6070 (6070) wrote, @ 2007-03-07 20:28:00

THE SADIST (1963)
Previous horror films were all about monsters...Frankenstein, Dracula, Werewolves, Creatures from the Black Lagoon or alien invaders from Mars. Here, the monster is the "normal" guy next door. He is the psychopath that can take your life when you are going to do something as ordinary as go to a baseball game. Your life can end that quickly.

THE SADIST was a classic B drive-in movie made at a time right before the Kennedy assassination. It reflects a world where nothing makes much sense anymore. This movie was too intense to be played in general theaters and is not well known even today. It is more an anthropoligical relic of 1963 that reflects the uncertainty and amiguity of the era.

A trio of mild-mannered school teachers (two men and one woman) are driving to LA to see a baseball match. On their way there are problems with the engine, and they end up on a deserted gas station in the middle of nowhere. While they are fixing the car, they get the suspicion that something not is like it is supposed to be. The suspicion is well grounded. Before they now it, they are taken hostage by giggling thrill-killer Charlie Tibbs and his silent gal Judy. Charley is on the run for the homicide on a whole family and some other hostages, and now want the car so he and Judy can escape. Almost the whole movie take place at the gas station, where Charlie torment, humiliate, torture and kill the teachers while waiting for them fixing the vehicle. The "soda bottle" scene is a classic in suspense.

Charley's baby face and dorky behavior make the ideal picture of a juvenile delinquent psycho, supposedly based on real life killer Charlie Starkweather. This is the start of all sorts of films about psychopathic humans who prey on their victims whether it is THE TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE, SAW or HOSTEL. No one had seen anything quite like this film before. This is an intense, nasty and surprising thriller.

What were your thoughts on this film? How does this film compare to modern day thriller films you've seen? What about this film seemed particularly "old-fashioned"? What seemed modern? What was done in a unique and different way?

Ivan Almario (Anonymous) 2007-03-07 23:03 (link)

um. Mr. Leibner i dont know if we have to answer a question about the movie.so im jus gonna write my opinion about the movie. I found it realistic. Its something that can happen to an ordinary person but i found a lot of things thats kind of stupid. Sorry for that word. but anyways, the movies now and and what you showed us had a lot of differences. For example, wut u told us about the movie not cuttin scene i found awesome. I dont see alot of that now. the music in the sadist wasnt really a horror thing.it doesnt really make people jump like the movies now. but what i really like about the sadist, like i said, is how it can happen to everyone. what makes this movie scary than monsters and other fictional creatures is that its an ordinary person running around wit a gun, killin anyone who gets in their way. people dont really expect these kindsof things to happen to them. Now i can see how other movies like the TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE, SAW, and HOSTEL are good movies. it's because their real life killers that may be still alive till now. (Reply to this) (Thread)

Shannon Page (Anonymous) 2007-03-08 01:43 (link)

-I thought this was a great film and can understand why it wouldn't have been too intense to show in theatres because of the time. I recieved a feeling of anxiety and a bit of disgust of the situation that the three teachers were in. It was scary because for a moment, I tried to imagine myself in their situation and I admit that I would be horrified and traumatized. Considering that this film was made in 1963, it must have made a big impression on people, bringing to the big screen a situation that is reality and suspense or anxiety rather than make believe beings. At first though, I admit that the movie seemed a little slow and corny when the killer first made his appearance because of his behavior and speech. As the movie went on, I got sucked in it, and it ended up being one of the best horror films I've seen. -Horror movies at present just arent like films in the 60s and 70s because its almost all "been done before" and people are desensitized to the scary feeling should get after the film is over. This movie doesn't compare with present movies, in the sense that it is better than present day films. Like discussed after the film was over, it was shot with a consistent time period rather than splits. The character of Charlie Tibbs is a psycho and he captured that character well and if you imagine hard enough, it could almost seem real. This is a story that couldve happened. Movies now tend to be about fictional characters that don't seem plausible like ghosts killing people or a mysterious being controlling your dreams or what not. -Alot of the film seemed old fashioned in the sense of the characters' attitudes, use of language and presence. There wasn't any cursing! (lol) The movies' score was old fashioned in the sense that it didn't have an orchestral piece for very dramatic scenes. It seemed more simple but with it having simplicity it still had the same effect to me. -What seemed modern in the film would definately have to be the story altogether. The fact that there were ordinary people going somewhere and having car trouble, then all of a sudden, their lives changed within a few hours. That can happen anywhere, anytime, it doesn't matter whether its the 60s, 70s, or 2050, that won't change. -The unique thing about this film was the time when the movie was shot. It's true, there are hardly EVER any movies that are shot within a small time period. It was consistent and dramatic. Another thing that I thought was unique or different were the camera angles they used. Like in the beginning, when Charlie and his girl first made their appearance, the camera seemed like it was attached to his gun while he was pointing it at the victims. Another part was when the camera was looking through the fence when the woman teacher was hiding, I thought that was very unique. It was like you WERE the characters... "One of the greatest films I've seen coming from the 60's." =) (Reply to this) (Thread)

	Re: Shannon Page "Oh Yeah" (Anonymous) 2007-03-08 01:44 (link)
	Yeah, now I see why movies like SAW wouldn't BE, without this movie.... (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	Julie-ann delacruz (Anonymous) 2007-03-09 01:17 (link)
	"Another thing that I thought was unique or different were the camera angles they used. Like in the beginning, when Charlie and his girl first made their appearance, the camera seemed like it was attached to his gun while he was pointing it at the victims." SP thats interesting i would have not picked that up. thanks. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

angie gonzalez (Anonymous) 2007-03-08 01:47 (link)

i actually thought this film was "alright." at first, i admit it was boring. but throughout the film as i kept on watching, i noticed this movie actually caught my eye. for some odd reason, i found myself actually watching the film & not falling asleep. after the film was over, you mentioned that it had no cuts, like from one scene to another, it all made sense because i felt like that film was like 3 hours long. usually in films, there are many cuts, going from one day to the next making the film seem shorter because there are many scenes rather than just one, and in this case, it wasnt like that. it was all continuous. i thought this film was nothing compared to thriller films today. most thriller films today have lots of blood and are all gorey, like the ones you've mentioned (ie. texas chainsaw massacre, hostel, saw, etc...) i think what made this film "scary" was mostly the suspense. when we were introduced to charlie, right off the bat we got the impression of a psycho. like you wouldn't be able to know what to expect from this guy. so throughout the movie, it was mostly charlie that made it "scary" because we didnt know what he would do next. mostly his capabilities is what kept you on your toes, because this guy was crazy and a weirdo. what made this film "old fashioned" is i would have to say how the movie was made because you dont se many films today that don't cut from one scene to the next. this film was just persistent. you saw everything that happened, not just some parts. what made this fim "modern" is probably the idea of a killer after someone. in most thriller films today, there is always a killer(s). the whole idea of some crazy guy torturing you and trying to kill you made it seem more realistic. what was done in a unique and different way is once again, how there was just one whole scene & how the movie was not cut likemost films are today. (Reply to this) (Thread)

Evettay Gonzalez (Anonymous) 2007-03-09 01:10 (link)

I thought this film was absolutely hilarious. The thought of a teenage boy handling a gun to kill teachers just because he wanted to is insane even though it is still done in modern day movies. This film is pretty stupid if you think about it because the car still could have gone a couple of miles but they so happened to stop there, in that deserted old gas station. What a cliché but it works because of the probability that there weren’t gong to be any other houses for a couple of miles because they were in the desert. I found The gild teacher to be typical woman. She can even run fast and can’t stick up for herself. She had to hide behind the young, tough looking teacher. It was also funny how Judy wouldn’t say a thing. Why was she mute? Was it to serve as mysterious reasons because it was just freaky how she wouldn’t say anything. All she did was kiss Charlie and get him soda then he ended up killing her. How can Charlie be a sadist yet still care for people like Judy? Are there exceptions? This movie differs from modern thrillers today that the music they use is much more suspense full and they keep the viewers at the edge of their seat. In THE SADIST, the music was all similar and it all took place during the day instead of in a dark room in an abandoned house. Even though this was an old gas station with abandoned old cars, there were still people living there. In TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE, the house isn’t abandoned but yet it still is scary, its dark and there are too many things and something just doesn’t feel right about that house. This house actually looked homey, and welcoming. The fact that the movie was all shot in one day and without stopping to change the scene made it different and also the fact that it was during the day in The Middle of No Where, California. That also made it “old-fashioned”. People now-a-days are used to scarier scenes and more blood, killings and torture. That is what made it modern too, the fact that Charlie tortured the three teachers and out of no where the owners of the old gas station appear dead in the barn. There are plenty of scenes like that in TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE, when the people find their friends bleeding in the basement. In SAW, we see much more torture and pain that in TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE yet both very good movies. I liked this one, even though at times nothing was really happening and got a little boring. (Reply to this) (Thread)

Julie-ann Delacruz (Anonymous) 2007-03-09 01:11 (link)

i expected the movie to be dull and boring due to the black and white films i have watched. i was surprised finding myself on the edge of my seat when the whole "finishing the soda, killing the old man with glasses" scene came along it was quite intense. i predicted before watching the movie that old movies would not show the guy being killed but i was wrong. i was surprised, when the old man died. i found the behavior of charley and jodie to be disturbing the giggles and blank stares creeped me out. it was interesting watching an old thriller film from back in the day and how people found it scary at those times. imagine if they see films these days =x. this film seemed particularyly old fashioned due to the actions of the woman teacher trying to run away.. her awkward trips and the way they acted and screamed. you had mentioned the unique part of the movie.. the movie being different by being shot in one location and the time frame is what we are watching unlike films today. i would not have noticed such a thing if it were not for you. there is a big difference from old horror films and todays horror films one you've mentioned for example the chainsaw massacre. the sadist took time to kill one person and wasn't as bloody and violent as the chainsaw massacre where it starts you off with a girl shooting herself in the head. i feel that our society has changed drastically watching this film alone. watching the film was not scary at all but rather funny because of the films of today the torture, the blood, and no emotions. back then the sadist was scary but for our generation we see the guy not as some scary psycho but as a plain killer. the scary psycho guys of today are horrifying. i dont know if i did this right or if its long enough. i liked the film but psycho would have been better =) (Reply to this) (Thread)

Brookshield Tran (Anonymous) 2007-03-09 01:38 (link)

I expected the film to be scarier than it was. But overall it was an okay movie. I expected the lady teacher to die and the younger man teacher to survive since he was the “smart” one. I was surprised when he died, because like the character, I thought that Charley ran out of bullets, but what I and the character forgot was that Charley had another gun that he had taken from the cops. When Judy died, I thought she deserved it, she was annoying and kept giggling. But I also wondered how Charley became a killer and Judy became his partner/girlfriend. Something must’ve happened to them because nobody is born a killer. The lady teachers got lucky and survive. I thought that the actor playing Charley did a good job in portraying Charley. What was strange was that I noticed that the teachers had so many opportunities knocking on their doors, but didn’t hear it. I guess they couldn’t see the opportunity until it passes them, and by then it’s just too late. What I noticed about “The Sadist” and the modern day thriller films I’ve seen today, is that they always start in an abandon place, in the middle of nowhere, on the way to somewhere, expect they never get there. The movies always start out normal with people doing everyday things and then the unexpected happens. Imagine how the people in the 60’s and 70’s would’ve reacted if they saw the thriller movies we had today, if they thought “The Sadist” was scary. What I found “old-fashioned” in this movie is their dialect. They spoke differently then we do today. It’s English but with an old-fashioned ring to it. The cars were also old-fashioned and so was the setting of the movie. Their coke bottles were glass bottles, we don’t have those nowadays. Their screaming, to me, was old-fashioned. In modern films the screams will be more realistic and spine-chilling. The torture would also be more physical, torturing, and gory. What I thought seemed modern was the idea of the unexpected happening. Who would’ve known that a simple trip to see a baseball game with your colleagues could lead to a life and death situation? What I thought was also modern was the way the background music drew reaction from the audience and fitted the scenes. It was meant to arouse your emotions. Background music is also used in the thrillers films we have today and are also use to affect the audience. What I thought was unique was the fact that the radio was announcing the baseball game. As if to remind them that they could’ve been at the game, enjoying themselves, instead of finding a way to live and escape, having their lives in the hands of a killer. It was like a “rub-in-the-face” thing. Like the world can still move on without you. It was like the people were mocking them for their predicament. Making you think that while you are happy and full of laughter that in another area things aren’t as jolly. Another thing was the fact that the movie took place in actual time (like you pointed out in class), without any flashback or cutting of scenes. This was made obvious when the radio was on and announced the score of the baseball game. (Reply to this) (Thread)

Davis Tran (Anonymous) 2007-03-09 02:47 (link)

I thought the film was interesting and not that horrifying. In the beginning of the movie I thought the movie was interesting because the three teachers got stuck in a deserted area, with no one in sight. No one was around or occupying the area. In a way I think that The Sadist was similar to the House of Wax. Anyway, I also thought that the film was interesting because the movie had a lot of suspense. I didn’t know what will happen to the teachers, because they had so many opportunities to run away and escape from Charley. I also thought that the movie had many foreshadowing. An example is when the food in the kitchen is eaten by two people, while the two other plates were untouched, and still warm meaning that someone had been around. Another foreshadowing sense is when the auto shop was open, but no one was around. I don’t think that the film was horrifying; I thought it was kind of funny. My favorite scene is when the younger male teacher tired to hope on top of the shed and he fell down on his butt/back, and he died soon afterward. This film, The Sadist is not realistic and had almost no blood gore, at all. Other movies have many blood gores and guts flying around. This movie had nothing, when the elderly teacher died, we didn’t even get a chance to see blood squirt out of his head, I didn’t even see a puddle of blood, to indicate that he got shot in the head. Also when Charley killed the younger, built teacher, they didn’t show his body after he died. Comparing this film to other modern movies, the film is in black and white while the other movies are in colors. I liked the way that the movie was film in just one day, throughout the whole movie there were no cut scenes or breaks time for the actors and actress. What I thought about the movie that was “old-fashioned” is the type of guns they used. Charley had to “click the top” of the gun to make it reload or something. (Reply to this) (Thread)

Borath Long (Anonymous) 2007-03-11 10:46 (link)

Borath Long Humanities 17 The Saddist At first, the beginning of the movie made me feel that it was going to be a boring movie. However, as the movie continued, it got more interesting. I am not a big fan of horror movies so it seemed more comical than scary. The torturing and killing part of the movie wasn’t comical, but the acting and music background was funny. Creepy sounds and are memorable that stands out are from those like Halloween and that popular sound from Jason. When people hear those sounds they automatically know what movie people are referring to. The movie had a simplicity that made me enjoy it instead of the modern day films where there are too many special effects that ruins most films these days. It had a more naturalistic tone because of the scenery and actors used in this movie. For example, the actors hair, makeup, and clothes seemed more natural which made them seem like average people. The psychopath was not ugly or creepy looking like most psychopaths today would look like. For instance, the movie Halloween, Jason, Freddy Krooger wore costumes and had disfigured faces which some had to wear a mask to cover them up. The Saddist shows that a regular guy dressed in jeans could be a psychopath killer. For this reason, the movie seemed more realistic. Also, there were not many blood splattering and body parts everywhere like most modern films which makes it very disgusting rather than scary. The killing was simple, by gun or knife. Today, the type of killings that occur in films these days occur in many different and disgusting ways. The movie was old-fashioned because there were no cuts in the film. Some modern day films try to be creative by using different time styles which confuses me. For instance, they would go back and forth in time zones and this would just throw me off track. The Saddist on the other hand uses a chronological time frame which made it very easy to keep up with. What was unique about the movie was that the movie took place in one spot unlike many modern day thrillers would have. Some recent thriller movies shows the psychopaths goes to many different places to kill their victims. Also, modern thrillers shows the psychopaths travels around to look for their victims. In addition, modern thrillers psychopaths usually hide out and creep up on their victims or stalk them before they kill them. Another thing is modern day thrillers is that psychopaths seems more clever. For instance, they seem to always be one step ahead of their victims. The Saddist was different in that the psychopath killed people who happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time. They accidently had ran into this psychopath instead of the psychopath going around looking to prey on his victims. He just came into the scene like a normal guy. I thought the killer at first was just a regular bad boy street type, I didn’t know he was going to commit all of those murders and tortures. He was not that bright or clever like most modern thrillers in that he kept on bargaining with his victims. The modern psychopaths in most films today usually just kills without even speaking. The only thing I found annoying in this film that still exists in modern day thrillers is that every time the victims have a chance to escape they ruin it. For example, the lady who was starting the car while the man was fixing it could have ran over the psychopath and taken off. Also, when she screamed after she saw the dead bodies, the psychopath heard her and knew were she was hiding. Finally, every time they run they seem to trip and fall. Overall, the movie was good. (Reply to this) (Thread)

Shivani Narayan (Anonymous) 2007-03-12 01:29 (link)

I liked this movie, at first tihs movie seemed to be boring but towards the ending i was kind of curious about what will happen to the husband and wife. This movie was more of a funny type than a scary movie. I thought that this movie was going to be scary. I expected the characters to be at different time frame like being at one place then going to another. I was hoping that they would go to different places because i kind a got tired watching the same scene for 2 hours. Some funny scenes were when Charlie was running after that married girl and that girl would just stand there and scream. She started to run after screaming for 2 minutes. Another one was when she was hiding from charlie by the brick wall and charlie had seen her. Instead of killing her right away he had hinted the girl that he had found he by showing the knife. If he really wanted to kill her he would have killed her right away without wasting time. The black and white movies that i had watched before was boring and didn't make sense. But this movie was something different because of the time sequence and the crazy guy. The thing about this movie that was different than any other white movie was that this can happen in real life. Theres probably alot of psycho in this world, and they probably do the same thing that charlie did. This movie was old fashion because none of the scene was cut, it was just one whole long scene. I kind of get how this movie is kind of linked to The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Saw, and Hostel. Judy was getting on my nerves, especially her laugh. I wanted to slap her so bad. She has a heck of a mental problem. She's really annoying. (Reply to this) (Thread)

"MoNiiKaY" ZaVaLa (Anonymous) 2007-03-12 02:29 (link)

I think that the popularity of televisions in the 1960's brought about this intense fear in people. When we watched the documentary of the '60s, i realized that this was actually the first time that people were able to witness brutal events, such as the assasination of JFK. It's one thing to hear something horrible on the radio, but it is so much more intense and real when you actually witness it with your very own eyes. I think that at this point in time, people are starting to realize that you are never actually safe, and your very own neighbor down the street can cause harm to you. Being scared of monsters, dracula, blobs...that is all a thing of the past now. You no longer fear it, instead, its people that you need to watch out for. "The Saddist" is a perfect example of this new fear that people have. Who would ever surmise that a regular trip to a Dodger game would be the day that they would be held hostage and murdered? Seriously, why should life be like that? I recently watched a news special with John Stosel, and it was about how people fear things that they shouldnt, such as the threat of terrorism and shark attacks. The special said that we should focus our fears on things that have a greater chance of happening, such as a heart attack or global warming. I agree that we constantly live in fear of things that we really shouldn't, but the world is so dangerous now, or that is what we are made to believe thanks to the media, so it seems that we have no choice but to be afraid. I thought that the use of foreshadowing with the snake skin was clever, however I didnt pay much attention to it at the beginning. I simply got annoyed with the female teacher for being so wimpy, but as it turned out, the snakes were the only thing that were actually able to stop Charley. Thats really funny how the cops couldn't stop him, but a few snakes could. Anyway, I also thought that it was cool how, as you pointed out Mr. Leibner, that the movie took place in real time. I think that it added to the intensity of the movie, because while the minutes were winding down for the characters, I was on the edge of my seat, hoping that they would come up with a way to save themselves before their allotted amount of time was up. As for the Coke scene, I swear, I was so nervous for the poor teacher and I wanted Charley to drink the Coke slower, just so that the teacher could live longer. I doubted that Charley would actually kill the guy, but when he did I was shocked. I felt that this film was similar to modern day thrillers, because the hostages did the stupidest things ever, and they had functional fixedness. They had plenty of objects around them to take down Charley and his girlfriend, but they were so scared that they were unable to think clearly. I knew that one of them would manage to escape, because in every thriller movie I have scene, all of the characters die, except for one, which is usually the girl. The girls just end up being the smartest one i guess. I think the only thing that I noticed that was sort of "old fashioned" was the fact that Charlie and his girlfriend used a little gun and a knife to keep their victims in fear. Now, we have chainsaws to slice your head off, machine guns to blow your brains out, and we use cars to run you over. OMG! they needed a cell phone. If only one of them had a cell...they could've called 911. But then they probably wouldnt have gotten service in that dump, unless they had Verizon or whatever. Overall, I enjoyed the movie! =] (Reply to this) (Thread)

(Anonymous) 2007-03-12 02:39 (link)

What were your thoughts on this film? Well this film was very akward but with an intresting touch. You have a film that compares nothing to todays film. It is film in one day with a an immense touch of reality. You dont see alot of blood, nude people, change in scenes. The film is not so much of horror, that youre closing your eyes or screaming but it catches your attention with the characters action and mentality.THe movie was made like you were going along with it and not so fast. Like their here one minute. and now it night and theire sleeping.The movie played like it would in a real sitution. It left you wondering..like ok..whats IS really going to happen...where in others movies is ovious. This movie was kept simple but witrh eye catching sensation. How does this film compare to modern day thriller films you've seen? This film doesnt fully compare with todays film AT ALL..but it does in some aspects. Such as the location,sitution,villin,deaths,survivor. Is what usually happens in the story. You have a group of people that end up with a car promblem in the middle of a road. They have to stop and find help Then you have the location, that looks creepy and lonely. Making the film look more intresting.Through out the story someone alwasy has to die.They patrionize the innocent till one of them ha sto die unfortunately..=[. At the end someon always has to survie to tell the story and give watchers rewarding feeling that the villin didnt get away with their crime. An last but not least the villin, who is the one that makes the story what it is..grabs viewers attention. What about this film seemed particularly "old-fashioned"? What seemed old fahioned was how the film was made. The introduction, how the movie was introduced. You dont have any caption explaning the story or location. The film was black and white, no color at all. Leaving the viewers to use their imagination. The crops used in the films and the characters. You have an era of 60 and 70. The fashion,cars and the enviroment are old fashion compare to todays film.You have the characters dressed well and the scenes very realistic What seemed modern? What was done in a unique and different way? I think was seemes modern was car of the police. An also how everytime you think someone is going to be rescue.they are killed and you are back in the same place where you started. Whats seemed modern was the location thats includes the house,cars, and gas station.An also the part where the girl is running from the villin..classical scene..which i loved..=]. creates tension and desperation!!What was done in a unique way was how it was film. All in one shot and not changing scenes. the movie to was also film with this simple point to it..and not how in today film you have this dramtic scenes with all thsi actions all over the film. Thsi movie creates the tension when it really needs it. like in teh beginning all you see is the charlie standing there pointing a gin and telling them what do to..not much of an action..but at the end..wow..=].it was eye catching nad very enjoyable..=] Michelle Jara March 11.2007 humanities (Reply to this) (Thread)

Robyann Jumaoas (Anonymous) 2007-03-12 19:12 (link)

The Sadist was an interesting film, which also shocked me. Probably, if I was watching this movie during the era of the sixties, I would be surprised and wonder why it’s being shown. Like you said, the only things being shown in that time and before, were films of happy, stereotypical families. I think a horror like this would just wipe out the goodness in all of what has been shown at that time. So I’m guessing this movie was like the “godfather” of all horror films today. I also think that the title is perfect for this film. With some other movies, I sometimes don’t understand why that’s the title. Of course what’s common in all horrors is the suspense. The “edge-of-your seat” moments. I admit, in this movie there were some scenes where I just had to shout at the screen because of the character’s behaviors. Another thing I found common was the role of the characters. The killer, always sticks out. What I mean is that, there’s always something about the character that’ll stick with you. For the killer in this movie, Charlie, the thing that stood out most, was the expression of his face, and his laugh. In movies today, for example, Freddie Crooger. The thing we can remember about him is his messed up face and the glove with blades that he wears. Another example is the movie Scream. The killer wore the mask. Also, the roles of the people are the same. The helpless woman, and the big tough man. In almost all horror films, there’s always a woman running helplessly away from the killer and then after she runs a couple of feet, they always fall. (I’ve seen this so many times) and there’s always a man trying to be the tough guy, trying to protect the lady and talking to the killer. What seemed particularly “old-fashion” in this film was of course, it was in black and white, but not only that. The way they dressed and also the way they were killed. In old films, the killer always confronts the victims with the weapon in their hand. Nowadays, the killer will always be sneaky and work around the victim and also the audience. In most films today, the killers are always mysterious and sometimes the ones that wouldn’t seem to be. But in this film, the killer was just straight up in their faces holding a weapon. I think in most of the scenes where Charlie took advantage of the victims with his weapon, the victims could have done something to take away the weapon from his hands. I like that you pointed out that this whole movie was in the same time sequence. I didn’t really notice until after you said that. I think that’s cool. I can’t name any other movies that have done anything like this. When you think of it, this movie was very sudden. It was very straight to the point. It didn’t include scenes like before the victims were going to the game like in another setting instead of being in the car. It just vaguely mentioned that they were going to see a game, but it didn’t show a big scene explaining that. Made me realize that you don’t have to expose every little detail. Overall, I thought this movie was okay. There were some scenes that were funny, like when the lady would run and fall and just her behavior overall. There were a couple of scenes where I just didn’t see that coming, like when the old man dying and the big tough guy dying. When the big tough guy died, that shocked me a lot because I thought he was going to live until the end of the movie. I didn’t feel this way for the old man because he didn’t have much of an important role. I just realized what the foreshadowing was in this movie. It was the snakes part. In the beginning, the lady was scared of the ,what looked to be like a real, live snake. And ironically, Charley died or was trapped in a ditch with a bunch of snakes. (Reply to this) (Thread)

Patricia Silva (Anonymous) 2007-03-12 21:56 (link)

When seeing this movie I wasn't scared because in this day and time these kinds of movies are nothing new but I could definitely see how this could have freaked people who have never seen the kind of thing in the 60s. Charlie himself made the movie scary because his face looked really strange. Then his and Judy's frequent laughter made the situation the hostages were in seem more frightful because it made it seem like it was all a game for Charlie and Judy. This film compares to modern day thrillers by the way it starts with the victims ending up in deserted place were something doesn't seem quite right and then at the end when there is a hide and seek moment between the victim and the psycho. At least one chase scene is also mandatory in any thriller film like the one between Doris and Charlie. Those are three elements that all thriller/horror movies seem to share even if their villains and plots are completely different. The main aspect that made this movie seem old-fashioned was the fact that there was hardly any gore which is something that a lot of thrillers today heavily rely on. This film didn't tend to focus on the physical torture but instead more emotional torture was used. Things like the tearing of the baseball tickets, the soda bottle scene, and when the radio was turned on to the baseball game were really good scenes to show emotional torture. Those kinds of methods aren't used too much in the kinds of modern films I see. The way some of the characters acted mainly Doris made the movie seem old-fashioned as well. In thriller films seen today female victims act like Doris in some ways like their tendency to scream constantly but they are also portrayed more independent then Doris was. The movie being black and white also gives it the old-fashioned feel. The movie seemed more modern because both Charlie and Judy were everyday kind of people. This makes the film seem more real and therefore more scary. This are the kinds of movies that having you looking over your shoulder as you walk along the street and paranoid every time that a car passes you by, well at least when the movie is still fresh in your memory. I thought that the fact that Charlie’s past wasn’t explicitly revealed but was only hinted at was unique. In a lot of thriller films that I’ve seen the phsycos motives for becoming what they are always revealed as a way to show their weakness but in this film the only time you get to see into Charlie’s past is when Doris tells him that he isn’t human. The way the camera was angled in certain parts of the film also made it unique like at the beginning of the film when Judy and Charlie first come in you just see the gun and hear their voices in the background. Although the snake pit at the end wasn't a speical angle I thought it was cool who they showed close ups of the snakes, then a close up of Charlie's terrified face and then we just hear his cries of pain. (Reply to this) (Thread)

Cilla!! (Anonymous) 2007-03-12 23:16 (link)

What I liked most about this film was how mostly every scary movie that entertains us in our everyday lives originate from a simple old film like this one. While watching the movie I didn't even think about how there were absolutely no cuts throughout the whole film and how it all happened in one day and in one place. Everything happened in an instant and the movie both started and ended in the same exact place. The Sadist is one hilarious movie that might not catch the audience's attention at first, but once Charlie starts chuckling and traumatizing his victims, that is where the fun begins. What I first thought about the movie once it ended was how the women still played a "second role" through the whole movie. Both women would stay behind their man and would follow everything they would tell them to do. They had no say in their actions and I also think they weren't really a big importance in the movie. Even in movies today, woman still follow the "man" and live up to be next to their man until the day that they die. I think the difference between this film and daily modern films is the visual scenes and music. In modern great films like the saw films, there is much more blood and death with an ending that usually leave the audience in suspense. The music in modern films is also much more creepy and dark that also leaves the audience tense and tied in their seats as each second passes by. In The Sadist, there wasn't really any music playing in the background and a lot of blood. I think "old fashioned films" are much more realistic than the modern day films. What I found to be similar in every thriller is how the victim always has a chance to get away but always tend to do what their killer wants them to do. In the film, the woman had many chances escape, but she mostly depended on the young teacher to tell her what to do. Even in today's films, the audience yell at the characters in the movie and always seem to ruin it. At first, i didn't know what Sadist meant until i got home. What i didn't get was how Charlie still cared about his girlfriend and how he cried when she died when a sadist is someone who doesn't care about no one and enjoys seeing people die in many different gruesome ways. I guess every psychopath cares at least about one person no matter how evil they are. I like how the films get much more gruesome and intense as the years pass by. I would think people from the 60s thought this movie was very scary since movies before the 60s were mostly happy and not so intense. I think a lot people didn't like the The Sadist because they thought about it as boring and stupid, but that's only because we all have higher expectations of "thrillers". I think overall, the movie was good and funny. (Reply to this) (Thread)

Rainelee Bernardino (Anonymous) 2007-03-13 00:44 (link)

--I thought this film was very interesting and I can understand why it was such a shock to society in the 1960s. Instead of using fictional characters such as Frankenstein, Dracula, Swamp Thing, etc., the villain of the film is an actual real life person who could be anyone in society. Plus, during this time, the country was undergoing cultural changes that challenged the status quo of the 1950s. I really liked how this film kept me in suspense almost throughout the entire showing. I usually don't like black and white films, but the story line and suspense made up for it. I give "The Sadist" two thumbs up for it's superb suspense. --This film had depicted and exposed reality in a way that struck its audience with fear. It probably brought back memories of the past and reminded society of the once desperate murderer of 1958, Charles Starkweather. I think this is how the film, "The Sadist" compares to modern day thriller films I've seen. Many of the thriller movies that I have watched all have the bad guy as a real person and some of the thriller movies happen to be based on a true story. What really makes the film scary is the "true" part. It's like adding hot sauce to a burrito. It just does something to spice things up..it hypes things up. Examples of today's true life stories are movies such as "The Exorcist", "Hannibal", etc. The way these films make us feel are probably about the same way films such as "The Sadist" made the audience of its time feel. --This film seemed particularly old-fashioned because it was in black and white, props such as the wardrobe of the actors, the cars, the gun, the coke glasses and ice box, etc. Also, there were only WHITE ACTORS in the film. These days there's at least one black guy even if he doesn't have a big part or is just an extra. Plus the chase scenes and attempted fights were so weak. In movies today, there's more violence and even the chicks can fight! --What seemed modern about the film wasn't really much except the idea that anyone could be a psychopathic murderer and anything can happen to anyone at anytime. It's the whole, "It could never happen to me" mentality crushed by the reality of, "YES IT CAN!! IF IT CAN HAPPEN TO THEM, IT CAN HAPPEN TO YOU!!" fact. --What I notice about the uniqueness of the film is that the whole time period in the film is consistent with the time period of watching the film (I hope that made sense). Let me try that again, we watched the film in about two hours. Therefore, the time going on in the film is also about two hours. --This film was pretty good Leibner. Thanks, I enjoyed it. (Reply to this) (Thread)

Lily I. (Anonymous) 2007-03-13 22:14 (link)

This film was very different as compared with other films. The suspense in this film kept building-up more and more as the film went on. When the credits showed, I particularly liked the background, with everything dark, and nothing able to be seen except for the frightening eyes of, one supects, the Sadist. When the movie started, I got kind of irritated because nothing scary was happening. There was too much "boring" talk at the beginning, an not much action going on. But, like I said, suspense slowly went building up during the movie. I really liked the character of Judy because the fact that she did not say nor do anything but smile made her creepy and scary. She did not have to do much in order for people to be kind of frightened by her. On the other hand, Charlie's "baby face" makes him look as if he would not hurt a fly. His actions make him look as if her were a dumb person, but the way that he handles the victims and keeps them alert and frightened, proves otherwise. When I saw him, I kind of felt sorry for him, but after a while, his laugh made him creepy and scary and the ones I felt sorry for were the teachers. What made this film old fashioned was, first of all, that it was shown in black and white. Any movie made in black and white gives the audience the idea of it being old, or at least in "old" times. Also, in the old days, women were viewed as "delicate flowers" who couldn't even think for themselves, and the female teacher is a perfect example of how society viewed women in the past. This made me feel sad because women are capable of doing more than just running in front of the car in which the killer is in. What was surprizing to me was that the "naive victim" was the one that survived, and the men died. Also, when Charlie got trapped with the snakes, the female victim did not seem to panic that she was "alone" in a deserted place and other psycho path killers could pop out of no where, just like Charlie did, to begin with. Throughout the movie, the female teacher seemed very worried and dramatic. At the end, I expected her to continue acting dramatic, especially at the end, being all alone, and "surrounded" by dead people. Today, there are still movies in which people's cars stop in deserted places, particularly near an "abandoned" home, and the people have to get help from strangers, and later come face to face with psycho killers, or allusions that seem real, which end up killing most of the victims, and only the a few survive. (Reply to this) (Thread)

Van Ardon (Anonymous) 2007-03-14 00:50 (link)

To be honest for the most part of the movie i was pretty bored, but if you analize the movie, its unique for its time, considering that draculas, and frankensteins dominated horror films in the 60s, so this one is different and that's why it didn't make it to the big screen because its different, which tells a lot about the society at the time, a society that didn't accept change too easily, if it wasn't the norms, people didn't accept it smoothly as compare to now, pretty much everything has been done, maybe not everything but a lot of situations have been made into movies, so its not a big deal. But back then, it was. The movie was boring to me at this time, but i dont know how it would've been if i was to watch it from the 60's in the drive thru, maybe i would have had nightmares or something, or wouldn't want to go to the dessert, u know what i mean, traumatized. But i have to be honest it was boring for most of the time, i do admit that the coke/soda pop scene was a classic, but i guess the acting was corny to me, wasn't believable on the part of the lady teacher, she was overacting too much..but the villian characters gotta be ahead of their time, especially Judy, she seems like an actress from our era now, something about her showed me that she was a natural at what she was doing, but the retarded killer was more of a joke than scary, ANd the music was a lil off and i think that it is different to have the same scene in real time, but it also worked against the film, it kinda dragged on, basically it was unique for its own time, and uncommon in its story, but maybe what im tryin to say is that i wasn't really entertained like i wanted to be. but i give it props because like you said mr. leiber it probably paved the way for all the psychopath films that we see nowadays. (Reply to this) (Thread)

Marthina Cinco (Anonymous) 2007-03-14 01:04 (link)

At first I thought it wouldn't be so interesting considering that it was made during the early 1960s. For me, the movie started off really slow and I didn't know what to expect. As the movie progressed, I realized that this movie builds up, instead of other movies that I've watched, where we're somehow already told of what's going to happen. This is nothing like the modern day thriller films I've seen. Unlike the modern day thrillers, this movie isn't all about gorry or gruesome killings. It's suspenseful and the deaths aren't done in a way where it would scare the viewers. Charley just shot his victims. What I liked what the soda scene, where when he finished his soda, he kills his victim. The only thing I thought was old-fashioned about the movie was the killings, or how it was shot. It wasn't really shown. Like with the teacher, it was a side shot and the girlfriend, his vision was blurred. The motorcycles seemed modern because there are policemen that still use those types. The guns are still modern as well. The most unique thing about this film is that it's done in real time, where there aren't scenes from another day or any flashbacks. The scene starts at 12pm and ends around 1:30pm. Not even once did the movie stop rolling. (Reply to this) (Thread)

LUIS TAMAYO (Anonymous) 2007-03-14 01:23 (link)

When watching the beginning of the film, you expect it to be very dry and boring. The only reason the movie would seem boring, was due to the fact that the “victims” were middle-aged people. This film definitely caught my attention, because of its great suspense. I was literally at the edge of my seat, waiting to see what was going to happen next, and this film made you wait. However, the film made you want to see every second of what was happening. In modern day thrillers we generally see teenagers, in the typical slasher movie. The Sadist wouldn’t be so prevalent today, but it has paved the way for serious psychological thrillers. However, there wasn’t much depth into the killer’s motive for doing what he did. Nowadays we get an inside look at why the serial killers are butchering people. This film may not compare greatly with younger audiences, but it sure tops films today because of the suspense it gives you. The whole film is considered old-fashioned, except for the fact that it is a psychological thriller. The language spoken by the characters was very “old-fashioned”, and some of the comedy used might not have been understood. The no guts and blood, just bang bang you’re dead is pretty old-fashioned, compared to now where in order to die you must have at least one body part cut off. The whole idea of the film is modern because you surely did not see a movie where the villain antagonizes his victims. The timing was unique, as pointed out in class, because the film runs consecutively unlike every other film. Overall the genre of this film is definitely common today because our mindset is evolving; no longer do want to see sex, guts, and blood. We want to see suspense, guts, and blood, with the occasional sex scene here or there. (Reply to this) (Thread)

Stephanie Bertulano (Anonymous) 2007-03-14 01:45 (link)

Too be honest, I thought this movie was going to be boring since it's old and isn't in color. I also thought it was going to be predictable since most of the movies now somehow reflect those movies from the past. The ending wasn't something I expected-- Charlie being killed by rattlesnakes. I thought it would be the normal getting killed by one of the captives or by the police. This film is very different from modern day thriller films because it lacks the special effects that enhance the scenes. It is also filmed in one area in one day; nowadays, thriller films usually last a couple of days before everyone or most of the people are killed. Modern day films usually have deformed or deranged killers, but this film had a normal looking person. The actors in this film also lacked projection causing their emotion when speaking to shown less evident. The only old-fashioned things I saw in this film was the obvious black and white, same scene setting, the scene where Charlie hurts the captives didn't really look convincing, and it felt like something was missing. The thing that seemed modern was the usual killer chasing after the captives, the part where only one captive is able to run away, and how they are always tortured before they are later killed. The unique thing about this film was that it had unexpected twists like Charlie drinking the soda-- it resembled his actions in a way where the main characters knew that something bad was going to happen once the coke was finished. Another unique thing about this movie was that it took place only on one day, yet it still remained interesting even thought the scene setting was pretty much the same throughout the entire movie. (Reply to this) (Thread)

Maria David (Anonymous) 2007-03-14 02:31 (link)

I can honestly say The Sadist was unlike any other vintage horror film that i've seen before and can definatly see how this horror film broke the boundaries for the "normal" horror film of past generations. This one film presented the idea that people as ordinary as a teenage boy and his girlfriend can be capable of such cruel and sadistic torture completly blew the minds of the sixties and seventies generations. The mere thought of ordinary people that you could meet on the street or in your neighborhood wanting to commit such gutless torture on any ordinary passerby scared the hell out of people. Why? Because of the thought that the ordinary passerby could be them.... It was a break from the "normal" horror films of the supernatural creatures created "accidentally" by the crazed scientists of that era. Instead the generation was given a dose of reality and a new perception of how they view life. Although The Sadist broke out of the old fashioned horror films it still held some traditional roles such as the ditzy damsal in distress or the masculine savyour of the day. The film for the time was genuinly unique and paved the way for modern films of today. (Reply to this) (Thread)

	I)\ (Anonymous) 2007-03-14 02:32 (link)
	Everyone typed so much! WOW! (Reply to this) (Thread)

Ricahrd Rodriguez (Anonymous) 2007-03-14 02:58 (link)

I thought that the film was honestly in a way boring because it is not like any horror movie produced today. It did have a few intresting scenes like the "soda bottle" scene which did have me on the edge of my seat. I expected the movie to be more terrifying and suspensful but it really wasnt because of our mentality today. I understand how people in the 60`s saw this film as a horror flick because it introduced a new type of scary film where the creature can be anyone. The film placed a lot of fear in peoples mind thinking that their neighbor could have been a psychopatic killer and it was also during the times were believing your neighbors were communist was a common thing and it no one had trust in anyone. The Sadist compared to movies made today would not scare a young child or even in that case anyone at all. Movies made today, thanks to technology have made a big impact on horror movies making them scarier as the times go by. We might have movies with better blood scenes or suspenful scenes but the only thing movies today do not have that older ones do is an original story plot. Our movies today are mostly new versions of movies that have been done before like "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre". These movies are all the same compared to it's older versions except for its visual of course but besides that the whole story plot is the same. The first thing i noticed in the film that i believed was old fashioned was the soda machines and the soda bottle itself. One thing I believed that is modern today that was shown in the movie was the way the teacher was counting the number of shoots the killer had done. In some movies today there are characters that do count the number of bullets that have been fired of a handgun. The one thing that was done in a unique way that i never noticed anyother movie do was how he movie was done in one single timeframe. There were no cutscenes that led to a night scene or morning scene throught out the movie it was shown like if it was real because from the time the movie started until the movie ended the movie was played throughout one whole afternoon. (Reply to this) (Thread)

crystal yeeeah, cuh [; (Anonymous) 2007-03-14 03:20 (link)

though the sadist is an onld black and white film, it suprisingly didn't bore me much. instead, it really had me on the edge of my seat, anicipating what would happen next and laugh at the pathetic damsal in distress. we all laugh about it now, but i can definately see and understand why this movie wasn't played in theatres. it increases the paranoia of everyday people and decreases the trust in strangers. when old folks compare the news today to the news back in the day they're always saying how much friendlier, nicer and compassionate everyone use to be and how malicious this generation is. i found it hilarious to see that woman scream only because in today's films, the women are actually trying to be smart to save their lives and in the modern films where you have that girl do that particular scream, it's usually to appeal to the audience's humor, resulting in a "stupid broad" comment with a chuckle. the way that charlie kills his victims also differs greatly in today's films. all the horror/psychological thrillers of this generation are definitely more gorey. there's blood everywhere and it's only an element to the suspense of the scene. charlie just shot his victims, big whoop.. but with movies like Saw, the intensity of a life/death situation escalates immensely. the "soda bottle" scene i found seemed to be modern. the concept of a time counting down, like an hour glass in depicted in many thiller films today to intensify the suspense. as discussed in class the fact that the whole film was shot in real time was definately something different to me, i can't think of a film i have ever seen before that was film the same way. i think that it adds to the suspense a bit. (Reply to this) (Thread)

Jeffery Armellino (Anonymous) 2007-03-14 03:28 (link)

+At first, I didn’t agree with the film. It was said to be a wonderful change and a fantastic movie, but I wasn’t able to see it as one. However, as the film progressed, I became more and more involved in it. It became apparent that such topics had never before been explored in films. +The Sadist was a particularly interesting film, what with the whole concept of "real time". Not many movies feature such a thing anymore. In fact, not many have at all. The film was unlike any other I’d ever seen because the style of it really shows you how psychotic people can be. This quickly reminds me of Wolf Creek; another horror movie with a similar plot. Almost the same thing happens to both sets of travelers. In Wolf Creek, three people (1 man and 2 women) set off on a road trip to Wolf Creek. They stop to hike down a giant crater, but while they’re gone, their vehicle is sabotaged by a maniacal serial killer who then poses as a random passerby that wants to help. Even though Charley didn’t pose as a helper, he did try to kill them in the same fashion. Other similar films include Saw 1-3. In Saw, Jigsaw wants to punish people for their wrongdoings. However, he doesn’t just threaten to kill his victims, he sets them up with strange contraptions that frighten, and confuse them. +The fact that this film was introduced in the 60s is basically why everyone sees it as an “old-fashioned” movie. It was filmed in black and white, horrible acting, stalling cars, and clothing all contributed to the “old-fashioned” look of the film. +The only thing that seemed modern to me was Charley. The reason for his modern look is that whenever you think of the 60s, you never think of crazy, murderous, villains. You always think of joyous things, like hippies, flowers, disco dancing. However, when you think of today’s society, you’re prone to think about criminals and murders. Therefore, Charley, being a psycho he is, would fit in this day and age. +The most unique aspect of this film was the concept of time; real time. This intrigued me because I’ve never seen a movie feature such a thing. (Reply to this) (Thread)

Katherine Atehortua (Anonymous) 2007-03-14 03:59 (link)

Before the movie even started I thought it was going to be very boring because it’s an old black and white movie. In the “soda pop scene” I really didn’t expect to be at the edge of my seat trying to figure out what was going to happen next. Charlie was a very odd killer and what was up with Judy. All she did was dance around and giggled like a little girl. I really wished the film gave us some background information on Charlie and Judy. Like why did they start killing people in the first place, or even how he and Judy got together. I really liked the suspense in the movie and the background music tied in very well with the scenes. Even in today’s days films they always have the characters get into some type of car problem and they end up in the middle of nowhere, running into some crazy people and then trying to get away. The whole killer chasing and catching up to the victim also made it modern. But I expected the Lady to die first and as it turned out she was the only one to survive. I thought the guy working on the car was the one that was going to live and I knew the older teacher had to get hurt. The film was made in a very old fashion way. The way they dressed and there language. I have never seen a movie that doesn’t cut off scenes, the whole timeframe was very unique. In today’s films they jump from one day to another and that sometimes has me confused. But overall it wasn’t as boring as I thought it was going to be. A good film from the 60’s. (Reply to this) (Thread)

(Anonymous) 2007-03-14 11:19 (link)

Honestly when I first started to see the movie I thought It was going to be boring. But then again that is just me cause I dont like watching scary movies. But my thoughts first of all about the movie was when i then started to focus on the movie i just wanted to tell the characters to leave. Especially the girl. She would escape then stop the Charley would find her and try to attack her. I just felt like telling her to run and yet she would saty there like dumb. But first of all my thoughts toward this movie was that when i then actually started to watch the movie it seemed like The Texas Chainsaw Massacre. This film like i said Is being compared The Texas Chain Saw Massacre. I just recently watched the movie and towards the end of the movie i was comparing the two movies. Except Oviously this movie was classic. Yet i thought it was still scary. But the difference that The Texas Chain Saw Massacre was more modern. The movie was really bloody and more of scary. The man also was even more scary he wasn't a normal guy like Charley. Charley was just a natural guy but the other one was his face deformed and his face was all bloody. What was done more of a unique way in this old fashioned movie was that from the start to the movie till the end of the movie is that it didnt cut at all to any other scene. That is what i discovered more unique in this movie. Comparing to movies now these days all the movies cut and go to other scenes. But this movie was just a run movie that is cool at the same time cause sometimes when a movie cuts to another scene it gets me anxious just thinking what is going to happen next. (Reply to this) (Thread)

(Anonymous) 2007-03-14 12:14 (link)

I thought that this film was pretty good because they don’t try really hard o scare you, I guess because the standard scary movie was different back then. It was also really kind of frustrating because the you keep wondering why the characters do what they do, at times it seems that they were doing really stupid things and it seemed like they wanted to get caught, like towards the end where they were being chased and after Judy died, the lady kept screaming at every little thing, it made you think that she meant to get caught, nothing was that scary, but back in 1963 I guess the it was. In a way I found it different from the modern day thriller because in modern films there is a lot more blood and the killings are just random and with many different types of weapons, and there is usually fire in there somewhere. This movie is old fashioned because you don’t really get scared, and there really isn’t any swearing in this movie, unlike most films we have today. The only thing that really seemed modern was that it didn’t really have the happiest ending, in the old movies, is always the happiest ending, there is jus an ending that was unexpected, because you think that they will all get out of it w/ a few scratches and then they live happily after, but that was not the case this time. The unique thing about this movie was that the strong main character hero died, I expected him to get out of it with the girl and then they get married or something, it seemed that way in the beginning. (Reply to this) (Thread)

	Diana Munoz (Anonymous) 2007-03-14 12:17 (link)
	that was me up there. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

monica brooke (Anonymous) 2007-03-14 16:02 (link)

At first I thought the film was really boring and not scary at all. however i started looking at it in a perspective from the audience 40 years ago.I can see how it is considered a classic. The film is about three school teachers (two men and one woman)who get stranded at an abandoned gas station. There they encounter Charlie Tibbs a psycho who goes on a killing spree and his mute girlfriend Judy.After the death of one man they are forced to undergo humiliation and somewhat torture from the hands of their captors. Soon after the death of two policemen they try to make a run for it. The plan fails and the man,Ed, is killed trying to take down charlie.Judy was killed by charlie due to gasoline being squirted in his eyes and mistaking her for the woman,paige.Paige is folowed by charlie and almost taken down but he fall in a snake pit.Then she is able to walk to saftey. overall it was a good film. It was impressing to see that the film never shot to a different time. Although the film was very predicable at times,i did think that it was funny and entertaining. (Reply to this) (Thread)

Joel Pollack (Anonymous) 2007-03-14 16:53 (link)

Sequences of irony can be found throughout the Sadist. The 52 year old man (Carl Oliver) mentions "I'm glade we broke down where we did and when we did, or we might have been in worse trouble yet." Little does he know of the horrific action about to take place. Scenes when the radio was broadcasting the baseball game with the crowd cheering and having a good time was dramatic irony, especially since the three of them were supposed to be there, instead they were being tortured while struggling to keep themselves alive. At the end Charlie Tibs finally reaps what he sows. The pit of snakes that he falls into represents the pit of hell and well deserved punishment of his crimes. The merciless, sadistic bitting of the snakes on Tibs corresponds with the way he treated his victims. It is difficult to be frightened by watching the Sadist because we are desensitized by todays movies (intense violence, sex, blood, gore, superior graphics and sound effects). But I'm sure that if were watching it at the time of its release I would have been frightened. The cinematographer Vilmos Zsigmond did a great job considering what he had to work with. I like the camera angles around or over fences and between cars. The scenery that he created plays a big role in the plot and effect, it gives a spacious secluded and yet claustrophobic feeling. Your too far for anyone to help and yet too enclosed with the person wanting to kill you. Movies like Texas Chainsaw Massacre and the Hills Have Eyes take after movies like the Sadist. Being based off the real life killer, 17 year old Charlie Stark and his 14 year old girlfriend Caril Fugate for a motion picture back then was frightening, original and genius. (Reply to this) (Thread)

liz casillas (Anonymous) 2007-03-18 20:13 (link)

The title “the sadist” gives away the film. Many people may not have caught this but it caught my attention, so I looked it up. A sadist is a type of person who gains pleasure while inflecting pain on other people either mentally or physically. With that in mind, we now have a sense of some cruel intentions which are going to take place during the film. Prior to the 1960’s there where no film based on the human monster within. The horror films that people where used to seeing where mainly based on made up supernatural creatures. But that wasn’t the case for the sadist.scenes in which Charley tortured the teachers for no reason is what made this film so intense. Another scene such as the bottle scene climaxed the views into thinking that this film could possibly true. Because there are people in the world like that, that show no mercy. It’s the sad reality. Yet the scene which most caught my attention was the scene where charley gets gasoline shot into his face. It caught my attention because that was the only scene through out the film where it was filmed with a hand held camera. That little detail made the scene seem more realistic because the audience is actually about to see whats going on through charley point of view. Overall, id have to say that this film didn’t interest me much. In a sense it bored me at times, since that whole movie was shot in one location. i need diversity!!! (Reply to this) (Thread)

(Anonymous) 2007-03-21 13:23 (link)

This was a really interesting movie. The thing that interested me more was the the movie was filmed all in on take. Even though the movie was black and white it was a good movie. I always thought that black and white movies were boring. I always preferred to watch a color movie. But when I was watching this movie I was so into it that I didn't even pay attention to the color of the film. I think that this movie is a little like "psycho", because Julie and Charley were both psycho. They didn't have no kind of feelings torturing and killing anyone. To julie and Charley everything was like a joke. They even would time them with the soda bottle. In conclusion, I really like this film a lot and I hope to see more horror films like this one. Ialso think that you should so us the "psycho movies", the old version and the new version so that we can compare it. (Reply to this) (Thread)

erika cerda (Anonymous) 2007-03-21 13:26 (link)

This was a really interesting movie. The thing that interested me more was the the movie was filmed all in on take. Even though the movie was black and white it was a good movie. I always thought that black and white movies were boring. I always preferred to watch a color movie. But when I was watching this movie I was so into it that I didn't even pay attention to the color of the film. I think that this movie is a little like "psycho", because Julie and Charley were both psycho. They didn't have no kind of feelings torturing and killing anyone. To julie and Charley everything was like a joke. They even would time them with the soda bottle. In conclusion, I really like this film a lot and I hope to see more horror films like this one. Ialso think that you should so us the "psycho movies", the old version and the new version so that we can compare it. (Reply to this) (Thread)

matthew spears (Anonymous) 2007-04-11 00:37 (link)

i didn't like this movie. sure it was the first of its kind. i guess its because i don't like scary movies to begin with but this movie wasn't even that scary. comparing it to modern scary movies, i can see that a lot of ideas were just remade over and over again. i guess there hasn't been a lot of originality lately. I'm sure many people would think "ohh its not about monsters killing people its about people killing people." so they would spend the next couple of days or weeks watching their neighbors and whoever just to see if they were serial killers as well. that kind of thing didn't affect me because I've seen too many movies like this one. to be honest I'd probably enjoy a movie about monsters better today because that would be a little different. to me focusing on the "monster" in the human has become the norm in modern scary movies. what was old fashioned? to me the sound quality was. it's hard for me to here what there saying in these old movies. in its time it was unique because of its ideas it put out but by todays standards its just like every other movie. (Reply to this) (Thread)

Jose Abad (Anonymous) 2007-04-15 23:28 (link)

When the film first began i thought it was going to be sooooo corny, (it kind of was) but i still liked it. Thank god for this movie. sor else we would've have saw, hostel, silence of the lambs, and many more films in which the murderer was human. it was a nice way to start out the class. Compared to modern day films, it was pretty simple but it was effective in exposing the monster in humans. It had alot of the typical situations that we see in alot of todays thrillers, a car breaking down, going to a disserted area, then having some quack trying to kill everyone. You pointed out that the film was all shot in real time, there arent many movies that have been filmed like that, i found that very interesting. (Reply to this) (Thread)

Darline Jimenez (Anonymous) 2007-06-05 00:27 (link)

The Sadist" is a pretty interesting film for a couple of reasons. 1.) For the time in which this film was made(1963) it must have been considered shocking or controversial. The subject matter is basically a group of 3 school teachers running into a psychopathic killer and his girlfriend. The movie is basically the killer terrorizing the 3, more mentally and emotionally than physically. (Reply to this) (Thread)