Horror movies these days fucking suck.

[MalaCloudy Black]

I also quite liked The Birds..

[TGC]

The slasher flick is a subgenre of the horror genre. With that said, John Carpenter's Thing is a great horror film that has suspense, is tense, is terrifying, and has plenty of gore. Then there's the first Halloween, which fits in both quite well, as it's a slasher flick at its core but is quite disturbing.

[Plankton]

The Haunting, I think, is a really suspenseful and scary and, aside from the creepy door effect, all it had was banging noises.

And depending on who you are, the Blair Witch Project is pretty scary and his minimal blood and no seen villain.

[Liam]

I don't care much for Horror films, but I'll side with Heel Turn when he mentions Misery. That one probably scared me more than most films, just due to the female leads peformance.

And Boxzy got it right with Hostel...it itself wasn't scary, but the concept that it possibly happens was scarier.

[Rashid]

I like to consider myself a horror movie fanatic and spend a lot of time analyzing them.

Friday The 13th: I've seen parts 1-8, 10, and FvJ. Im yet to see Part 9. But I love this series. They all have a fairly simple plot which is what I liked. And I love the character of Jason Voorhees. He was a mentally handicapped child you got teased a lot, and one day at camp got teased and pushed into a lake by some other kids, but was not saved. But the series has had MANY theories (some I believe in), like how people say Jason never died in the lake, and somehow survived, and lived in the woods all his life. One day saw his mom murdered and it drove him over the edge.

Nightmare On Elm Street: Another very successful franchise. As of now Ive only seen the first one, and it was a great movie. Jason is better in terms on quantity or kills, but Freddy definitly had a better quality of kills.

The SAW movies are quite interesting. They're full of blood and gore BUT not scary. Blood and gore are NOT scary. I watched SAW 1 and 2 right after another and never had any reactions ot the movies. Same thing with Hostel. Bloody, but NOT scary.

That's what most horror movies lack. I consider The Shining and The Exorcist the greatest horror movies of all time. They both had amazing, suspenseful plots, and both very frightening movies. They're scary because they're psychological, they mess with your head.

Unfortunitly, there are so many more horror movies out there I still want to see: the other Nightmare on Elm Streets, all the Halloween movies, Birds, Misery, Rosemary's Baby and over time I bet I will watch these movies.

Slasher flicks have always been my favorite sub-genre of horror movies. But slasher flicks (90% of the time) are not scary, I'm fine with that, I don't watch them to be scared. Other horror movies try to scare people with just blood and guts (eg: Hostel and SAW). In my opinion these movies fail as horror movies. The true horror movies are the one that are suspenseful, and frightening. Look at Poltergeist, was it bloody? No. Was there even 1 drop of blood in the movie? I don't think. But was it scary? Hell yes. So in closing, when companies make horror movies, they really need to cut back on the gore, and scare us the good ol' fashion way.

[slain]

Original Amityville Horror anyone?That movie still scares the shit out of me

[Guest Bluesman]

No, that's bullshit. Horror movies are supposed to scare you. That's the definition of horror. The original Night Of The Living Dead. The Birds. Day Of The Triffids. The Thing From Outer Space. I don't think anyone can deny that they're horror movies, but they're not gory at all.

There's a difference between a horror movie and a slasher flick, people.

[Skummy]

No, that's bullshit. Horror movies are supposed to scare you. That's the definition of horror. The original Night Of The Living Dead. The Birds. Day Of The Triffids. The Thing From Outer Space. I don't think anyone can deny that they're horror movies, but they're not gory at all.

There's a difference between a horror movie and a slasher flick, people.

I'll deny them right now. Day of the Triffids, as I remember it, was clearly a Sci-Fi flick. The Thing from Outer Space is, I presume, meant to be It Came From Outer Space, a Ray Bradbury short story that was made into a Sci-fi flick. The Birds, to me at least is a suspense/psychological thriller. Then there is Night of the Living Dead, which is what exactly? A bunch of people dieing with no real plot. So that leaves you with 2 sci-fi flicks, one arguable one (which I don't personally find to be a horror flick) and one that largely fits my previous description. Good job.

The Night Of The Living Dead is clearly a horror movie, and has a plot. Bear in mind that I'm referring to the original 1968 film, and not the terrible remake. The acting is fantastic, the pace and the general emotion of it is scarier than anything you'll find in a slasher flick, or most thrillers. It's everything a zombie movie should be; it's claustrophobic, it's the feeling of hopelessness, as the heroes are just trapped in the house as hundreds of unstoppable creatures advance on them. The zombies individually aren't scary, but there's hundreds of them, and they just keep coming. THAT is scary. Not to mention all the social commentary in there, it's really ahead of it's time, and one of the best films of its time, not just horror films.

And, I was mistaken, it would appear that I meant The Thing From Another World, not The Thing From Outer Space, which, while sci-fi, is also clearly a horror movie.

Suspense and psychological thriller? That sounds like horror to me.

A horror movie is a movie designed to SCARE the viewer. That's what The Birds was. Therefore, it's a HORROR movie. It's not that difficult to understand, is it?

[fineintent]

Was there a golden age for horror? Because last time I checked, Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Friday 13th etc are all laughable.

Dagger through my heart.

[Guest Bluesman]

No, that's bullshit. Horror movies are supposed to scare you. That's the definition of horror. The original Night Of The Living Dead. The Birds. Day Of The Triffids. The Thing From Outer Space. I don't think anyone can deny that they're horror movies, but they're not gory at all.

There's a difference between a horror movie and a slasher flick, people.

I'll deny them right now. Day of the Triffids, as I remember it, was clearly a Sci-Fi flick. The Thing from Outer Space is, I presume, meant to be It Came From Outer Space, a Ray Bradbury short story that was made into a Sci-fi flick. The Birds, to me at least is a suspense/psychological thriller. Then there is Night of the Living Dead, which is what exactly? A bunch of people dieing with no real plot. So that leaves you with 2 sci-fi flicks, one arguable one (which I don't personally find to be a horror flick) and one that largely fits my previous description. Good job.

[Boulder]

As a horror movie aficionado, I feel as though I can't let this discussion go by without throwing in my two cents. It's important to remember the difference between horror movies and slasher movies- I don't think any of us were deeply traumatized by See No Evil (apart from knowing that I spent almost $10 to see it), but we got a good jump at some of the gore. To me, a truly scary written story will always be more frightening than a movie, so for a horror movie to be particularly good, its best bet is to develop a sense of characterization (and often frenzy), rather than go for the direct "ooh, this is scary!"

My favorite horror movie of all time is most likely the original Omen. It's not really the sort of thing that gives you nightmares, but it just made for a hell of a quality film, with Gregory Peck turning from skeptic politician into frantic globetrotter in an attempt to save first his family, then the world. These are the best horror films, to me- the ones where you get inside the head of the main character and follow him as he deal with events, not vice versa. Father Karras in The Exorcist, Naomi Watts in The Ring (which is one of the best horror movies of the past decade, and unfortunately spawned a sea of subpar imitators), these films follow almost a noir quality that puts the viewer in the head of the main character. As the plot builds to the climax, the audience has a personal stake in the action. Even The Mothman Prophecies, which is in no way a classic, harnessed this deep characterization with Richard Gere, and for my money, that made it a good film.

Bottom line is that a horror movie made up of a series of killings is never going to be as memorable as one that functions as an odyssey of a particular character.

[fineintent]

I like the Omen, the kid scares the shit out of me, because you can't really teach a kid that small to act that evil. Which makes me think he must actually be evil.

[SeanDMan]

I wouldn't call Misery, despite how fucking terrifying it is, a horror movie. To me, it is, like most of Steven King's stuff, a thriller. To me, to be a horror movie, you need to have a certain amount of violent action of some kind... not nesscessarily "I'll fucking kill you!" violence. Having your head rotate around unnaturally and vomitting on people is kind of violent, as is throwing shit about the room with your head. The actual violence in Misery is fairly limited; more horrifying is the diolague and the characters and the relationship created between them, rather then any direct action, which I think makes it more of a thriller.

The Shining is probably closer to horror movie description but again, there is so much talking and diolague, it's mostly the situation that is horrifying, and the slow burned lunacy, so again, I think it's more of a thriller.

I'm not sure what to call John Carpenter's The Thing. To me, it's one of the best movies ever made (certainly the best movie Kurt Russel ever made), and has elements from so many types of movie, action, thriller, horror, sci fi. It's definitely a great movie, the best I think mentioned in the topic, and I'd check it out if you're hating on the scary stuff.

In terms of Hostel, I think the more scary thing is that it is based off of events that actually happen, and can happen in the future. It's scary in the Hotel Rwanda kinda way; taken on the surface the gore and the whatever else isn't scary, but the fact that this actually happens to people should disturb you.

[Skummy]

No, that's bullshit. Horror movies are supposed to scare you. That's the definition of horror. The original Night Of The Living Dead. The Birds. Day Of The Triffids. The Thing From Outer Space. I don't think anyone can deny that they're horror movies, but they're not gory at all.

There's a difference between a horror movie and a slasher flick, people.

I'll deny them right now. Day of the Triffids, as I remember it, was clearly a Sci-Fi flick. The Thing from Outer Space is, I presume, meant to be It Came From Outer Space, a Ray Bradbury short story that was made into a Sci-fi flick. The Birds, to me at least is a suspense/psychological thriller. Then there is Night of the Living Dead, which is what exactly? A bunch of people dieing with no real plot. So that leaves you with 2 sci-fi flicks, one arguable one (which I don't personally find to be a horror flick) and one that largely fits my previous description. Good job.

The Night Of The Living Dead is clearly a horror movie, and has a plot. Bear in mind that I'm referring to the original 1968 film, and not the terrible remake. The acting is fantastic, the pace and the general emotion of it is scarier than anything you'll find in a slasher flick, or most thrillers. It's everything a zombie movie should be; it's claustrophobic, it's the feeling of hopelessness, as the heroes are just trapped in the house as hundreds of unstoppable creatures advance on them. The zombies individually aren't scary, but there's hundreds of them, and they just keep coming. THAT is scary. Not to mention all the social commentary in there, it's really ahead of it's time, and one of the best films of its time, not just horror films.

And, I was mistaken, it would appear that I meant The Thing From Another World, not The Thing From Outer Space, which, while sci-fi, is also clearly a horror movie.

Suspense and psychological thriller? That sounds like horror to me.

A horror movie is a movie designed to SCARE the viewer. That's what The Birds was. Therefore, it's a HORROR movie. It's not that difficult to understand, is it?

What a waste of time. You dedicate the majority of your time defending the one movie I said was clearly a horror flim. Once again, good job. I'm well aware of Night of the Living Dead, I own the damn thing...I'm also well aware that there really is no plot, and find it funnier than hell you attempt to claim otherwise.

Wow, great fucking argument champ. "Sounds like horror to me". That's one hell of a winner right there, I don't know how I'll ever find a way to counter such a heavyweight of an argument...oh wait, here it is: "That doesn't sound like horror to me". I can see we're going to get real far with me saying "I don't think it's a horror film" and you going "Yes it is" and thinking it's an actual argument.

I watched The Birds as a kid. Day of the Triffids. Return of the Living Dead. Guess which scared me, which gave me nightmares? Return of the Living Dead. What's so god damn hard for you to understand that I don't consider the other horror films, and you're poorly constructed and reasoned arguments are going to do nothing to change it?

Yeah, I spent a lot of time defending Night Of The Living Dead because you said it was plotless violence, which is a ludicrous statement. But apparently you're the only person here who's allowed to disagree with people.

The fact is, if the film was created with the intent to scare people, it's a horror movie. That's what a horror movie is. Your argument is "Oh, this film didn't scare me, it's not a horror movie." That's irrelevant. If the movie was intended to scare people, then it's a horror movie, by definition. Your argument is like saying a bad comedy film isn't a comedy because you didn't laugh at it.

[Guest Bluesman]

No, that's bullshit. Horror movies are supposed to scare you. That's the definition of horror. The original Night Of The Living Dead. The Birds. Day Of The Triffids. The Thing From Outer Space. I don't think anyone can deny that they're horror movies, but they're not gory at all.

There's a difference between a horror movie and a slasher flick, people.

I'll deny them right now. Day of the Triffids, as I remember it, was clearly a Sci-Fi flick. The Thing from Outer Space is, I presume, meant to be It Came From Outer Space, a Ray Bradbury short story that was made into a Sci-fi flick. The Birds, to me at least is a suspense/psychological thriller. Then there is Night of the Living Dead, which is what exactly? A bunch of people dieing with no real plot. So that leaves you with 2 sci-fi flicks, one arguable one (which I don't personally find to be a horror flick) and one that largely fits my previous description. Good job.

The Night Of The Living Dead is clearly a horror movie, and has a plot. Bear in mind that I'm referring to the original 1968 film, and not the terrible remake. The acting is fantastic, the pace and the general emotion of it is scarier than anything you'll find in a slasher flick, or most thrillers. It's everything a zombie movie should be; it's claustrophobic, it's the feeling of hopelessness, as the heroes are just trapped in the house as hundreds of unstoppable creatures advance on them. The zombies individually aren't scary, but there's hundreds of them, and they just keep coming. THAT is scary. Not to mention all the social commentary in there, it's really ahead of it's time, and one of the best films of its time, not just horror films.

And, I was mistaken, it would appear that I meant The Thing From Another World, not The Thing From Outer Space, which, while sci-fi, is also clearly a horror movie.

Suspense and psychological thriller? That sounds like horror to me.

A horror movie is a movie designed to SCARE the viewer. That's what The Birds was. Therefore, it's a HORROR movie. It's not that difficult to understand, is it?

[Enter Blue Guy]

I saw the Exorcist for the first time when I was like 7 or 8. Back then it scared the living shit out of me, mainly because I truly believed that shit like that could happen to anybody at any time. For a few years this was the scariest thing I'd ever seen. I had a bunch of sleepless nights thinking about the possibility the same thing could happen to me, I really believed that I could wake up one day and be posessed by demons. I've seen it many times since then, and while it's still a decent flick (though it does get slower and more boring each time) the only freaky thing about it now is the theme music. I have it on my playlist, when it comes on while on shuffle and I'm listening at like 1 in the morning, with all the lights in my room off except for the computer screen... man, it freaks me out sometimes.

Movies like the Poltergeist and Amityville Horror (the original), freaked me out at the time. I used to watch them after trick or treating when I was a kid when they were on TV. Now they're just so cheesy and corny, I wonder how I was ever scared of them in the first place. Actually, I'd always heard the clinging and clanging of pots and shit, hearing things moving, and strange shit like that at my old house (long bunch of stories for another thread... EDIT: I pretty much answered my question on why I was so scared of them back then... er, yeah), so at the time the Poltergeist REALLY scared the fuck out of me. But Craig T. Nelson celebrating 4:20 makes Poltergeist a classic. Though, I'll give Amityville Horror credit for the scene with those freaky red eyes in the window.

As cheesy and corny as those movies are, they're fun to watch. I find them much MUCH more entertaining than pointless, gore for the sake of gore movies.

Slasher flicks have never been my thing. Actually, horror in general isn't really my thing. Some slasher movies are alright and like the other movies I mention, they scared me shitless as a kid. Now I watch them and I think "what's the point"? But yeah, they can also be entertaining the odd time when you're in the mood.

The People Under the Stairs is still the greatest horror movie, though.

EDIT: After editting most of that, I wonder how I passed 4 years of high school english.

Edited May 24, 2006 by Enter Blue Guy

[Skummy]

This is absolutely laughable. Who the fuck are you to tell me what a horror film is, especially when you just got done listing sci-fi flicks as 'this what a real horror film is'? Your original post laid out a horror film as "Horror movies are supposed to scare you", when I say films didn't scare me your reply is "that's irrelavent". The reaction a movie garners from the viewer has no bearing on what exactly that movie is? Do you realize how incredibly stupid that is? How that entirely comprimises your "horror movies scare you" argument? By saying "the reaction you get from the film is irrelavent" you have just shit all over your core argument of "a horror film scares you". If the reaction to the film doesn't matter, then a horror film's defintion can't be based on the reaction it garners from the viewer, can it?

Thanks for playing.

Good job of ignoring my point. If the film's intention is to scare you, it's a horror movie. Just like if a film's intention is to make you laugh, it's a comedy. Genre isn't defined by audience response, it's defined by the codes and conventions of the text. I didn't laugh at American Pie. Does that mean it's not a comedy? By your logic, apparently so.

And it is possible for a film to fall into two genres. Some of the films I listed may have been sci-fi films, but they're also horror films.

[Toe]

Puppetmaster. That movie scared me shitless.

[Guest Anti-Hero]

Misery, The Exorcist, The Omen Trilogy and the Nightmare On Elm Street series screwed me up as a child. I love horror movies...

[Plankton]

This is absolutely laughable. Who the fuck are you to tell me what a horror film is, especially when you just got done listing sci-fi flicks as 'this what a real horror film is'? Your original post laid out a horror film as "Horror movies are supposed to scare you", when I say films didn't scare me your reply is "that's irrelavent". The reaction a movie garners from the viewer has no bearing on what exactly that movie is? Do you realize how incredibly stupid that is? How that entirely comprimises your "horror movies scare you" argument? By saying "the reaction you get from the film is irrelavent" you have just shit all over your core argument of "a horror film scares you". If the reaction to the film doesn't matter, then a horror film's defintion can't be based on the reaction it garners from the viewer, can it?

Thanks for playing.

Good job of ignoring my point. If the film's intention is to scare you, it's a horror movie. Just like if a film's intention is to make you laugh, it's a comedy. Genre isn't defined by audience response, it's defined by the codes and conventions of the text. I didn't laugh at American Pie. Does that mean it's not a comedy? By your logic, apparently so.

And it is possible for a film to fall into two genres. Some of the films I listed may have been sci-fi films, but they're also horror films.