Forum Archive Home -> Polls -> Do you like horror movies?
Do you like horror movies? | ||||||
| yoda313 posted 2008 Oct 10 20:19 | ||||||
| So with Halloween coming up here in the US it's time to ask:
Are you a horror movie fan? I have to say I am not into horror. I just don't like it too dark.... How about you? | ||||||
| gadgetguy posted 2008 Oct 10 20:56 | ||||||
| In general, no. I'm not a fan of most horror films. Or rather, I'm not a fan of blood and gore which is what most horror films are all about now. | ||||||
| Noahtuck posted 2008 Oct 10 21:01 | ||||||
| I love psychological horror movies, the darker the better!! 8)
Some that are just scary with a little gore are fun, but one's that are basically just hack and slash are stupid and nothing but a bunch of gore, i don't like those. | ||||||
| disturbed1 posted 2008 Oct 10 21:04 | ||||||
| I find most of them entertaining. The older ones, Halloween, Friday the 13th, Evil Dead .... are some of my picks. Though horror is not my favorite genre, I tend to like dramas better. | ||||||
| libiec posted 2008 Oct 10 22:06 | ||||||
| My favourite genre of entertainment. Especially like the older classis horror movies out of the '30s to '50s. Frankenstein, Dracula, Wolfman, Invisible Man, etc...... I recently ran across a really entertaining oldie call The Old Dark House that starred Boris Karloff as a deaf and dumb creapy old butler. That movie had everything, stormy night, lightning, creapy cobwebbed house full of oddballs.
Another favourite of mine is The Haunting. The original version. No blood, guts or gore, just lots of ghostly knocks in the night and strange writings on the wall. Then there's the Rob Zombie creations. I can watch those a few times without getting bored. | ||||||
| Soopafresh posted 2008 Oct 10 23:15 | ||||||
| FulciLives is going to be depressed by these numbers.... | ||||||
| Midzuki posted 2008 Oct 10 23:55 | ||||||
:lol: :lol: :lol: Me too thinks the "classic" ones still deserve to be watched now and then. I don't like the most recent examples of the genre only because they clearly have been created by hollow-headed pseudo-adults for the hollow-headed teenagers of today. :evil: | ||||||
| Epicurus8a posted 2008 Oct 10 23:58 | ||||||
| I prefer thrillers and psycho-dramas over horror films. (Like Cape Fear or Alien.)
The films where stupid teenagers die are a waste of time and money - but the studio execs love 'em because of the box office numbers. :( | ||||||
| Marvingj posted 2008 Oct 11 08:53 | ||||||
| I love horror movies, but not the new ones just the oldies... | ||||||
| gll99 posted 2008 Oct 11 09:18 | ||||||
| I've never liked gore. | ||||||
| raffie posted 2008 Oct 11 09:56 | ||||||
| I've been into horror movies quite some time, different subgenres too. All of them oldies though. I would say 60's 70's and 80's.
I've picked the first option, having said that, Cannibal Holocaust is certainly the goriest film I ever saw and I think I would like to keep it that way ;) | ||||||
| sambat posted 2008 Oct 11 10:02 | ||||||
| They should make a movie about my mutual fund statement. | ||||||
| FulciLives posted 2008 Oct 11 13:45 | ||||||
| Well I suppose it is of no surprise that I voted, "Yes - the more gore the better"
Although there really is more to it than gore. Let us consider the definition which according to the Merriam-Webster website is (they disable copy n' paste so you get an image): 
However the genre covers a bit more than this particular definition includes. There are movies that fit into the horror genre that may not necessarily fit this description 100%. For instance the old Universal Monster movies such as the Béla Lugosi DRACULA or the Brois Karloff FRANKENSTEIN owe a lot to German Expressionism as seen in films like Robert Wiene's THE CABINET OF DR. CALIGARI or F.W. Murnau’s NOSFERATU etc. thus it is the atmosphere created through cinematography that helps to make such films so "creepy" more so than any on screen violence. All that changed in the late 1950's when HAMMER FILMS released CURSE OF FRANKENSTEIN and then HORROR OF DRACULA. Both films starred Christopher Lee (Frankenstein's monster/Dracula) and Peter Cushing (Frankenstein/Van Helsing). These color "updates" of the Universal films are often called "Gothic Horror" but Hammer was not afraid to show some blood and gore with these films (and subsequent films). Roger Corman made a string of low budget horror movies the best of which were the Vincent Price Edgar Allan Poe movies such as PIT AND THE PENDULUM and MASQUE OF THE RED DEATH etc. Herschell Gordon Lewis made a string of low budget movies that predominately featured blood and gore. Mario Bava kicked off the sub genre known as the giallo with his seminal film BLOOD AND BLACK LACE. Which brings us to who can be called the godfather of the modern horror film ---> George A. Romero. His classic film NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD pushed the limits further than perhaps any film up to that point. You can also partially blame Romero (along with Tom Savini) for kicking off the modern wave or 1980's wave of gore films which really started with DAWN OF THE DEAD. I once read an article that went something like this, "God created gore and he saw that it was good. He decided to make it in color and saw that it was even better." In fact things have been rather interesting ever since NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD. The 1970's providing perhaps some of the best horror genre films of all times. Films like THE EXORCIST, THE TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE, LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT, SUSPIRIA, TWITCH OF THE DEATH NERVE, PHANTASM, BLACK CHRISTMAS, HALLOWEEN ... the list goes on and on. We saw the swan song of HAMMER in films like VAMPIRE CIRCUS, TWINS OF EVIL and FRANKENSTEIN AND THE MONSTER FROM HELL. We saw new blood in AMICUS PRODUCTIONS who made the horror anthology popular with films like THE HOUSE THAT DRIPPED BLOOD and FROM BEYOND THE GRAVE not to mention their adaptations of EC Comics with TALES FROM THE CRYPT and VAULT OF HORROR. The giallo fuled in Italy with Mario Bava still working while new comer Dario Argento dazzled with films like PROFONDO ROSSO and SUSPIRIA along with others working in giallo like Lucio Fulci and Umberto Lenzi and Aldo Lada etc. and we can't forget the werewolf films of Paul Naschy in Spain or the thousand and one films turned out by Jess Franco. The tail end of the 70's and the early 80's dominated with slasher films and gore films. A new slasher flick was playing almost every week thanks to the success of HALLOWEEN and FRIDAY THE 13th. The Italians were making a name with gore films as well with Lucio Fulci approaching legendary status with films like ZOMBIE and THE GATE OF HELL. The VHS VCR made it possible to catch up on movies you never saw or saw once in a movie theater or had to stay up late on a Friday/Saturday to watch on some late night horror film host type show. Then something went wrong and around the mid to late 80's horror films started to suck. Big time. By the 1990's good horror was RIP for the most part. Unfortunately it has been that way ever since. Sure there is a film here or there that is good but *sigh* it seems modern filmmakers have forgotten what horror films can and should be. I'm sure I've left out a lot of good stuff. For instance it just dawned on me that I didn't mention Alfred Hitchcock at all (PSYCHO being the obvious example as well as THE BIRDS). I managed to also leave out THE EVIL DEAD and somehow I missed making a reference to the films of David Cronenburg. Let us not forget that the 70's and 80's saw many Stephen King books made into movies nor can we forget Clive Barker's own adaptation of his short novel HELLBOUND HEART which became the popular HELLRAISER movie (I'm loathe to saw movie series since outside of the first two the rest are rather dismal). However there is one movie I haven't mentioned until now and that is because it brings everything I've said to a head. I'm talking about the Ridley Scott film ALIEN. Some might be thinking "wait isn't that Sci-Fi?" but a wise man once said that ALIEN is really a "horror film set in space" with the Nostromo space ship being more akin to a haunted house than something from 2001 A SPACE ODYSSEY. Which brings me I suppose to the point of all this ... the horror genre tends to have more variety and I dare say creativity than most any other genre out there. In short the imagination can run rampent within the horror genre making it something very special and to be cherished. Also horror films tend to make the most out of the cinematic experience. Setting the mood through cinematography and doing so creatively is something that (the best) horror films tend to excel in. Alfred Hitchcock said that cinema has a language all unto itself and when used properly you can do things you cannot do in another medium even one that seems similar like the stage. I defy anyone to find a movie more beautifully haunting than Dario Argento's SUSPIRIA (perhaps the greatest use of 3 strip technocolor ever) or a scene more satisfying in it's use of the cinematic language than the shower scene in PYSCHO or a movie with images that are more complexly disturbing than David Lynch's ERASERHEAD (a cult film ... perhaps THE cult film ... that nonetheless fits rather nicely into the horror genre). I submit that the horror genre is the greatest genre of all and that some of the greatest films of all times come from this genre or at least have roots in it. For the record my favorite horror film is George A. Romero's DAWN OF THE DEAD (mention the unsanctioned remake to me and prepare to die) although I will say that the greatest horror film is probably William Fredkin's THE EXORCIST. - John "FulciLives" Coleman | ||||||
| disturbed1 posted 2008 Oct 11 13:53 | ||||||
Every time I see her do the upside down spider walk down the stairs, it still gives me chills. I think I'll have to watch this again tonight. | ||||||
| yoda313 posted 2008 Oct 11 16:24 | ||||||
| Well I knew we'd get a response from Fulcilives here :) I just didn't know we'd get a SENIOR level thesis on the subject matter :D
Way to go fulci! I can't believe Roger Corman actually did any work with Vincent Price. He did all those cheasy b movies that ended up on MST3k!!! Viking Women vs the sea serpent anyone?????? | ||||||
| FulciLives posted 2008 Oct 11 23:04 | ||||||
Yes yes I know what you mean but many regard the Roger Corman / Vincent Price / Edgar Allan Poe films as classics and they really are. In short they are NOT "cheesy" like (most) other Roger Corman films. For a sample HOUSE OF USHER is airing on TURNER CLASSIC MOVIES (TCM) this month (October 19th and again on the 30th). Check it out! BUT WAIT !!! ... THERE IS MORE !!! TCM plays THE TOMB OF LIGEIA on October 31st and again this is another Corman/Price Edgar Allan Poe movie! Also playing on TCM this month (October 31st) is the Roger Corman film THE HAUNTED PALACE starring (you guessed it) Vincent Price! The poster for this claims it is based on an Edgar Allan Poe story but this was merely to capitalize on the success of the other films done by Corman and Price. This time around the movie is actually in reality based on a story by H.P. LOVECRAFT called The Case of Charles Dexter Ward which was also made into a movie again in 1992 under the title THE RESURRECTED which was directed by Dan O'Bannon. 
Trailer ---> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b9JtHcIZogs 
Trailer ---> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPjngneSoiI 
Trailer ---> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_13zq-q--Y All of these were released in the USA on DVD thanks to MGM. They are beautiful 2.35:1 16x9 anamorphic remastered prints. Although my two favorites of the Roger Corman / Vincent Price / Edgar Allan Poe movies are THE PIT AND THE PENDULUM (which is double billed with HOUSE OF USHER) and THE MASQUE OF THE RED DEATH (which is double billed with another Roger Corman / Edgar Allan Poe movie THE PREMATURE BURIAL which stars not Vincent Price but Ray Milland). - John "FulciLives" Coleman | ||||||
| redwudz posted 2008 Oct 12 00:21 | ||||||
| I've collected as many of the old Hammer films as I could find. There were quite a few in the Dracula series. I really like most of the 50's horror films. But I don't like the newer 'blood and gore' realistic movies. :(
One of my favorites is still the B+W 'Psycho'. Although that could really be classified as a mystery as much as a horror film. :) | ||||||
| guns1inger posted 2008 Oct 12 03:05 | ||||||
| I am happy to throw in the remake of Dawn of the Dead as a worth re-interpretation. It was certainly far better than Romero's own Land of the Dead, and was reverential yet original at the same time. Romero's Diary of the Dead is also pretty good - sort of Cloverfield of the Dead.
I have everything from the German silents through to the Italian insanity of the 80's (Fulci, Argento) and beyond. I too have an extensive Hammer collection. Some of those are as gory as anything done today, but generally done with more flare and/or humour (black as it may be). Films like Re-Animator and Dead and Buried are as fun to watch as they are gory, and new that a little tongue in cheek could temper their excesses. Films like Michael Powell's under-rated Peeping Tom mine the vein of psychological horror with almost no on-screen gore at all. Too many of today's horror films are more content to simply push the gore factor as far as they can to see if the audience will stay with them, but without adding any character or fun. They are more acts of documented sadism than works of narrative or character (not that films like Friday the 13th pushed character all that hard). I suspect that in the next couple of years we will see a repeat of the cycle of the late 70's/early 80's. Horror pushed the boundaries to the extent that it could get away with it until plot and fun became extinct and we were left with films like The Prowler (aka. Rosemary's Killer) and Maniac. In some ways these excesses were also in response to the conservatism of the government at the time. However eventually they were quashed, and by the mid to late 80's American production of this type of films was almost extinct, replaced instead by limp monster movies. We had to watch the action genre to get blood and mayhem instead. Similarly, the worst excesses of the current crop of American produced horror have come under an ultra conservative government. The longer this government has been in power, the further the gore and sadism have been pushed. This is not just an American phenomena either. If you look at the various periods of German and Italian horror you will see similar trends. I suspect that if the US Government changes hands at the next election, we will see a swift drop in the production of this type of film by the film makers themselves. If we don't. we will see the production of this type of film quietly crushed by censorship and political pressure as we did in the 80's. It is harder to do now, as unrated films can easily be released direct to DVD if the cinema's stop showing them, which was how it was controlled in the 80's. Don't give it an R, and don't let it be advertised or shown in mainstream theatres with an NC17 or unrated, and people will stop making them - and they did. Romero lost half his funding for Day of the Dead simply because he would not make it for an R rating. And many thanks to John for listing off some many of my favourites so I didn't have to :) | ||||||
| yoda313 posted 2008 Oct 12 08:05 | ||||||
| fyi at guns1inger and the rest - remember to keep politics out of the fray ok? (I know its not directed specifically at anyone but just a reminder :)). | ||||||
| SingSing posted 2008 Oct 12 10:16 | ||||||
The best Horror movies don't contain much gore at all. They just make you pissed in your pants, and cause many sleepness nights.
The best of the horror movies has to be "The ring" : http://www.ring-themovie.com/  | ||||||
| DereX888 posted 2008 Oct 12 10:47 | ||||||
| I generally *hate* horrors.
99% of this genre flicks are so stupid and dumb that even any crappy propaganda flicks from 60's are masterpieces compare to this garbage. Having said that I must add that of course i.e. Dawn of the Dead (original and even latest remake) are very entertaining movies which I proudly added to my collection :) Unfortunately there are maybe handful of such movies in this genre. Horror supposed to be somewhat scary to viewers. By this definition this genre is long dead, as no one believes in ghosts or vampires nowadays (I hope no one does in the XXI century!) so there is nothing scary in any of them. As such they are just more or less funny flicks showing major characters die in more or less gore ways, and I'd say they are just subgenre of action flicks (mostly). I have think very hard to find any film that I ever thought of being scary - and I can't think of any LOL /edit: You know what movies are actually scary (IMHO)? Well, I saw some old tv flick "The Day After" and *that* was scary. Ghosts, vampires and such fantastic creatures are funny - not scary :D
Sorry SingSing, but IMHO it wasn't worth the plastic used for the DVD (thank God I haven't bought it :D) I saw japanese version too, and although it was better than US remake, it still sucked :) | ||||||
| FulciLives posted 2008 Oct 12 13:57 | ||||||
| I just wanted to say that I pretty much agreed with everything that guns1inger said although I just cannot "make peace" with the fact that DAWN OF THE DEAD was remade (which was done without Romero's approval due to how the rights are owned although they did have to pay him something for doing it). To me his original film is such a masterpiece that remaking it is akin to remaking CITIZEN KANE or GONE WITH THE WIND or even PSYCHO ... oh wait I guess nothing is sacred these days *sigh*
- John "FulciLives" Coleman | ||||||
| ROBERT BLACK posted 2008 Oct 12 15:04 | ||||||
Feckin right Fulcihead! Horror is my favourite film genre and Halloween is my favourite holiday. Pagan trappings and all. | ||||||
| ROBERT BLACK posted 2008 Oct 12 15:13 | ||||||
| Just an addendum and the flipside to Fulci's TV listings of classic Corman/Poe films, TCM is also airing HG Lewis's Blood Feast and 2000 Maniacs at the end of October.
I never thought I'd see those two films on American Television although they did air in Canada on a specialty channel. | ||||||
| Xylob the Destroyer posted 2008 Oct 12 19:26 | ||||||
| "Other".
Not anymore... I watched so many when I was a kid (probably too young to be watching what I was) that they've lost all appeal now. They are ALL so horribly predictable, that I can see the "scary" part coming a mile away. | ||||||
| guns1inger posted 2008 Oct 12 20:06 | ||||||
Liked the original (spooky, not scary), didn't think much of the remake. Like the Vanishing before it, it just seemed to be a dumbed down version for the mass market. Subsequent Americanisations of Japanese horror films have got limper and limper. I also find it interesting just how many Japanese and asian horror films get hyped in western countries (and eventually remade there), yet they are rubbish. Pulse comes to mind. If you want really scary Japanese horror, watch audition instead. | ||||||
| guns1inger posted 2008 Oct 12 20:24 | ||||||
I knew I was sailing close to the wind, but I was looking at it from a sociological standpoint, not a political one. It is interesting to me that the more extreme horror tends to grow in the more conservative environments. There are always exceptions, of course. Hershell Gordon Lewis's gore films were a purely commercial decision. Hollywood had caught up to his exploitation business in Nudie films, and gore was the next frontier. If it hadn't made him money, he would have moved on to something else. He also put gore into his non-horror exploitation product - biker films etc. The other thing to consider is that many of the people behind all the remakes of the last few years grew up watching the films they are now remaking. TCM, Dawn, halloween etc. They are reinterpretting them for a new audience. They know that just as there are many people who wont watch black and white films, or subtitled films, there are many who won't watch the older horros because they simply don't look as technically slick as today's product. Some of these remakes are Ok for what they are, even if they don't match up to the originals. Some are just godamn awful - The Hitcher, 2001 Maniacs, The Wizard of Gore, Halloween. But there are plenty of youngsters who will tell you that these are far better because they look prettier and have more realistic gore. Personally, rather than blow 10 million on a remake of The Wizard of Gore, spend 2 million on a proper restoration and set of extras for the original. | ||||||
| videobread posted 2008 Oct 12 21:47 | ||||||
| I'm a big fan of the Hammer Horror Films with Peter Cushing. A lot are in color and widescreen. They have well thought out plots. I don't much like the new kids blood and guts movies out there now. In my opinion, the worst one is "House of a 1,000 corpses". It is the only movie I have ever seen that I think should be banned. It's like a training film for the mass murderer's of tomorrow. | ||||||
| guns1inger posted 2008 Oct 13 00:35 | ||||||
You should see "Bloodsucking Freaks" then . . . The irony is that when Hammer released their first Cushing/Lee Frankenstein ("The Curse of") in 1957, then followed it shortly after with Dracula (aka "Horror of Dracula" ,1958), the critics were aghast at the amount of gore and blood (and in colour !). One of them apologised to all Americans on behalf of the English people for releasing such vile filth upon them. Now the violence is considered quaint, and the movies hold together more because of the quality of acting, and in the case of Terrence Fisher's work, direction. Every generation pushes the envelope a little bit further, and the generation that came before them tuts and says it is too much, forgetting how they had done the same when they were young. | ||||||
| nwo posted 2008 Oct 13 02:02 | ||||||
| The end of good horror films started the day Scream was released . | ||||||
| raffie posted 2008 Oct 13 06:46 | ||||||
| FulciLives, if you have any more of those obscure gems like the ones you pointed out, I would say: keep em comming :) | ||||||
| guns1inger posted 2008 Oct 13 07:34 | ||||||
| Targets (Peter Bogdanovich, 1968)
The Witchfinder General (Michael Reeves, 1968) Scream and Scream Again (Gordon Hessler, 1969) The Abominable Dr Phibes (Robert Fuest, 1971) Mad Love (aka The Hands of Orlac, Karl Freund, 1935) Freaks (Todd Browning, 1932) The Raven (Louis Friedlander, 1935) Flesh for Frankenstein (Antonio Margheriti, 1973 - and yes, I know the credits say Paul Morrissey) Blood For Dracula (Antonio Margheriti, 1973) Deathline (aka Raw Meat, Gary Sherman, 1972) (Ignore the recent remake with Fanke Portente) Dead and Buried (Gary Sherman, 1981) Patrick (Richard Franklin, 1978) Razorback (Russell Mulcahy, 1984) The Company of Wolves (Neil Jordan, 1984) Xtro (Harry Bromley Davenport, 1982) Humanoids from the Deep (Barbara Peeters, 1980) Anything early from David Cronenberg (Shivers, Rabid, Scanners, VideoDrome, The Fly) That should keep you busy for a while. | ||||||
| nwo posted 2008 Oct 13 12:59 | ||||||
Did you just pull this weeks Zone Horror Listings. :D | ||||||
| FulciLives posted 2008 Oct 13 13:24 | ||||||
| I do so love FLESH FOR FRANKENSTEIN (1973) and BLOOD FOR DRACULA (1974) and it was a dream when Criterion released these (I have the LaserDisc releases then bought the DVD releases later on). Oddly the critics always seem to lean towards BLOOD FOR DRACULA as the better of the two but I find FLESH FOR FRANKENSTEIN to be the superior film in my view.
Speaking of which my favorite FRANKENSTEIN film of all time is actually an old made for TV mini-series called FRANKENSTEIN THE TRUE STORY (1973) and this was finally released on DVD just a year or so ago. It is an absolutely brilliant adaptation and while it does deviate from the book (THE TRUE STORY part is really a misnomer here) I still say it is the best version ever made. While I am on a FRANKENSTEIN "rant" it seem I might as well make special mention of the Hammer film series. Most were directed by Terence Fisher (with Peter Cushing always as Baron Von Frankenstein). The interesting thing here is if you watch the movies in chronological order (and leave out the other Hammer Frankenstein films NOT directed by Terence Fisher) there is a definite and deliberate "story arc" that takes place and Cushing's Baron Von Frankenstein actually develops or evolves as it were as a character during the course of the movies. This really is I think a unique situation that is often overlooked. Watch them in order and in a relatively short time apart and you will see what I mean. This is the proper order: 1.) CURSE OF FRANKENSTEIN (1957) 2.) REVENGE OF FRANKENSTEIN (1958) 3.) FRANKENSTEIN CREATED WOMAN (1967) 4.) FRANKENSTEIN MUST BE DESTROYED (1969) 5.) FRANKENSTEIN AND THE MONSTER FROM HELL (1974) There are other Hammer FRANKENSTEIN films (including one with Cushing as Baron Von Frankenstein but NOT directed by Terence Fisher) that you want to leave out while watching the series as they don't "fit in" to the main story arc that the 5 films above encompass. Another classic horror film that often gets overlooked would be BLOOD ON SATAN'S CLAW (1971). ANCHOR BAY ENTERTAINMENT did a wonderful DVD remaster of this in the UK a few years back that should still be available but alas there is no official proper USA DVD release. Just one of many reasons to have a region free PAL to NTSC DVD player for those of you ... like me ... who live in the USA. I've already mention MARIO BAVA and DARIO ARGENTO along with a few titles but these guys are probably the best of the Italian horror directors (along with LUCIO FULCI). The two MUST SEE Mario Bava films include BLACK SUNDYA aka MASK OF THE DEMON (1960) and BLOOD AND BLACK LACE aka SIX WOMEN FOR THE MURDERER (1964). Dario Argento essential movies include DEEP RED aka PROFONDO ROSSO (1975) and SUSPIRIA (1977) and INFERNO (1980). Lucio Fulci essential movies include LIZARD IN A WOMAN'S SKIN (1971) and DON'T TORTURE A DUCKLING (1972) both of which are excellent giallo films and for his later gore drenched days there is the "trilogy" (term used loosely) of ZOMBIE aka ZOMBI 2 (1979), THE GATES OF HELL aka CITY OF THE LIVING DEAD (1980) and his masterpiece THE BEYOND (1981). Other Italian films of note include CANNIBAL HOLOCAUST (1980), SEVEN BLOOD STAINED ORCHIDS (1972), SPASMO (1974), BLACK BELLY OF THE TARANTULA (1971), WHO SAW HER DIE? (1972), SHORT NIGHT OF GLASS DOLLS (1971), THE FIFTH CORD (1971), WHAT HAVE THEY DONE TO SOLANGE? (1971), ALL THE COLORS OF THE DARK (1972), STRANGE VICE OF MRS. WARDH (1971), TORSO (1973), THE HORRIBLE DR. HICHCOCK (1962), DELLAMORTE DELLAMORE aka CEMETERY MAN (1994), THE HOUSE WITH LAUGHING WINDOWS (1976), ZEDER aka REVENGE OF THE DEAD (1983), CASTLE OF BLOOD (1964) ... I could go on and on LOL I few other horror movies I would like to recommend that aren't Italian but would be considered "Euro Horror" would be: BLOOD ROSE (1971), NIGHT OF THE SORCERERS (1973), HORROR RISES FROM THE TOMB (1972), THE LORELEY'S GRASP (1973), CURSE OF THE DEVIL (1973), TOMBS OF THE BLIND DEAD (1971), FASCINATION (1979), THE BLOOD SPATTERED BRIDE (1972) and Jess Franco's VAMPYROS LESBOS (1971). - John "FulciLives" Coleman | ||||||
| Bullworth posted 2008 Oct 13 15:04 | ||||||
| I love horror, but not many of the mainstream ones. The ones I tend to like were the obscure ones I ran into just channel surfing late one night or recommendations from a friend or website. I hate that many of the ones I liked I wasn't able to get the title because it had already started. With a few exceptions I don't like remakes in general. They tend to change the plot too much and it ends up not being at all what the original movie was like. In most cases it's just a lot of blood and gore without any plot.
As far as Asian horror in general I like them because they are more cerebral in nature rather than showing the object of fear within the first 10mins. Just like the American ones there are very good ones and absolutely bad ones. We might start to see an influx of European horror films now. Quarantine was a remake of a Spanish horror flick called REC (from the Record logo that flashes on video cameras) that came out last year. I saw that and enjoyed it but I'm not very interested in seeing Quarantine because it looks like it's almost the exact same plot from the previews that I saw. Seems like all it would be was American actors and some slightly better sfx. | ||||||
| Nitemare posted 2008 Oct 13 19:58 | ||||||
| I love the genre but it has been disappointing lately. I don't like the remakes for myself, but if they weren't making them, my kids wouldn't see any of the classics. (Dawn of the Dead anyone?) I live 30 minutes from Monroeville Mall (where the original Dawn was filmed). When I took my kid there, he was interested in seeing the film... for 5 minutes.
"This looks old!" He did see the remake and liked it. In the past few years, only 3 horror films stand out for me. "Wolf"... because Nicholson kicked ass in it and I love werewolves. It wasn't scary, but Nicholson really sold that thing. "Jeepers Creepers" was good becasue it's one of the most original things I've seen in a long time. The sequel was okay for a sequel and currently has my favorite "death scene on film" in it. (dropping the road flares... no gore at all and an awesome death scene) "The Orphanage" was subtle and creepy... gave me the willies in the way a movie hasn't done in years and years and years.... I like the atmosphere of the older films, something most new Horror films lack. I am waiting anxiously for "The Wolfman" remake. Imitation is what kills the horror genre. (although this isn't limited to horror... it is most obvious there) The Ring was stylish and interesting when it came out... now there's a dozen movies that look just like it. Back in the day, Friday the 13th might have stood tall if not for the hundreds of imitators that followed. It's interesting to note that there was no "masked Jason" until part 3 ... clearly imitating Halloween. | ||||||
| FulciLives posted 2008 Oct 13 20:57 | ||||||
| Your mention of THE ORPHANAGE made me think of THE OTHERS (2001) which is a great creepy atmospheric ghost film starring Nicole Kidman.
Can't recommend that one enough! As for THE ORPHANAGE ... I haven't seen it yet but I've heard good things about it. Another creepy film along the same lines is THE DEVIL'S BACKBONE (2001) which is a Spanish language film by Guillermo del Toro which he made after MIMIC but before BLADE II. - John "FulciLives" Coleman P.S. I need to rent me the Blu-Ray of THE ORPHANAGE so thanks for making me think of this film since I've been meaning to see it but kind of forgot about it oops! | ||||||
| MJA posted 2008 Oct 13 21:00 | ||||||
| are you talking about the french movie? I watched it last month.it's sad more than scary
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0464141/ | ||||||
| FulciLives posted 2008 Oct 13 21:07 | ||||||
Yes. You got it. Although it is a Spanish made movie not French. I haven't seen it myself but I understand it is a ghost or ghost like story along the lines of the other films I mentioned ... at least in terms of the "feel" of the movie. Then again I havent' seen it yet myself. - John "FulciLives" Coleman | ||||||
| julitomg posted 2008 Oct 13 21:25 | ||||||
| Count me as a horror fan.....reading Famous monsters of filmland as a kid got me hooked, but as a weird side effect I developed an insane taste for low budget, amateur or just plain crapy films :shock: | ||||||
| SingSing posted 2008 Oct 13 22:17 | ||||||
Okay, no more Mr. Nice Guy. E-mailed me a self-addressed envelope, and I will send you "THE TAPE"!  | ||||||
| t0nee1 posted 2008 Oct 13 22:18 | ||||||
| Horror fan here as well...I enjoyed THE ORPHANAGE,and now that you've mentioned it, I think I'm gonna watch it again...
And BTW,has anybody mentioned/rated 30 days of Night.... | ||||||
| FulciLives posted 2008 Oct 13 22:27 | ||||||
| I've yet to see 30 DAYS OF NIGHT but now that you mention it I have another movie I'll have to rent on Blu-Ray :)
If only I can find my last two NetFlix movies and send them back ... they both kind of got "lost" somewhere in my apartment LOL - John "FulciLives" Coleman | ||||||
| t0nee1 posted 2008 Oct 13 22:33 | ||||||
| Oh yeah! you won't regret viewing on Blu-ray.... 8)
And frankly,it's getting more and more difficult for me to watch anything but HD... Damn them! | ||||||
| mpack posted 2008 Oct 14 05:01 | ||||||
| Now that I think about it, the only horror movies I really like are sci-fi horrors. That shouldn't be surprising as the two genres have always had a lot in common. Alien, The Thing (remake), even Terminator might fit the definition. These were genuinely scary movies when I first saw them - and Alien is a work of art for lots of reasons, so that is my favorite. Also, what about Jaws (first half anyway).
I quite enjoyed the first Nightmare on Elm Street, but generally the only fun you'll get from a modern teen slasher comes from rooting for the monster! The old classic Universal horrors are fun to watch, but I never found them scary, even as a kid. I'm afraid I got nothing at all from Friday the 13th, Texas Chainsaw Massacre: I know that some consider them classics, but to me they were just pointless gore. | ||||||
| Nitemare posted 2008 Oct 14 06:31 | ||||||
| Yes, "The Oprhanage" was more sad than scary, but it's creepy. There are no real "BOO!" moments.... just a gradual increase in tension that had you edging closer and closer to the edge of your seat as the film progressed.
julitomg wrote:
Love 'em! The cheesier the better! I enjoy "B" movies, but it's a two-edged sword. A film with no budget and a lot of imagination deserves a little credit. ("SOULTAKER") Schlock for schlock's sake ("BLOOD SUCKING FREAKS") is almost always terrible... although I admit that many Troma films are a guilty pleasure of mine. I can almost always overlook budget limitations for a GOOD original story. A good budget on a crappy story (any "SAW" movie) doesn't save it. mpack wrote:
I agree with you on 'Chainsaw'. I thought the "classic" sucked so bad that I had no interest in the remake. I didn't hate "Friday the 13th" when it was new... but I haven't watched it since then so I guess I'm not a fan of that either. (I was a teenager when it was new... a gore-fest of nude actresses wasn't something that bored me back then...) There are many well respected films and film makers that I just have no appreciation for and I can't understand where their cult status come from. For example: IMHO, the best film Wes Craven ever made was "Swamp Thing". I've seen "Last House on the Left"... it has one genuinely shocking scene amid the worst crap-fest I ever watched. I was angry at the lemming that insisted that I "must" see this film! It reeked!....The first "Nightmare on Elm Street" was only fair and "The Curse" ... what WAS he thinking? People act like Craven took a wrong turn when he made "Scream". He's been churning out crap since the 70s! and don't get me started on recycle-my-own-stuff-until-I become-my-own-caricature Kubrik... it's hard to say what his best movie is because he has snippets from every movie he's done in every OTHER movie that he's done... like that creepy silent scream from "The Shining"... or was that from "A Clockwork Orange"? (answer: yes to both) It's THIS kind of "originality" that makes Hollywood (and the horror genre) look stupid. Some of these cult movies and director's should remain "cult" entities. Moving them into the mainstream has lowered the genre as a whole. | ||||||
| dLee posted 2008 Oct 14 13:04 | ||||||
| The first movies that really horrified me were industrial films made by the cold warriors, such as "Duck and Cover" (pretty sure it's available at archive.org) and the atomic bomb tests at Bikini Atoll. I had trouble going to sleep for years because I was sure that the planes passing overhead were about to deliver their payload. When I could sleep, I used to have a recurring dream of waking up, walking through the house to the front porch just in time to watch the detonation of an atomic bomb over downtown. Probably just the reaction that the filmmakers were hoping for.
My current favorite is "They Live" by John Carpenter. For me, it plays more like a documentary on everyday life in the US rather than a horror film. More naturalistic, not really considered part of the horror genre, are "Paths of Glory" and "The Third Man" - horrifying in their depiction of human nature. Other favorites: "Henry - Portrait of a Serial Killer" by John McNaughton "Dead Ringers" by David Cronenberg Somewhat obscure: "Nadja" by Michael Almereyda Finally, my pick for the worst horror film ever made (possibly the worst film ever made): "Malatesta's Carnival of Blood" by Christopher Eric Speeth - starring Herve' de Villechaize | ||||||
| mikel posted 2008 Oct 14 15:10 | ||||||
| The Haunting (1962)
....a classic...so much... done with so little. | ||||||
| t0nee1 posted 2008 Oct 14 15:21 | ||||||
| An old favorite of mine...Well old for me....
THE LEGEND of HELL HOUSE (1973) starring Roddy McDowall... 8) | ||||||
| kato51 posted 2008 Oct 14 15:52 | ||||||
My favorite also. Another one is Salem's Lot. | ||||||
| t0nee1 posted 2008 Oct 14 16:07 | ||||||
| Yeah, SALEM'S LOT.....Funny how,as we go along, you start remembering more old faves..
'SOMETHING WICKED THIS WAY COMES' comes to mind.... | ||||||
| FulciLives posted 2008 Oct 14 16:14 | ||||||
| SALEM'S LOT scared me so bad I couldn't sleep for a week unless I had a cross on my chest and of course as soon as I would start to nod off I would shift and feel the cross (which was this big heavy thing) start to slide off of my upper chest and that would only wake me and thus that cycle would go on for hours it seemed LOL
- John "FulciLives" Coleman | ||||||
| Steve Stepoway posted 2008 Oct 14 16:36 | ||||||
Oi, yes! Thought by many to be the scariest movie of all time. Black & white. No blood. You won't sleep for a week, especially if you are in a house alone.. Don't Look Now (1973 -- also based on a story by Daphne Du Maurier) comes pretty close. Plus it's got Julie Christie! Steve | ||||||
| Gramps posted 2008 Oct 14 16:45 | ||||||
My all time favorite as well. James Mason's effete characterization of Polly-Dolly ( :) ) bugs me a bit, but otherwise an amazingly well done film. The Thing (remake) is one of my all time favorites. It's loaded with suspense, paranoia, and some of the best gross-out effects ever. I still love the chest full of teeth and the spider head scenes. | ||||||
| HemLok posted 2008 Oct 14 17:01 | ||||||
| Dark psychological horror movies where you pushed back in your seat and yet on the edge of your seat at the same time and any unexpected sound you hear in your environment makes you jump is a good movie.
Gore? Meh. Not interested and frankly I find them too disturbing to watch. I don't need to see a death, a re-enactment of a death, or portrayal of it in graphic detail. The best horror is left up to the imagination. The key is to get you, the viewer, to imagine what happens without actually showing the gore. | ||||||
| yoda313 posted 2008 Oct 14 17:09 | ||||||
| wasn't LOTR director Peter Jackson originally a horror director? Did any of his reach cult status??? | ||||||
| FulciLives posted 2008 Oct 14 17:53 | ||||||
1.) BAD TASTE is his first movie. Legendary cult status. I use to have the IMAGE ENTERTAINMENT LaserDisc release. I now have the USA Anchor Bay Entertainment DVD release. The remastering they did was very nice because this really is one low budget film although it never did look "bad" per se but boy the remaster made it look a lot better than the old releases. This is one crazy zany film about aliens and it is gore drenched yet has a very odd wicked sort of humor. Peter Jackson actually has two roles in this movie! 2.) MEET THE FEEBLES is another movie he did (his 2nd I believe) and it takes the idea of "THE MUPPETS" to the extreme. For instance it asks the question WHAT IF the muppets were real. It's a behind-the-scenes look at who is having sex with who ... who is doing drugs ... who is making a porn movie ... etc. It's wild and crazy and gory and sexy (if puppets turn you on) and totally insane! Alas this is very hard to find on offical DVD (although apparently one was made but is now ... I think ... out-of-print) 3.) BRAINDEAD aka DEAD ALIVE is probably the best known Peter Jackson film. The movie is more akin to BAD TASTE in that it has gore galore and yet is funny in a zany EVIL DEAD II kind of way but even more zany and insane. The USA version (called DEAD ALIVE) is not 100% uncut but close enough. There are numerious import DVD releases that are 100% uncut. Most of those use the title BRAINDEAD (the original title ... why it was changed in the USA is anyone's guess). All of these are well known by cult horror fans (the real hardcore group anyway) so the whole idea of him doing the LOTR movies was rather mind blowing way back when ... but hey he pulled it off! - John "FulciLives" Coleman | ||||||
| Nitemare posted 2008 Oct 14 19:44 | ||||||
| Jackson also did "The Frighteners"... too scary to be a comedy, too funny to be a true horror film... like most of Jackson's work.
FulciLives said it best..."the whole idea of him doing the LOTR movies was rather mind blowing way back when ... " I totally agree. Something Wicked This Way Comes---great film. I almost listed it. Salem's Lot still rocks... haven't seen the remake. Anyone? | ||||||
| FulciLives posted 2008 Oct 14 20:38 | ||||||
I liked SOMETHING WICKED THIS WAY COMES but I saw it originally at the theatres and according to the IMDB that would have been circa 1983 when I would have been all of 11 years old so YES I found it a bit creepy etc. and liked it but I haven't seen it since so who knows what I would make of it now. I barely remember it now. I saw the SALEM'S LOT mini-series remake with Rob Lowe and I thought it was OK. Remakes are always hard when you know the original well (plus I read the book once but that was a LONG time ago) but I thought they did a decent job with it although the ending was somewhat unsatisfactory but I had heard that they ended it in the way they did because there was a chance they were going to turn a it into a series ... yet that never happened. - John "FulciLives" Coleman | ||||||
| DereX888 posted 2008 Oct 15 03:45 | ||||||
What is that! :shock: Is it some new large solid state memory? How do you connect it? Whats the transfer rate? Man, I love the built-in display on this SSD :D
LOL so true ;) Great flick, but I always thought it is sci-fi first rather than horror. Someone mentioned it earlier - Takashi Miike's "Audition". Thats a horror, one of very few good ones, and IMHO this director's #2 film ever (after Koroshiya-1 of course ;) ) | ||||||
| guns1inger posted 2008 Oct 15 03:49 | ||||||
| Sequential access, low capacity, low bandwidth, no error correction, high drop out rate as it ages, low fidelity, high porn content. | ||||||
| DereX888 posted 2008 Oct 15 04:13 | ||||||
:D In this line up it seems like its a con instead of a pro ;) | ||||||
| yoda313 posted 2008 Oct 15 07:03 | ||||||
| @fulcilives - thanks for the peter jackson info. I knew he did frightners (michael j fox was in it right?). I didn't know his other stuff. | ||||||
| guns1inger posted 2008 Oct 15 07:05 | ||||||
| The other film missing from John's list is Heavenly Creatures, which is an odd blend of psychological thriller and dark fantasy. Well worth digging out. This bridges the gap between his early splatter and latter works. He even used a Quantel Paintbox system for some early digital work. | ||||||
| yoda313 posted 2008 Oct 15 07:07 | ||||||
| Hey has anyone here gotten into those weird CRITTERS or CHUCKY movies from the 90's or whatever??? I mean those were pathetic looking from the trailers. Did they have anything in them??? | ||||||
| FulciLives posted 2008 Oct 15 09:10 | ||||||
| Never been a fan of the CHUCKY movies however I do remember that the first movie was a hit with the mainstream. People that normally didn't talk horror movies were seeing it and talking about it. I'm not saying they are bad movies per se just never been a fan myself.
I recall liking the first CRITTERS but never saw the sequels (well I think I saw #2 and didn't like it if I recall correctly). The monsters were kewl and were created by the same "puppet guys" that would later go on to do the effects as well as direct the cult film KILLER KLOWNS FROM OUTER SPACE which is a fun movie. Random I know but an 80's flick that is great that just popped into my head is NIGHT OF THE COMET which was not readily available on DVD until about a year ago. That's worth checking out. Another fun 80's film that is still unavailable but worth checking out is NIGHT OF THE CREEPS. It was actually on Comcast FEARNET a month or two ago in SD and HD (FEARNET is a Comcast ON DEMAND horror thing). I should have recorded it but I didn't although I did watch it (was still fun after all these years). Also I guess if you are to mention the CRITTERS movies you have to mention THE GHOULIES which was a cheap yet fun EMPIRE PICTURES movie from the 80's which I always thought was their answer to GRIMLINS/CRITTERS. - John "FulciLives" Coleman | ||||||
| t0nee1 posted 2008 Oct 15 09:52 | ||||||
| One of the scariest movie of all time for me is, THE EXORCIST...great flick....
Exorcist 2 (sucked), 3 was good,but far from great,IMO...... | ||||||
| dLee posted 2008 Oct 15 13:34 | ||||||
I agree, but the horror came with the realization that the metaphor is closer to fact than fiction. | ||||||
| Nitemare posted 2008 Oct 15 20:35 | ||||||
Love that movie!!! I've been patiently waiting for this on DVD... and waiting and waiting... Other good (or original) films: BODY PARTS TALES FROM THE CRYPT: DEMON KNIGHT (believe it or not) BAD MOON -- (everyone I know snorts when I say that... then they think about it for a minute and agree with me) PRISON STREET TRASH (for original Jackson-style fun-gore) OMEN: the original trilogy THE BLOB: the original is great... the remake from the 80s rocks TRICK OR TREAT-- for originality and appearances by Gene Simmons and Ozzy ... the Fastway soundtrack wasn't bad INVADERS FROM MARS-- 80s version... arguably sci-fi but I see it as more of a monster movie. It terrifies my daughter but she keeps watching it. HIGHWAY TO HELL-- original and fun (traffic is stopped on the road to hell while repairs are made by the Good Intentions Paving Company... appearances by Ben Stiller, Lita Ford... a host of others...Patrick Bergin as a Lucifer that shows pain and loss at being separated from God... awesome original film! WHY ISN'T THIS ON DVD??? Night of the Creeps would have been on the list but, as always, FulciLives beat me to it!!! I think he reads my mind sometimes ... I live close enough to him for him to do that. | ||||||
| kato51 posted 2008 Oct 15 23:04 | ||||||
| Two fun horror flicks from 1985...
The Return of the Living Dead Fright Night | ||||||
| offline posted 2008 Oct 16 04:59 | ||||||
Oh boy weren't they just? :D . Return II was not bad either - the rest ugh. Anyone remember Night of the Creeps? -edit- already mentioned twice. I really got off on the whole "video nasty" era back then, but my hands down favourite was made a decade later - Dellamorte Dellamore. These days I'm a tad squeamish around gore - go figure :( | ||||||
| yoda313 posted 2008 Oct 16 06:44 | ||||||
Maybe they're doing more settle cg stuff to make it nastier???? I don't know as I don't watch em but just a guess..... | ||||||
| AlecWest posted 2008 Oct 16 09:07 | ||||||
| I chose the "somewhat" answer. I generally don't like hack 'em slash 'em flicks. But I absolutely LOVE horror flicks that rely heavily on suspense. For example, I loved "The Vanishing" with Keifer Sutherland and Jeff Bridges. I also loved "The Exorcist" and the original version of "The Omen" (I've not seen the remake).
Of course, there are some hack 'em slash 'em flicks that I enjoy for their humor value (grin) ... flicks that are so bad, they're good. The prime example of that is "Dawn Of The Dead." I don't watch it often. But occasionally, I'll get something "meaty" like pepperoni sticks, sit down to watch it, and have a good laugh. And as I munch on the pepperoni, I'll occasionally hum the elevator music that was playing in the shopping mall as the zombies walked around. P.S. When "The Exorcist" first came out, I was 23 years old. Because I'd already read the novel and knew it was (in theory) based on a true story, I went into the theater fully prepared to suspend any disbelief. After all, it supposedly REALLY happened. However, I was unprepared for the masterful attention to suspense ... and, to put it bluntly, it scared me s**tless. When I got home from the theater late at night, it took me a LONG time to get to sleep ... and was only able to sleep with the lights on (grin). As an agnostic at the time, it "almost" made me religious, hehehehe. Regards, J. Alec West | ||||||
| guns1inger posted 2008 Oct 16 19:37 | ||||||
You should watch the original. It was made in Holland by the same director, but is far smarter and darker than the dumbed down version he created for US market. The original was scary. The remake was, for me at least, laughable (especially the ending, which went in the opposite direction to the original) | ||||||
| FulciLives posted 2008 Oct 16 19:55 | ||||||
I was lucky enough to see the original in an "art house" theater when it first came out. Amazing film! The remake ... OK except for the subplot of the new girlfriend which of course leads to a radically different ending. - John "FulciLives" Coleman | ||||||
| guns1inger posted 2008 Oct 16 20:36 | ||||||
| I didn't find Jeff Bridges particularly convincing either, which didn't help.
It was nice to see Street Trash get a mention. One of the better of the Troma stable releases - gross and offensive, but still fun. Another that hasn't had a mention is Near Dark, Katherine Bigalow's neo vampire movie with Lance Henrikson and Bill Paxton. Well worth a look. | ||||||
| FulciLives posted 2008 Oct 16 21:24 | ||||||
| Another foreign film that THE VANISHING reminds me of is NIGHTWATCH. The original was a kewl f'ed up Russian film but then it got remade in the USA a few years later with Ewan McGregor although in this case I liked both but this time around I saw the remake first ... I did note that the original was a bit more ummm hardcore heh
- John "FulciLives" Coleman | ||||||
| t0nee1 posted 2008 Oct 16 21:37 | ||||||
| Speaking of Bill Paxton, FRAILTY comes to mind...Course I'm a fan... | ||||||
| SingSing posted 2008 Oct 19 10:28 | ||||||
| :shock: Most of movies mentioned here are oldies.
:?: What are the best horror movies recently, like what after "I saw dead people" ? | ||||||
| t0nee1 posted 2008 Oct 19 10:32 | ||||||
| The Exorcism of Emily Rose......that was pretty scary..
Amityville Horror (the remake) | ||||||
| Seeker47 posted 2008 Oct 19 20:58 | ||||||
These three titles are examples that tower over most horror films in overall quality -- THE ORPHANAGE in particular. It has intelligence, real characters, cares about its characters (rather than moving them around like chess pieces or convenient props), and it has "heart" -- by which I do not mean the ripped-out-of-a-chest variety ! THE DEVIL'S BACKBONE has more context if you know at least a little bit about the Spanish Civil War. The atmospherics of each film is first-rate, without seeming forced. | ||||||
| FulciLives posted 2008 Oct 19 21:10 | ||||||
| I liked THE EXORCISM OF EMILY ROSE.
I also liked THE DESCENT (with the full complete ending) I also liked FEAST a lot. More horror comedy but I thought SHAUN OF THE DEAD was brilliant. I also liked 28 DAYS LATER and the sequel 28 WEEKS LATER. Stuart Gordon's DAGON was pretty good. Wasn't perfect but I liked it. SESSION 9 was creepy and freaked me out most of the time although I'm still not sure what the fuck was going on LOL FRAILTY I liked a lot. DREAMCATCHER caught me off guard. I never read the book and had no idea that it was what it was ... I liked it a lot. MAY was a kewl movie. Probably not well known. HIGH TENSION aka HAUTE TENSION was a kick ass film. I liked both HOUSE OF 1000 CORPSES and DEVIL'S REJECTS. THE ABANDONED was creepy. I liked SILENT HILL although thought it no masterpiece. I admit I had to look at a list of horror movies from 2000 - present to get some of these titles. Some I liked a little and some I liked a lot. Of all of those probably SHAUN OF THE DEAD is my favorite. Also John Carpenter's episode on MASTERS OF HORROR kicked ass. The title of that was CIGARETTE BURNS. That was brilliant. I'm sure I am missing some I just can't think of ... - John "FulciLives" Coleman P.S. I also liked Romero's LAND OF THE DEAD and DIARY OF THE DEAD although they aren't nearly as good as the first three. | ||||||
| oldfart13 posted 2008 Oct 19 23:30 | ||||||
| I like a good horror film if it's well crafted. Even the old schlocky films from the 50s and 60s have a lot going for them. What I don't like are films that seem to have endless sequels that never seem to get any better but still make enough money for someone to keep churning them out. I watched a blurb for the latest SAW flick today where the character with the clown face says that he never murdered anyone but just gives them a choice. Well, DUH...you set the people up and they get killed by your actions of setting the traps in the first place so yeah, you are guilty of murder. But I guess the writers of these films must think the audience is really stupid, no? And of course, the police are stupid as well in this day of forensics and can never seem to catch the guy. Or else he's some spook like Jason and can't be killed. They just keep making them dumber and dumber it seems and people still seem to lap it up. Give me the old 30s Universal films over this crap any day.... | ||||||
| FulciLives posted 2008 Oct 20 00:13 | ||||||
| Some will be shocked by this but as a die hard horror fan I have to say that I liked SCREAM and even the sequels. I've also liked the first three SAW movies (I've yet to see IV let alone V).
Granted SCREAM was hard to swallow at first as one was expecting a normal horror film. It was not. It wasn't even really a parody at least not as we've come to expect with films like AIRPLANE or YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN etc. SCREAM was unique. It basically said "We are going to be 'self aware' of the horror genre and all of it's trappings and perhaps even make fun or poke fun at these things yet within this frame work we are going to deliver a horror film "proper" and not some goof ball comedy". With that in mind I think it succeeded ... even the sequels. As for SAW ... the first was very imaginative and clever. I think that had that been "it" or in other words if it were a stand alone film then it would be a bit more respected than what it is now that it has turned into a on going series. Personally I enjoyed SAW II and thought SAW III was even better although I admit that the ending was a bit ... huh? ... how the hell can they follow this up? Like I said I haven't seen IV nor V yet so ... I guess I need to get caught up. - John "FulciLives" Coleman | ||||||
| guns1inger posted 2008 Oct 20 00:41 | ||||||
| Ruins was creepy, but ultimately ludicrous.
Wolf Creek packs a punch and isn't anywhere near as gory as something like Hostel. It does take a while to get going though, so you have to be patient. The Midnight Meat Train has the worst special effects, both visual and old school prosthetics - that I have seen outside of a student film. The romantic sub-plot is needless. If you want a good train movie, watch Raw Meat (and not the limp remake, Creep). Shaun of the Dead was brilliant, and also like their Michael Bay piss-take follow-up, Hot Fuzz. I also have the Final Destination trilogy. Not great horror films, but great 'how will they die' novelty films. The set-up and pay-off for the second film's opener is a fantastic piece of stunt work. The remake of The Hitcher was pointless and un-necessary, as was the remake of The Omen. Same writer as the original, but nothing new was brought to the table. I thought Silent Hill had some great moments in it. Some of the visuals are stunning. Sean Bean should refrain from doing American accents though. Loved Saw as a concept, and what they pulled off with the budget and 20 minute preview version to sell it felt very 80's. The sequels don't have any of the cleverness of the original, but are just another set of novelty death movies. If you like to see just how warped an imagination can get, you will enjoy them. If you go into them looking for anything more you will come away disappointed. I also enjoyed the remake of The Hills Have Eyes, although I haven't seen the sequel to it. Again, a glossy rebuilding of the original that goes it's own way in the latter parts, at least this had Wes Craven on board. The other surprise for me, was George Romero's Diary of the Dead. Given how disappointed I was with Land of the Dead, this Cloverfield-like take on zombiedom shows that George still has it, and works best when he keeps it modest. Yes, the characters are more archetype and cliche than real people, but it moves well and doesn't outstay it's welcome. | ||||||
| t0nee1 posted 2008 Oct 20 18:48 | ||||||
| Speaking of classics and George Romero..NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD..Was and still is great to watch, and one of my faves.... 8) | ||||||
| Nitemare posted 2008 Oct 20 19:12 | ||||||
| Alas! I have to disagree about SAW. At its root, it was a mystery movie. If you apply the "SCREAM" template to mysteries, the #1 rule is as follows:
1) All of the clues must be provided for the viewer so that the viewer can solve the mystery on their own. At the end of a mystery movie, the viewer would, ideally, slap themselves in the forehead and think, "I should have seen that!" (Sixth Sense did this beautifully... for most people) This movie's single previous scene in the film where the doctor walks through and describes the barely conscious John as a terminal cancer patient does not count. John's only scene, plus a poorly explained and, frankly, stupid motive did not qualify as "solvable clues". It's funny. In retrospect, I remember almost enjoying SAW right up until the reveal... then it went from a half decent movie that I almost enjoyed to a total suck job, IMO. I haven't watched any of the sequels and I never will. That the sequels made any money at all makes me question how smart Joe Public really is. I think we've been giving him too much credit. | ||||||
| guns1inger posted 2008 Oct 20 19:26 | ||||||
| The entertainment industry has known that Joe Public is a sucker since before PT Barnum. If JP was smart we wouldn't have Scary Movie 1 - 4, Epic Movie, Disaster Movie, Meet the Spartans et al, and Beverly Hills Chihuahua would not have raced to the top of the US box office.
I suspect if you look at the dollars you will see a direct correlation between the amount of money taken by each Saw film, and the increasing dumbness of the film. The dumber the film, the higher the gross. Eventually this will change simply because something dumber will come along and the average movie goer will say "oh look, a beetle" and move on the next big (dumb) thing. In the mean time we still have the Coens, Pixar and Benjamin Button to keep the rest of us amused (and yes, I know none of these constitute horror films). | ||||||
| FulciLives posted 2008 Oct 20 22:48 | ||||||
| I rather liked BLOOD SIMPLE by the Coen brothers. It's more of a mystery movie but could fit easily into horror given the grave nature of parts of it.
Also the Coen brothers had something to do with THE EVIL DEAD. I forget the particulars now but I think they helped edit it or something ... I seem to recall whatever involvement it was that it was more of a technical nature. Like "Hey guys I need to edit this movie using this editing machine show me how to do this OK" or something like that. - John "FulciLives" Coleman | ||||||
| guns1inger posted 2008 Oct 21 00:41 | ||||||
| The Coens and Sam Raimi were college friends I believe. Raimi has a brief cameo in Miller's Crossing, and the three of them worked together on Crimewave | ||||||
| arcthered posted 2009 Jan 27 09:05 | ||||||
| zombies rule! | ||||||
| guns1inger posted 2009 Jan 27 15:56 | ||||||
Only because you keep voting them in . . . . . . . | ||||||
| yoda313 posted 2009 Jan 27 17:22 | ||||||
| ||||||
| FulciLives posted 2009 Jan 28 09:59 | ||||||
Yes. Yes I do. Thank you. - John "FulciLives" Coleman |
Login/Register to our forum to be able to post here.