• We experienced a brief downtime due to a Xenforo server configuration update. This was an attempt to limit bot traffic. They have rolled back and the site is now operating normally. Apologies for the inconvinience.

When will horror movies become "scary" again?

He just quickly talks about horror fans in general, and saying they're never pleased if its a new idea or sequel.

Say the same people who hate sequels are the same there opening weekend.
 


Here's my problem with Eli on this. He's making an excuse. Yeah, horror fans complain because generaly new orginal films are few and far between and of the ones we get, maybe 5 films in 3 years are actually good. The rest are just somewhat stupid. It's not us not giving a person a chance, it's them not making something worth watching. It's them trying to please us too much.

"Yeah, it's not Evil Dead. Nothing can be like Evil Dead, that's why it's Evil Dead" Eli --- True Eli, so why do people want to give us a chopped up story that compares to Evil Dead if they don't want us bashing it for not being Evil Dead?

Eli's bright, but he's not too smart. He needs to stop worrying about fans. That seems to be his issue, he's too scared to do something because he wants to be liked too much. A real directer/writer wouldn't give a **** what we thought and just do what he wants and hope for the best.
 
but then we (the fans) would ***** at him for not caring about the fans....and it just doesn't happen in horror....directors like Michael Bay, Zack Snyder, George Romero, etc....all get **** on (mainly on the internet) for "not caring" or whatever....

Scary is a relative term....I still find 'The Thing' very scary....
 
Personally, i'm sick of every horror movie having to be a freakin' SLASHER movie. It's one of the most contrived genres of horror that i've ever seen, and where it has it's gems, it gets stale. That said, i'm sick of seeing zombie movies too. Zombie films seem to the cop-out with most people. Most zombie films are people running away and hiding in an abandoned building, or it's just over the top gore that still doesn't beat the intensity of a Lucio Fulci film. [REC] was phenomenal and is one of my new favorites, as it was original, and it the first-person style really added an extra scare level as you see everything through a narrow point of view. and it wasn't even that violent. It had it's moments, but it didn't rub it in your face, which i appreciated. I'm told Diary Of The Dead is supposed to be really good, and i bought it, but haven't watched it yet. You see, when the film was first announced, i was under the impression that the film was to take place during the events of NOTLD, which i believe it does. But i was under the assumption that it was going to take place in the 60's, which excited it. When i found out it wasn't, i kinda lost my will to watch it. Ill get to it eventually, i guess.

But i think it's time to bring back the more mythical monsters and time to start taking chances with horror again. The Wolfman remake looks AWESOME. Guillermo Del Toro wants to do a Frankenstein film! 30 Days of Night was a step backwards while being a step forward, whether or not you thought the movie was good or bad: It made vampires EVIL. And it had wonderful atmosphere.Unfortunately it didn't catch on and we're going to be plagued with whimpy Twilight vampires for the next decade. "Let The Right One In" was nice and i don't really understand everyone who says it's a love story. Well, it is...kind of. But not like Twilight, and i saw it more as a film about loneliness and friendship. And the fact that it was two kids, and not ******ed teenagers made it all the more touching. BUT I'd like to see some evil vampires that has no souls, are not love sick, savagely kill people and ruin lives. I'd like to see a Dracula movie that actually portrays the Count as the evil sadistic bastard that he is, and not as some love sick wuss.

Doctor Jones made a great point about all these horror films focusing on teenagers and how it's a problem. I agree. Horror films should be aimed at various age groups. I should be able to go see a horror film in a movie theater with my dad and walk out with him agreeing that what we both saw was great. As i said, bring back the mythical monsters: Vampires, werewolves, other folkloric creatures, and make them scary and fascinating all at once.

Guillermo Del Toro wants to make "At The Mountains of Madness", which if he gets it made, i GUARANTEE will be the best horror film ever made in the last 20 years. I'm a huge Lovecraft fan and feel he's got some of the best material to have turned into films. Most that have been made based on his work have really missed the point. I'm looking at you Stuart Gordon. But films that have a Lovecraftian influence on them kick ass: "Alien", "The Thing", "Hellboy", "The Crawling Eye". There's some Robert E. Howard stuff, outside of his Conan work that is just unnerving. "Pigeons From Hell" is perhaps one of the scariest short stories i have ever read. Yea, the title is cheesy, but the story is just intense.

Del Toro has said that the studios were iffy on "At The Mountains of Madness" because there was no love interest or a happy ending. That's the great thing about Lovecraft. No one escapes the reality of the horror the encounter and that's the scariest thing of all. And Lovecraft didn't rely on heavy gore. He managed to build tension and atmosphere and when you least expected it, he scared the crap out of you. Now, i'm all for watching over the top gore-fests, but only when i'm need of a good laugh. But filmmakers really need to learn how to build tension and atmosphere and come up with something new. And by "new", i don't mean a guy wearing a Mr. Spock mask and carrying a battle axe killing horny teens crap.

Sorry for the rant. It's just that i'm sick of crappy new horror films and after seeing the pop ups for "My Bloody Valentine" on every website i go to, and on TV all the time, i kind of lost my mind there for a second.
 
Scary is kind of a relative term, isnt it?
 
Scary is kind of a relative term, isnt it?

It is, but alot of films fail to be "scary". To be scary, to me, is to make the viewer uncomfortable. But not in a "Watch as i brutally skin this person alive and feed them their intestines!!!" kind of way. If you haven't already, go check out [REC]. The last 10 minutes or so exemplify what i'm talking about. It's just so....:wow::wow::wow:. I can't really describe it. But it's really uneasy without being gory and violent.
 
Personally, i'm sick of every horror movie having to be a freakin' SLASHER movie. It's one of the most contrived genres of horror that i've ever seen, and where it has it's gems, it gets stale. That said, i'm sick of seeing zombie movies too. Zombie films seem to the cop-out with most people. Most zombie films are people running away and hiding in an abandoned building, or it's just over the top gore that still doesn't beat the intensity of a Lucio Fulci film. [REC] was phenomenal and is one of my new favorites, as it was original, and it the first-person style really added an extra scare level as you see everything through a narrow point of view. and it wasn't even that violent. It had it's moments, but it didn't rub it in your face, which i appreciated. I'm told Diary Of The Dead is supposed to be really good, and i bought it, but haven't watched it yet. You see, when the film was first announced, i was under the impression that the film was to take place during the events of NOTLD, which i believe it does. But i was under the assumption that it was going to take place in the 60's, which excited it. When i found out it wasn't, i kinda lost my will to watch it. Ill get to it eventually, i guess.

But i think it's time to bring back the more mythical monsters and time to start taking chances with horror again. The Wolfman remake looks AWESOME. Guillermo Del Toro wants to do a Frankenstein film! 30 Days of Night was a step backwards while being a step forward, whether or not you thought the movie was good or bad: It made vampires EVIL. And it had wonderful atmosphere.Unfortunately it didn't catch on and we're going to be plagued with whimpy Twilight vampires for the next decade. "Let The Right One In" was nice and i don't really understand everyone who says it's a love story. Well, it is...kind of. But not like Twilight, and i saw it more as a film about loneliness and friendship. And the fact that it was two kids, and not ******ed teenagers made it all the more touching. BUT I'd like to see some evil vampires that has no souls, are not love sick, savagely kill people and ruin lives. I'd like to see a Dracula movie that actually portrays the Count as the evil sadistic bastard that he is, and not as some love sick wuss.

Doctor Jones made a great point about all these horror films focusing on teenagers and how it's a problem. I agree. Horror films should be aimed at various age groups. I should be able to go see a horror film in a movie theater with my dad and walk out with him agreeing that what we both saw was great. As i said, bring back the mythical monsters: Vampires, werewolves, other folkloric creatures, and make them scary and fascinating all at once.

Guillermo Del Toro wants to make "At The Mountains of Madness", which if he gets it made, i GUARANTEE will be the best horror film ever made in the last 20 years. I'm a huge Lovecraft fan and feel he's got some of the best material to have turned into films. Most that have been made based on his work have really missed the point. I'm looking at you Stuart Gordon. But films that have a Lovecraftian influence on them kick ass: "Alien", "The Thing", "Hellboy", "The Crawling Eye". There's some Robert E. Howard stuff, outside of his Conan work that is just unnerving. "Pigeons From Hell" is perhaps one of the scariest short stories i have ever read. Yea, the title is cheesy, but the story is just intense.

Del Toro has said that the studios were iffy on "At The Mountains of Madness" because there was no love interest or a happy ending. That's the great thing about Lovecraft. No one escapes the reality of the horror the encounter and that's the scariest thing of all. And Lovecraft didn't rely on heavy gore. He managed to build tension and atmosphere and when you least expected it, he scared the crap out of you. Now, i'm all for watching over the top gore-fests, but only when i'm need of a good laugh. But filmmakers really need to learn how to build tension and atmosphere and come up with something new. And by "new", i don't mean a guy wearing a Mr. Spock mask and carrying a battle axe killing horny teens crap.

Sorry for the rant. It's just that i'm sick of crappy new horror films and after seeing the pop ups for "My Bloody Valentine" on every website i go to, and on TV all the time, i kind of lost my mind there for a second.
Totally agreed.:up:
 
The Grudge 2 is on FX right now, and while the first did keep my ass up, I am watching this **** now, and I'm like....what the **** is this ********? It is not scary, it's just a bunch of cutscenes as each kid gets cut down by the pale longhaired japanese chick. No kind of suspense, you know they can't beat her.
 
Once Hollywood stops its policy of continuously revamping and remaking previously ideas and the same script style.
 
but then we (the fans) would ***** at him for not caring about the fans....and it just doesn't happen in horror....directors like Michael Bay, Zack Snyder, George Romero, etc....all get **** on (mainly on the internet) for "not caring" or whatever....

Scary is a relative term....I still find 'The Thing' very scary....
The internet is basically the biggest playground to ***** about stuff and never try to fix something their selves. As i see it, you don't like it fix it then. don't complain and whine.
 
I think Clive Barker's 'The Damnation Game' needs to be turned into a film. That book kept me reading wondering, what's going to happen, what's going to happen and builds off that terror that you KNOW something bad is going to happen but while you wait you are being told other horrorible stuff while you go along.


As for the the teenager/horror angle you see so much off, I really don't mind it. I'm only 23 so I consider myself still young (and I like seeing girls my age on screen more than I would like seeing some 40 something woman). But I can watch an older setting characters just as well, just all depends on the material and setting of the film is all. And let's remember, since the 70's, horror films gain the most interest from the youthful groups who go see them.


Vampires....I agree with Crimson Mist, I would like vampires to get away from being so ....oh how should I say it...heart throbing, but since the arriveal of the conception of Vampires they have always been the lonely/seeking love/misunderstood/bitter/vengful/full of rage/anxious/evil beings. They are indeed a confused mix of a person who wants but can't have. What ruins that whole notion is indeed Twighlight which actually GIVES the vampire what he wants/desires. That ruins the whole thing of a vampire because they're whole thing is seeking and constantly seeking but never finding or having what they desire. Which is why they are always in a foul mood and just wanting to kill you and make you as bitter and lonely as they are. Dracula himself was always a heartbroken person deep inside who was bitter he could never have his love back and so he seeks out others to replace that desire but is always torn with the idea. Even if you take away the vampire aspect of Dracula (which is what I REALLY WANT TO SEE), he is still an evil person to the core but holds one spot to one love and everything else around him is war. Once he loses that love, EVERYTHING is war. Why haven't I seen the real version of Dracula on film yet? OH...that's right (check into the guy...*****up guy)


Monsters.....Let me ask, what would you come up with that's new and fresh? Let me guess, a space creature that comes to earth and shape shifts? Or an undiscovered prehistoric being that attacks? Insects with unknown human adapting qualities? The monster in the closet/under the bed angle? Something radioactive? Mutated? Disfigured? Paranormal? Made up? What could you come up with that says 'Now that's something I HAVEN'T seen before?'


There's an angle out there, untapped/or barely used (hehe...a virgin if you will) for horror/thriller/suspense just waiting, bitting it's time, ready to scare you at any moment...and the real horror is we're seeing it right now. It's looking at us right in the eye, out in the open, laughing at you that you're missing it. Because it's not following the norm, the usual, the idea of what's in your mind. It's not where you would think it would be, but slightly to the left. What scares you? It's the knowledge of not knowning.
 
As for the the teenager/horror angle you see so much off, I really don't mind it. I'm only 23 so I consider myself still young (and I like seeing girls my age on screen more than I would like seeing some 40 something woman). But I can watch an older setting characters just as well, just all depends on the material and setting of the film is all. And let's remember, since the 70's, horror films gain the most interest from the youthful groups who go see them.

I'm 20, and where it would be nice to see people around my age on screen, it would be nice to stop seeing this generalized stereotype of stupid teenagers on screen. Remember that dude from the "Scream" movies, the horror movie geek? That kind of guy should be in more movies. I'd prefer to see normal people, not rich, spoiled, uber popular people, dealing with a situation.

But even with that, i'm more fascinated with different kinds of horror. The Slasher film isn't really a favorite genre of mine. Literary horror is great though. You're a Clive Barker fan, so you know what I mean. There's a plethora of H.P. Lovecraft stories that are just waiting to be turned into films. Remember all those cheesy Roger Corman adaptations of Edgar Allan Poe? The Hammer horror films? Bring that back. There's so much potential out there for films in books alone that could then inspire more films.

Vampires....I agree with Crimson Mist, I would like vampires to get away from being so ....oh how should I say it...heart throbing, but since the arriveal of the conception of Vampires they have always been the lonely/seeking love/misunderstood/bitter/vengful/full of rage/anxious/evil beings. They are indeed a confused mix of a person who wants but can't have. What ruins that whole notion is indeed Twighlight which actually GIVES the vampire what he wants/desires. That ruins the whole thing of a vampire because they're whole thing is seeking and constantly seeking but never finding or having what they desire. Which is why they are always in a foul mood and just wanting to kill you and make you as bitter and lonely as they are. Dracula himself was always a heartbroken person deep inside who was bitter he could never have his love back and so he seeks out others to replace that desire but is always torn with the idea. Even if you take away the vampire aspect of Dracula (which is what I REALLY WANT TO SEE), he is still an evil person to the core but holds one spot to one love and everything else around him is war. Once he loses that love, EVERYTHING is war. Why haven't I seen the real version of Dracula on film yet? OH...that's right (check into the guy...*****up guy)

Nah, i disagree. Vampires only became wimpy and lonely with the advent of Anne Rice, in my opinion. I have never found vampires to be misunderstood or sad. And i REALLY disagree with your idea of Dracula. I'm a Dracula geek. Dracula was NEVER a heartbroken person who was bitter that he couldn't have his love back. In the novel, Dracula is PURE EVIL. He's not lonely, or heartbroken. He feeds babies to his vampire brides(or daughters, depending on how deep you read into it). If there's something Dracula wants, he takes it. Why? Because he can. I disagree with the notion that since Dracula has been alive for 500 years, he has to be lonely. 500 years is a long time. He has 500 years to pillage and destroy and plan. That's Dracula. There was never the lost love aspect of the character until Richard Matheson, for some strange reason, used it in his adaptation directed by Dan Curtis, starring Jack Palance, which Francis Ford Coppola then used for his crappy film. It was kind of pointless. If Dracula has one love, it's not for any human being. It's his love for causing pain amongst those who try to stop him. It's his love for evil, simply because he can be. I would love to see that on screen, a faithful adaptation of the novel, true to all the characters in the book, AS WRITTEN. How come Dracula HAS to be tragic? Why can't he be unsympathetic?


Monsters.....Let me ask, what would you come up with that's new and fresh? Let me guess, a space creature that comes to earth and shape shifts? Or an undiscovered prehistoric being that attacks? Insects with unknown human adapting qualities? The monster in the closet/under the bed angle? Something radioactive? Mutated? Disfigured? Paranormal? Made up? What could you come up with that says 'Now that's something I HAVEN'T seen before?'

Cthulhu. Google it.

It's not so much being new and fresh, it's just bringing this stuff back. Have you seen "The Host"? Giant monster movie. We've seen it before, but it's such a GOOD movie. It's in the execution and presentation of this material that can work. The new Wolfman movie, for example. How many times have we seen that? But what's to stop that film, regardless of the preconceived notions of the film, from scaring the crap out of people? [REC] is the same thing: People trapped with zombies. We've seen it before. But the way it's presented is scary as hell. And it's a GOOD movie. and that movie "Trick 'r Treat" is supposed to be awesome, but unfortunately was pushed back indefinitely. It was supposed to come out in 2007.


There's an angle out there, untapped/or barely used (hehe...a virgin if you will) for horror/thriller/suspense just waiting, bitting it's time, ready to scare you at any moment...and the real horror is we're seeing it right now. It's looking at us right in the eye, out in the open, laughing at you that you're missing it. Because it's not following the norm, the usual, the idea of what's in your mind. It's not where you would think it would be, but slightly to the left. What scares you? It's the knowledge of not knowning.[/QUOTE]

Absolutely. There is something waiting to be seen in horror films that hasn't been seen before. But i'd go so far as to say you can find it in books and in folklore and in myths. It's just that people in Hollywood are too busy rehashing the same movie over and over again, and it's the slasher film.
 
I'm 20, and where it would be nice to see people around my age on screen, it would be nice to stop seeing this generalized stereotype of stupid teenagers on screen. Remember that dude from the "Scream" movies, the horror movie geek? That kind of guy should be in more movies. I'd prefer to see normal people, not rich, spoiled, uber popular people, dealing with a situation.

But even with that, i'm more fascinated with different kinds of horror. The Slasher film isn't really a favorite genre of mine. Literary horror is great though. You're a Clive Barker fan, so you know what I mean. There's a plethora of H.P. Lovecraft stories that are just waiting to be turned into films. Remember all those cheesy Roger Corman adaptations of Edgar Allan Poe? The Hammer horror films? Bring that back. There's so much potential out there for films in books alone that could then inspire more films.



Nah, i disagree. Vampires only became wimpy and lonely with the advent of Anne Rice, in my opinion. I have never found vampires to be misunderstood or sad. And i REALLY disagree with your idea of Dracula. I'm a Dracula geek. Dracula was NEVER a heartbroken person who was bitter that he couldn't have his love back. In the novel, Dracula is PURE EVIL. He's not lonely, or heartbroken. He feeds babies to his vampire brides(or daughters, depending on how deep you read into it). If there's something Dracula wants, he takes it. Why? Because he can. I disagree with the notion that since Dracula has been alive for 500 years, he has to be lonely. 500 years is a long time. He has 500 years to pillage and destroy and plan. That's Dracula. There was never the lost love aspect of the character until Richard Matheson, for some strange reason, used it in his adaptation directed by Dan Curtis, starring Jack Palance, which Francis Ford Coppola then used for his crappy film. It was kind of pointless. If Dracula has one love, it's not for any human being. It's his love for causing pain amongst those who try to stop him. It's his love for evil, simply because he can be. I would love to see that on screen, a faithful adaptation of the novel, true to all the characters in the book, AS WRITTEN. How come Dracula HAS to be tragic? Why can't he be unsympathetic?




Cthulhu. Google it.

It's not so much being new and fresh, it's just bringing this stuff back. Have you seen "The Host"? Giant monster movie. We've seen it before, but it's such a GOOD movie. It's in the execution and presentation of this material that can work. The new Wolfman movie, for example. How many times have we seen that? But what's to stop that film, regardless of the preconceived notions of the film, from scaring the crap out of people? [REC] is the same thing: People trapped with zombies. We've seen it before. But the way it's presented is scary as hell. And it's a GOOD movie. and that movie "Trick 'r Treat" is supposed to be awesome, but unfortunately was pushed back indefinitely. It was supposed to come out in 2007.


There's an angle out there, untapped/or barely used (hehe...a virgin if you will) for horror/thriller/suspense just waiting, bitting it's time, ready to scare you at any moment...and the real horror is we're seeing it right now. It's looking at us right in the eye, out in the open, laughing at you that you're missing it. Because it's not following the norm, the usual, the idea of what's in your mind. It's not where you would think it would be, but slightly to the left. What scares you? It's the knowledge of not knowning.

Absolutely. There is something waiting to be seen in horror films that hasn't been seen before. But i'd go so far as to say you can find it in books and in folklore and in myths. It's just that people in Hollywood are too busy rehashing the same movie over and over again, and it's the slasher film.[/quote]


Okay, you make a good point to your credit.
 
i think the idea is to keep horror movies simple; no MTV cuts, have effective scares and good believable actors. You want the feeling of "What happens if I was in their (characters) shoes".
Martyrs Martyrs Martyrs

I'm overhyping it, aren't I? :S But as a horror fan I was just so goddamn pleased to see a new horror movie that was frightening, oppressive, disturbed and not (that) predictable.

I hope you'll all enjoy it as much as I did. Though it seems to divide people completely. Either you love it or hate it. No one seems to say it was okay/medicore.
 
Martyrs Martyrs Martyrs

I'm overhyping it, aren't I? :S But as a horror fan I was just so goddamn pleased to see a new horror movie that was frightening, oppressive, disturbed and not (that) predictable.

I hope you'll all enjoy it as much as I did. Though it seems to divide people completely. Either you love it or hate it. No one seems to say it was okay/medicore.

It was alright...eh. :woot:

If only us silly Americans can just do something like Inside and have where I don't have to read subtitles, that would please me. I'm not going to learn French, ya know, lazy American.
 
Last edited:
It was alright...eh. :woot:

If only us silly Americans can just do something like Inside and have where I don't have to read subtitles, that would please me. I'm not going to learn French, ya know, lazy American.

A friend was telling me about "Inside". He loves it, but he basically told me the entire movie and as he was, i was just like :wow:. It's got one helluva twist, but it's not something i think i ever want to watch. It's not that i'm squeamish(which i'm not), it's just everything that happens to the people in that movie isn't something that i think i want to watch. I guess I don't see the entertainment factor in a film like that. Maybe i actually have to watch it before i judge it rather than listen to a detailed description, but i have a pretty good idea of what i'll see. But jeez, what compels someone to make a movie like that? Then again, the french aren't exactly....normal, are they?:woot:

EDIT: Nevermind. I just watched a bunch of clips on Youtube and i've no interest in seeing this film. At all.
 
Last edited:
A friend was telling me about "Inside". He loves it, but he basically told me the entire movie and as he was, i was just like :wow:. It's got one helluva twist, but it's not something i think i ever want to watch. It's not that i'm squeamish(which i'm not), it's just everything that happens to the people in that movie isn't something that i think i want to watch. I guess I don't see the entertainment factor in a film like that. Maybe i actually have to watch it before i judge it rather than listen to a detailed description, but i have a pretty good idea of what i'll see. But jeez, what compels someone to make a movie like that? Then again, the french aren't exactly....normal, are they?:woot:

EDIT: Nevermind. I just watched a bunch of clips on Youtube and i've no interest in seeing this film. At all.

HAHA..Yeah. Inside....it's out there. The fact that you were turned away by the film because of what you thought/believed it was is the true horror of what's missing these days.

I watched Inside and it's uncomfortable, and the moment I realized "this is not something I want to watch...yet I can't turn away" I knew this is the stuff that horror is truely meant for.
 
HAHA..Yeah. Inside....it's out there. The fact that you were turned away by the film because of what you thought/believed it was is the true horror of what's missing these days.

I watched Inside and it's uncomfortable, and the moment I realized "this is not something I want to watch...yet I can't turn away" I knew this is the stuff that horror is truely meant for.

I haven't seen the film, but I'll certainly check it out now....but not every horror film needs to be groundbreaking....I grew up with a fair amount of both shlock horror and the regular type.....there's nothing wrong with cheese, just lately there is no balance....
 
I know the problem with horror films these days.

The director/producers just think that throwing a load of blood at the audience or just showing a really brutal murder equals scary. They are completely forgetting to build things up, so much so that you could cut the tension with a knife. Films like The Shining were fricking terrifying, they weren't particularly gory. It's called suspense people, most of these "so-called" horror directors don't know what that means. They think "Yea I know what's scary! Let's just throw a load of blood at the audience!! Or let's make a film with no real plot or suspense and make it in 3-D! That will scare em!" Errr... no mate.

But I don't just blame the creators of the movie. I blame the audience as well. There is too many of these brain dead idiots these days who are like "Woo-Hoo!!! Loads of blood!! Did you see that eye pop!!" They are partly to blame as well, because they aren't demanding more, they are happy to just see cheap thrills instead of using their imagination and letting their mind make things scary.

That sums up what is wrong with the horror genre for me.
 
The last 3 horror films I have watched have been Midnight Meat Train, The Ruins, and The Descent (unrated version)....all have their merits and drawbacks but I enjoyed them all...
 
Tough question. Over the years, I've had video games scare me more than these so called "horror" movies.
Agreed. Silent Hill 2 & Fatal Frame come to mind.

I was too chicken-s**t to finish either one... :woot:
 
Yea i'm not saying every horror out there is crap these days.

I just think the SAW films, particulary the last few, the first couple were actually very good IMO, and the Hostel films are the epitome of crap horror. Just throw bucket loads of blood at us because the director hasn't got the talent to build up suspense or anything like that.
 
I know the problem with horror films these days.

The director/producers just think that throwing a load of blood at the audience or just showing a really brutal murder equals scary. They are completely forgetting to build things up, so much so that you could cut the tension with a knife. Films like The Shining were fricking terrifying, they weren't particularly gory. It's called suspense people, most of these "so-called" horror directors don't know what that means. They think "Yea I know what's scary! Let's just throw a load of blood at the audience!! Or let's make a film with no real plot or suspense and make it in 3-D! That will scare em!" Errr... no mate.

But I don't just blame the creators of the movie. I blame the audience as well. There is too many of these brain dead idiots these days who are like "Woo-Hoo!!! Loads of blood!! Did you see that eye pop!!" They are partly to blame as well, because they aren't demanding more, they are happy to just see cheap thrills instead of using their imagination and letting their mind make things scary.

That sums up what is wrong with the horror genre for me.

Respect that and agree, but on the same hand...I guess I'm one of those brain dead idiots who screams "WOO HOO!! LOADS OF BLOOD!! DID YOU SEE THAT EYE POP??!!"

I enjoy a bloodfest slasher flick just as much as I enjoy real suspensiful films like you mentioned. Psycho is on my top list. That waiting and anxiousness for something to happen and it's building and building until you're screaming hurry hurry and then out of nowhere BAM.

But you can't so much blame the audiance for this stuff. Producers pimp out film after film, and we're really starving for entertainment constantly, so we're left seeing whatever comes out that for even a second grabs our attention. It's the producers of these films that are ruining things. And it is us, the viewers, who are left to decided "Do I want to be bored, or would I rather just check something out?"

Suspense will come back, but I don't know when. And I'm a bit scared because when it does come...who will have changed? The films or the audience? Will we be waiting in suspense for that film or will it arrive too early and fall flat on it's face?
 
HAHA..Yeah. Inside....it's out there. The fact that you were turned away by the film because of what you thought/believed it was is the true horror of what's missing these days.

I watched Inside and it's uncomfortable, and the moment I realized "this is not something I want to watch...yet I can't turn away" I knew this is the stuff that horror is truely meant for.

I don't know, man. I agree with the whole "this isn't something i want to watch, but i can't turn away" thing. I feel like that when watching The Exorcist. But with that, there's an unsettling atmosphere that helps build the scare factor.

with "Inside", i didn't turn away because i couldn't handle it. I turned away because i didn't think it was scary. What i saw didn't frighten me. It offended me. And horror films shouldn't offend people, atleast not the way this film does. What purpose does a crazy dude beating a pregnant woman in the stomach with a nightstick really serve? To scare someone? I'm sorry, but where i find the basic story of "Inside" to be an interesting one, the extreme gore levels are uncalled for, and isn't scary. It's stupid and ridiculous. I guess it's supposed to be "shocking" or something. But it's not scary.

To make someone unsettled is something missing from horror, i agree. But making films like "Inside" is not the solution to bringing it back.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"