|
|
Post by Baldobomb-22-OH-MAN!!! on Jan 21, 2013 11:29:00 GMT -5
When I mentioned gore I meant in the way that some horror films, like the Saw and Hostel series, use it as a crutch to carry the films. The Saw films really don't. Well okay, the last three movies do (which is why they suck), and the 4th has a bit more than necessary, but overall the emphasis is on the story and characters. In fact, what I loved about the first movie is that it that it had very likable characters who I really wanted to see survive as the one thing I tend to agree has gotten worse and worse in horror recently is the amount of absolutely horrible people as main characters who you don't care about, and the way it toyed with horror clichés, making it look like they were going a stereotyped way and then turning things around and making it new again (admittedly, the sequels didn't do as good a job, but they're still interesting). And again, I agree that nothing but gore sucks, but many people act like this is what all horror movies do even when it really isn't the case. I can tell you if classics like Nightmare on Elm Street, Hellraiser, Evil Dead, Brain Dead, the Exorcist or Cube were released today, they'd be immediately dismissed as "torture porn" by people who want to sound clever. And it pisses me off even more when the same people tell me that stuff like The Cabin in the Woods is nothing but torture porn but worthless, insulting crap like Cannibal Holocaust or Funny Games are clever social satire. I LOVED Cabin in the Woods. it was the first "meta" horror movie I ever saw that was actually clever about it. it actually used the meta-commentary to enhance the plot. before that we always just got movies like Scream, which were too tongue-in-cheek for their own good. "hur dur this is just like that movie". the fact that it still works as a movie, even without the meta stuff makes it even better. that said I maintain that Cannibal Holocaust is a good film marred by pointless animal cruelty. Funny Games on the other hand is just a big ball of fail that doesn't understand the audience it's preaching to. Cabin in the Woods did a much better job of making the same point than Funny Games did. Cabin in the Woods is a great film. Funny Games is a sanctimonious sermon disguised as a film. |
|
|
|
Post by Baldobomb-22-OH-MAN!!! on Jan 21, 2013 11:30:16 GMT -5
I'm curious, if you would consider horror movies to only be one that include supernatural elements, how would you classify films like Psycho or Texas Chain Saw Massacre, as those are usually considered "definitive" horror flicks? I guess they're suspenseful, but there is surprisingly little gore in the latter, even though it is heavily implied. Not knocking your views at all, I'm just genuinely curious. If you're watching them on Netflix, I give my highest recommendation to the movie "Rubber." There's some gore, but it's mostly for comedic or surrealistic effect. It's a film that breaks the conventions of film storytelling like nothing I've ever seen. if they intent is to scare the audience, it's a horror movie. some of the scariest horror movies I've ever seen have no supernatural elements at all. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 21, 2013 11:37:41 GMT -5
"Everything was better before. Everything now is terrible."
I dunno - I feel like horror films are different now, but have their own qualities that make them just as good as the stuff from back in the day. I don't know what time frame you're working in, but in the last 5 years there have been some good horror films.
V/H/S was found footage, but it still managed to creep me out. I'm not a big fan of the style either.
Attack the Block was a great horror flick out of the UK.
Let Me In (original version)
The Crazies
Drag Me To Hell
Pandorum
There were probably others, I just can't think of right now.
I mean films back in the 70's - there were a ton of them that relied explicitly on gore to shock the viewer. Horror's always been about exploitation style film making. Whether its nudity, gore, jump scares, found footage. It's all about getting the scare.
|
|
BRV
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Wants him some Taco Flavored Kisses.
Posts: 17,382
|
Post by BRV on Jan 21, 2013 12:36:15 GMT -5
To borrow from Hitchcock, it used to be "There is no terror in a bang, only in the anticipation of it." Now it's "There is no terror in the anticipation, only in the bang." Suspense and horror used to be the same thing, then the slasher movie came out and it started to become about gore and jumps. Now the majority of them are all that, and I really lost any interest in horror movies because of it, because I can't stand jumps and gore. See, this is what most horror movies have forgotten. People hearken back to "The Texas Chain Saw Massacre" and have this mental image of this bloody, violent gore fest when, in actuality, barely any blood is spilled on screen. We only remember it as gory because it does what horror movies should do: it gets the audience about 95 percent there and then lets the viewer's mind do the rest of the work, which is often more brutal, vicious and horrifying than anything we'd actually witness on screen. But to go back to Hitchock's quote about the anticipation vs. the bang, I'll share a story from when I went to the theater to see "Sinister": {Spoiler}In the now-infamous lawnmower scene, people in the crowd were literally whimpering as the lawnmower just sped through the yard. No sound accompanies it, it's just the visual of a lawnmower going through a yard and people were collectively losing their s*** waiting for something to happen, and when it did, the audience lost its mind. I think it took a good 45 seconds for people to really calm themselves down after that scene. |
|
|
|
Post by viking85 on Jan 21, 2013 14:16:00 GMT -5
im sick of the bad pointless remakes a nightmare on elm street remake was the worst , it made freddy's dead seem great.
|
|
|
|
Post by xCompackx on Jan 21, 2013 14:39:22 GMT -5
When I mentioned gore I meant in the way that some horror films, like the Saw and Hostel series, use it as a crutch to carry the films. The Saw films really don't. Well okay, the last three movies do (which is why they suck), and the 4th has a bit more than necessary, but overall the emphasis is on the story and characters. In fact, what I loved about the first movie is that it that it had very likable characters who I really wanted to see survive as the one thing I tend to agree has gotten worse and worse in horror recently is the amount of absolutely horrible people as main characters who you don't care about, and the way it toyed with horror clichés, making it look like they were going a stereotyped way and then turning things around and making it new again (admittedly, the sequels didn't do as good a job, but they're still interesting). And again, I agree that nothing but gore sucks, but many people act like this is what all horror movies do even when it really isn't the case. I can tell you if classics like Nightmare on Elm Street, Hellraiser, Evil Dead, Brain Dead, the Exorcist or Cube were released today, they'd be immediately dismissed as "torture porn" by people who want to sound clever. And it pisses me off even more when the same people tell me that stuff like The Cabin in the Woods is nothing but torture porn but worthless, insulting crap like Cannibal Holocaust or Funny Games are clever social satire. Agreed about Saw. I admit the last one did suck, but I don't remember 1-6 having many scenes of "gore for the sake of gore". For me, the interest was more in the clever traps and the story rather than just seeing how many times a guy's head could explode or seeing someone set on fire. |
|
|
|
Post by Baldobomb-22-OH-MAN!!! on Jan 21, 2013 17:54:55 GMT -5
im sick of the bad pointless remakes a nightmare on elm street remake was the worst , it made freddy's dead seem great. that remake was so pointless and lousy it almost ruined Rooney Mara's career before it even started. Jackie Earl Haley was good in it, though. he put on a good performance, it's a shame it gets buried in the rest of the film being terrible. |
|
metylerca
King Koopa
Loves Him Some Backstreet Boys.
Don't be alarmed.
Posts: 12,479
|
Post by metylerca on Jan 21, 2013 19:40:57 GMT -5
im sick of the bad pointless remakes a nightmare on elm street remake was the worst , it made freddy's dead seem great. that remake was so pointless and lousy it almost ruined Rooney Mara's career before it even started. Jackie Earl Haley was good in it, though. he put on a good performance, it's a shame it gets buried in the rest of the film being terrible. JEH might have had a great performance, but all I remember is his audio clearly being piped in and too growly. Took away anything of worth for me. Oh, and his puma face makeup. |
|
|
|
Post by Koda, Master Crunchyroller on Jan 21, 2013 19:54:24 GMT -5
Honestly I'm more worried about the state or horror video games than horror films.
Almost the entire genre has morphed into action horror shooters.
It has been indie made/downloadable games that have recently been saving the genre. Games like Amnesia, Corpse Party(granted the first one is a remake of a 1990s PC game), The Walking Dead, DayZ, and Lone Survivor have been the kind of games keeping the genre afloat.
|
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Jan 21, 2013 20:19:07 GMT -5
Watch [.REC] (avoid the sequel though), The Cabin in the Woods or even he original Saw and you'll change your mind. I also hate the idea that gore in horror movies is a new thing, or when people call them "torture porn". It's called HORROR for a reason, because it's supposed to have HORRIFYING imagery. Yes, I get some movies manage to do it without showing too much gore and yes, I get that some movies rely far too heavily (as in, entirely) on splatters and guts, but the idea that it wasn't the case before or that it's all that's being made these days is ludicrous. Honestly, I'm far more offended by the overabundance of jumpscares these days than by the gore. It's not that there's never been gore before, or that there aren't good horror movies now. But I find that over time, fewer of those movies work to earn the scare and I would attribute a lot of it to how slasher films have gained in popularity and keep trying to outdo each other in the gore and jumps. It really does feel like a lot don't do as much to try to earn those scares anymore and a lot of directors of horror movies now are just content to yell "Oogah boogah boogah!" *blood* and call it a day. |
|
|
|
Post by Kash Flagg on Jan 21, 2013 23:40:48 GMT -5
Here's what I don't like about most horror films today (and there are exceptions)...I can't distinguish characters from one movie to the next. Sometimes I can't even distinguish characters in the same damn movie. True it's more a problem with Hollywood today than just the genre, but these cookie cutter characters make it hard for me to give a shit. The previous decades had a bit of the same deal, but now everyone that's cast in these flicks LOOK the same, or fit a certain type.
I watch 70's and 80's horror a lot more. And it's because at least there's a chance that the cast isn't entirely made up of hip looking guys or long dark haired clones of Jessica Biel. Sure there's big hair and fake boobs, but there's also the fat guy you hope to see die. He's been replaced by a dorky yet still fashion savy nerd.
Plus I miss italian horror. f*** Saw. The first one was clever and the rest is wash and repeat.
|
|
|
|
Post by milkomania on Jan 22, 2013 0:11:11 GMT -5
So, what do you guys think about the psychological horror route? I notice most non-American and indie films go this route (probably cheaper). And I've watched my fair share of Japanese and Korean flicks (Anyone see "Cello"?). I'm only selectively a fan. Some I think are screwed up only because it's cool and easier not to have a plot. Others...are just weird.
I do LOVE Hitchcock, but I think his best work is suspense (Rear Window, etc.). I do like movies that make you think though. I thought the first Saw was really good, and I almost didn't see it at all thanks to its dumb ad campaign. I didn't see the others. Blair Witch...meh. I think a successful horror flick has to play on some deep-seeded fear. I saw "The I Inside" which would probably not scare most people, but played on two of my fears- hospitals and memory lapses.
|
|
Welfare Willis
Crow T. Robot
Pornomancer
555-BONE
FDIC Bonsured
Game Center CX Kacho on!
Posts: 44,259
|
Post by Welfare Willis on Jan 22, 2013 0:57:07 GMT -5
I watch 70's and 80's horror a lot more. And it's because at least there's a chance that the cast isn't entirely made up of hip looking guys or long dark haired clones of Jessica Biel. Sure there's big hair and fake boobs, but there's also the fat guy you hope to see die. He's been replaced by a dorky yet still fashion savy nerd. Plus I miss italian horror. f*** Saw. The first one was clever and the rest is wash and repeat. Ditto on Italian horror. Damn were people like Fulci, Argento, and Bava on some awesome kick. |
|
|
|
Post by Kash Flagg on Jan 22, 2013 1:02:58 GMT -5
I watch 70's and 80's horror a lot more. And it's because at least there's a chance that the cast isn't entirely made up of hip looking guys or long dark haired clones of Jessica Biel. Sure there's big hair and fake boobs, but there's also the fat guy you hope to see die. He's been replaced by a dorky yet still fashion savy nerd. Plus I miss italian horror. f*** Saw. The first one was clever and the rest is wash and repeat. Ditto on Italian horror. Damn were people like Fulci, Argento, and Bava on some awesome kick. Plus the sets, the cinematography, the music (Goblin!)...it really knew how to create an atmosphere. |
|
|
|
Post by Drillbit Taylor on Jan 22, 2013 1:49:11 GMT -5
I watch 70's and 80's horror a lot more. And it's because at least there's a chance that the cast isn't entirely made up of hip looking guys or long dark haired clones of Jessica Biel. Sure there's big hair and fake boobs, but there's also the fat guy you hope to see die. He's been replaced by a dorky yet still fashion savy nerd. Plus I miss italian horror. f*** Saw. The first one was clever and the rest is wash and repeat. Ditto on Italian horror. Damn were people like Fulci, Argento, and Bava on some awesome kick. Hell even the movies by those directors like Fulci's Four of the Apocalypse, which are not pure horror, have disturbing horror elements that just make your skin crawl. |
|
|
|
Post by Danimal on Jan 22, 2013 4:26:39 GMT -5
im sick of the bad pointless remakes a nightmare on elm street remake was the worst , it made freddy's dead seem great. I liked the Fright Night remake. Considering it actually got good solid reviews(73% on RT) I was surprised it didn't do dick at the box office. |
|
