Just What Does a Horror Fan Want?

[old-boo-radley]

I gazed around the web, reading reviews of Renny Harlin's Exorcist: The Beginning. A positive review was rare to find, but I was excited to see the film, a few people I know raved about it pretty highly. I bought it tonight and popped the sucker in. I would be lying if I said I didn't love what I saw. The film is definately the most beautiful looking film I've ever seen, I really dug Renny's direction. I found the film to be interesting throughout and apart from a couple scenes that came off as a bit silly (but, hey, what movie doesn't have these?), and I began to think...

What the fuck do we, as horror fans want?

Horror aficionados are the first people to bitch about studio intervention on films, bitching about the way a studio handled a DVD release, etc... Warner opted to fire Paul Schrader and bring in Renny Harlin because the film didn't have enough blood and guts and scares. Of course, for some reason a lot of fans seemed to believe their intelligence was insulted when this announcement was made. Why does Warner believe we're a bunch of bumbling idiots?

Well... maybe they don't. We bitch when a movie is released in a cut form on DVD. A hell of an uproar was recently raised when a string of horror movies suddenly went PG-13 instead of R. If a movie is too talky, we bitch about that. Well, when Schrader was fired... people began bashing the studio for apparantly (from what I've ever heard, anyways) being talky and tame. Yeah, the same people who were outraged that their precious R rated movies were getting cut to PG-13 bash a movie for upping the ante.

Warner couldn't have thought we were sheep or unintelligent or they wouldn't have got the great cinematographer and director that they did to put the movie together. I truly hope Schrader's version is great. I will buy it when it comes out, but to bash the blood and guts of this film is like when the snooty critics say "I don't know why anyone would ever want to watch a popcorn flick." You could argue that you don't want Exorcist movies into the popcorn flick realm (although I don't believe it is in that realm to begin with). I know another movie that lacked blood and guts, and it was called, "The Exorcist 2: The Heretic." Sad thing is with the backlash against the film, I truly believe people will say the Schrader cut is better no matter if it is or it isn't, just to give the studio a "fuck you" out of spite.

I don't mean to be a smart-ass, I've been guilty of this just like everyone else, but given these factors... how can we fans honestly expect studios to figure us out?

-------------

Just to point out a thought on a couple sentences of Rhett's review of The Exorcist: The Beginning.

From the review:
"All of Reagan’s dirty cuss words have been recreated again in The Beginning, but they seem so much more forced and so much more empty. Compared to a quote like “shove your rotten cock up her juicy ass” from The Beginning, Reagan’s “Fuck me! Fuck me!” spiel in the original sounds surprisingly tasteful."

The original had a 12 year old girl masturbating with a crucifix while she said "Let Jesus fuck you, let Jesus fuck you. Let him fuck you." I don't think you can compare the two in vileness ;)

[hellraiser40]

what does a horror fan want?

- gore and bloody murders, but not too much or the shock value goes out the window
- great acting and a good and original story with believable twists

i think, that like every film genre, great horror films play on the emotions of people. if people aren't emoted, the movie loses already much of the attention of the audience.

when i think about an example, i think Cronenberg's The Fly. It has a simple story, but with an original content. It has great acting, which make you feel for the characters and go along with them. It has great gore and grue. And, most importantly, it plays on the emotions of people. I always found the ending very sad, with a feeling of pity for, what is actually only a fake dummy, the 'monster'. How much I like horror films like 'My Bloody Valentine', 'Nightmare City' and others, they sometimes lack the emotional factor. Which of course doesn't mean that those cannot be enjoyed, which they surely do. But that extra step, that makes a 'good movie' into an 'exceptional movie' is most of the time missing.

[dwatts]

:D Hilarious post!

I don't mean that as an insult, by the way, I mean it truly made me cock my head to the side and go... "Hmmmmmmmmmmm." Brilliant stuff.

You see, we're in a trap. What do we want? Stuff like the stuff we like. However, we also demand originality. So it's got to be different - BUT THE SAME! :D

We yearn for classic days to be relived, for many people here that seems to be the 80's. However, i tends to be whatever you saw when you were growing up - so if you grew up in the 80's, you like those films. For me it was the 70's, which I prefer (if talking generically, I don't want to dismiss any good films here) over any other decade. I am aware though that I grew up going to the cinema during that time, watching a ton of horror on TV and tape.

Anyway, anything that recreates that 70's feel would work for me.

As far as "what do you want" goes, I'd say I would just like a few more unexpected moments, some surprises. I want say, a slasher without TOO many cliches. I want some intelligent dialog. I want some FX that don't look like they were created on the Xbox. I want to be surprised, taken off guard. I want horror treated as as primo cinema, great FILMAKING.

I have not seen the Exorcist movies yet, not seen the DVD for sale. I might, though I'm not too interested in the series to be honest. As I did recently for "Halloween Resurrection", it might be itneresting for you to write a positive review of this maligned movie and putting it in the "readers review" section.

And thanks again for an interesting post ;)

EDIT: Just to illustrate the problem we have:

--when i think about an example, i think Cronenberg's The Fly. It has a simple story, but with an original content. It has great acting, which make you feel for the characters and go along with them. It has great gore and grue. And, most importantly, it plays on the emotions of people.--

See, I really don't rate The Fly at all, I reckon the original was way better. We're so hard to please :D

[old-boo-radley]

I have not seen the Exorcist movies yet, not seen the DVD for sale. I might, though I'm not too interested in the series to be honest. As I did recently for "Halloween Resurrection", it might be itneresting for you to write a positive review of this maligned movie and putting it in the "readers review" section.


Interestingly enough... I found Halloween Resurrection to be at least acceptable last time I watched my DVD! I hated it in the theatres. Webcam stuff hurt my brain. I may just have to do that sometimes in the wee hours of tomorrow morn when I get off work. Although, I am not sure I am trying to preach the word about how much I enjoyed the movie, I just am interested in trying to figure this mess of what people want out... because we can't decide obviously. ;)

And... shit, they have Exorcist 1-3 box set at Wal-mart and they'll for damn sure have 4 there... treat yourself to a gift today and pick it up. :)

One beef I have with reviewers is when they bring up the "Father Merrin struggling with his faith" and how it was downplayed in Harlin's movie. In my opinion, the fact that he concerned himself with child who was killed because he wouldn't choose is a much more interesting of a concept and one that a helluva lot more people could try to identify with or at the very least feel more emotion to. People are so bitter today towards religion, a slow study of a man dealing with his faith would bore the people, in my opinion... for what it's worth.

I suppose it's worth 1/100 of a cent... just like all the McDonalds coupons. :lol:

As powerful as the relationship between Damien and his mom was in the original, I think the demon haunting Merrin about the small child is a much more ruthless act, and one that definately makes the audience closer to Merrin. Of course, Schrader's could have been full of this as well. But if Schrader dwelled on this stuff for the entire length of the feature, the pacing could grow as tedious as the first half of the original Exorcist.

Sure, no one brought that up, but I enjoy talking to myself. :glasses:

[dwatts]

Nah, it's clear you've got a lot to say about these films... I want those reviews though to see what you've got. Don't be lazy. As for Resurrection.... you're soooooo wrong.... what the hell did you want from a "Halloween" franchise flick?!?!?!? :D

[Ash28M]

I really hated the Exorcist: The Beginning when i saw it in the theaters. It felt like i was watching the Mummy returns or some crap like that. What i want is a film with relentless horror that is not afraid to take risks , Or a film that gets me into an uneasy state and then goes for that primal feel. What i hate is jump scares that have no reason for being there. Don't insult me with crap like that. If your going to have a jump scare create it because it adds to the film not just to put it in there. An original story is a bonus but that's not really what i care about as longs as you introduce something i didn't expect, even in familiar concept. I want to get to know and care about the characters. I don't want CGI unless i can't tell it's CGI. I really don't care how good it looks ,it looks FAKE! I want suspense and i want to feel uncomfortable while watch the film.The best example of recent horror films that "got" it and for all different reasons are The Blair Witch Project that movie tapped into my primal fear like few films have. Haute Tension took a familiar concept but gave me relentless horror from start to Finnish and May i got to care about the main character and was taken by the hand and shown what it would be like to be her. I want the beggining of When a stranger Calls I want the Prom Scene in Carrie and the Door slamming shut in the Texas Chainsaw Massacre. I want to fell uncomfortable like Reagan stabbing herself self yelling obscenities in the Exorcist or feel like I'm in a nightmare like in Suspiria.I don't want to forget about the film a second after i saw it. What was Exorcist: The Beginning about again?

[soxfan666]

one thing i usually look for in a horro movie is the chance to be scared. I very rarelly am scared but at least present the chance. I liked the Dawn of the Dead remake because it was intense. To me thought of waking up in chaos and seeing the zombies that can attack in a flash was very effective. Exorcist the beginning was very slow and never presented any chance for genuine scares. I also didnt care about any characters. Movies are character driven (even horror movies) and if i dont care about anybody then i wont be able to care about the movie. But, there are many nights i just want to see a bunch of gore, kills and tits.

[Dave]

I too enjoyed this movie and will probably pick it up on DVD. It has faults, but it's a keeper for me. It's funny because I remember reading all the negative reviews on it. When I watched it, I kept waiting to NOT like what I was seeing, but it never happened.

[WesReviews]

I'll agree on Exorcist: The Beginning.

I think a lot of people were unfairly harsh on it because there was this supposed "better" version that the studio didn't want us to see. Many of the same people who criticize Harlin's movie here also claim The Ring Two is "boring". For ALL it's faults (and there are many) Ring Two was never boring to me. If that constitutes "boring", I'd really hate to be around if and when some of you see Schrader's cut. Because odds are, it's something like The Order (or maybe worse) or else, Warner Bros would have released it.

Do you honestly think Warner Bros. would sit on a slow, but atmospheric honestly "good" Exorcist movie if they had one? Hell, that right there describes the original Exorcist. Face it, folks...Schrader likely didn't deliver. Did we really need another movie like The Order? I'll stick GLADLY with the rockin' flick Harlin gave us.

- - -

As for the "What Does a Horror Fan Want" question in general...I think as in the case of ANY "fanboy" scenario, they never know what they want. Comic fans want their precious characters and favorite books turned into movies, but bitch when liberties are taken by the studios when one finally does get made. Horror fans are no different.

Nice little diversions from the teeny bopper norm like Wrong Turn are completely ignored while more "fanboy"-friendly films like Shaun of the Dead are heralded with trumpets.

The PERFECT early 80's slasher homage, Valentine, gets a bashing like nothing I have ever seen...yet it isn't condescending to the sub-genre like Scream was...and it actually has atmosphere and minor scares to offer, unlike Urban Legend or I Know What You Did Last Summer. So, why did the fans...even so-called slasher fans...turn their backs on Valentine?

Because it's not something they can feel "cool" for liking.

Shaun of the Dead? "Oh yeah, great flick!" Bubba Ho-Tep? "Ah, man that flick rocks!!!111" Those are, for whatever reason, deemed "the cool ones to like". I contend to this day, if Valentine had been released as-is back in 1981...people today would be looking back on it LOVING it. Tracking down used copies on Ebay, even. It is certainly NO different or worse than any of the slasher clones from the same period that we all embrace and love.

One thing Boo touched on is that I believe is that a lot of so-called horror fans are becoming exactly like the critics they claim to hate. Watch major critics bash something like Cabin Fever (which has become a "classic" for some reason...displaying how truly in trouble our genre may be if left up to the "fans") and the fanboys come out to tear down said critic. Meanwhile, the fans in question would likely have a House of 1000 Corpses poster on his/her wall. *Sigh*

Granted there ARE bad horror films released, and we shouldn't support "crap" just to support our genre, but c'mon people. Stop going for the "cool" and support the films that DO need your support.

[Ash28M]

I think part of the problem is that in the 70's and 80's they made R rated horror films for adults. Now every horror film that comes out by hollywood is made for a 13 year old girl because restricted films don't do as well.

[maybrick]

The PERFECT early 80's slasher homage, Valentine, gets a bashing like nothing I have ever seen...yet it isn't condescending to the sub-genre like Scream was...and it actually has atmosphere and minor scares to offer, unlike Urban Legend or I Know What You Did Last Summer. So, why did the fans...even so-called slasher fans...turn their backs on Valentine?

Because it's not something they can feel "cool" for liking.



Nope. Not true. I can't speak for anyone else of course, but I turned my back on VALENTINE because it's just-plain-BAD on every conceivable level !

It's cool if you like it though.

[Ash28M]

Nope. Not true. I can't speak for anyone else of course, but I turned my back on VALENTINE because it's just-plain-BAD on every conceivable level !

It's cool if you like it though.

I thought it was bad even for a bad Scream clone.

[maybrick]

I thought it was bad even for a bad Scream clone.

Exactly. It's the only movie I've ever watched that has seriously made me angry for wasting 90 minutes of my life, and I've watched a lot of crap over the years, too! :D

[WesReviews]

That's the thing though...just because it was greenlit after Scream doesn't mean that it is a "Scream clone". Its actual tone had very little in common with Scream. It did cast a TV star...okay, I'll give you that one. :rolleyes:

But in no way did Valentine play down to the audience or make jokes at the sub-genre's expense. Instead, it chose (for better or worse) to play within the rules of an early 80's slasher. The mask, the music, the poster, the kills...all of which way more in line with the direction the sub-genre was going in the early 80's than what it took in the late 90's post-Scream (which is the route Urban Legend and I Know What You Did Last Summer took). And of course, if you don't dig the early 80's slashers in general, it's likely you won't appreciate what I see in Valentine. And that's fair. :)

I'm not saying it's the greatest horror film of all time, folks. It's not even in my top 10 of slashers. But truly, it ain't THAT bad. Leaps and bounds more satisfying than House of 1000 Corpses or Cabin Fever...two other films made by "fans".

[Ash28M]

That's the thing though...just because it was greenlit after Scream doesn't mean that it is a "Scream clone". Its actual tone had very little in common with Scream. It did cast a TV star...okay, I'll give you that one. :rolleyes:

But in no way did Valentine play down to the audience or make jokes at the sub-genre's expense. Instead, it chose (for better or worse) to play within the rules of an early 80's slasher. The mask, the music, the poster, the kills...all of which way more in line with the direction the sub-genre was going in the early 80's than what it took in the late 90's post-Scream (which is the route Urban Legend and I Know What You Did Last Summer took). And of course, if you don't dig the early 80's slashers in general, it's likely you won't appreciate what I see in Valentine. And that's fair. :)

I'm not saying it's the greatest horror film of all time, folks. It's not even in my top 10 of slashers. But truly, it ain't THAT bad. Leaps and bounds more satisfying than House of 1000 Corpses or Cabin Fever...two other films made by "fans".


Alright Alright maybe i'll give it another shot one of these days. Although i really enjoyed House of 1000 Corpses, not so much Cabin Fever though i'll give you that one.

[fceurich39]

gore/good dvd transfer/extras

[marcx]

Exorcist: The Beginning definately got a bad rap. I thnk if it was in no way conencted ot such a great orignial film, it would have stood out better as a solid genre outing. As it stands it had too much baggage.

My biggest complaint with it was that I enjoyed it enough to see that with just a little less silliness and a few more fine tunings to the script it could have been really great. As it stands, I found it enjoyable.

I think that when we go into something called the exorcist, we are not looking for over the top gore and mayham, but deep psychological/religious horror. Some of the filme that we are complaining about getting edited versions of are films where the gore is a main expectation....

[shift]

Aways tit and ass, nude/sex scenes. ;)

[KingJeff]

I haven't watched Exorcist: The Beginning yet, so I don' thave anything to say about that.
As a horror fan I really only look for one thing, atmosphere. Some of the absolute best horror films out there rely solely on atmosphere to tell the story. Gore and blood do NOT a horror film make. Maybe today, in the age of quick MTV-style editing for the ADD Generation. Any blood or gore above the minimum necessary ruins a scene for me. Does anyone seriously consider Dead Alive anything but a comedy? that's all it is. Director's cuts and uncut versions of films are completely unnecessary if the only thing they add back is gore. most of the time the gore was cut because it looked terrible.

My Bloody Valentine was a frickin' masterpiece. The scene where Harry Warden is knocking out the lightbulbs in the mineshaft still freaks me out today.
House of 1000 Corpses was completely worthless and had only one redeeming shot, the one where Otis is going to kill the cop and the camera pulls way back and makes you wait for it.

of course this is just the babbling of some cranky old school horror fan. :)

[Mortis]

If you (people in general) like certain movies because it's the "cool thing to do", you're entirely idiotic. To quote 48 HRS., "Who gives a fuck what you think!?" I didn't think Bubba Ho-tep was a "cool thing to do" movie. And speaking of My Bloody Valentine, that's one hell of a movie. I need to see if it's any cheaper to pick up on DVD these days.

Because it's not something they can feel "cool" for liking.

Shaun of the Dead? "Oh yeah, great flick!" Bubba Ho-Tep? "Ah, man that flick rocks!!!111" Those are, for whatever reason, deemed "the cool ones to like". I contend to this day, if Valentine had been released as-is back in 1981...people today would be looking back on it LOVING it. Tracking down used copies on Ebay, even. It is certainly NO different or worse than any of the slasher clones from the same period that we all embrace and love.

[onebyone]

I am pretty sure we just want to bitch about stuff. Bitch about this, bitch about that, bitch about bitching. It's all good.

[thrashard76]

I am pretty sure we just want to bitch about stuff. Bitch about this, bitch about that, bitch about bitching. It's all good.
A true horror fan spells horror this way: B-I-T-C-H. :lol: That's too funny onebyone, but so true.

[wizzer]

i can't comment on the movies mentioned and i guess im not really a horror fan but i'm trying to be.

for me, a good horror movie makes me laugh. for example, i've seen scary movie 2 plenty of times and then i went to finally watch the original exorcist and when i saw the priest with all the flies on him, even though it was serious, james woods ruined it already and i was laughing my ass off. so i tend to like the less serious horror film. i like to see popular academy award type actors throwing cheesy lines and acting sub-par in films 10 to 20 years before they won their academies:)

i like decent rip off plots, good gore and acting that makes me cringe and laugh. i wwant foreign flicks that translate to american situations well. like: different language but they are almost expiriencing the same thing as me. i want stupid bugs, monsters and things that come out of the toilet. i also like really shitty horror movies that try to be serious so i can hack on them. i like horror movies that are better when you have three beers in you.

[RyanPC]

For the most part, I just want a good story. It doesn't even have to be scary, as long as I enjoy it. Bad acting really isn't an issue for me because if I enjoy the story, then I'll enjoy the acting whether it's good or bad. I like gore just as much as the next guy, but I agree that sometimes more is less.

[Lyle Horowitz]

I want something original and refreshing. The horror genre to me is basically dead. That's crazy because between 1920-1980 horror is my favorite genre, and horror is what got me interested in film as a whole. I can only name around 20 or 30 great horror films made in the past 25 years. That's pathetic. Of course, good direction, characters you can relate to, a good score, and obviously mood are important as well.

[Agent Z]

If you think we're hard to please here, may I direct you to this haven (http://www.aint-it-cool-news.com/) of malcontents.

They get brutal over there. I mean, B-R-U-T-A-L. :nervous:

[old-boo-radley]

I really hated the Exorcist: The Beginning when i saw it in the theaters. It felt like i was watching the Mummy returns or some crap like that. What i want is a film with relentless horror that is not afraid to take risks , Or a film that gets me into an uneasy state and then goes for that primal feel. What i hate is jump scares that have no reason for being there. Don't insult me with crap like that. If your going to have a jump scare create it because it adds to the film not just to put it in there. An original story is a bonus but that's not really what i care about as longs as you introduce something i didn't expect, even in familiar concept. I want to get to know and care about the characters. I don't want CGI unless i can't tell it's CGI. I really don't care how good it looks ,it looks FAKE! I want suspense and i want to feel uncomfortable while watch the film.The best example of recent horror films that "got" it and for all different reasons are The Blair Witch Project that movie tapped into my primal fear like few films have. Haute Tension took a familiar concept but gave me relentless horror from start to Finnish and May i got to care about the main character and was taken by the hand and shown what it would be like to be her. I want the beggining of When a stranger Calls I want the Prom Scene in Carrie and the Door slamming shut in the Texas Chainsaw Massacre. I want to fell uncomfortable like Reagan stabbing herself self yelling obscenities in the Exorcist or feel like I'm in a nightmare like in Suspiria.I don't want to forget about the film a second after i saw it. What was Exorcist: The Beginning about again?


Don't even get me started on Suspiria. If you're afraid of some red and blue lights, The Exorcist 4 should have scared you to death ;)

I also can't find any connection in the way The Mummy is compared to Exorcist 4. To each his own, but I do not see the connection.

-----

Since people seem to knock the plot of Exorcist 4... I felt that it was a very emotional film, and I think it benefitted from the fast pace Renny gave it because rather than dwelling on Merrin for the entire length of the film, it gave you a break from it so you didn't grow tired of the same things he kept pondering in his brain. "Less is more." ;) You have to really fall in love with the character to withstand a 110 minute character study of him, and I haven't made up my mind yet if this would work with this film.

The situation kind of reminds me of the real hardcore Asian horror fanatics (I mean the ones who will only wear T-shirts with Japanese text and such). Although I have no problem with anyone liking what they like... I don't understand why people adore Asian horror for not being "dumbed down" like all of these "American movies," they let the viewer make his own assumptions and not everything is explained. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Lucio Fulci did the exact same thing, but the same people who like the Asian flicks refer to his films as "uncomprehensible messes" or say "That fuckin' piece of shit The Beyond made no sense!" I don't get it.

And, yes I know Fulci isn't American, but you get the idea.

[Surnom]

Whatever the movies, what I want is to be entertain, to have a good 2 hours of fun watching something that interests me... Some might be scary, some might be funny, some might even be bad, but i found them entertaining. But I still hate, in any situation, cut movies, and not because I so much miss the gore - it's mostly because I want to see what the movie was suppose to be in the first place, before the censor, and this is why I want uncut as often as possible. Otherwise, it would be like looking at a classic painting where the nipples would have been brushed out because it nudity... The same goes with widescreen - nobody want to look at painting with the sides blacked out.

And I don't think I like what is cool - I do have the Gothika DVD here, while lots of people hate that movie, or The Order for that matter... - and I did like Bubba Ho-Tep, and didn't like Valentine or Cabin Fever (in fact I did hate Cabin Fever)... In the end, it's like everything else - everybody got his own taste, and I guess someone, somewhere, do like Uwe Boll movies... Maybe it's Uwe Boll himself...

[allmessedup]

I feel the same way...I really just want to be entertained. That usually happens when a movie succeeds in when it's trying to do, though sometimes it happens when a movie is spectacularly bad [HOUSE OF THE DEAD, for instance.]

A few other random thoughts...

I recognize that some of the problems I have with some of the newer films are generational. I'm appoaching my mid-30s. Most of these movies aren't made for me anymore, and the ones that have an excess of hip-hop music, for example, just distract me too much and take me out of the film. But sometimes, again, this can also be funny if it turns a horror flim into a comedy [again, HOUSE OF THE DEAD.]

I personally thought EXORCIST: THE BEGINNING was okay, and didn't see why fans had such malice for the film. It was an unnecessary film but it's certainly not the first
useless sequel, and fans have generally found something in value in the various sequels. I guess the main problem people had was that it veered off course from the spirit of the earlier films. I think if people look at it as a standalone film they might like it a bit more, though I don't think anyone will ever consider it a classic on par with the earlier films. But I guess the idea of Father Merrin having a physical action-movie style battle with a possessed person is a little like making a zombie flick and having a lot of supernatural stuff going on--it's just not what people expect or want.

BTW, in general, I think fans make poor films. Fans like to see the monster as much as possible, but storywise, making the monster/villain the "star" usually overwhelms the audience and doesn't work as well as having the traditional conflict between good and evil. It's like a dinner with nothing but dessert courses. That was one of the big problems I had with HOUSE OF 1000 CORPSES--the family's antics actually became boring after a while. That's really the only cardinal sin for a movie in my book.

[WesReviews]

Another thing that bothers me...fans complain about horror films needing "character development"...but when ones come along that have it, horror fans (more often than not) completely crap all over them (Open Water). If you get into the story, the plight of the characters, Open Water is certainly not "boring" as I've heard it described.

So, just what IS character development to some of you guys? I'm curious. :)

[allmessedup]

With me all it really needs to be is to give the characters enough depth that I care what happens to them. You don't need to give 20 minutes of additional dialogue about their childhoods to do that. A good script can do it without slowing the movie down.

And I really think that in a lot of horror films, it's not all that necessary. A lot of the classic slashers, for example, don't have much in the way of character development. "Lack of character development" is basically a criticism thrown around at films that people already don't like. It doesn't mean much in most cases.

[Myron Breck]

I don't need the characters to "develop" or grow from one point in the film to the next, but having some depth to where you care about them (POLTERGEIST, CARRIE, or even PUMPKINHEAD--who doesn't like Ed Harley?!) and their plight.
Of course, I also really enjoy watching dipshits get hacked to bits as much as the next gorehound, but the ones with depth seem to be the classics.
But the "deep" characters don't even have to be the traditional antagonists. Take PSYCHO: the character with the most depth, the one you care about the most is the killer.
Personally, I feel that the actors have to win the audience over. If I don't like them, it's pretty hard to care about them. The characters in OPEN WATER were whining bitches with zero chance to do anything else due to the almost non-existant script. I am so horrified...TERRIFIED...of the ocean (thanks, Spielberg) that the concept of OPEN WATER blew my circuits when I heard about it. I couldn't wait. How could this NOT be scary to someone like me? It wasn't. I didn't even bother finishing the movie because I hated the so-called actors and really didn't care if they lived or died. I didn't even care enough to stick it out in case they got bit in half (and that's saying something for me).
The movie just did not draw me in. Sorry, Wes. We all have our tastes. I hope that the makers of the film got enough money and exposure from it to do something a little better for their next project--unlike those BLAIR WITCH losers. I digress...

[Mortis]

Dawn of the Dead (the original) comes to mind when I think of character development. I even hated one character (Fran), but those elements made the movie that much better.

I don't need the characters to "develop" or grow from one point in the film to the next, but having some depth to where you care about them (POLTERGEIST, CARRIE, or even PUMPKINHEAD--who doesn't like Ed Harley?!) and their plight. Of course, I also really enjoy watching dipshits get hacked to bits as much as the next gorehound, but the ones with depth seem to be the classics.
But the "deep" characters don't even have to be the traditional antagonists. Take PSYCHO: the character with the most depth, the one you care about the most is the killer.
Personally, I feel that the actors have to win the audience over. If I don't like them, it's pretty hard to care about them. The characters in OPEN WATER were whining bitches with zero chance to do anything else due to the almost non-existant script.

[Stige]

uncut, no studio tampering,origional ratio. Thats it I love almost all horror. The cheap made for video on a budget og 6 $. films rank bottom of the list but other than that most of them have value. I liked Valentine, I assume I will like exorcist as well

only peeves
1.studios deciding the political climate is wrong and cencoring a movie that already has an R rating ( valentine)
2.Not at least releasing unrated titles on dvd/video/laser whatever, if they were cut for theatrical release
3.If a movie is made for pg-13 then fine, but cutting a r rated flick to make it pg-13
4.Could they maybe tone down the CGI just a bit? Alittle old fashioned SFX would be greatly appriciated

major peeves

that that havent released prom night on a super duper edtion with soundtrack and hours of extras :banana: :banana:

[old-boo-radley]

I hope that the makers of the film got enough money and exposure from it to do something a little better for their next project--unlike those BLAIR WITCH losers. I digress...

I think everyone besides the hardcore horror fan hated Blair Witch... Word of mouth pissed a lot of people off ;)

[Myron Breck]

I think everyone besides the hardcore horror fan hated Blair Witch... Word of mouth pissed a lot of people off ;)

It wasn't word of mouth that killed it fo rme, it was the giant loopholes in the story. Not unlike SIXTH SENSE, as soon as the credits rolled I said, "Wow! That was great!" Five minutes later, as I put the pieces together, I said, "Wait a minute...it doesn't work." I was profoundly disappointed.

My point in my previous post was that I forgave the filmmakers for trying something daring and different and almost getting it right. They were the new Golden Kids in Hollywood and everyone was anxious about what they would do next with a budget behind them. THAT'S when they really failed.

[Bobbywoodhogan]

I actually love films that try to be really scary but I love films that are just cheesefest full of gore but I would take a really scary film over the latter anyday.

[maybrick]

They were the new Golden Kids in Hollywood and everyone was anxious about what they would do next with a budget behind them. THAT'S when they really failed.

I'm not sure I know what you mean. Are you calling them failures because they've done nothing since, or are you blaming them for Blair Witch 2? If it's the latter, then you're being unfair because they had no input on the sequel.

[Myron Breck]

Well, I meant that they never did anything with their newfound fame and influence--not even anything bad like HOUSE OF THE DEAD! But now that you mention it, I thought that they'd signed on to do the sequel and the prequel...? I guess that fell through and they gave it to someone lese? Better for them, I suppose.

[maskull]

I read in the latest Rue Morgue that Daniel Myrick and Eduardo Sanchez (the creators of Blair Witch) are each working on their own movies now. Daniel a "psychological thriller" and Eduardo an "Alien Abduction film". I'd be curious to see what they do with them. and they're trying to get the green light to go ahead with a Blair Witch prequel....
sorry, i don't have a link to the story as I read it in the actual magazine.

[Ash28M]

It wasn't word of mouth that killed it fo rme, it was the giant loopholes in the story. Not unlike SIXTH SENSE, as soon as the credits rolled I said, "Wow! That was great!" Five minutes later, as I put the pieces together, I said, "Wait a minute...it doesn't work." I was profoundly disappointed.

I am curious in knowing what you thought didn’t work. As for me the whole nature of the film made anything possible.

[dwatts]

Somehow I think it's more impressive if they never did anything again. It's not like they owe us a huge catalog of titles. They already made a terrific horror film, which is more than many filmmakers have done.

Blair Witch continues to split horror audiences. It's a simply story, simply made, in fact any one of us could have made it. Which I think is the main issue - we didn't. Someone else did, and they made a good wad of cash. Some of us will be eternally angry about that. Fact is, Blair Witch got people interested in horror again - they praise Scream for doing the same thing - Blair Witch was better. ;)

[Agent Z]

I am curious in knowing what you thought didn’t work. As for me the whole nature of the film made anything possible.

Yeah. I read that and was struck by the "giant loopholes" mentioned....as I thought TBWP was actually pretty good in NOT having any major plotholes/loopholes.

[allmessedup]

Or if they did, I didn't notice them. I liked it when I saw it, but felt that I probably wouldn't watch it again. I think what makes it a lesser movie is that once you know what's going to happen, it's much less enjoyable--that's why I think it's more of a gimmick film similar to THE SIXTH SENSE [though with that movie I already knew the twist before seeing it and it was sort of fun to see the various clues.] With the great movies, it really doesn't matter if you've seen it or not, it still gets you the way it did the first time you saw it.

As far as DAWN goes, I actually thought there was too much character development!

[Myron Breck]

Yeah. I read that and was struck by the "giant loopholes" mentioned....as I thought TBWP was actually pretty good in NOT having any major plotholes/loopholes.

Okay, I'll try and explain. Maybe I missed something when I got up to go to the bathroom or something; but if anyone can explain these points to me, I'd be appreciative. I might even go rent it to give it another chance as I haven't seen it since it was in the theater.

The two guys fishing: They said something about how there were copycat murders long before. They told about how the one kid had to face the corner while the other was killed. So who was it at the end? Was it really a witch/evil force or was it yet another copycat? The same copycat? If it was, how did he/she/they manage to be way out in the woods making spooky noises and come up on them in the night so quickly? Did they sit around in the woods for decades making stick figures? What was the wad of blue goo (looked like some human teeth were included) wrapped in the cloth? How did no one find that house in the woods but the filmmmakers? No helicopters or search parties hit the woods when children go missing?

To me, it was a bunch of great ideas and images presented in a unique and effective manner...but they didn't add up as a whole. The immense hype surrounding it didn't help either. Come to think of it, neither did the fact that I saw it in a crowded theater of teenagers. :fire:

After writing all this, I think I might go rent it this week and give it another chance. I trust the opinions of a few of you who've disagreed with my feelings on this. Maybe it would benefit from an isolated late-night viewing at home?

[maybrick]

Blair Witch wouldn't have been nearly as effective if they bothered to answer half of the questions you want to know, Myron. On their budget it just would've come across as talky and overwritten. C'mon! What did you expect? The Blair Witch to capture them and explain her motivations and what's been happening, then leave them to die like in a James Bond film?

[allmessedup]

To me it didn't really matter either--it was about being caught up in moments of terror.
I didn't care about any of those things while I was watching it, and to me that's the only time those things matter--if you notice them and it takes you out of the movie.
It really doesn't matter if you later think that it doesn't make sense, though I think that a lot of people thought that after seeing BLAIR WITCH, which might be why it has the reputation it does.

[Ash28M]

Don't even get me started on Suspiria. If you're afraid of some red and blue lights, The Exorcist 4 should have scared you to death ;)

I also can't find any connection in the way The Mummy is compared to Exorcist 4. To each his own, but I do not see the connection.



Are you really saying you think Exorcist 4 is a better film then Suspiria? I think you need to go back and take a closer look at those red and blue lights.

As for the comparison to the Mummy I'm mostly referring all the CGI. If i wanted to see a cartoon I'd rent Shrek.

[Myron Breck]

Points taken. Maybe I just over-analyze things that I like, which causes great disappointment when they don't hold up. I can totally see how the documentary-style approach to the film made for limited opportunities for explaining what was going on, but for me it's still not an excuse. If they could have included just one or two more short interview/research clips at the beginning maybe it would have made things clearer.
Personally, I find things to be scarier if they make sense. You can have a lot of great ideas but if they go nowhere...I dunno. Does anyone know if the DVD has a commentary track? Do they offer explanations that were unable to be put on film due to their budget constraints and/or inexperience as filmmakers? I'd be very interested in it if it does. Not being able to afford to shoot something would be understandable; a lot moreso than "we know it doesn't make sense, that's why it's so scary" logic.

[walkingdude]

It does have a commentary track but I have yet to watch it.I should get to it.:)

[Ash28M]

Okay, I'll try and explain. Maybe I missed something when I got up to go to the bathroom or something; but if anyone can explain these points to me, I'd be appreciative. I might even go rent it to give it another chance as I haven't seen it since it was in the theater.

The two guys fishing: They said something about how there were copycat murders long before. They told about how the one kid had to face the corner while the other was killed. So who was it at the end? Was it really a witch/evil force or was it yet another copycat? The same copycat? If it was, how did he/she/they manage to be way out in the woods making spooky noises and come up on them in the night so quickly? Did they sit around in the woods for decades making stick figures? What was the wad of blue goo (looked like some human teeth were included) wrapped in the cloth? How did no one find that house in the woods but the filmmmakers? No helicopters or search parties hit the woods when children go missing?


That's the thing that made it scary. They were in the woods hearing noises in a supposably "haunted woods" They also heard about the child killer from the towns people that happened in the 40's (I don't remember any mention of a copycat). When you are in that situation like that when you are scared, frustrated and you haven't hardly slept or eaten your brain plays tricks on you. every noise you hear your thinking "is it the Blair witch" " is it the child murder" "is it fucked up locals" " is it a wild animal" Either one of them is a bad situation. Even at the end when he was facing the wall. You still don't know what happened to him. Was it "the Witch or was it the "Child murderer". That open ended finally is what kept haunting my thoughts way after it ended. It's the perfect spooky tale as far as I'm concerned.

[maybrick]

Points taken. Maybe I just over-analyze things that I like, which causes great disappointment when they don't hold up. I can totally see how the documentary-style approach to the film made for limited opportunities for explaining what was going on, but for me it's still not an excuse. If they could have included just one or two more short interview/research clips at the beginning maybe it would have made things clearer.


What you just said reminds me of something. The first time I saw The Blair Witch Project wasn't in the theater or later when it was officially released to video, but four or five months before it's theatrical release (before most people had even heard of it) from a bootleg tape a friend let me borrow. What I noticed immediately with the theatrical/DVD cut (aside from a different soundtrack) is that scenes before they enter the woods had been significantly abbreviated. I believe there was slightly more backstory originally but I may be wrong about that. It's been 6 years since I've seen that cut.

[Myron Breck]

What you just said reminds me of something. The first time I saw The Blair Witch Project wasn't in the theater or later when it was officially released to video, but four or five months before it's theatrical release (before most people had even heard of it) from a bootleg tape a friend let me borrow. What I noticed immediately with the theatrical/DVD cut (aside from a different soundtrack) is that scenes before they enter the woods had been significantly abbreviated. I believe there was slightly more backstory originally but I may be wrong about that. It's been 6 years since I've seen that cut.

Aw, man!!! I would love to see that cut; maybe there'll be another release since companies are now double-/triple-releasing titles. There's hope for me yet! :D

Maybrick, you and Ash have made me decide that I need to enter the woods once more and see if, having much lower expectations at this point, I might enjoy it more.

[Myron Breck]

(I don't remember any mention of a copycat).

Maybe I made that part up along the way, sorry. :) I told you it'd been a while.

[old-boo-radley]

Are you really saying you think Exorcist 4 is a better film then Suspiria? I think you need to go back and take a closer look at those red and blue lights.

As for the comparison to the Mummy I'm mostly referring all the CGI. If i wanted to see a cartoon I'd rent Shrek.

Or, you could just pop in Suspiria. It's essentially a cartoon. I wish Suspiria was 1/2 as good as Exorcist 4 was. Red and blue lights... Argento, head out of your ass. Dario Argento: Italian Horror's Pussy.

[RyanPC]

Or, you could just pop in Suspiria. It's essentially a cartoon. I wish Suspiria was 1/2 as good as Exorcist 4 was. Red and blue lights... Argento, head out of your ass. Dario Argento: Italian Horror's Pussy.

Um, yeah. You're entitled to your opinion, but you don't have to bash the man himself because you didn't like one of his films. :fuck:

[old-boo-radley]

Um, yeah. You're entitled to your opinion, but you don't have to bash the man himself because you didn't like one of his films. :fuck:

Then he shouldn't be such a pussy. Dario Argento: Italy's best feminist director.

[RyanPC]

Then he shouldn't be such a pussy. Dario Argento: Italy's best feminist director.

Huh? What you're saying makes no sense at all. In what way is Argento a "pussy"?

[Ash28M]

Huh? What you're saying makes no sense at all. In what way is Argento a "pussy"?

Your asking a guy who thinks Exorcist 4 is a better film then Suspiria to make some sense?

[RyanPC]

Your asking a guy who thinks Exorcist 4 is a better film then Suspiria to make some sense?

Well, I'm about halfway through Exorcist 4, and I don't think it's a bad film at all, but it can't come close to Suspiria, IMO.

[Ash28M]

I admit I’m probably being to hard on this film and I will most likely give it another shot but even mentioning it in the same sentence as Suspiria is an insult to Horror films IMO.

[old-boo-radley]

Suspiria is a film of red and blue lights... I can't give it any respect, other than for the razorwire scene.

[maybrick]

*sniff* *sniff*

I smell Troll. :(

[WesReviews]

*sniff* *sniff*

I smell Troll. :(
No, he seriously hates Suspiria. He and I have had many a debate about it.

He's set in his ways.

[maybrick]

Love... Hate... When you call Argento a pussy you're trolling for trouble.

[Ash28M]

Love... Hate... When you call Argento a pussy you're trolling for trouble.

Or attention.

[old-boo-radley]

Or perhaps you just think he's a pussy? I mean really... look at the guy. Total douche.

http://www.scifi-universe.com/upload/personnalites/grand/dario_argento.jpg http://www.tamtamcinema.it/foto/2003/2/argento.jpg

But seriously now, I can understand Tenebre's popularity... I can even understand the overrated Deep Red's popularity, but I just don't get Suspiria. I've seen people bash Fulci for his City of the Living Dead cop-out ending, but never for the little ass stab in Suspiria. I don't get it. While the movie looks beautiful, I can't deny that, and the score is decent, it's all style and no substance, imo.

[_pi_]

I just have to say thank you to WesReviews for his comments on Valentine!

FINALLY someone who agrees with me! I've always thought Valentine was so unfairly maligned because it really is a terrific slasher movie and a throwback to the old ones. Sure, it might be slick and polished, but why is that a problem? It looked great, was a lot of fun and - shoot me if you disagree - not half-badly acted. Denise Richards may not be much of an actress but she sure makes an impression. You remember her! (and no, I'm not talking about her breasts ... I'm gay, remember!)

I also want to say thank you for the people who liked Exorcist 4. Not that I liked it, I thought it was awful. But I love it when people write something good about Renny Harlin films. Renny, like Valentine, is so unfairly-maligned! Renny, if you're reading this: I love you and (most of) your films!

You guys should just wait for Harlin's Mindhunters, which is a crazy-ass cool as hell psycho-horror-whodunnit. My personal favorite film of last year and I'm not afraid to admit it. However, most people will loathe it because it's got LL Cool J in it and is directed by everyone's favorite whipping boy, 2nd only to Paul WS Anderson.

Mindhunters is pure popcorn fun, as was Valentine. Another great little horror movie nobody seems to like? IN DREAMS directed by Neil Jordan. Or maybe it's just that nobody saw it. Sure it's got plot holes galore, but it's got this amazing dreamlike quality to it that you never see anymore ...

But once again, thanks WesReviews for your kind words about Valentine. And everybody go and see Mindhunters when/if it's released!

[Myron Breck]

Maybe I'll go rent VALENTINE just to check it out...now that I've finally read/heard some good about it, I think I can waste the $4 to rent it. ;)

It really amazes me how pissy people on this site become when someone bashes/glorifies someone else's most favorite/hated film/director/star/etc. A swift, angry reaction is almost always assured. As fans of this shit-upon genre, I'm surprised that so many people get so defensive so easily. Aren't we used to peoples' negative opinions of the films that we hold so dear to our hearts?

I'm certainly not suggesting that everyone mask their opinions and feelings about, say, SUSPIRIA. But how about lightening up on each other and, by the same turn, not getting so flipped out if someone calls your favorite movie a stinking pile of shit. The person who's baiting you will only enjoy it more if you react with anger. Even if Argento is really a Pussy, it's not going to affect how I feel about his films. Maybe it's because I'm a Woody Allen fan from way back, but I am able to separate my feelings about the filmmaker from his work.

Okay, who's next?

[tobaccoman]

Originally Posted By: _pi_
Another great little horror movie nobody seems to like? IN DREAMS directed by Neil Jordan. Or maybe it's just that nobody saw it. Sure it's got plot holes galore, but it's got this amazing dreamlike quality to it that you never see anymore

I saw it and loved it. I got a vhs tape of it for $1 when a local video store closed. I had never heard of it then (about 3 years ago), so I put it off for quite some time. I finally watched it in January and it is very well done.

[Mok]

This is a really interesting topic. I've read through a couple of pages and one thing dawned on me that I've noticed about the good 'ol 70's films compared to the more recent releases. Stay with me here... THE SOUNDTRACK. I think it's best illustrated in TCM where you have symbols crashing and ambiance going on. Never is there a moment where heavy string arrangements come into play - it's just all mood-oriented. Another good example is Children Shouldn't Play with Dead Things. Same thing - no arranged instruments, just pure ambiance and unconventional sounds. That kind of shit really plays with your mind after a while. In the Excosits, yes you had a structured sound but that Tubular Bells theme is so disturbing in that it sounds so beautiful for something so horrible. I think the soundtrack to movies are really underrated in their contribution to the overall effect.

[_pi_]

Agreed. Film scores and soundtracks can often make or break movies. For example, the recent and much-mentioned Ring Two. I felt the score in that movie was totally overdone and worked against it. However I think the score in the first Ring remake was perfect and is actually one of my favorite Hans Zimmer scores.

Call me crazy.

I know these are not the best soundtrack/film score examples, but I just had to use the opportunity to say something bad once again about Ring Two.

[maskull]

Ravenous: a cool little movie yes, but without the soundtrack for it it wouldn't have been nearly as great. so different from what you usually here in films these days and it really helped to set the tone for the storyline. it's actually one of the few soundtracks that i own and listen to a lot.
i think a lot of the problem with films these days is the fact that a soundtrack is chosen more to sell copies of the soundtrack than to add ambiance to a movie. I don't actually mind some of the music used, but it gets a little boring when every movie has another clone NU Metal or alterna band playing a song that sounded like the band that was playing in the last movie i saw.

[Myron Breck]

Yeah, it's usually a bad sign when the trailer/commercial makes no mention at all of who is in the movie or the writer or director...just "Featuring new music by: " or "with a killer soundtrack featuring: "
RUN!!!!!!!

[Gothic Queen]

Yeah I have to admit...the score for any film can have long lasting effects on you. Take for instance deliverance...even people who haven't seen the film know what the dueling banjos mean...Some of my favourite film scores: Halloween, Night of the living dead (I once slept with the devil...it was really no big thrill) and who could forget Jason's ch, ch, ch, ah, ah, ah...

[allmessedup]

All of these movies that only have compilations instead of actual scores are going to be so dated when music trends change...in a lot of cases it's already happened.

[WesReviews]

In light of some recent films, I'd like to resurrect this thread.

Great horror films like The Mist, The Exorcism of Emily Rose, and The Strangers get released and it seems like people try to go out of their way to trash them. And I have no idea why. All three are strong for what they try to accomplish and are leaps and bounds better than anything horror "fans" like Eli Roth or Rob Zombie have given us thus far.

Why do modern horror fans feel the need to try to tear down the next movie that comes down the line?

Why are we so much tougher on films today than we were years ago? I'd really like to see how some of our reactions would've been to classics of yesteryear like the original Halloween and Texas Chainsaw Massacre when they were first released. Nobody held them up to such tough expectations and criticism. Again, it goes back to "what does a horror fan want?" I really, still don't know the answer. Filmmakers are damned if they do, and damned if they don't. If they deliver a unique film, people bitch. If they deliver a film that is part of a formula they know and love, they bitch. If a film tries to be nothing more than a rollercoaster ride (and ends up being a damn good one), people bitch.

Maybe it's just the internet, and people feel entitled to give whatever they have? I don't know. I just know that the horror genre will thrive when fans stop looking to condemn the next new film and start embracing and supporting the ones that put forth a damn good effort.

No film is perfect, but a lot of films truly deserving praise are often dismissed for reasons I can't fully understand. I guess I just don't like to hate horror films. At Oh-the-horror.com, I've only given two "trash it" reviews. Does that mean every movie I've reviewed is good? Not by a long shot. But I realize that just because a movie doesn't work for me that it might work for someone else. We all have different tastes, expectations, things that scare us. So when i see a film that I don't particular like but think someone else of a different mindset would get something out of it, I use "rent it" instead of "trash it".

So anyway, why all the hate? Seriously.

[DVD-fanatic-9]

I want to see some characters in a movie with more complexity to them than simply being a criminal or an idiot, yelling and swearing, trapped somewhere, and in comes inbred cannibal mutant hicks or retarded faceless killers. A lot of the new killer films, be they torture films or these grindhouse wannabes with hillbillies or mutants, have killers that are as boring and stupid as the victims (Wrong Turn, Haute Tension). And if we have to watch a film where none of these people are interesting... let's see some real gore. The kind of thing that would make Sam Raimi and Peter Jackson blush! Most of the movies about killers today think they know the first thing about a psychological set-up or framework. They don't.

The slow reveal approach is not working (Wrong Turn). The "look-at-me!" posturing of these raving maniac killers isn't working (House of 1,000 Corpses, Wolf Creek). And I think the reason why is - who gives a crap about the victims? So, if it's about a killer - why don't we try a little atmosphere, no more pothead victims, no more stupid frat house humor or lame jokes and banter between characters (it has no charm anymore since the '80s ended), no more "badass" characters (I don't care if you were in Escape from New York 17 years ago, you're not as cool as you once were), stop ripping off action sequences, and don't think for a second you can make up for a stupid plot by freezing someone's head in liquid nitrogen and smashing it.

And for the love of all that is holy... no more "super smart" stalkers and wannabe Hannibal Lecters. Jigsaw is about as dramatically compelling and psychologically fascinating as Screech from Saved by the Bell!! If we've already seen it before... do something different. Just because you add things you further ripped off from other movies doesn't mean you've shifted the balance on the one movie you stole your plot from.


That takes care of movies about killers. Since that seems to be the dominating subgenre right now.

Other than that, try to not do the cliched thing. Remember that we've seen the standard haunted house and ghost film a million times. We've seen enough stupid victiims. We've tolerated enough anti-heroes. CGI is a fancy phrase meaning = fucking crap - never use it to create images, only to hide the strings and lines and to blend makeup(s).

And never remake a genre classic. Ever.


EDIT (addition):

And I'm sick to death of these "gritty" horror films. Hostel seemed to work for the most part because it seemed to have a point. But now suddenly you've got a horror film if you have a dirty basement, a person tied to a chair, NYPD Blue camerawork, and something sharp.

Where is the grace and art design of horror gone? Where's the ambition?

[X-human]

What was so stupid about the characters in High Tension? Then you say Scream is "great" in your profile when I can't think of a better example of dumb victims and even dumber villians.

What do I want out of horror? I just don't like all this hipster crap. We've been in a downward spiral since Psycho I think. Everything's about insanity in villians now. Whatever happened to perfectly sane people who are just evil? The new Halloween is a perfect example, justifying why Michael Myers is evil.

That's why something like Ginger Snaps is good, they use the werewolf curse to bring out the evil in the character. The evil that's in all of us. But all this new age crap teaches use that we're all good people, unless you've got a chemical imbalance in which case some pills will fix you right up. That shit is not what horror is about.

[DVD-fanatic-9]

What was so stupid about the characters in High Tension? Then you say Scream is "great" in your profile when I can't think of a better example of dumb victims and even dumber villians.
I've already explained (I believe) elsewhere on the board that the characters in Scream are supposed to be dumb. They are basically archetypes. They walk around with annoying, fairly cocky attitudes. And part of their attitude is that they'd never make the mistakes the characters in horror movies do whom they look down upon. Then the movie turns the tables on them and proves that there is no true handbook to surviving a horror movie, despite their snotty disbelief. I've always said - this movie is revenge for horror fans. Because the genre is so often dismissed by sheltered mainstream suburban kids or the majority or whathaveyou for its' lack of logic or their inability to suspend disbelief. All the victims were people who either insulted the genre, insulted the fans, or just don't get it.

The teens' being stupid was a deliberate screen-writing choice. You're telling me you didn't know that??

As for the killers, I know that's one of Wes Craven's psychological touches. I haven't been a teenager in a long time so I don't presume to know what goes on in the mind of a teenage male. But they were insane. And you really saw how crazy they were. And the dialogue they were speaking was intelligently written, well throught out, and the acting was great.

[old-boo-radley]

I think the horror fans out there are just waiting for a TROLL 2 remake starring John Cusack and Verne Troyer.

[X-human]

The teens' being stupid was a deliberate screen-writing choice. You're telling me you didn't know that??

Isn't it always deliberate? That doesn't make it right. Dumb characters are dumb characters. That's my point. And you're telling me the killers cutting themselves too deeply and practically killing themselves before the last girl standing could was intellectual of them?

As for being a horror fan's revenge it almost served to kill horror off in general. Cure worse than the cause?

[17thJuggalo]

Laid.

[DVD-fanatic-9]

Isn't it always deliberate? That doesn't make it right. Dumb characters are dumb characters. That's my point.
I got your point. But there are a million examples in the history of filmmaking and writing where dumb characters were used to make a point. You're telling me this is not allowed? It's a little late for that.



And you're telling me the killers cutting themselves too deeply and practically killing themselves before the last girl standing could was intellectual of them?
Are you telling me you didn't understand that part of the movie? I'm starting to think I'm working with an amateur here. Is this part of the movie something a lot of you Scream haters didn't get? That's one of the best, smartest, most daring scenes I've ever seen in a horror movie! #1: they're psychotic killers. Would you have found it more intelligent for them to kidnap Sidney for sex and take her to Mexico? What do you want from them? #2: they're teenagers. They only have one good idea per stage of their plan. It's all about covering their identity. And yes, they were naive. They're teenagers! #3: the film has to make everyone say "they've seen too many movies," but no movie can make a person do what they did to themselves. The film has to show you just how desensitized a person can get, how far they were going to go. The movie had a lot of points to make, excess-violence was a part of that. #4: it was just a fucking great crazy-behavior scene. The music went haywire (check that distortion), the killers went haywire, Sidney's reaction is priceless. It's a scene with no character lock-down. Anything could happen. It's a free-for-all. And it does weaken the killers so Sidney can beat them. But, as characters... they didn't think of that. :D



As for being a horror fan's revenge it almost served to kill horror off in general. Cure worse than the cause?
Do you expect me to agree with you? That's an absurd statement with no evidence whatsoever. Anyone will tell you horror in the 1990's was in trouble before Scream (maybe even me). And if anyone's to blame for the copy trend that came after it, it was the studios trying to cash-in on the movie. Don't blame the people who loved the movie, just because many different groups of people liked it. And don't blame the movie for what the studios did. Exactly how can a movie change an entire system? This one didn't.

[rxfiend]

In light of some recent films, I'd like to resurrect this thread.
......
So anyway, why all the hate? Seriously.

I never understood the hate either. Seems like when original horror films come out in theaters, everyone complains about it, tears down the movie piece by piece, boycott it theatrically (by reading others opinions, rather than judging it themselves), etc... Yet when a remake or sequel comes out, everyone flocks to them, though you still hear the bitching and moaning. I know its gotten bad on some forums that I refuse to read them anymore. It's gotten that way on this board on some threads, thus I usually ignore those as well. Then again, it may not be just the horror genre, but perhaps everything? I dunno, but I have noticed more negativity in the horror genre forums than I do on other things.

[old-boo-radley]

I never understood the hate either. Seems like when original horror films come out in theaters, everyone complains about it, tears down the movie piece by piece, boycott it theatrically (by reading others opinions, rather than judging it themselves), etc... Yet when a remake or sequel comes out, everyone flocks to them, though you still hear the bitching and moaning. I know its gotten bad on some forums that I refuse to read them anymore. It's gotten that way on this board on some threads, thus I usually ignore those as well. Then again, it may not be just the horror genre, but perhaps everything? I dunno, but I have noticed more negativity in the horror genre forums than I do on other things.

I'm not much into dissecting Scream, but I think horror fans lost their footing in reality at about the time of its release. Shit, for the longest time I never considered Scream a horror flick. I loved the movie, I just never considered it horror. But, I then realized that when I consider Tenebre or Lizard in a Woman's Skin horror, I'm quite the hypocrite/idiot.

But anyways, back to my point. Horror fans seem to be pissed off at anything that's commercial or hip circa 1996, but they seemingly forget that the genre was based in that to begin with. It's a different era for sure, but you can't say THAT'S NOT HORROR. Shit, if they were to remake The Lost Boys in 1999 you can damn well bet there'd be a shit ton of Limp Bizkit and all that crap. But, it'd still be in tune with the original's spirit, albeit in a different timeframe.

I tell you, I fucking cringed when I watched a little Canadian piece of shit called Bikini Party Massacre made in like 2002. I fucking kid you not, one character asks, "Who do you think would win in a fight; Kid Rock or Fred Durst?" to make conversation. On the flip side, it does have lesbians. Either way, suicide is a definite possibility when it comes time that I am forced to review that one for the Canadian portion of my site. :nervous:

[Criswell]

Ugh.

My answer needs a whole new fucking thread.