Do You think Jennifer is ashamed of this movie - Leprechaun (1993) Discussion

[–] SDockorockerty_MarkII 15 years ago

I was at the premiere of "The Bounty Hunter" in London today and I shouted "We loved Leprechaun" at her, she didn't flinch so I don't know if that answers your question or not...

reply

[–] avalanche222 15 years ago

solid thread

reply

[–] saddurn_man 12 years ago

"Leprechaun" was a HELL of a lot more entertaining than "The Bounty Hunter". So, "Leprechaun" is far from her worst movie.

reply

[–] MichaelM24 15 years ago

I've never seen her go out of her way to mention the film in interviews. Of all the modern actresses who got their start by being in a horror film, it seems like Jamie Lee Curtis is the only to ever talk proudly of having made her start in one, whereas the others (such as Aniston) seem to never bring it up.

reply

[–] gregmays 15 years ago

Jamie Lee Curtis talks about it because she was in a 'John Carpenter' horror film. And at the time, Carpenter's 'Halloween' was the highest grossing horror film EVER! Cost $300,000 to make and brought in $50 million at the BO. Some, including myself, would argue that Halloween brought respectability to the horror genre. And the money thrown at the genre through the mid-80's was producers and studios trying to recapture that. And no one did. Not even Carpenter himself. This is the same guy that brought us 'Christine' after all. Carpenter and his first horror film stand alone in that regard.
So Curtis probably, and rightly so, feels she starred in one of the only horror films ever that was respected by peers, critics and general audiences alike during its release. And that's quite an achievement when you think about it. So, sure she likes to talk about it.
I bet she doesn't talk much about 'Prom Night'.

reply

[–] fabiankristopher13 15 years ago

You do make a point

reply

[–] matt197981 15 years ago

it wasn't the highest grossing horror film ever it was the highest grossing independent horror film

The World Will Look Up And Shout "Save Us!" And I'll Whisper...Why So Serious?!

reply

[–] gregmays 15 years ago

What horror film had made more money back then?

$60 million 1978 dollars was a very big movie. Not 'Star Wars' or even 'Smokey and the Bandit' big, but very large for a non-Blockbuster (considered to be $100 million at the time)

reply

[–] matt197981 15 years ago

In 1975 Jaws domestic gross was over 260 million dollars

http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=jaws.htm Jaws

http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=exorcist.htm exorcist

both of these movies predate Halloween made much more money

The World Will Look Up And Shout "Save Us!" And I'll Whisper...Why So Serious?!

reply

[–] gregmays 15 years ago

Ooooo......

To consider The Exorcist or especially Jaws members of the 'Horror' genre is a stretch.

The Exorcist, along with movies like 'The Birds' or 'Psycho' or even the more modern 'What Lies Beneath' are usually considered Adult Thrillers, or even Supernatural Thrillers. In Hitchcock's case, even though he is considered to have invented the Adult Thriller, there's never a Supernatural element. Being a Brit, he thought the notion was silly.

Jaws is certainly just a Thriller, if for no other reason than the proposed scenario is entirely possible and rational. And technically speaking, there's no crime afoot. The Shark is behaving as we would expect. He's not a especially murdersome Shark. Just one that shouldn't be left alone with people.

The distinction being that the 'evil agent' in a Thriller is pursuing or being pursued by one character, most often with very little actual 'murder/killing' during the movie.

As opposed to 'horror' where there is killing throughout the film, and normally something supernatural or other-worldly is directly implied about the evil protagonist.
Hence, horror's much more narrow appeal as a genre. Because there's really a lot less to the story.

I would grant you 'The Omen' as horror, that pre-dated Halloween. And when you consider VHS rentals, actually made more money than Halloween. But like you say, it was a major Studio effort with a big production budget and very well known stars. Halloween was done on a shoestring budget with no one anyone had heard of.

reply

[–] jreiles 14 years ago

So you consider The Exorcist more of a tbriller than a horror movie? WTF are you smoking?

reply

[–] gregmays 14 years ago

One distinction is often simply whether it's believable. As in, 'could this actually happen?' At some level, many people believe in demonic possession, and by extention exorcism. Horror, as a genre, is rarely if ever credible on that basis.

Remember, the book 'The Exorcist' was according to the author, a 'true story'. If that's the case, you can't consider the movie part of the 'horror' genre.

And along that line....

Another distinction that people like Hitchcock liked to make, is that a thriller never contains a supernatural element. And that's certainly the case for every Hitchcock thriller, and he is considered the inventor of the modern adult thriller.(there's exceptions to this one, IMHO, like 'What Lies Beneath' where there's 'something' spooky going on, but the movie clearly belongs in the thriller genre) Admittedly, religion as an element of the plot greys this definition to a large extent. So, movies like The Omen are clearly horror with a religious undertone. And The Exorcist is certainly leaning in the same direction.

But then there's the other requirement for the horror genre, that I would say is most important....PEOPLE DIE!! Not at the end of the movie, but from the 'First Act' to 'The End'. Again, The Exorcist is nothing like that. The Omen is very much like that. This is the definition that Hollywood along with Horror Genre purists use. Fangoria magazine ain't interested in movies with no blood or no body count.

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] BrianCTyler 14 years ago

I think you're really over analyzing. Just because a film is believable and could actually happen doesn't make it less of a horror film, in fact it just makes it scarier. As ridiculous as it sounds, films like SCREAM or PROM NIGHT could happen.

Also, people don't necessarily have to die to make it a horror film. I don't want to take any suspense away from some great horror films, but there are a few great ones where absolutely no one dies. Besides, THE EXORCIST does have people dying in it.

"Cinema is everything to me. I live and breathe films -- I even eat them!"
- Lucio Fulci

reply

[–] Fargo_North 14 years ago

One more time, there's nothing supernatural in 'The Exorcist?!?! I don't understand your rationale.

What about a movie such as 'Dead of Night' (1945) which is a classic British Horror omnibus where no one is actually murdered, no blood and gore but there certainly are some murderous, malevolent spirits and forces at work in three of the five stories presented.

You've obviously based your criteria primarily on 'slasher' type movies from the last 35 years or so.

I'M A TRAVELING SALESPERSON. I SELL BANJOS.

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] gregmays 13 years ago

I take your point. 'Horror' originally simply meant a film that was deliberately trying to scare its audience. That covers a lot of ground.
Your point is also valid about the Academy, but the Academy has only recently been this way about horror. If you go back to the gothic era of Dracula and Frankenstein in the 30's, Hollywood itself called them horror films, but note: they were big budget with big stars.
The desire to push horror into an inferior sub-genre, I think started actually in the 1950's when horror producers started cranking out B grade horror movies on shoestring budgets. Roger Corman comes to mind. So, there certainly was a desire in Hollywood marketing to separate say, a Vincent Price horror flick, from Psycho or The Birds. Or The Exorcist, or The Omen for that matter. The issue, in their minds at least, is budget and production quality. And you're right, 'Adult Thriller' became Hollywood group speak for 'horror from a major studio with major stars'. Spielberg's 'War of the Worlds' was a horror flick in the classic sense, but no one ever referred to it as such.
Ironically, that low budget approach was very much validated with 'Halloween', a low budget horror film that became a Blockbuster. Ever since that, dwellers in the horror ghetto have been trying to re-capture that magic. And that has only reinforced their inferior status in Hollywood. But Halloween was a fluke of sorts. It was a very good story, that was only low budget because everyone was unknown. Carpenter himself was never able to repeat the success.

reply

[–] Fargo_North 14 years ago

So from what you've said in your first paragraph, there's no element of the supernatural in 'The Exorcist'?!?

I'M A TRAVELING SALESPERSON. I SELL BANJOS.

reply

[–] gregmays 14 years ago

No, I was not saying there was nothing supernatural in The Exorcist. I was just pointing out that Hitchcock was very unique in that he invented the adult thriller, yet he considered any suggestion of the supernatural within an adult dramatic movie ridiculous.

Since him, adult thrillers will often allude to the supernatural. 'The Lovely Bones' is a recent example. I'm not saying it's only in the horror genre, just that true horror practically requires it.

There's certainly a supernatural element in Exorcist. As I said, religious supernatural themes take place in horror occasionally, as it did in 'The Omen'.

But, I think 'The Exorcist' is in a totally different category.

Because the larger issue with 'The Excorcist' going back to the novel,is it's actually presented as a documentary. So, you can't possibly consider something in the horror genre that is actually alleged to have happened.

Now I'll concede that when young people watch The Exorcist today, it certainly plays while perhaps not as a horror movie (true horror involves lots of people getting killed), but at least as an adult supernatural thriller. Because there's not so much talk today about Exorcism as a very real thing practiced within the Catholic Church. Today it seems fantastically beyond belief. But especially in the 50's, it was a very real thing.

The only documentary I can think of that was horror was 'The Blair Witch Project'. But it's a lot like 'Spinal Tap', a faux documentary. So, not quite the same thing.

reply

[–] Fargo_North 14 years ago

I beg to differ with you on your contention that "The Exorcist" is 'actually presented as a documentary'.

Though I haven't read the factual story or the novelization, I'm sure the movie screenplay took at least a few liberties with the facts, for example the most obvious one, which is the victim of possession in the factual story was a young boy and not a young girl as in the movie.

Changing the gender of the victim, around whom the entire story revolves renders the movie anything but a documentary.

I'M A TRAVELING SALESPERSON. I SELL BANJOS.

reply

[–] gregmays 14 years ago

Yeah, documentary is too strong a word. But still the incident is something that 'could' happen, because something very much like it 'did' happen. At least, according to the author.

I'm old enough to remember when the movie came out, because the subject itself suddenly became VERY big news. The Catholic church was on the spot, and they wanted to be tight lipped on the subject. Human habitation by evil spirits was not the sort of thing they wanted to talk about. And I remember asking incredulously to my parents, "Exorcism is for real?" To which they replied in Presbyterian form, "For Catholics in Boston it is."

I'd say a pretty much universal theme of horror as a genre, is it's never asking to buy into its 'reality'. Part of why horror plays toward the age group that it does, is because it's usually silly, and can't be taken seriously.

And that's sort of what started this thread:
Halloween was that most unusual of horror movies that appealed beyond the genre's target audience. And as I think more about it, it could be because it lacked any sense of otherworldliness. It felt like the sort of thing that 'could happen'. On closer scrutiny though, the idea of a child killer that matures into a adult serial killer focused on one particular day, is not the sort of thing that ever does happen. How would someone incarcerated since they were six even find their way back to Haddonfield? At night.
Carpenter was never able to recapture that success in the horror genre, because like everyone else, he descended into zombies, evil inanimate forces, and aliens.

reply

[–] vestdennis 13 years ago

This thread has went from good to ridiculous. Yes, I think the numerous sequels probably added some of the "yuck" factor to Leprechaun. Even though the first is pretty lame it's at least "watchable" b/c of Aniston in shorts...

reply

[–] suzycreamcheese1 13 years ago

"gone"

RIP Heath Ledger 1979-2008

reply

[–] CrazyJim2004 11 years ago

To consider The Exorcist or especially Jaws members of the 'Horror' genre is a stretch.

No, it really is not. Exorcist is without question, a horror film. It has always been classified as such.

Because the larger issue with 'The Excorcist' going back to the novel,is it's actually presented as a documentary. So, you can't possibly consider something in the horror genre that is actually alleged to have happened.

This is some of the most preposterous logic I have ever encountered. Horror films are built around scares, whether based on fiction or fact. Whether the story in question is real or imaginary is irrelevant to the conversation. As other have mentioned, the word "thriller" started getting thrown around so as not to offend those sophisticated types who think of horror films as the low-grade exploitation pictures. Silence of the Lambs and The Sixth Sense avoided labeling themselves as "horror" so the larger audience would not dismiss them as low-rent genre fare.

I find it particularly laughable that you are arguing that a movie that features a little girl being literally possessed by the Devil is too "believable" to be classified as a horror film but a movie like "Halloween" that involves a killer in a mask stalking babysitters is somehow this master work of absurdist fiction that could not possibly ever really happen.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3129196/?ref_=rvi_tt
IMDB page for my first feature film.

reply

[–] gregmays 11 years ago

>> Horror films are built around scares, whether based on fiction or fact. Whether the story in question is real or imaginary is irrelevant to the conversation. <<

Name another Horror movie based on fact.

Take your time.

reply

[–] CrazyJim2004 11 years ago

Psycho. Texas Chainsaw Massacre. Henry: Portrait Of A Serial Killer. Fire In The Sky. The Amityville Horror.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3129196/?ref_=rvi_tt
IMDB page for my first feature film.

reply

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] riverwalk 11 years ago

''Of all the modern actresses who got their start by being in a horror film, it seems like Jamie Lee Curtis is the only to ever talk proudly of having made her start in one, whereas the others (such as Aniston) seem to never bring it up.''

omg are you for real comparing the leprehaun to a solid masterpiece classic like halloween?????????? It's like comparing casablanca to childsplay. The horror genre can be done with taste like every other genre, it is not all bad and mediocre and some solid classics sit in there that are widely respected and acclaimed.

reply

[–] MichaelM24 11 years ago

First of all, calm down.

Second, no, I am not comparing Leprechaun to Halloween and saying it is a masterpiece. I am saying that Jamie Lee Curtis seems to be the only person who is actually proud to talk about the fact she started in horror films, whereas a lot of actors/actresses who got their start in horror films always seem embarrassed to talk about it.

reply

[–] riverwalk 11 years ago

But that's because Halloween was a solid classic which was done with class and it launched her plus as another poster said Curtis will only really talk about The Halloweens as her other horrors were'nt as well received or stood the test of time. Jennifer has no reason to talk about the Leprehaun since it was not the film that launched her nor is it a classic or popular but just another B movie , Friends launched her. Infact it is not that common that you will hear actors/actresses talk of the projects they did before they got their big break. For instance, you never hear of Ted Danson talk of his several projects before Cheers or any of the Friends cast talk of their pre friends projects. Also I don't know what other big actors/actresses you talk of that don't talk of the horrors they did, actors in general will not talk of the projects thety did before they hit the big time, infact many of the 80s/90s horrors did not feature alot of later Alist stars that I can think of. I know there was Johnny Depp but there's not alot. Janet Leigh often talked of her role in psycho, sissy spacek has also often mentioned Carrie in interviews, tippi hendren mentioned the birds many times in interviews....

reply

[–] ChocolateFrankenstein 14 years ago

Nah, I don't she should be ashamed of this movie. For better or worse, it put her foot in the door.

"Life is like a movie. Only you can't pick your genre."

reply

[–] lu5518 14 years ago

I read somewhere in an interview that she referred to the movie as "the embarrassment of her career". That's not necessarily a negative comment, as she might have been speaking in terms of comparing to all the other work she has done since then.

reply

[–] jaddjamar 14 years ago

'I read somewhere in an interview that she referred to the movie as "the embarrassment of her career".

That must have been before The Good Girl.

Plotholes are like Bigfoot, people who claim to see them are just trying to stir things up.

reply

[–] chivers677 14 years ago

It's not one of the best moviesi have seen but definatly not the very worst.

reply

[–] gizmosloth 14 years ago

like music there are sub-genres. in my opinion just cause nobody dies(or only one person dies) in a movie that doesnt mean its not a horror movie. that would make them a horror movie with the sub-genre of thriller. movies where people die all the time are horror movies with the sub-genre of slasher. i still believe that a movie has to have supernatural elements in it for it to be a horror movie

as for jennifer i dont pay attention that much to her to actually make an opinion. well i dont think she should be ashamed of it but thats just me. we all have to get our start somewhere. the important thing is that she got somewhere after this movie. if she did cause of this movie then she shouldnt be appreciative of it if anything. if she didnt then she got to make a fun movie for laughs and earned whatever she did

i can understand though wanting to do a movie like this by choice and not out of desperation even if it helped you get somewhere. sure she had hoped to be in a blockbuster as her 1st movie. sure she wouldnt have minded(or at least not as much) doing this movie if it was later on in her career after she had already established herself as an actress

reply

[–] ftremblay 14 years ago

The Bounty Hunter was way worse than this movie anyway. At least the Leprechaun could make you laugh.

reply

[–] maxzorindresden 14 years ago

Jaws and King Kong , both monster movies....films with monsters are technically horror films imo.

reply

[–] soco-81 14 years ago

I had no clue who she was when I first saw Leprechaun, and you could tell, even back then, that she was special.

It's a sad thing that your adventures have ended here

reply

[–] anaconda89 13 years ago

I think she is ashamed of this film which I think is ridiculous. Agreed it's not the best film ever made but everyone has to start somewhere. The fact that she is ashamed of this yet is proud of all her crap romantic comedies just baffles me.

reply

[–] ccw81 13 years ago

I agree anaconda. I think that if she didn't get her big break on Friends, she'd probably be a lot more favorable towards the film. And also, everyone does have to start somewhere. Although I doubt George Clooney really brings up ROTKT all that often or that Leonardo DiCaprio ever brings up that Critters 3 was his movie debut.

reply

[–] anaconda89 13 years ago

I agree, not all celebrities talk about how they got their break. Although I don't think Leprechaun is on the same level as ROTKT. It was a hit at the box office so it really did give her the exposure she was looking for and it wasn't a terrible film by any means (I didn't get the impression it was taking itself too seriously).

reply

[–] suzycreamcheese1 13 years ago

probably, since she is now one of the most famous women in America

RIP Heath Ledger 1979-2008

reply

[–] Minus_The_Beer 13 years ago

Perhaps, but she should be more ashamed of the mountain of crap she's made with the likes of Ben Stiller, Owen Wilson and Adam Sandler.

reply

[–] amberbee1999 13 years ago

I am sure she's ashamed of her original nose and cheeks and chin. Her nose gave me the nightmares!

reply

[–] Minus_The_Beer 13 years ago

Perhaps, then again, the fact that Vince Vaughn's penis was likely inside of her at one point is more than enough shame for one person to carry.

reply