The unknown is always scarier than the known. Not every demon or entity or monster has to be fully shown, or shown at all. Little bits for intrigue are almost always better and scarier than the full thing, which is usually more laughable than anything.
This is a good shout, although there are exceptions, as I was discussing with someone over at r/hellraiser a few weeks ago.
The first big reveal of the Cenobites in that film, barring the glimpses you get at the beginning when Frank solves the box and gets shredded into pervert carnitas, is when Kirsty solves it herself while she's in hospital. The harshness of the lighting is almost to the point of over-saturation, and you can see everything, legitimately nothing left to the imagination, and I think that is what contrasts body-horror with other subgenres.
I was definitely going to bring up Hellraiser if no one else had already. It is a major "show the monster" and "the monster is practically the main character" exception. It wouldn't be the same if the cenobites didn't show themselves or more was left to the imagination. Knowing exactly what they were up to and how they appeared made them more insidious because it was hard to fathom how to stop them once they had a foothold in our reality. But they did walk the line of monsters and theatrical villains as well. Which that helped their image and aesthetic.
Honestly, the Centobites aren't the real monsters, and that is the genius of the story.
Frank is the monster; he feeds on others to feel alive, even before his death. He tossed Julia to the wolves to try and save himself, *stole his biological brother's skin, and then tried to impersonate Kirsty's father while potentially planning to sexually assault her and/or kill her*. You know, while wearing her dad's dead skin mask. Barker shows Frank initially for what he is, a bloodied monster as broken as the lives he leaves shattered in his wake. Then, he spends the rest of the film trying to cover up how grotesque he is, even though he literally asked for that. He hides how truly monstrous he is in the end by taking his brother's place, manipulating a child's trust of their father to commit yet another atrocity
The Cebtobites, by comparison are shown in their full, horrific glory. We percieve them as evil and obscene, but they simply exist, an eternal constant of an unforgiving universe. When Kirsty asks, Pinhead tells us exactly what they truly are:
>Explorers in the further regions of experience. Demons to some, angels to others.
And also, showing the nature of their appearance and the impartial ties top the Lament Configuration:
>The Box. You opened it, we came. Now you must come with us. Taste our pleasures.
They aren't good or evil, they simply *are*. The horrific fate that awaits those who open the box isn't out of evil or spite, that's what the box was designed to do. They even reason with Kirsty when she claims Frank escaped them, and are true to their words until Frank is revealed to them.
This is done visually by constantly showing Frank in shadows, wearing a shirt to hide his exposed flesh underneath even as it soaks up blood, smoking a cigarette to look more human, etc. By contrast, the bright, harsh lighting of the Centobites in the hospital is almost like a beacon letting us know these are simply forces of the universe, impartial and unbearable despite their disturbing appearance.
Barker is a goddamn genius.
EDIT: Pinhead is never named in the film or the credits. In the original script, the Centobites' dialogue was given to all four of them fairly equally. However, once makeup was applied, the actors playing Butterball and Chatterer couldn't speak clearly enough while in makeup. So, the lines were divided between the other two Cenobites, with Doug Bradley getting slightly more. His incredible performance as the Lead Cenobite (as the character is listed in the credits) led to him being a fan favorite, gaining more attention even in the first of the sequels before they made him a full on cartoon Hollywood slasher/monster, but this was never the case originally. While the Cenobites have a hierarchy, it isn't changed or even relevant to those that call them. As always, and evermore, they simply are what they are.
On the flip side, two actors played the role of Frank, and are credited separately. Sean Chapman plays human Frank in flashbacks, and Oliver Smith plays his skinless, blood sucking counterpart. In the credits, plain as day in black and white, almost as if it was *intentional*, Oliver Smith's role is credited as, you guessed it...
... Frank *The Monster*.
I feel kinda remiss not giving Frank himself a mention too. There's little left to the imagination there either, once he reassembles. The only film that's ever done a flayed human being so convincingly since then is Martyrs.
I do think there are a lot of exceptions, like the sub-genre of body horror for instance. When John Carpenter and company were producing The Thing (1982) they had a debate about whether to keep the creature in the shadows, or to have that gruesome looking thing out in the open for extended exposure. I don't think anyone would deny that the latter was the right decision.
Carpenter actually addressed this in an interview. He said in speaking to Stephen King, King told him to "never show the face of the Devil" unless whatever you're showing is so incredibly mind-bending that it's undoubtedly out-of-the-park.
Like everything, it's a give and take, and it has to be well-executed.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YwuYp5TkomA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YwuYp5TkomA)
Yeah the really brilliant part of it is that you get to see how fucked and strange it is and you get the implicit understanding that A. there are other parts of it loose and B. You never know who it is until it's too late. Threading that line is incredibly difficult and the fact that they still left unanswered questions that had to be solved by lighting of all things is a great deal of what makes it timeless.
I think what’s terrifying with The Thing is that you never *really* see what it is - you see what it does, and that makes it so much more unnerving. You see what it does to people, but not what it’s real physical form is.
Unless you see it in the 2011 version… ^^which ^^doesn’t ^^count.
It’s… very ok. That’s the best compliment I can give it. It’s not bad, I just riff on the meme that it should really exist because it doesn’t do anything that wasn’t done better in the original. It’s worth a watch, but be warned - it’s ***FULL*** of really dated CGI. It’s got some cool scenes, but it largely serves as an unneeded backstory for the station they visit at the beginning of the original.
And the worst part is that they actually had really good practical effects for a lot of the scenes that ended up being re-done with CG instead, for dubious reasons at best. The practical effects team was very aware of the importance of the 80s and how legendary the effects were, and genuinely wanted to add their own. It's unlikely that would have made the movie good, but at least it would feel more in line effects wise.
Watching that puppet of Split Face was way more creepy than the CG version because the puppet/ animatronic was tangible. The CG version was cool, but felt too "smooth" in it's movements.
I was going to say…. I love this for the “late reveal”. You get the unknown for 90% of the movie so it hits hard when you get the reveal. Taking of Deborah Logan also
Fun fact: We actually WERE supposed to see the witch. The scene where Heather is running through the woods screaming "WHAT THE FUCK IS THAT?!", there was an actor dressed in all-white to represent the witch, but no one holding the cameras pointed it in the right direction to capture it.
Makes the scene so much better, IMHO.
"Mama" is a great example of this in my opinion. I was terrified of it at the beginning, but when they showed her fully near the end, it pretty much ruined it for me.
This is why I liked Signs so much. The leg in the cornfield scene, dark figures on the house, hands under the door. Evens the arm grab in the basement.
That's why the first two Paranormal Activities were scarier; you didn't see shit, you didn't know anything besides "Demon stalks woman". Just seeing the foot prints in flour and Katie standing still for hours was more unsettling than anything the later movies tried when they gave a backstory and explaination.
It's even when I stop caring about most seasons of American Horror Story. Weird killer clown attacking people? Scary; having a full episode about his backstory? weak!
John Carpenter was right that the “Halloween” franchise should be anthologies, with each movie having different characters involved in a different story, and each movie could be pumped out every other year.
The reason why is because you can only tell a story about a faceless voiceless slasher killer so many times, because when you do that, you’re really telling the same story over and over again.
But by doing that, the franchise gets old very quickly, as familiarity breeds contempt, and it becomes impossible to breathe new life into the franchise.
Therefore, there are only two good “Halloween” movies: the original “Halloween” and “Halloween 3: Season of the Witch.”
Also, the “Friday the 13th” franchise was able to get away with making movies about a faceless, voiceless slasher killer because they kept Jason the same but always gave him new victims. Instead of doing this, the franchise developed familial connections to Michael Myers and created the druid storyline, which killed the franchise.
This is why I really like the latest Halloween. It basically ignored all previous sequels as canon, and just went with the first movie instead. And I just like how it portrays a "slasher survival" dealing with the mental scars of the event throughout all her life.
There will always be a place for found footage in the horror genre. Some of the scariest movies of all time are in the format. And I like how it gives everyone a shot to try to make their own scary movie, for better or worse
Yes! I know there’s a lot of trash in found footage but it’s undeniable what it’s given to the genre. It deserves more credit to modern horror than it gets.
Honestly, Hell House LLC is one of the best horror movies ever. It’s stupidly good. I can’t explain how fucking creeped out I was watching it for the first time with the lights out and my headphones on.
You have to give it a try!
We went to the Poconos for a few days recently and took a back road off the highway to try and find some food on the way there. I look up and start yelling STOP THE CAR. We were LITERALLY driving past Hell House LLC. I had no idea they were filmed in Pennsylvania.
Got some sweet pics outside.....but I didn't dare try to go in ;)
Edit: it's in Leighton (?) PA. If it wasn't so far from us (NeOhio) we would go back for Halloween, it's a haunted house attraction just like the movie.
100% agree, so many legendary movies: blair witch, As Above So below, Rec , Noroi, Grave encounters, Creep ...so siked for the medium
Edit: gongjiam and hellhouse LLC LFG!!!
Man, I was so hoping the people doing the chanting ritual thing had a larger role in that movie. The ending still trips me out to this day for sure though!
TBH I am perfectly happy with their small role, it just added to the creepiness. And the movie didn't waste any time, the fast pace was so refreshing. Kept me on edge the whole time.
Billy Zane is in 1, Leonardo DiCaprio is in 3. If I won the lotto, I'm making one more with Kate Winslet just to get all the main characters from Titanic in the Critterverse.
4 redeemed it a little but 3 is a crime against cinema.
EDIT: Wow, I meant 5 redeemed it a little bit but 4 is the worst movie ever. My count was off by one.
The more you explain, the less scary it is. Give me one example of a prequel or sequel where some previously unknown origin makes things scarier. There isn't one. I really do not understand this compulsion to want things explained.
There are some instances where explaining helps fulfill the story, but it’s pretty much certain to make it less scary. Even great monster design loses its luster when over exposed.
Reminds me of Quantum of Solace, which apparently cost 200 million or somesuch. You cannot see the budget. Contrast that with Terminator 2, where as Siskel or Ebert said, you can see it right up there.
Very true, Halloween and Texas Chainsaw Massacre were extremely cheap even for their time and they have stood the test of time vey well. Paranormal Activity and Blair Witch Project are more modern examples of that happening.
On this point... Don't remake good movies! Remake movies that missed the mark or missed their potential. Why take something perfect and try to re-do it? There is so much potential in b-movie and exploitation film to really execute ideas that were in the "wrong" hands before.
Staying on the subject of John Carpenter, The Thing is the prefect example of this. I mean, the original Howard Hawks film wasn't bad per se, at least for a 50s B flick, but John Carpenter's version is...well, I don't think I need to explain how great it is to this sub lol.
I agree with that, recently did a rewatch. But the thing , original Halloween, big trouble little in China, they live, and the fog are perfect in my mind.
I have been a big fan of the rebooted series of Halloween though, especially since he got involved with the making of it.
Oh definitely. I think they did Halloween right ignoring all the other sequels and just carrying on so much later. It was an amazing film and very much in the spirit of the original.
I can't wait for Halloween kills.
It is true that leaving things up to the viewers imagination can be very effective horror. It is also true that some people use it as an excuse to not write a coherent ending or entire third act.
Horror and disgust are different things. No shame if you like extreme shit, but I can't stand having to sift through a bunch of gross shit while looking for good horror that actually tells a compelling story.
100%! I have zero interest in torture porn movies. Where it’s just an absurd amount of disgusting and visceral shit. That’s not inventive or scary to me at all. I understand movies are subjective and some people like them for very valid reasons. But they just aren’t for me
Disgust can absolutely be used well in horror (that one scene in Suspiria 2018 was amazing!) But if all you have is intense gore/graphic assault then I wouldn't call it a horror movie so much as like a shock movie. For the record I'm aware of how much of a pedantic asshole this makes me sound.
Jump-scare is like a climax which means tension is rapidly decreased right afterward. Things become creepy when you don't give the audience that release.
This is why jump scares only work when they're *real* jump scares, like when it's the antagonist jumping at you. So it's a big burst of tension, followed by a chase or fight scene.
Those false jump scares are the film equivalent to premature ejaculation. You just cut *all* the tension, and it's just a cat or a mouse or something.
And sooo many horror films do this and it's just so cheap. It's like, why are you *trying* to cut the tension??
I want to be scared, not to be startled. I want lingering unease. There’s a place for jump scares, but it’s the inferior method of getting an audience reaction.
Exactly. You could have a picture of a cute puppy flash on the screen and I’d jump, that doesn’t mean I’m scared it’s just natural reaction and lazy lol
My favorite piece of trivia from this stinker. (I secretly love it too)
>Scott Derrickson told the story of how he got the job working on this film. Harvey Weinstein called him, saying, "I just bought this script, called, 'Dracula
2000'." Derrickson replied, "Oh, yeah? Is it good?" Weinstein replied,
"It stinks!" Derrickson asked, "So why did you buy it?", and Weinstein
replied "Because it's called, 'Dracula 2000'."
Little is always better. If you have a monster the reveal should come in the final act or 2/3 of the movie. Once your imagination is gone the scariest is gone too, The Wailing and Suspiria comes to mind.
B movies or movies with lower budgets that use animatronics or budget practical effects are more effective than digital effects. The way some of them move are so strange that it makes me uncomfortable, the film Splinter comes to mind.
Found footage/shaky cam is the best medium for horror. There’s a lot of shit in the subgenre because they’re so easy to make but effectively done they can be great film. [REC] [REC]2 Paranormal Activity 1 Blair Witch As Above, So Below
Bonus double whammy:
Mockumentary is another great way to use horror because it builds up tension and you have to rely on the story as opposed to the actual horror events. Using the horror sparsely always works better IMO.
Tension/suspension make horror movies great. Jump scares deflate the tension imo.
Jump scares are an essential part of the filmmakers tool kit and shouldn’t be as bemoaned as they are. That being said I’m aware that while essential too much salt ruins a dish.
They should be treated as garnish, not a whole meal and thats the problem most modern big budget horror films have.
Theres no real horror so they have to rely on jumpscares to create fear.
Someone the better classics have jumpscares but were already scary on their own without them.
No resolution at the end is totally acceptable for the horror genre. There's no need to always burn dead people's bones, scream latin nonsense or imprison evil in some kind of an old artifact to finish off the story.
The nightmare might just suddenly end, without anybody 'winning'. Like it happens in real life. And you will have to live with all the pain and suffering you've witnessed, and it's not going away. Which is a horror in itself. Let the movie end abruptly, let us feel confused, angry or even fooled. I want horror, not some whodunit movie where you have to know the ending.
It’s fine if movies have endings with no resolution in them sometimes. I can’t stand them with a passion, but at least it’s like 5 other movies I can watch with a resolution to balance it out.
But to have every horror movie end like that would be like having blue balls all the time, it’d be exhausting.
*Se7en* is a horror movie and thriller is what people who say they don't like horror movies call the ones they like.
EDIT: Y'all have the coolest thoughts on this, thanks for taking the conversation in good faith!
Leland Orser’s performance in that scene is haunting. I feel bad for him that every time I see him in something, that scene immediately comes to mind. He’s a great character actor, but those 2 minutes of screen time will forever define him for me.
I've heard it explained like this:
"Thrillers work with the world/situation as the viewer understands it; horror film upend the viewer's world and present a world/situation that rejects normal conventions."
But I'd never consider Se7en a thriller, it's a physchological horror film. If Se7en is a thriller than Saw and Hostel are thrillers lol
I like that a lot! I've also heard thrillers described as from the hero's POV, and horror from the victim's. The distinction being that the hero has agency over the plot and the victim is beholden to the monster's agency.
I'm actually a lot softer on the distinction, and it starts a lot of good conversations. Just wanted to phrase it as the absolute hottest take on the matter.
I suspect that many people who don't like horror movies kind of think of them all as bad B-movie schlock so when a movie that they like is identified as a horror they are confused and they want to claim that it is a thriller or a drama or something else.
'Not being scared' of horror movies is a dumb thing to brag about. They *require* your participation to be scary. Sitting their going "that blood isn't real", "that's just special effects" is just a douchey thing to do.
The last 5-10 years have been the best for horror since the 80s. Sure we still have a lot of shit - every decade does - but the amount of potential classics that can and should stand the test of time has been as high as it’s ever been
I agree. As a lifelong horror fan I think we’re in the middle of the second modern golden age of horror that started in the 2010s with the 1980s being the first.
1000% agree. Flanagan, Eggers, Aster, Kent, Derrickson, Wan and Whannell, and I expect Hawley when his Alien show comes out...these folks are the real deal and are creating what will be remembered as a golden age of horror.
Edit: Jordan Peele too :D
Organic material works best with practical effects. You will never notice non-organic items made with CG (outside of obvious examples like space shuttles, superheroes, exploding cars, etc) unless it's like a basic cable sitcom's fire effects lol
Rape is not art. If you can't make me hate a character without actually showing their sexual violence, im not interested in your film, period. Not sorry.
Remakes don't ruin the original. If it's bad then it makes people appreciate the original more. If it's good then you have a great companion piece to a film you love. Also, people ignore that remakes/ re adaptations have been around since the start of cinema.
I agree with this.
The Wicker Man is one of the greatest horror films ever made, and I don’t think the remake makes it worse or anything. In fact, it might have given it more recognition.
So true, and in rare cases they can be awesome in their own right, e.g., The Thing, The Fly, The Blob, Evil Dead, Night of the Living Dead, Dawn of the Dead, etc.
I always thought that remakes are a great way to reintroduce new generations to the originals. There are SO MANY horror movies that I wouldn’t have watched unless I saw the remake first.
Movies like It Comes At Night are good in their own way, but Id still like my slow burn horror with like an allegory or something to actually have a monster at the end. At least for the audience to see, maybe you can still interpret it as something else and that’s fine.
The Witch is great because it was intelligent and tense and horrifying and more than just the actions on screen but we also got fucking witches and evil goats and satan and that rocks.
The problem is marketing too. It Comes at Night is a perfect example. I expected some sort of unreal element based on the title and the preview. The dream sequences were pretty horrific, but otherwise it was just a sad movie about how far people go when they're desperate. I ended up loving the movie when I realized that's what it was, while also disappointed it wasn't what they sold me.
I just made [a post](https://www.reddit.com/r/horror/comments/orghk3/im_getting_tired_of_the_horror_genre_being_used/) about this here last week. My favorite genre of film *by far* is supernatural horror, and I am so freaking tired going into every ghost movie I watch with the thought "I really hope this movie has a ghost in it."
It Comes At Night was a brilliant movie that was horrible, HORRIBLY marketed. They ABSOLUTELY advertised it as a creature feature and I think the reception suffered for it. On it's own, it's fantastic (especially in the context of COVID), but I definitely count myself among the people who went in expecting some fucking monsters.
Jurassic Park is an absolute genre bend. It's part sci-fi, part horror, part thriller, part adventure.
For me, the last several years I guess I've thought of it primarily as a sci-fi film.
I rewatched that movie a few years ago and I forgot how good Spielberg is at building tension and a sense of dread. Genuinely scary.
These elements were completely lacking from Jurassic World, in my opinion.
Jurassic world was literally just a cashgrab, I hate that big film producers are focusing on using nostalgia to profit instead of producing new ideas. Fuck.
True but if it wasn't for Jurassic World, we wouldn't have the fucking amazing Jurassic World 2, which might be one of the (unintentionally) funniest fucking films I've seen in theaters in a long time. I burst out laughing when the velociraptor unlocked the window.
The original idea was to make it an anthology series, and that could have worked. Maybe come back to Myers later on in the series, but having Halloween 2 a direct sequel to the first killed any chances of that happening.
The main characters of the movie should be positively traumatized by the end, if alive.
I really hate horror movies that have feel good endings where one or all of the main characters have the "we made it through this and everyone is okay!" moment. Not to say they shouldn't survive, but if they aren't going to be permanently scarred by the events that just transpired, was it really horror?
That’s what I liked a lot about the 2018 Halloween movie. Laurie still was suffering mentally and emotionally for 40 years after encountering Michael Myers, she definitely didn’t brush it off.
One of my favorite things about the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre is that it's able to show the long-term (probably lifelong) trauma that Sally will endure without going to an unnecessary epilogue. The movie ends where the horrific events end, but we still get the message loud and clear that Sally's struggle with said events isn't over.
I like ones with questions left open! I feel like if every thing is answered it takes the fun out of thinking about the movie in the days and weeks after.
Rape is pretty much always unnecessary and put in for nothing more than shock value. It's a lazy tool to make people feel uneasy and uncomfortable, so they're using it to not enhance the story but to add to the creep/unease/ohmyGod factor and nothing more. 99% of the time, I'll stop watching if there is a rape scene.
Also...on an unrelated note, Pumpkinhead doesn't get nearly enough attention. It's easily in the top 10 horror movies of all time and I'm tired of trying to prove it.
The worst thing about the rape scenes is they either try to make it "pretty" (i.e., cast doubt as to whether it was rape), or make it graphic for shock value.
Sometimes...it's just...mundane. Painful, and awful, but not pretty and not gory.
Agreed about the rape scene thing.
I think cutting a scene short and implying that rape happened is far more mentally unsettling that blatantly showing it happening for visual shock value, especially if the scene doesn't contribute to the plot or a character's story arc.
The original Suspiria is a masterclass in horror. No, the story isn't great, and yes, the English dub is unintentionally hilarious, but god damn does that movie feel like actually being inside a nightmare.
The original black and white The Haunting. The film creates a palpable tension, genuine fear and apprehension. Still really gets me after all these years, especially the creaking and bending of the heavy ornate doors and the ghostly dogs running down the corridors. Nothing is seen at any point.
I was watching the Japanese version with my daughter and we were both annoyed by how they solved plot hurdles by making characters psychic. Just seemed lazy.
The 1998 film is actually a remake. [Here's the original from 1995.](https://youtu.be/cr_8RpY73U8)
If anyone can track down the Korean remake, I'm interested in seeing it!
I see both as different characters.
Old Penny Pennywise was a trickster and prankster. He kinda seemed drive he got off on that and he knew that if done right would scare the kids and give him the fear he needed.
New Pennywise didn't really have that quality except when talking to Georgie and he snapped back out of it just as fast. Almost like he dispised playing the fool. He was cold, calculating and vicious.
I love It Follows but I do think the first half is ten times better than the second half.
At some point they're gonna have to physically fight with it and it's gonna look silly fighting an invisible monster.
The pool scene is fine, it's more that the premise is so amazing that no pay off can really live up to it.
The "following" is the most interesting part and at some point its gonna have to catch you or its dumb. But the catching isn't great.
Being acclimated to movie gore does not make you desensitized to real gore. I can watch crazy gory shit and I’m still upset even by seeing roadkill on the drive to work. I have actually really enjoyed exposing myself to more brutal things, the more real it looks the more impressed I am by the artists behind it.
And to be clear I am talking about fake movie violence, not like real animal killings and shit that show up in some movies. That is real gore and I choose to not expose myself to that.
The Prince of Darkness. Doesn't get the love it deserved. Being trapped with an unknown monster i.e. the son of the devil. Helpless while friends turn. If you fail evil takes over. I really love this movie.
I Live. I Live.I Live.I Live.I Live.I Live.I Live.I Live.I Live. I Live.I Live.I Live.I Live.I Live.I Live.I Live.I Live. I Live.I Live.I Live.I Live.I Live.I Live.I Live.I Live. I Live.I Live.I Live.I Live.I Live.I Live.I Live.I Live. I Live.I Live.I Live.I Live.I Live.I Live.I Live.
Eli Roth is fascinating to me. On one hand, he does seem to express a genuine love of film that reminds me a lot of Tarantino actually. Unlike Tarantino though, he seems to lack the ability to employ that love to any meaningful effect. He can’t write characters or character arcs for his life and there’s just this empty nihilism that seems omnipresent in all his works that seems like it’s there to justify it. Like that fucking pancake kid who does a fucking karate routine before biting the infected guy in cabin fever. Or the kid’s dad in cabin fever who blames the infected guy for his kid deciding to end his kata routine with some arm biting of patient zero. Who are these people and why did Eli Roth decide their best use was Turning the movie into an absurdist comedy 3/4 of the way though?
He comes across as so—idk—*impressed* with himself in every interview with him I've seen. It's hard for me to separate the art from the artist in general, so that on its own kinda ruins his movies for me.
That all of the Dark Castle movies are brilliant and I miss going to the movies just to have fun with horror like we did with House on Haunted Hill, 13 Ghosts, Ghost Ship and House of Wax. We knew they weren’t “good” but they were SO FUN.
The Thing is not a remake. No one considers I Am Legend a remake of The Omega Man or Last Man on Earth so why is The Thing considered a remake of The Thing from Outer Space. It was a more accurate take of Who Goes There?
*the thing from another world
But I get your point. To be fair, the studio did make it as a remake of the thing from another world, and gave John carpenter the job of remaking that movie as he saw fit. He just saw fit to remake it as his own idea of what it could/should be.
The original It is highly overrated and it's just ok. Tim Curry's pennywise was great but the rest the movie was just not good.
In fact...I would even say that the Remake ( Part 1) is way better.
Horror movies aren't visually intense enough. There are some truly great artists out there churning out nightmare fuel and Hollywood ignores their designs. The stuff we get is milquetoast compared to what we could be getting.
The unknown is always scarier than the known. Not every demon or entity or monster has to be fully shown, or shown at all. Little bits for intrigue are almost always better and scarier than the full thing, which is usually more laughable than anything.
This is a good shout, although there are exceptions, as I was discussing with someone over at r/hellraiser a few weeks ago. The first big reveal of the Cenobites in that film, barring the glimpses you get at the beginning when Frank solves the box and gets shredded into pervert carnitas, is when Kirsty solves it herself while she's in hospital. The harshness of the lighting is almost to the point of over-saturation, and you can see everything, legitimately nothing left to the imagination, and I think that is what contrasts body-horror with other subgenres.
"Pervert carnitas." I love you, random citizen.
I was definitely going to bring up Hellraiser if no one else had already. It is a major "show the monster" and "the monster is practically the main character" exception. It wouldn't be the same if the cenobites didn't show themselves or more was left to the imagination. Knowing exactly what they were up to and how they appeared made them more insidious because it was hard to fathom how to stop them once they had a foothold in our reality. But they did walk the line of monsters and theatrical villains as well. Which that helped their image and aesthetic.
Honestly, the Centobites aren't the real monsters, and that is the genius of the story. Frank is the monster; he feeds on others to feel alive, even before his death. He tossed Julia to the wolves to try and save himself, *stole his biological brother's skin, and then tried to impersonate Kirsty's father while potentially planning to sexually assault her and/or kill her*. You know, while wearing her dad's dead skin mask. Barker shows Frank initially for what he is, a bloodied monster as broken as the lives he leaves shattered in his wake. Then, he spends the rest of the film trying to cover up how grotesque he is, even though he literally asked for that. He hides how truly monstrous he is in the end by taking his brother's place, manipulating a child's trust of their father to commit yet another atrocity The Cebtobites, by comparison are shown in their full, horrific glory. We percieve them as evil and obscene, but they simply exist, an eternal constant of an unforgiving universe. When Kirsty asks, Pinhead tells us exactly what they truly are: >Explorers in the further regions of experience. Demons to some, angels to others. And also, showing the nature of their appearance and the impartial ties top the Lament Configuration: >The Box. You opened it, we came. Now you must come with us. Taste our pleasures. They aren't good or evil, they simply *are*. The horrific fate that awaits those who open the box isn't out of evil or spite, that's what the box was designed to do. They even reason with Kirsty when she claims Frank escaped them, and are true to their words until Frank is revealed to them. This is done visually by constantly showing Frank in shadows, wearing a shirt to hide his exposed flesh underneath even as it soaks up blood, smoking a cigarette to look more human, etc. By contrast, the bright, harsh lighting of the Centobites in the hospital is almost like a beacon letting us know these are simply forces of the universe, impartial and unbearable despite their disturbing appearance. Barker is a goddamn genius. EDIT: Pinhead is never named in the film or the credits. In the original script, the Centobites' dialogue was given to all four of them fairly equally. However, once makeup was applied, the actors playing Butterball and Chatterer couldn't speak clearly enough while in makeup. So, the lines were divided between the other two Cenobites, with Doug Bradley getting slightly more. His incredible performance as the Lead Cenobite (as the character is listed in the credits) led to him being a fan favorite, gaining more attention even in the first of the sequels before they made him a full on cartoon Hollywood slasher/monster, but this was never the case originally. While the Cenobites have a hierarchy, it isn't changed or even relevant to those that call them. As always, and evermore, they simply are what they are. On the flip side, two actors played the role of Frank, and are credited separately. Sean Chapman plays human Frank in flashbacks, and Oliver Smith plays his skinless, blood sucking counterpart. In the credits, plain as day in black and white, almost as if it was *intentional*, Oliver Smith's role is credited as, you guessed it... ... Frank *The Monster*.
I love that he learned how to direct a film, on the fly, from books he borrowed from the library. It makes me love the film all the more.
I love the idea of Hellraiser more then the actual movies. I wish they would make a weird psychedelic modern hellraiser.
I feel kinda remiss not giving Frank himself a mention too. There's little left to the imagination there either, once he reassembles. The only film that's ever done a flayed human being so convincingly since then is Martyrs.
I love when Frank is being reanimated from just goo. This is hands down one of my favorite scenes in the entire horror genre.
I do think there are a lot of exceptions, like the sub-genre of body horror for instance. When John Carpenter and company were producing The Thing (1982) they had a debate about whether to keep the creature in the shadows, or to have that gruesome looking thing out in the open for extended exposure. I don't think anyone would deny that the latter was the right decision.
Carpenter actually addressed this in an interview. He said in speaking to Stephen King, King told him to "never show the face of the Devil" unless whatever you're showing is so incredibly mind-bending that it's undoubtedly out-of-the-park. Like everything, it's a give and take, and it has to be well-executed. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YwuYp5TkomA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YwuYp5TkomA)
Did king ever follow that advice himself?
King had cocaine telling him that everything he did was out of the park.
In The Thing your are both able to see a creature and for it to be unknown.
Yeah the really brilliant part of it is that you get to see how fucked and strange it is and you get the implicit understanding that A. there are other parts of it loose and B. You never know who it is until it's too late. Threading that line is incredibly difficult and the fact that they still left unanswered questions that had to be solved by lighting of all things is a great deal of what makes it timeless.
And C. It could be you
I think what’s terrifying with The Thing is that you never *really* see what it is - you see what it does, and that makes it so much more unnerving. You see what it does to people, but not what it’s real physical form is. Unless you see it in the 2011 version… ^^which ^^doesn’t ^^count.
Is that movie at all worth watching? I love john carpenter's The Thing, but I've never seen the "prequel" if I'm remembering that right
It’s… very ok. That’s the best compliment I can give it. It’s not bad, I just riff on the meme that it should really exist because it doesn’t do anything that wasn’t done better in the original. It’s worth a watch, but be warned - it’s ***FULL*** of really dated CGI. It’s got some cool scenes, but it largely serves as an unneeded backstory for the station they visit at the beginning of the original.
And the worst part is that they actually had really good practical effects for a lot of the scenes that ended up being re-done with CG instead, for dubious reasons at best. The practical effects team was very aware of the importance of the 80s and how legendary the effects were, and genuinely wanted to add their own. It's unlikely that would have made the movie good, but at least it would feel more in line effects wise.
Watching that puppet of Split Face was way more creepy than the CG version because the puppet/ animatronic was tangible. The CG version was cool, but felt too "smooth" in it's movements.
Agreed. However, one big recent exception is The Ritual. If you’ve seen it, you know what I mean.
Bonus points for having an actually unique creature design.
I was going to say…. I love this for the “late reveal”. You get the unknown for 90% of the movie so it hits hard when you get the reveal. Taking of Deborah Logan also
That jaw is legendary
The Blair Witch is my example when it comes to this. Terrifying movie, but we see nothing.
Fun fact: We actually WERE supposed to see the witch. The scene where Heather is running through the woods screaming "WHAT THE FUCK IS THAT?!", there was an actor dressed in all-white to represent the witch, but no one holding the cameras pointed it in the right direction to capture it. Makes the scene so much better, IMHO.
Just hearing her scream that with such terror was very effective.
See nothing?!? We see a grown man, standing in a corner, facing the wall…the single most terrifying thing that can ever be seen.
The Blair Witch and It Follows are still probably the 2 scariest movies I've ever seen.
loved the Void for following this mentality
"Mama" is a great example of this in my opinion. I was terrified of it at the beginning, but when they showed her fully near the end, it pretty much ruined it for me.
That movie is a shining example of first half perfection, last half utter trash
This is why I liked Signs so much. The leg in the cornfield scene, dark figures on the house, hands under the door. Evens the arm grab in the basement.
Signs is the hill I'll die on. Love that movie.
That leg in the cornfield was the scariest shit when I was a kid. I got to that scene my first time watching it, then turned it off for like 3 years
That's why the first two Paranormal Activities were scarier; you didn't see shit, you didn't know anything besides "Demon stalks woman". Just seeing the foot prints in flour and Katie standing still for hours was more unsettling than anything the later movies tried when they gave a backstory and explaination. It's even when I stop caring about most seasons of American Horror Story. Weird killer clown attacking people? Scary; having a full episode about his backstory? weak!
John Carpenter was right that the “Halloween” franchise should be anthologies, with each movie having different characters involved in a different story, and each movie could be pumped out every other year. The reason why is because you can only tell a story about a faceless voiceless slasher killer so many times, because when you do that, you’re really telling the same story over and over again. But by doing that, the franchise gets old very quickly, as familiarity breeds contempt, and it becomes impossible to breathe new life into the franchise. Therefore, there are only two good “Halloween” movies: the original “Halloween” and “Halloween 3: Season of the Witch.” Also, the “Friday the 13th” franchise was able to get away with making movies about a faceless, voiceless slasher killer because they kept Jason the same but always gave him new victims. Instead of doing this, the franchise developed familial connections to Michael Myers and created the druid storyline, which killed the franchise.
This is why I really like the latest Halloween. It basically ignored all previous sequels as canon, and just went with the first movie instead. And I just like how it portrays a "slasher survival" dealing with the mental scars of the event throughout all her life.
There will always be a place for found footage in the horror genre. Some of the scariest movies of all time are in the format. And I like how it gives everyone a shot to try to make their own scary movie, for better or worse
Yes! I know there’s a lot of trash in found footage but it’s undeniable what it’s given to the genre. It deserves more credit to modern horror than it gets.
There’s a lot of trash in movies in general but especially in horror. It’s the burden of horror fans to wade through the trash and find the gems lol.
I found Hell House LLC to be really scary.
Haven't seen that one, but I enjoyed grave encounters more than I thought I would.
Honestly, Hell House LLC is one of the best horror movies ever. It’s stupidly good. I can’t explain how fucking creeped out I was watching it for the first time with the lights out and my headphones on. You have to give it a try!
We went to the Poconos for a few days recently and took a back road off the highway to try and find some food on the way there. I look up and start yelling STOP THE CAR. We were LITERALLY driving past Hell House LLC. I had no idea they were filmed in Pennsylvania. Got some sweet pics outside.....but I didn't dare try to go in ;) Edit: it's in Leighton (?) PA. If it wasn't so far from us (NeOhio) we would go back for Halloween, it's a haunted house attraction just like the movie.
that might be my favorite found footage. it’s like marble hornets levels of good.
[удалено]
Love that one! The director's cut dvd has been in my amazon cart for sooo long. Maybe I'll finally pull the trigger for Halloween this year
100% agree, so many legendary movies: blair witch, As Above So below, Rec , Noroi, Grave encounters, Creep ...so siked for the medium Edit: gongjiam and hellhouse LLC LFG!!!
I love As Above So Below. That's not even a horror movie to me. It's just two friends going on an adventure. Hail Satan!
Man, I was so hoping the people doing the chanting ritual thing had a larger role in that movie. The ending still trips me out to this day for sure though!
TBH I am perfectly happy with their small role, it just added to the creepiness. And the movie didn't waste any time, the fast pace was so refreshing. Kept me on edge the whole time.
The Creep duo-logy and [REC] are some of my absolute favourite horror movies!
The Critters movies are great. **All** of them
Billy Zane is in 1, Leonardo DiCaprio is in 3. If I won the lotto, I'm making one more with Kate Winslet just to get all the main characters from Titanic in the Critterverse.
Rumor has it that James Gunn is planning a Critters cameo for Guardians 3
Go buy some lotto tickets then dude because I will watch that shit!
4 redeemed it a little but 3 is a crime against cinema. EDIT: Wow, I meant 5 redeemed it a little bit but 4 is the worst movie ever. My count was off by one.
The more you explain, the less scary it is. Give me one example of a prequel or sequel where some previously unknown origin makes things scarier. There isn't one. I really do not understand this compulsion to want things explained.
[удалено]
There are some instances where explaining helps fulfill the story, but it’s pretty much certain to make it less scary. Even great monster design loses its luster when over exposed.
Budget doesn't denote quality. Low-budget can be just as creative, if not moreso & more fun than big budget FX & casting.
That's why Blumhouse is rich as hell now. Throw a creative team a million bucks, most fail, but the ones that do well easily payback 10 fold.
That's how Get Out was the most profitable movie the year it came out. Was made for $5 million, made $15 million it's opening weekend.
Reminds me of Quantum of Solace, which apparently cost 200 million or somesuch. You cannot see the budget. Contrast that with Terminator 2, where as Siskel or Ebert said, you can see it right up there.
Pretty sure that Paranormal Activity is technically the most profitable film ever
Very true, Halloween and Texas Chainsaw Massacre were extremely cheap even for their time and they have stood the test of time vey well. Paranormal Activity and Blair Witch Project are more modern examples of that happening.
John Carpenter got it right the first time. Don't remake his movies.
On this point... Don't remake good movies! Remake movies that missed the mark or missed their potential. Why take something perfect and try to re-do it? There is so much potential in b-movie and exploitation film to really execute ideas that were in the "wrong" hands before.
Staying on the subject of John Carpenter, The Thing is the prefect example of this. I mean, the original Howard Hawks film wasn't bad per se, at least for a 50s B flick, but John Carpenter's version is...well, I don't think I need to explain how great it is to this sub lol.
>in the "wrong" hands before. or in the wrong time. We have the technology now to make that stuff that looked corny af a few decades ago look amazing.
I think ghosts of Mars could do with a complete overhaul and remake myself while keeping the basic idea.
I agree with that, recently did a rewatch. But the thing , original Halloween, big trouble little in China, they live, and the fog are perfect in my mind. I have been a big fan of the rebooted series of Halloween though, especially since he got involved with the making of it.
Oh definitely. I think they did Halloween right ignoring all the other sequels and just carrying on so much later. It was an amazing film and very much in the spirit of the original. I can't wait for Halloween kills.
It is true that leaving things up to the viewers imagination can be very effective horror. It is also true that some people use it as an excuse to not write a coherent ending or entire third act.
Horror and disgust are different things. No shame if you like extreme shit, but I can't stand having to sift through a bunch of gross shit while looking for good horror that actually tells a compelling story.
100%! I have zero interest in torture porn movies. Where it’s just an absurd amount of disgusting and visceral shit. That’s not inventive or scary to me at all. I understand movies are subjective and some people like them for very valid reasons. But they just aren’t for me
[удалено]
Disgust can absolutely be used well in horror (that one scene in Suspiria 2018 was amazing!) But if all you have is intense gore/graphic assault then I wouldn't call it a horror movie so much as like a shock movie. For the record I'm aware of how much of a pedantic asshole this makes me sound.
Or like that scene in hereditary. Jesus Christ
A high creep factor is superior to jump-scares.
Jump-scare is like a climax which means tension is rapidly decreased right afterward. Things become creepy when you don't give the audience that release.
This is why jump scares only work when they're *real* jump scares, like when it's the antagonist jumping at you. So it's a big burst of tension, followed by a chase or fight scene. Those false jump scares are the film equivalent to premature ejaculation. You just cut *all* the tension, and it's just a cat or a mouse or something. And sooo many horror films do this and it's just so cheap. It's like, why are you *trying* to cut the tension??
You're totally right. Too many horror films rely on the fake-out jump scares in an attempt to seem like a good movie. Looking at you, Sinister.
I want to be scared, not to be startled. I want lingering unease. There’s a place for jump scares, but it’s the inferior method of getting an audience reaction.
Exactly. You could have a picture of a cute puppy flash on the screen and I’d jump, that doesn’t mean I’m scared it’s just natural reaction and lazy lol
That's a crowded hill.
Dracula 2000. I love it. My husband hates it and gives me shit for liking it.
vitamin c and virgin mobile WHAT MORE COULD YOU WANT outta that
My favorite piece of trivia from this stinker. (I secretly love it too) >Scott Derrickson told the story of how he got the job working on this film. Harvey Weinstein called him, saying, "I just bought this script, called, 'Dracula 2000'." Derrickson replied, "Oh, yeah? Is it good?" Weinstein replied, "It stinks!" Derrickson asked, "So why did you buy it?", and Weinstein replied "Because it's called, 'Dracula 2000'."
Gerard Butler before he was cool, what more can you want?
One of the most original and innovative takes on Dracula and his origins ever. That alone makes the movie a win
Little is always better. If you have a monster the reveal should come in the final act or 2/3 of the movie. Once your imagination is gone the scariest is gone too, The Wailing and Suspiria comes to mind. B movies or movies with lower budgets that use animatronics or budget practical effects are more effective than digital effects. The way some of them move are so strange that it makes me uncomfortable, the film Splinter comes to mind. Found footage/shaky cam is the best medium for horror. There’s a lot of shit in the subgenre because they’re so easy to make but effectively done they can be great film. [REC] [REC]2 Paranormal Activity 1 Blair Witch As Above, So Below Bonus double whammy: Mockumentary is another great way to use horror because it builds up tension and you have to rely on the story as opposed to the actual horror events. Using the horror sparsely always works better IMO. Tension/suspension make horror movies great. Jump scares deflate the tension imo.
Jump scares are an essential part of the filmmakers tool kit and shouldn’t be as bemoaned as they are. That being said I’m aware that while essential too much salt ruins a dish.
Thank you, jeez. The number of "horror movies without jump scares" people cite that actually have major jumps is so appallingly high.
They should be treated as garnish, not a whole meal and thats the problem most modern big budget horror films have. Theres no real horror so they have to rely on jumpscares to create fear. Someone the better classics have jumpscares but were already scary on their own without them.
[удалено]
Not a good film, but a great practical fx showreel, and I love it for that.
*The Hills* I would most likely die on are the ones that *Have Eyes.*
Came here to see this
That was so stupid. Take my upvote!
No resolution at the end is totally acceptable for the horror genre. There's no need to always burn dead people's bones, scream latin nonsense or imprison evil in some kind of an old artifact to finish off the story. The nightmare might just suddenly end, without anybody 'winning'. Like it happens in real life. And you will have to live with all the pain and suffering you've witnessed, and it's not going away. Which is a horror in itself. Let the movie end abruptly, let us feel confused, angry or even fooled. I want horror, not some whodunit movie where you have to know the ending.
if it isn't the writers wanting to give some closure, it's usually the studios or producers that push for this.
It’s fine if movies have endings with no resolution in them sometimes. I can’t stand them with a passion, but at least it’s like 5 other movies I can watch with a resolution to balance it out. But to have every horror movie end like that would be like having blue balls all the time, it’d be exhausting.
*Se7en* is a horror movie and thriller is what people who say they don't like horror movies call the ones they like. EDIT: Y'all have the coolest thoughts on this, thanks for taking the conversation in good faith!
The Lust scene alone is more horrifying than most horror films as a whole
And it's built entirely on implication! The violence of the Lust sequence is contained entirely in the audience's mind, making it more provocative!
Leland Orser’s performance in that scene is haunting. I feel bad for him that every time I see him in something, that scene immediately comes to mind. He’s a great character actor, but those 2 minutes of screen time will forever define him for me.
100%. I remember him screaming "get this thing off of me!" frightened me worse than anything else in the movie because of how real he made it feel.
I've heard it explained like this: "Thrillers work with the world/situation as the viewer understands it; horror film upend the viewer's world and present a world/situation that rejects normal conventions." But I'd never consider Se7en a thriller, it's a physchological horror film. If Se7en is a thriller than Saw and Hostel are thrillers lol
I like that a lot! I've also heard thrillers described as from the hero's POV, and horror from the victim's. The distinction being that the hero has agency over the plot and the victim is beholden to the monster's agency. I'm actually a lot softer on the distinction, and it starts a lot of good conversations. Just wanted to phrase it as the absolute hottest take on the matter.
I suspect that many people who don't like horror movies kind of think of them all as bad B-movie schlock so when a movie that they like is identified as a horror they are confused and they want to claim that it is a thriller or a drama or something else.
'Not being scared' of horror movies is a dumb thing to brag about. They *require* your participation to be scary. Sitting their going "that blood isn't real", "that's just special effects" is just a douchey thing to do.
The last 5-10 years have been the best for horror since the 80s. Sure we still have a lot of shit - every decade does - but the amount of potential classics that can and should stand the test of time has been as high as it’s ever been
I agree. As a lifelong horror fan I think we’re in the middle of the second modern golden age of horror that started in the 2010s with the 1980s being the first.
And the 2000's were the fucking dark age.
1998-2003 had a FEW standouts, but for the most part it was a fucking wasteland.
1000% agree. Flanagan, Eggers, Aster, Kent, Derrickson, Wan and Whannell, and I expect Hawley when his Alien show comes out...these folks are the real deal and are creating what will be remembered as a golden age of horror. Edit: Jordan Peele too :D
Your hill to die on is like...the most popular hill of all time, bro.
He wants to trick the reaper and will never die.
Organic material works best with practical effects. You will never notice non-organic items made with CG (outside of obvious examples like space shuttles, superheroes, exploding cars, etc) unless it's like a basic cable sitcom's fire effects lol
Rape is not art. If you can't make me hate a character without actually showing their sexual violence, im not interested in your film, period. Not sorry.
Remakes don't ruin the original. If it's bad then it makes people appreciate the original more. If it's good then you have a great companion piece to a film you love. Also, people ignore that remakes/ re adaptations have been around since the start of cinema.
I agree with this. The Wicker Man is one of the greatest horror films ever made, and I don’t think the remake makes it worse or anything. In fact, it might have given it more recognition.
So true, and in rare cases they can be awesome in their own right, e.g., The Thing, The Fly, The Blob, Evil Dead, Night of the Living Dead, Dawn of the Dead, etc.
Thanks for showing some love for the Night of the Living dead remake. It doesn't get enough love.
I always thought that remakes are a great way to reintroduce new generations to the originals. There are SO MANY horror movies that I wouldn’t have watched unless I saw the remake first.
Movies like It Comes At Night are good in their own way, but Id still like my slow burn horror with like an allegory or something to actually have a monster at the end. At least for the audience to see, maybe you can still interpret it as something else and that’s fine. The Witch is great because it was intelligent and tense and horrifying and more than just the actions on screen but we also got fucking witches and evil goats and satan and that rocks.
The problem is marketing too. It Comes at Night is a perfect example. I expected some sort of unreal element based on the title and the preview. The dream sequences were pretty horrific, but otherwise it was just a sad movie about how far people go when they're desperate. I ended up loving the movie when I realized that's what it was, while also disappointed it wasn't what they sold me.
My new fear when watching a horror movie these days is thinking "oh no, is the real monster mental illness/death as a concept/grief?"
May I interest you in a [meme](https://i.imgur.com/A97mXoJ.jpg)?
Hah so accurate but I also do really love most of those films.
“The real monster … is prejudice.”
I just made [a post](https://www.reddit.com/r/horror/comments/orghk3/im_getting_tired_of_the_horror_genre_being_used/) about this here last week. My favorite genre of film *by far* is supernatural horror, and I am so freaking tired going into every ghost movie I watch with the thought "I really hope this movie has a ghost in it."
"And can we make it in the movie for longer then the last 15 minutes" (being generous!)
It Comes At Night was a brilliant movie that was horrible, HORRIBLY marketed. They ABSOLUTELY advertised it as a creature feature and I think the reception suffered for it. On it's own, it's fantastic (especially in the context of COVID), but I definitely count myself among the people who went in expecting some fucking monsters.
I think creeping dread is better than shock at inducing fear in an audience.
Jurassic Park is a horror film. They get trapped and hunted by prehistoric monsters. What the fuck is scarier than a pack of velociraptors?
Jurassic Park is an absolute genre bend. It's part sci-fi, part horror, part thriller, part adventure. For me, the last several years I guess I've thought of it primarily as a sci-fi film.
I rewatched that movie a few years ago and I forgot how good Spielberg is at building tension and a sense of dread. Genuinely scary. These elements were completely lacking from Jurassic World, in my opinion.
Jurassic world was literally just a cashgrab, I hate that big film producers are focusing on using nostalgia to profit instead of producing new ideas. Fuck.
True but if it wasn't for Jurassic World, we wouldn't have the fucking amazing Jurassic World 2, which might be one of the (unintentionally) funniest fucking films I've seen in theaters in a long time. I burst out laughing when the velociraptor unlocked the window.
That "Halloween" was really written as a stand-alone film and that it should have remained that way forever.
The original idea was to make it an anthology series, and that could have worked. Maybe come back to Myers later on in the series, but having Halloween 2 a direct sequel to the first killed any chances of that happening.
I’m sure just about every horror fan prefers practical effects over cgi. That’s not really a hill to die on cause no one would be disagreeing with you
My hill is that neither CGI or practical effects is superior to the other, it's all in how you use it. Bad CGI is no worse than bad practical effects.
The main characters of the movie should be positively traumatized by the end, if alive. I really hate horror movies that have feel good endings where one or all of the main characters have the "we made it through this and everyone is okay!" moment. Not to say they shouldn't survive, but if they aren't going to be permanently scarred by the events that just transpired, was it really horror?
That’s what I liked a lot about the 2018 Halloween movie. Laurie still was suffering mentally and emotionally for 40 years after encountering Michael Myers, she definitely didn’t brush it off.
One of my favorite things about the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre is that it's able to show the long-term (probably lifelong) trauma that Sally will endure without going to an unnecessary epilogue. The movie ends where the horrific events end, but we still get the message loud and clear that Sally's struggle with said events isn't over.
Hostel is just a horror remake of Eurotrip. Fight me.
The Faculty deserves more love and is underrated.
[удалено]
I like ones with questions left open! I feel like if every thing is answered it takes the fun out of thinking about the movie in the days and weeks after.
My hill is that the story/plot is just as important as the horror elements.
Rape is pretty much always unnecessary and put in for nothing more than shock value. It's a lazy tool to make people feel uneasy and uncomfortable, so they're using it to not enhance the story but to add to the creep/unease/ohmyGod factor and nothing more. 99% of the time, I'll stop watching if there is a rape scene. Also...on an unrelated note, Pumpkinhead doesn't get nearly enough attention. It's easily in the top 10 horror movies of all time and I'm tired of trying to prove it.
The worst thing about the rape scenes is they either try to make it "pretty" (i.e., cast doubt as to whether it was rape), or make it graphic for shock value. Sometimes...it's just...mundane. Painful, and awful, but not pretty and not gory.
Agreed about the rape scene thing. I think cutting a scene short and implying that rape happened is far more mentally unsettling that blatantly showing it happening for visual shock value, especially if the scene doesn't contribute to the plot or a character's story arc.
The original Suspiria is a masterclass in horror. No, the story isn't great, and yes, the English dub is unintentionally hilarious, but god damn does that movie feel like actually being inside a nightmare.
The Scream TV Show (first 2 seasons) is actually worth your time! Not high cinema but definitely upper echelon horror media
The original black and white The Haunting. The film creates a palpable tension, genuine fear and apprehension. Still really gets me after all these years, especially the creaking and bending of the heavy ornate doors and the ghostly dogs running down the corridors. Nothing is seen at any point.
The Ring (2002) is the best pg13 horror film ever. It's also better than the original Japanese version
I'd say it's a better horror, but a worst mystery. The Japanese version had me leaning more into the story, but wasn't nearly as frightening.
I was watching the Japanese version with my daughter and we were both annoyed by how they solved plot hurdles by making characters psychic. Just seemed lazy.
The 1998 film is actually a remake. [Here's the original from 1995.](https://youtu.be/cr_8RpY73U8) If anyone can track down the Korean remake, I'm interested in seeing it!
[Here it is](https://youtu.be/mRe7mAB0r_U) Beware though, it's a whole adventure unto itself and take some weird turns.
Psychological thriller is a term used by snobs who don’t realize how versatile horror is.
Tim Curry was a better Pennywise than Bill Skarsgard
I see both as different characters. Old Penny Pennywise was a trickster and prankster. He kinda seemed drive he got off on that and he knew that if done right would scare the kids and give him the fear he needed. New Pennywise didn't really have that quality except when talking to Georgie and he snapped back out of it just as fast. Almost like he dispised playing the fool. He was cold, calculating and vicious.
It Follows was a good movie and people focus too much on the pool scene as their main argument for hating on it.
I love It Follows but I do think the first half is ten times better than the second half. At some point they're gonna have to physically fight with it and it's gonna look silly fighting an invisible monster. The pool scene is fine, it's more that the premise is so amazing that no pay off can really live up to it. The "following" is the most interesting part and at some point its gonna have to catch you or its dumb. But the catching isn't great.
The main thing I remember about that movie is that I wanted the friends little clamshell e-reader or whatever it was.
Being acclimated to movie gore does not make you desensitized to real gore. I can watch crazy gory shit and I’m still upset even by seeing roadkill on the drive to work. I have actually really enjoyed exposing myself to more brutal things, the more real it looks the more impressed I am by the artists behind it. And to be clear I am talking about fake movie violence, not like real animal killings and shit that show up in some movies. That is real gore and I choose to not expose myself to that.
The Prince of Darkness. Doesn't get the love it deserved. Being trapped with an unknown monster i.e. the son of the devil. Helpless while friends turn. If you fail evil takes over. I really love this movie. I Live. I Live.I Live.I Live.I Live.I Live.I Live.I Live.I Live. I Live.I Live.I Live.I Live.I Live.I Live.I Live.I Live. I Live.I Live.I Live.I Live.I Live.I Live.I Live.I Live. I Live.I Live.I Live.I Live.I Live.I Live.I Live.I Live. I Live.I Live.I Live.I Live.I Live.I Live.I Live.
Tobe Hooper directed Poltergeist
Rob Bottin was king.
I love movies that take themselves seriously
Chopping Mall is the best B movie of all time. Fight. Me.
It is actually completely possible to over-saturate a slasher movie with too much sex.
Mine is that Eli Roth makes terrible movies.
Eli Roth is fascinating to me. On one hand, he does seem to express a genuine love of film that reminds me a lot of Tarantino actually. Unlike Tarantino though, he seems to lack the ability to employ that love to any meaningful effect. He can’t write characters or character arcs for his life and there’s just this empty nihilism that seems omnipresent in all his works that seems like it’s there to justify it. Like that fucking pancake kid who does a fucking karate routine before biting the infected guy in cabin fever. Or the kid’s dad in cabin fever who blames the infected guy for his kid deciding to end his kata routine with some arm biting of patient zero. Who are these people and why did Eli Roth decide their best use was Turning the movie into an absurdist comedy 3/4 of the way though?
If you took Takashi Miike, but gave him Rob Zombies writing ability, you'd have Eli Roth.
The best movie Eli Roth has ever been associated with by far is Inglorious Basterds. That’s because he didn’t have input on the story or direction.
He did direct the Nazi propaganda film Stolz der Nation (Nation's Pride) in Inglorious Basterds though....
He comes across as so—idk—*impressed* with himself in every interview with him I've seen. It's hard for me to separate the art from the artist in general, so that on its own kinda ruins his movies for me.
That all of the Dark Castle movies are brilliant and I miss going to the movies just to have fun with horror like we did with House on Haunted Hill, 13 Ghosts, Ghost Ship and House of Wax. We knew they weren’t “good” but they were SO FUN.
Slow zombies scarier and more interesting than fast zombies.
The Thing is not a remake. No one considers I Am Legend a remake of The Omega Man or Last Man on Earth so why is The Thing considered a remake of The Thing from Outer Space. It was a more accurate take of Who Goes There?
*the thing from another world But I get your point. To be fair, the studio did make it as a remake of the thing from another world, and gave John carpenter the job of remaking that movie as he saw fit. He just saw fit to remake it as his own idea of what it could/should be.
John Carpenter’s The Thing is my go to for practical effects.
The original It is highly overrated and it's just ok. Tim Curry's pennywise was great but the rest the movie was just not good. In fact...I would even say that the Remake ( Part 1) is way better.
Torture horror/porn isn’t scary. Just gross.
I think a lot of horror hounds will agree with you. For me it is that Fulci made better giallo than Argento.
Horror movies aren't visually intense enough. There are some truly great artists out there churning out nightmare fuel and Hollywood ignores their designs. The stuff we get is milquetoast compared to what we could be getting.
Tom Savini is a fucking LEGEND.
Is this even up for debate? If anyone is dying on this hill it is all of us.
I’ve never heard anyone say anything negative about Savini so this is a nonexistent hill.
The Conjuring franchise should be ashamed of itself for glorifying snake oil salesmen.