I saw it on tv but missed the title. And then I kept trying to explain it to people, thinking it was a Kurosawa film, and no one ever knew what I was talking about.
Now that I know what it is I can see it again. But I had no idea that it was considered horror. Why is that? I don't remember it that well but I don't remember being scared.
Stop movin' about. I'm doin' me eyeliner.
It's more 'menacing' than 'scary' I'd say.
I watched another film by this director last night, called 'Kuroneko'. That was a ghost story (kind of) and quite similar to this one in some ways. http://amazon.imdb.com/title/tt0122136/
It's considered horror because distributors have no imagination and like to fit things into easy slots. Get a picture of the mask throw it on the front cover call it a 'horror' movie.
Mind you back in 1964 the whole concept might have seemed pretty dammed horrific I suppose.
First of all- the EXACT same thing happened to me. I spent five years in the dark as to what that eerie movie was called. I even ended up describing the rustling reeds to people who were self-professed film fans, and I'd always end up being given a blank look in return. It wasn't until I read an online review on Harry "aintitcool.com" Knowles' DVD column that I FINALLY twigged on to what that movie was called. And for that I am eternally indebted to Mr. Knowles, because this is a beautiful, haunting movie that will never leave me again.
Secondly, horror doesn't have to be visceral, or about the "he's behind you with a ten foot meat-cleaver!!!" shocks, it really encompasses anything supernatural and with an intent to unsettle. Naturally, you should watch films for what they are and not for what genre they fall under, but there's no way I wouldn't call this horror. I can just see that "mask of flesh" starring at me now... Woah!
Whoa.
sharehorror doesn't have to be visceral, or about the "he's behind you with a ten foot meat-cleaver!!!" shocks, it really encompasses anything supernatural and with an intent to unsettle