me? i even said it was released 1973 in my own post :-\
can you guys skip me for now? dont rly have time right now to pick something else

this!

and this!

and lastly....this.

Hey, The History Channel specializes in finding ghosts, and we all know The History Channel has some serious theoretical cred. I'm stunned, stunned I tell you, that anyone here could consider the alien "theoretically possible" while denying the existence of werewolves, ghosts, and vampires.

(I'm having fun with this.)

If it's presented in front of us, how can it not be real? We see it, therefore it is real.