Horror movies - The same thing over and over?

[cutmanmike]

I was tempted to put this in meeeeeeeja but I thought it might be debatable.

Right. Recently there have been a few horror movies out which have been rated "good movies" by many of my companions. However, upon watching these I see a pattern. They were all the same thing over and over.

How many people have seen the ring? As many of you know it consists of the main "terror" being a little girl in white with black hair. Apparently it scares the shit of people, but for me it makes me chuckle. Okay she had a scary face with blank eyes. Big deal, people were making it out to be pant-wettingly scary but to me it wasn't anything. It made me jump but I didn't feel "scared" at all.

Okay next. The grudge. This was a little creepier for me but as soon as I saw it was a little boy with black hair which was scaring people it became another yawn. It had too many cheap "boo" moments which totally ruined the atmosphere. It gets to the point where you think "Oh I bet this happens" and indeed it does, and you think "oh ok... next scene".

Last weekend I watched "An american haunting". Another BS film which consisted of cheap "boo" moments and a little girl with black hair! God damnit! Another waste of money! The story wasn't even that terrific either.

This little boy/girl routine has been around since the Exorcist and the Omen. Why can't they come up with something different? The blair witch project had me on the edge of my seat more than all of these, and you don't even see the "thing" which is scaring everyone!

Are horror movies getting worse? Or have I just been watching the wrong ones? :mushroom:

[Roxsie]

You've been watching american remakes of classic japanese horror. I suggest you try the originals as the American ones have been sanitised.

[cutmanmike]

You've been watching american remakes of classic japanese horror. I suggest you try the originals as the American ones have been sanitised.

Ah well i've watched both original and remake of the grudge and only the remake of the ring. Still has the same effect, but I agree remakes of most movies get butchered.

[Roxsie]

Maybe you need to look at non mainstream horror movies instead of those that keep coming out in the cinema. I'm going to recommend a non-horror movie that still made me sick to my stomach the first time i watched it, THREADS, see if that is any better.

[renatzu]

The only horror movie I ever saw which actually creeped me out was "The Shining". I don't think they're supposed to actually scare you. Of course, a movie doesn't have to scare you necessarily to be good.

[Meadow]

Bring back Hammer House of Horror-esque films is all I say. Nothing like Vincent Price tearing out some unfortunate's entrails with his fingers while singing to mentally traumatise someone for life.

[Soma]

Hmm I've noticed that there seems to be a few sadistic movies out at the moment in the way of horror, by that I mean not just a black-haired girl coming out of your TV to kill you but more psychos that kill people... slowly. A few friends of mine went to see The Hostel. Now I like Quentin Tarantino but I refuse to see this one as I've heard of some of the stuff that's in it. There's an Australian movie Wolf Creek that came out fairly recently which I saw. Lots of people liked it but it's not my idea of a good movie to watch personally, it could have been worse but still not too pleasant. I'm a pussy :(

[Roxsie]

You can't go wrong with a film in which either
a) a nuclear bomb is dropped on sheffield
or
b)n the world is blown up

[evan223]

They are using a tried and tested formula to bring in the punters. Why fix it if it isn't broken.

[cyber_turnip]

Every film since the 90s has been a rehash of old material in one way or another simply because everything's been done already. It's not just horror. And that's not to say every film has been crap since the 90s because some rehashes are still brilliant movies. If you want some recent horror films that are good, check out
Shaun of the Dead
Land of the Dead
The Descent
28 Days Later... (this one is especially a rehash as it's basically just a big rip off of Day of the Dead, but it's still good)
Dawn of the Dead remake (though it's utter poo compared to the 1978 original, so if you can, watch that instead)

Anyway, that's just a few. There are more. None are especially scary but having said that no film I've ever seen has scared me (The Shining has the record for coming closest though). The Descent is certainly scarier than average so that might be worth checking out if you're looking for scares.

[Meadow]

28 Days Later is a psychological thriller, not a zombie film. Just to clear it up. They're not zombies, to be a zombie you have to die...

Shaun of the Dead is a spoof so you can't really call it a horror film. However some bits were genuinely frightening, and this was deliberately done by the makers.

Land of the Dead... no comment as I haven't seen it, but 99% of the film world will disagree with you that it's in any way a 'good' horror film.

[cyber_turnip]

Sorry for how serious and off-topic I'm going to take this unimportant, pedantic issue, but you have to understand I'm a zombie fanboy with no life, so...

28 Days Later is a psychological thriller, not a zombie film. Just to clear it up. They're not zombies, to be a zombie you have to die...
Actually they are zombies. The true definition of a zombie is an active being with a lack of conciousness. I think it's safe to say the infected in this film aren't fully concious as they're driven by rage and they don't even think to find food, they starve to death at the end, etc. The whole reanimated dead thing is a bastardization of the word. Ontop of that it follows so many conventions of a zombie film, it could probably be classed as one even if they weren't zombies.
And besides, even if it isn't a zombie film, it doesn't change the fact that it's a rip off of Day of the Dead, regardless of the zombies.

Shaun of the Dead is a spoof so you can't really call it a horror film. However some bits were genuinely frightening, and this was deliberately done by the makers.

Shaun of the Dead is NOT a spoof. It's a zombie film in it's own right, but it's a zombie film with comedy. It never lampoons any films (apart from Resevior Dogs kind of for a short scene at the end) or even the genre directly (I know it's named after Dawn of the Dead but that's just a homage). It makes many subtle references to other films, but it never lampoons them as a spoof would, and they're never the focus of the comedy. The majority of the comedy comes from the characters reactions to the zombies and the forshadowing dialogue. It's very definately a horror/comedy.

Land of the Dead... no comment as I haven't seen it, but 99% of the film world will disagree with you that it's in any way a 'good' horror film.
No. Whilst the majority of general movie goers dislike it, that is most of the time down to either them not realising it's a sequel to Day of the Dead and not the Dawn of the Dead remake, or them wanting a full on horror film with running zombies and not being satisfied with this which is more of an action film with satire, gore and comedic moments. The others dislike it because they were expecting something as awesome as George Romeros previous "Dead" movies.
The majority of real movie buffs and critics do think it's a good film. Not an amazing film, but a good one. A 3 1/2 stars out of 5 type film.

[Lucifers Beard]

Right. Recently there have been a few horror movies out which have been rated "good movies" by many of my companions. However, upon watching these I see a pattern. They were all the same thing over and over.

I agree with you, to a certain extent.
I love horror films, I love to feel scared, but as I started watching them at a stupidly young age (I have 2 older brothers) I think I have become a little de-sensitised and I notice the same formula in a lot of the movies I watch.

Directors and writers have to constantly try and push the boundaries or their movies become stale, someone mentioned Hostel earlier, that is probably the most over-rated film I've seen, im not saying it's bad, I enjoyed it, but everyone I know was saying how evil it was, well in my opinion any of the first 3 Hellraiser movie's are far more gruesome, I guess the difference there is that Hellraiser is Fantasy-Horror, and Hostel is actually possible (I can't think of a term but you know what im getting at.)

Horror has quite a few sub-genre's, and if you watch the same kind then obviously you will see the same things over and over, everyone knows that most of the time the 5 friends at the start of the film will end up being 1 survivor by the end, sometimes theres a twist and the bad guy won't get killed and theres a sequel, sometimes the twist is so completley off the wall I can't even think of a good example, the only thing that changes is the way the cast get's killed / dissapear / whatever else.

Here's an idea, can you actually think of an original plot for a Horror movie, I bet you can't, not without drawing on material from other movie's, I don't think there can be any more original Horror movie's, just slightly better, altered versions of what's already out there.

Incidently, I've always found the Horror movie's from the '70s - mid 90's far more disturbing then anything that's come along recently, I might add a list when I have more time.

To sum up I think that originality in this genre is well and truly dead. (Pardon the pun :) )

[Enmity]

I think in general horror films which are gory and visual such as these modern ones lack a certain something which makes a film scary. They occasionally make you jump put that's a short adrenaline rush and nothing more. Whereas films which leave things to your own imagination such as Hitchcock's works and The wickerman (My personal favourite) are far scarier and can be far more varied and innovative.

I like psychological 'horrors' more myself. The wickerman for example leaves me with a chilling feeling as to how a whole society can be that twisted. *shiver*

That's what I think.

That said, you can't deny The Exorcist a place in the limelight.

[cyber_turnip]

I think in general horror films which are gory and visual such as these modern ones lack a certain something which makes a film scary. They occasionally make you jump put that's a short adrenaline rush and nothing more. Whereas films which leave things to your own imagination such as Hitchcock's works and The wickerman (My personal favourite) are far scarier and can be far more varied and innovative.

I like psychological 'horrors' more myself. The wickerman for example leaves me with a chilling feeling as to how a whole society can be that twisted. *shiver*

That's what I think.

That said, you can't deny The Exorcist a place in the limelight.

Oh yes, The Wicker Man is so awesome, I want it's babies. There's a remake coming out this year with Nicholas Cage :nana: :nana: :nana:

[da-geezer]

Roxsie makes a good point about the Japanese originals of both The Ring and The Grudge. Both markets share a completely different view on how to close a film - a Western films involves the main character getting entwined in a horrific mystery, where they have to find out why it's happening, fufil a certain criteria, and figure out the way to save themselves... but the Asian market doesn't think like that. There's no "mystery", no "solution" as such, the fact that the main character's proper screwed adds to the tension I feel. None of this "oh i'll find the source of the evil, empathise with it, trick it/work with it, save myself"... nope, you're just dead from the outset. Funnily enough, Threads makes a similar approach with a very distressing sequence of events leading to mass death and no positive outcome; even the only possible hopeful ending is dashed right at the end.

Asian horror seems to focus on tension rather than spooks. Whereas the vast majority of Western films (Jason X most notably) rely on instilling fear through tangible dead bodies or huge pools of blood, the Asians play on what you can't see, rather than what you can. An excellent example of this is Kiyoshi Kurosawa's Kairo; the film is so slow it's unsettling - the film will only outline the plot for you, whereas you have to look into the backgrounds and characters to really figure out the film. One of the few Western films to do this successfully recently is Session 9.

[cutmanmike]

Well i've been recommended a japanese horror called "Into the mirror". And I do have a chilling thing about mirrors and CCTV sets for some reason, so maybe this will get me wet at night. (not in a dirty way :jizz: )

There's no "mystery", no "solution" as such, the fact that the main character's proper screwed adds to the tension I feel.

I agree with this. I believe this is why I liked the Hill's have eyes (the only remake i've seen so far which is good IMO).

Off topic but, could anyone explain what happens in the grudge to me? I never actually understood it, and all the japanese actors look the same so it confuses the heck out of me.

[Meadow]

Sorry for how serious and off-topic I'm going to take this unimportant, pedantic issue, but you have to understand I'm a zombie fanboy with no life, so...


Actually they are zombies. The true definition of a zombie is an active being with a lack of conciousness. I think it's safe to say the infected in this film aren't fully concious as they're driven by rage and they don't even think to find food, they starve to death at the end, etc. The whole reanimated dead thing is a bastardization of the word. Ontop of that it follows so many conventions of a zombie film, it could probably be classed as one even if they weren't zombies.
And besides, even if it isn't a zombie film, it doesn't change the fact that it's a rip off of Day of the Dead, regardless of the zombies.

Shaun of the Dead is NOT a spoof. It's a zombie film in it's own right, but it's a zombie film with comedy. It never lampoons any films (apart from Resevior Dogs kind of for a short scene at the end) or even the genre directly (I know it's named after Dawn of the Dead but that's just a homage). It makes many subtle references to other films, but it never lampoons them as a spoof would, and they're never the focus of the comedy. The majority of the comedy comes from the characters reactions to the zombies and the forshadowing dialogue. It's very definately a horror/comedy.

Please, please don't argue with the 'infected are not zombies' case. They aren't. Zombie experts say so, the directors of the film say so, everyone who has seen it says so. A zombie is a voodoo slave, raised from the dead. There has to be some raising from the dead involved.

As for Shaun... alright, you have a point. But there are many more spoofs than Reservoir Dogs. 'Reports that it was caused by rage infected monkeys', anyone? Shaun's Mum? Both of those are clear nods to 28 Days Later. But yes, I will agree it is a horror film in its own right. But it certainly spoofs more films than Reservoir Dogs (which rocks).

[cyber_turnip]

Please, please don't argue with the 'infected are not zombies' case. They aren't. Zombie experts say so, the directors of the film say so, everyone who has seen it says so. A zombie is a voodoo slave, raised from the dead. There has to be some raising from the dead involved.

Well I guess that means that the zombies in Resident Evil aren't actually zombies because they're not dead, the virus takes hold of them whilst they're still alive. And you realise the ideology behind voodoo zombies says they're living people which have been given a drug that lowers the heart rate and basically makes them incredibly receptive and easy to control -not dead. I'm a zombie expert, I've seen 30 zombie films to date, trust me, I'm a fanatic on the subject and I'm telling you the true definition of a zombie is simply an active being with a lack of conciousness. Basically an automoton. The re-animated dead thing is a common mistake that people make, but it's not the proper definition.

As for Shaun... alright, you have a point. But there are many more spoofs than Reservoir Dogs. 'Reports that it was caused by rage infected monkeys', anyone? Shaun's Mum? Both of those are clear nods to 28 Days Later. But yes, I will agree it is a horror film in its own right. But it certainly spoofs more films than Reservoir Dogs (which rocks).

The infected monkeys bit was a throw-away reference to 28 Days Later, not a spoof. They're not making fun of the infected monkeys, they're basically saying it happenned in that film so some people think it happenned here but it didn't. And I fail to see how Shaun's mum is a nod to 28 Days Later, please fill me in on that one. Like I said, there are loads of references, nods and homages in the film, but there's not much you could call spoofing.

[cutmanmike]

Could we get back on topic please? This isn't a debate about 28 days later or zombies. It's about how horror movies are losing unoriginality.

:eng101:

[Meadow]

Well I guess that means that the zombies in Resident Evil aren't actually zombies because they're not dead, the virus takes hold of them whilst they're still alive. And you realise the ideology behind voodoo zombies says they're living people which have been given a drug that lowers the heart rate and basically makes them incredibly receptive and easy to control -not dead. I'm a zombie expert, I've seen 30 zombie films to date, trust me, I'm a fanatic on the subject and I'm telling you the true definition of a zombie is simply an active being with a lack of conciousness. Basically an automoton. The re-animated dead thing is a common mistake that people make, but it's not the proper definition.



The infected monkeys bit was a throw-away reference to 28 Days Later, not a spoof. They're not making fun of the infected monkeys, they're basically saying it happenned in that film so some people think it happenned here but it didn't. And I fail to see how Shaun's mum is a nod to 28 Days Later, please fill me in on that one. Like I said, there are loads of references, nods and homages in the film, but there's not much you could call spoofing.

OK, final word on the topic: The Producers of 28 Days Later CLEARLY STATE, in the commentary, that it is NOT a zombie film. End of.

Shaun of the Dead spoiler: When they have to kill Shaun's Mum because she's becoming one of 'them' - the same thing happens twice in 28 Days Later.

Sorry for taking things off topic.

[cyber_turnip]

Sorry to not let this die, but...

OK, final word on the topic: The Producers of 28 Days Later CLEARLY STATE, in the commentary, that it is NOT a zombie film. End of.
Just because the people who make the film say so doesn't mean that's the end of the subject. They basically just want more attention for being original.
For example, Seth MacFarlane (creator of Family Guy) said Stewie Griffin: The Untold Story was the first ever straight to video movie based off a TV franchise in many interviews, but there were plenty before hand like The Animaniacs' "Wakko's Wish" and all those Scooby Doo movies which went straight to video. Just because they say so, doesn't make it so.

Shaun of the Dead spoiler: When they have to kill Shaun's Mum because she's becoming one of 'them' - the same thing happens twice in 28 Days Later.

Sorry for taking things off topic.

Right, I hope you realise that exact thing happens in almost every zombie movie ever. So logically I guess 28 Days Later was spoofing those earlier films when it did that too.
The mum bit in Shaun of the Dead was not a reference to anything (though the bite wound was made to look similar to that on the mum in Braindead).

Again, I apologise for taking this so off-topic, carry on with the original discussion around me.

[cutmanmike]

You two are just going to keep on at this to get the final word aren't you? Go make another thread already!

[Smartie]

Bring back Hammer House of Horror-esque films is all I say. Nothing like Vincent Price tearing out some unfortunate's entrails with his fingers while singing to mentally traumatise someone for life.

I absolutely agree 100%.
I will not watch any contemporary horror, that is to say really most stuff made in the last 20 years. Too much of it really is just how far can the boundaries be pushed in bad taste/ gore/ slasherinshness excessiveness. I find it all simply disgusting and personally of little merit - there is nothing fun about being repulsed by gratuitous violence.
There are, of course a few exceptions - se7en being my first thought (which I guess is probably still not classed as modern horror).

A good horror should have some half decent psychology about it. You might scoff at hammer horror, but a lot of those films (especially the vincent price ones) are taken from quality gothic literature - a good portion of them from Edgar Allan Poe (I recommend anyone to pick up his work and read it in favour of the tripe people like Stephen king churn out), and were based on instilling a psychological terror, rather than anything else.

Examples: House on haunted hill (Original 1959, remake 2000) and the pit and the pendulum(Original 1961, remake 1991) and The Fly (Original 1958, remake 1980something)

The remakes don't hold a candle to the originals - the originals ask you to think. Think about what could happen, what will happen... horror movies now have a habit of being too obvious and too damn predictable.

[cyber_turnip]

there is nothing fun about being repulsed by gratuitous violence.

Go watch Peter Jackson's early films and tell me that again. :)

[Smartie]

Like Braindead and Badtaste? No thanks, I had the misfortune of already seeing them when I was 16. And they were still shite then.

[Meadow]

You two are just going to keep on at this to get the final word aren't you? Go make another thread already!

I really don't care anymore, he can carry on talking to himself if he likes.

Smartie - yes, horror is not what it used to be. I still have fond memories (ie cold sweats in the middle of the night) of Theatre of Blood...

[cyber_turnip]

Like Braindead and Badtaste? No thanks, I had the misfortune of already seeing them when I was 16. And they were still shite then.
GASP!
But! But! They're hilarious! I love them. Oh well, each to his own I guess.

I will agree that psycological horror is alot more effective and tends to be better than others though. I never find gore scary myself, and I don't understand people that do, but I love Braindead and Bad Taste because they're so damn funny.

[cutmanmike]

they're so damn funny.

Mmm but we're talking about horrors here. Supposed to be scary, not funny. I found the ring (remake) funny because it was so overrated.

[Roxsie]

I find most 'horror' films funny which is why i prefer the psychological ones. (c'mon the exorcist "fuck me jesus" and all that puke was hilarious) Me and Darkscull have been almost asked to leave a cinema once becuase we were laughing so loud.

When we went to fright fest we saw a great psychological horror film by the name of the last horror movie - the experience was enhanced by the main character appearing in our midst but it was still good when we rented it out again making it the only horror film we've paid twice to see.

[Enmity]

Oh yes, The Wicker Man is so awesome, I want it's babies. There's a remake coming out this year with Nicholas Cage :nana: :nana: :nana:

I heard that today. It saddens me deeply! Why do it though? WHY?

[captain canuck]

interesting debate. personallly i think the answer is "yes, to a degree".

mostly things are just repeated ad nauseum, by the numbers, but sometimes films take a sub-genre that has been overworked and insert some interesting new material or make adjustments so you're left thinking "why did nobody else think of this before?"

Perfect example, the lower-budget canadian werewolf film Ginger Snaps.

parallelling lyncanthropism with female sexual maturity = genius novelty, indeed.