IC Forum Archive

artifact · Posts: 86

I've been on a horror film kick since a few days before Halloween, and at this point I'm fairly sure I've seen every conceivable way to a human life. I am not longer content to see an individual dismembered in the traditional sense. That's far too easy. Their deaths are but mere plot devices to me.

I've been working my way through my own horror library, as well as those of my friends and my local Blockbuster, and it almost goes without saying that it's been a test in patience. For every worthwhile film, there's nine or ten bad ones. In all honesty, most of the films I've watched have been pure trash. It doesn't take a fucking Rhodes scholar to conceive of a marketable horror film, as such gems as I Know What You Did Last Summer incontrovertibly prove. I would rather saw my dick off than watch that movie again. I'm convinced that the Golden Era of the Horror Film took place between 1978 and 1988, give or take a year or two. The late 1990's almost killed the genre in America, and the recent rebirth of the splatter film has brought it back.

You have to give respect to the classics. Nosferatu, Night of the Living Dead, Psycho and so on. There's a fuckton of fine, fine horror films out there. My intent isn't to compile a canonical list of the genre's staples. It's been done a thousand times by a thousand different poeple and media outlets, and more often than not you will disagree vehemently with their compilation. Honestly, the "horror genre" is a delightfully ambiguous classification. It's useless to try and define its parameters.

I have a newfound appreciation for how difficult it must be to create a truly good horror movie. When you watch these things for extended periods of time, you find that you can't make up for lack of quality with quantity of death. It doesn't work like a John Woo movie. Hell, The Wicker Man was horrific and only one person died. It's about atmosphere, dammit. The Thing had it. Suspiria had it. Hell, you could even throw Blue Velvet and Lynch's work in there. He's a fucking madman, and I've even yet to see Eraserhead. The recent rebirth of the splatter film has proven to me, however, that you can compensate for relatively poor writing with the creativity with which you slay the characters. I thought Hostel's pacing and atmosphere were piss poor, but damn did you see what they did to that jigga's eye.

In the end, however, everything is entirely subjective. Anyway, I'm well aware that many of you are avid movie buffs, and dammit I respect that. I want to know what your favorite horror films are and why. Hell, I need recommendations. Also, in your opinion, what elements comprise a good horror film?

George · Posts: 1656

I tend to watch horror films more for the comedy and the gore than the terror. I think Alien's the only one that scared me much at all.

Dawn of the Dead is awesome, it's like a sitcom with zombies. It's far better than Night because Night tried to be scary and failed, whereas Dawn just tries to be a good movie and succeeds.

Nightmare on Elm Street 2 has a hilarious amount of gay subtext. The Freddy/Jason movies are good times overall.

The Devil's Rejects was a cool Rob Zombie flick if you're into lots of torture and twisted characters.

I actually really enjoyed Saw and Saw II. Has anyone here seen the third and care to comment?

Karoshi · Posts: 968

Feast was the craziest thing I've seen in some time.
Not so much crazy than over-the-top.

If you've never seen an amputee face strapped with explosives, face fucked by a bio monster, and then detonated, you will.

There were quite a few changes from the original Project Greenlight script but it was still enjoyable.

FortNinety · Posts: 4591

Let me make the first Japanese flick recommendation of the thread, and let me make it an actually good one: Cure. There's more drama than real scares, but I've never been so creeped out by an ending.

Scratchmonkey · Posts: 2229

The original Haunting. Also, a British film called Dead of Night. Old; still some of the creepiest films I've ever seen.

Mr. Apol · Posts: 279

original poster: what's your opinion on scream? the first one. it's really good, but i think most everyone sort of ... missed the point with it. it still stands to be the first postmodern horror film though. it's clever in it's own way, even if i'm not big into slashers.

come on, no one mentions creepshow?

damn movie is possibly one of the most genius horror flicks ever. especially the second story featuring stephenfuckingking as a redneck. great stuff that doesn't take itself too damn seriously.

on the subject of hostel, i was pretty hyped about it, but it ended up being sort of weaksauce.

also, no mention of the first two hellraiser films? they were top of the game, still are. shame that it's downhill from there.

dark steve · Posts: 3002

george stop saying bad, ignorant things about night of the living dead >:|

Mr. Apol · Posts: 279

night really wasn't trying to be scary. it was trying to set up a brooding atmosphere, a mood. if romero had wanted the zombies to be scary, he'd had made them a little more threatening to begin with.

honestly i don't think romero's a genius - he has as many misses as hits - but he's not an idiot. he set out to disturb the audience with night, and it really did work. the imagery and theme were pretty graphic for the time.

given, in this day and age the same images don't have the shock value they did back then, but it still holds up pretty well, both in cinematography and plot.

the film is really sparse and economic - arguably romero didn't do this on purpose, they were shooting the fucker on shoestrings - but it worked in that even though the monsters were right there in your face, they had the same creeping effect that a lot of movies give by not showing the monster. i believe it's because the zombies are a lot more identifiable than an alien or a monster or whatever. they're just people who happen to be trying to capture and eat others.

i mean hell, i'd go so far as to call night less of a horror film, and more of a psychological thriller.

Scratchmonkey · Posts: 2229

Night is definitely more psychological, it's less about fear and more about desperation. For one of my music projects at school, I composed and synched up a score for Night. It wound up pretty John Carpenter-y.

Mr. Apol · Posts: 279

Scratchmonkey wrote:

Night is definitely more psychological, it's less about fear and more about desperation. For one of my music projects at school, I composed and synched up a score for Night. It wound up pretty John Carpenter-y.

if you ever upload this anywhere, please link it. i love carpenter's early scores.

Ging · Posts: 841

I imagine if you were on the right drugs at the time, Altered States would be horrifying.

artifact · Posts: 86

Mr. Apol wrote:

original poster: what's your opinion on scream? the first one. it's really good, but i think most everyone sort of ... missed the point with it. it still stands to be the first postmodern horror film though. it's clever in it's own way, even if i'm not big into slashers.

The original is great, though its sequels and the films its spawned almost make you forget that you liked the movie in the first place.

On the subject of movies spawned by Scream, have you seen Cherry Falls? Talk about killing the genre by setting the bar too high.

Mr. Apol wrote:

i mean hell, i'd go so far as to call night less of a horror film, and more of a psychological thriller.

It's definitely more psychological, though it's important that we recognize the film's impact and the context in which it was filmed. Remember, the film was released in 1968. Horror films of that era are rather tame, a trend from which Night represents a significant departure. The film called by Variety "an unrelieved orgy of sadism." Hell, it even sparked a censorship debate. Is it scary? Well, maybe not by today's standards. It is hard to deny, however, its impact on what's traditionally considered the horror genre. Did it contain elements of a psychological thriller? Oh, absolutely. I've never considered it important, however, to confine a movie to a single genre because its influence isn't confined to a single genre.

antitype · Posts: 1148

Pulse — not the remake, but the original, by Kiyoshi Kurosawa — is as close a thing as I've seen to my ideal horror film.

Something very different that I really enjoy is Slither. It's not very original at all, as it draws from films and comics like Cronenberg's Shivers, Uzumaki, The Thing, Body Snatchers, and tons of other horror, but it's got a tongue-in-cheek approach that works without going overboard like Scream. It interests me more than Scream, too, because rather than dull slasher flicks it comments on psychological and "body" horror, which is a subject that I always find irresistible.

So yeah, for horror I tend to look for things concerned with those themes — things in the vein of Cronenberg and Lynch — whether or not they're actually thought of as within the "horror" genre.

Mr. Apol · Posts: 279

antitype wrote:

Pulse — not the remake, but the original, by Kiyoshi Kurosawa — is as close a thing as I've seen to my ideal horror film.

Something very different that I really enjoy is Slither. It's not very original at all, as it draws from films and comics like Cronenberg's Shivers, Uzumaki, The Thing, Body Snatchers, and tons of other horror, but it's got a tongue-in-cheek approach that works without going overboard like Scream. It interests me more than Scream, too, because rather than dull slasher flicks it comments on psychological and "body" horror, which is a subject that I always find irresistible.

So yeah, for horror I tend to look for things concerned with those themes — things in the vein of Cronenberg and Lynch — whether or not they're actually thought of as within the "horror" genre.

slither was seriously a good time.

the dr. pibb line was probably one of the most recent "greatest lines of dialogue ever."

it's sad no one gave a shit about it though.

Brock · Posts: 421

I've been meaning to see Slither for a while. It looks like a throwback to the sort of tongue-in-cheek horror movies from the 80s.

Dated as it might be, I found Night of the Living Dead to be an incredible movie. There's a lot of tension in the movie, and a couple of moments of, I wouldn't exactly say "scares," but heightened anxiety.

Dawn, Day, and Land unfortunately aren't all that scary, but are fun watches in their own respects.

What about the Evil Dead movies? Mostly the first one, but the second one, too. I think I've only watched the first one once, but it definitely freaked me out a few times. While Evil Dead 2 is more of a comedy than anything, I always fucking jump right as Ash turns into his Deadite form and starts to attack that chick.

I don't know if it counts as horror, but I had an extremely difficult time watching Audition.

"Kiri kiri kiri" ;_;

Mr. Apol · Posts: 279

slither is a throwback, yeah. it's great fun.

the evil dead films are pretty good, but i couldn't watch them again.

although, the first time i watched the original, i was in a cabin in the woods, everyone had left the summer camp for the weekend, and a fog set in.

that's setting a mood, kids.

i don't really like a lot of japanese horror, because a lot of it includes ghosts. i don't really dig ghost stuff. one film, though, tomie really sticks out as a work of genius. don't bother with the awful sequels, but the first one is definitely a good one to check out. of course, tomie has nothing to do with ghosts, so there you go. it's also done by jungi ito, a genius in his own right (although the film adaptation of uzumaki tried d a bit too hard and had a cop out ending - i think the budget ran out).

if you get a chance - and you like zombie films (and asian cinema) - see junk. imagine lock, stock and two smoking barrels mixed with zombie and there you go. it's fun, and has a hilarious white guy playing an "american military commander" (named col. mcgruff of all things).

finnagain · Posts: 181

You know what? Zombies just are not scary.

I don't even think they are <em>supposed</em> to be scary, Mindless brain-eating machines? I mean, they'll eat your brains and then you'll die. There is no sadism in a zombie's heart. And without some sadism -- without willful action from conscience actors -- how horrifying can a thing be?

Nature can be cruel and unyielding, but horrifying?

Cronenberg is about the only director who works in the horror genre that I adore. Lynch, too, I suppose -- if you think of Lynch as a horror director kind of guy. Which I don't.

antitype · Posts: 1148

Like I said, Lynch is a director not working within the horror genre, but his films almost always leave me in a weird mental space, giving me nightmares for several days after seeing them. This was especially true in Mulholland Dr.'s case. I think Lynch knows how to mainline the subconscious, cutting right through our conscious "buffer zones" — which keep generally keep us sane — and exposing chaotic dreamstate thought in a waking environment. So his films leave me in a mental state sort of on the flipside of trance-state dreams. You know, those dreams you have where you think you're awake and yet you can't move, but you can look around the room and maybe because you're still asleep and dreaming you'll see strange patterns of light on the walls or you'll experience an even more severe hallucination of sorts; for example, the apparently rather common dream of some menacing figure standing at the end of your bed. His films lay bare the deepest desires and fears, and they have a more frightening impact on me than any slasher flick.

Zombies, yeah. Not scary in general, though there are some moments in Argento films in which they look pretty fucking ghoulish. There were parts in 28 Days Later, of all movies, that I thought were a bit creepy — the scene in the church, for example, where the protagonist sees a huge pile of bodies, and when he calls out, "Hello?" a few of the corpses suddenly turned, mouths gaping and eyes empty, to face him.

For an interesting take on the zombie film, see They Came Back. It's not horror, though.

Mr. Apol wrote:

the evil dead films are pretty good, but i couldn't watch them again.

Army of Darkness holds up better for repeat reviewings than the other two. Last time I saw it was a couple of years ago with friends in San Francisco, and it was good fun.

Mr. Apol wrote:

i don't really like a lot of japanese horror, because a lot of it includes ghosts. i don't really dig ghost stuff.

I'd say I don't either, if Ju-On and Dark Water and crap like that is anything to go by, but see Pulse. It does the ghost thing in a far more convincing and disturbing manner than you might think.

You have to see that in motion to understand.

FortNinety · Posts: 4591

Again, if you don't like most of the Japanese horror flicks, go catch Cure. No ghost, just psychology.

antitype · Posts: 1148

FortNinety wrote:

Again, if you don't like most of the Japanese horror flicks, go catch Cure. No ghost, just psychology.

And it's by the same director as Pulse. In fact, in Pulse the "ghosts" are a rather naked manifestation of the alienation inspired by modern living (you are on the internet, etc.) and are handled much more subtly than the utterly unconvincing powder-white creeping children of other Japanese ghost stories.

Pijaibros · Posts: 968

FortNinety · Posts: 4591

antitype wrote:

FortNinety wrote:

Again, if you don't like most of the Japanese horror flicks, go catch Cure. No ghost, just psychology.

And it's by the same director as Pulse. In fact, in Pulse the "ghosts" are a rather naked manifestation of the alienation inspired by modern living (you are on the internet, etc.) and are handled much more subtly than the utterly unconvincing powder-white creeping children of other Japanese ghost stories.

I had totally forgotten that I saw Pulse as well! I'm a big fan of the director, seen many of his films.

antitype · Posts: 1148

Yep, he's a favorite of mine.

Also good: Charisma, Bright Future, Barren Illusions, Doppelgänger.

Most of those border on "horror" while drawing from the styles of Lynch, Tarkovsky, etc.

FortNinety · Posts: 4591

Yeah, Doppelgänger is pretty much the best evil twin movie I have ever seen.

Mr. Apol · Posts: 279

Pijaibros wrote:

oh geez.

please tell me this is fake.

oh geez.

dark steve · Posts: 3002

That poster is fake.

BUT CASTLEVANIA IS REAL