Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I had a long argument with my friend about that when we were playing Left 4 Dead, which borrows heavily from 28 Days Later.

He maintains that a zombie is the classical Romero figure, the T-Virus zombie, shambling, rotted and clumsy. I say that anyone infected with a disease that makes them zombie-like (i.e. mindless killers with no regard for their own safety) is classed as a zombie, so I think the rage victims count.

Shaun of the Dead-uber goodness
Dawn of the Dead-I liked
28 Days-over rated.

I also loved shaun of the dead,never knew a cricket bat was such a useful weapon against zombies(at least thats what I rember him clobering them with).

Rage victims simply suffer from the viral infection.

a zombie so to speak is whats left of a person who only just about retains thier most basic insticts, things like running, talking, all are lost.



deff dread, yea, thats right, also hits himself with it

then again, i think any frost and pegg films are a win

I also loved "Hot Fuzz" more of a thriller or crime/comedy then a horror but still a good film.

To be honest this genre has always been renowned to be filled with lackluster and gakky films; in fact this genre has always somewhat parodied and caricatured itself even in its early days. One could say that about any genre but horror movies seems to take the cake in the quantity of B-movie campyness. Even though there are some great 'horror' movies such as Psycho, The Thing, The Exorcist, Alien, etc. - there were about at least ten "Girls on the Road"-esque films to each classic during their respective eras.

Deff Dread red Edition wrote:I also loved shaun of the dead,never knew a cricket bat was such a useful weapon against zombies(at least thats what I rember him clobering them with).

Not just when fighting the undead !

LOL,were is that from?

Seriously ? T'is from the work of genius that is Spinal Tap.



If you've never seen it then you should ASAP.

The Kids loved both Shaun and Hot Fuzz.

Forgot Exorcist III, Silence of the Lambs, and Signs. Exorcist III really put the hook in me.

frazz, with shaun and fuzz dont forget the big nothing
ok, no frost, but david schwimer (sp?) instead

For the record, there was only ever one good slasher flick, and that was Halloween. Everything else is a lousy imitation.

There have been NO good Lovecraft adaptations, no matter what anyone says. Although honestly, I don't know that he translates well to film. Lovecraft relies on the loathsome gelatinous abomination that breaks your brain just by looking at it. With film, you usually have to show said abomination, and it really can't be as good as anything you can half-imagine yourself.

I agree the state of horror films is generally awful. I think it's because Hollywood sets the bar so low and movie audiences don't even know they could be watching something better. Hollywood loves the slasher films because they make them on a shoestring and they return a tidy profit. They're a good way to pay the bills, I guess.

There are good horror movies being made from time to time, however. Although not all the J-horror stuff is good by any stretch, you have to give the Japanese credit for films like The Ring/Ringu and Audition. Even if those films are flawed, I think they show the ability to build a sense of dread with the occasional WTF scary moments along the way. American directors should take note. And again, although it may be a flawed film, The Blair Witch Project scared the crap out of a lot of people without showing one supernatural thing in the entire movie. The film relied on the "is this actually real or not" tension created by its viral marketing, but the creators deserve credit for doing something original. Which is more than you can say about Saw LXIV. Or Hostel XXIII. Or The Hills Have Eyes VIII.

The best horror movies to me are the bad ones,the ones that make me laugh because either they are so terrible or their plots so stupid or something.Like cemetary gates were a couple of kids go to shoot a movie at a cemetary and end up being hunted my a mutant tazmainian devil,it was very funny but very bloody,lol.

gorgon wrote:For the record, there was only ever one good slasher flick, and that was Halloween. Everything else is a lousy imitation.

There have been NO good Lovecraft adaptations, no matter what anyone says. Although honestly, I don't know that he translates well to film. Lovecraft relies on the loathsome gelatinous abomination that breaks your brain just by looking at it. With film, you usually have to show said abomination, and it really can't be as good as anything you can half-imagine yourself.

I agree the state of horror films is generally awful. I think it's because Hollywood sets the bar so low and movie audiences don't even know they could be watching something better. Hollywood loves the slasher films because they make them on a shoestring and they return a tidy profit. They're a good way to pay the bills, I guess.

There are good horror movies being made from time to time, however. Although not all the J-horror stuff is good by any stretch, you have to give the Japanese credit for films like The Ring/Ringu and Audition. Even if those films are flawed, I think they show the ability to build a sense of dread with the occasional WTF scary moments along the way. American directors should take note. And again, although it may be a flawed film, The Blair Witch Project scared the crap out of a lot of people without showing one supernatural thing in the entire movie. The film relied on the "is this actually real or not" tension created by its viral marketing, but the creators deserve credit for doing something original. Which is more than you can say about Saw LXIV. Or Hostel XXIII. Or The Hills Have Eyes VIII.

I wasn't a fan of Ringu. It didn't have the same dread that the US version did (to me anyway).

Blair Witch is good for a little bit, then the alcohol starts to wear off and you just start laughing. Maybe its because I've gone camping a lot, been lost, and we're never unarmed when camping. Maybe its the fact the chick main character is so unlikeable, you just want her to die a horrible painful death and just STFU. A cool alternative is Southern Comfort. Good movie, but it makes me want to go eat boudain and some good rice and beans every time.

The Host is good too. You woulnt' think the Koreans would make a good, funny low budget horror movie.

One really wicked Asian horror film I've seen is called Dumplings. It's always the ones with the innocent sounding titles that end up being the most horrific.

Tell us more warpie...

Frazzled wrote:I wasn't a fan of Ringu. It didn't have the same dread that the US version did (to me anyway).

Blair Witch is good for a little bit, then the alcohol starts to wear off and you just start laughing. Maybe its because I've gone camping a lot, been lost, and we're never unarmed when camping. Maybe its the fact the chick main character is so unlikeable, you just want her to die a horrible painful death and just STFU. A cool alternative is Southern Comfort. Good movie, but it makes me want to go eat boudain and some good rice and beans every time.

The Host is good too. You woulnt' think the Koreans would make a good, funny low budget horror movie.

I think horror movies lose something when they're not in your language. You have to be immersed for it to be at maximum effectiveness. Although maybe you're fluent in Japanese, I dunno. The Ring is a well-plotted story...it's masterful the way it all comes together, you think the movie's over...and then comes the twist that has you slapping your forehead and wondering why the heck you were fooled by the fake ending in the first place. What follows is a bit of a letdown, but that sinking feeling of realization is just classic.

Blair Witch was kind of a "had to be there" thing. I went on opening day, and there was a sizable number in the audience who thought it was actually real. So the mood in the audience really made the movie. After everyone knew it was a hoax, it lost something. It's really not a movie that holds up to repeated viewings, either. But it was inventive.

The Host was alright...good for laughs. The Korean film industry is getting better all the time. They're making some pretty good films these days, D-War aside.

warpcrafter wrote:One really wicked Asian horror film I've seen is called Dumplings. It's always the ones with the innocent sounding titles that end up being the most horrific.

Now thats a scary movie ............I love horror when it's done right, most steven King adaptations are ok until you get to the end where true to the books there FAIL-tastic. I recently watched "the Unborn" which was a total waste of 2 hours of my life. I would say the old ones are the best...a movie called "Asylum" which was about a doctor aplying for a job at (you guessed it) an asylum and how each person in there had a short horror story....that was some creepy stuff!

oh and i have to add im a gore feind to Rob Zombie movies are my bed time watch because you can laugh at them too

Like any genre flick (action, sci-fi, comedy) contemporary horror films suffer from a 'must follow these conventions' modus operandi.

These conventions include:
1. the killer having suffered some childhood trauma, usually told either before the credits or in a flashback from a knowledgeable survivor of a past incident
2. the killer is always a male
3. the survivor is always female, but usually is found in a group of people, who will inevitably die
4. the survivor rescues somebody near the end, during the final chase
5. the killer is overcome, but a legacy event will occur just before the final credits

Horror films these days border on torture porn. I'd put this around the release of the original 'Saw' although these kinds of movies have appeared in the past, particularly in the grindhouse cinema of the '70s.

Take a look at the 'man to Man with Dean Lerner' episode with the 'Bitch Killer' trailer for a comedic take on that old school horror/killer film. Alternatively, look at the horror movie Chris was making in the last season of 'The Sopranos' for how these torture porn films endure.

One can make broad categories of horror films through the ages. These categories include:

1. The monster film whose golden age was the '30s and '40s. Think Dracula, Frankenstein, Mummy, Hunchback of Notre Dame, Phantom of the Opera etc
2. Nature gone amuck films of the '50s with a resurgence in the '70s. These are often labeled sci-fi and focus on the nature of science vs nature. Think Deadly Mantis, Them, Godzilla etc. I'd consider these borderline horror films as the monster was more an outcome of the abuse of science rather than a veiled Freudian suppresion.
3. Psychological horror films. These films usually posit a normal seeming person with a hidden hatred of something or someone. Examples include Ben, Psycho, Repulsion, and Rosemary's Baby. These films seem to have had their heyday in the '60s.
4. Gore and mindless violence. The '70s saw the introduction of the MPAA ratings system and a general liberalization of subject matter due to cultural changes in the late '60s. Small, independent distributors free of the studio system of the past could churn out low budget films that were so popular in drive-ins across America. Horror films found a place within that setting. Films of this kind include It's Alive, Abominable Dr. Phibes, and Texas Chainsaw Massacre, I dismember Mama, I Spit on Your Grave etc. Rape and revenge was a common theme in many of these films.

The '70s also saw a plethora of Devil worship devil possession films. You can see these in big studio films such as The Omen or very low budget films such as The Sect, Devil Master etc.

As for Lovecraft films, don't forget AIP/Corman's adaptations of Poe's and Lovecraft stories. Without the success of Pit and the Pendulum or The Masque of the Red Death, we probably wouldn't have had so many wonderful, cheap exploitation films during the '70s.

Corman's Dunwich Horror wasn't too bad. Nor was Haunted Palace based on both Lovecraft's The Case of Charles Dexter Ward and Poe's The Haunted Palace.

As for Lovecraft in the '80s you're probably talking about Stuart Gordon.

I've got to run to a meeting but I hope somebody finds this post enlightening.

warpcrafter wrote:One really wicked Asian horror film I've seen is called Dumplings. It's always the ones with the innocent sounding titles that end up being the most horrific.

Anyone who's ever seen Audition knows how horrifically true that is.

sebster wrote:

warpcrafter wrote:One really wicked Asian horror film I've seen is called Dumplings. It's always the ones with the innocent sounding titles that end up being the most horrific.

Anyone who's ever seen Audition knows how horrifically true that is.

THAT MOVIE!
I saw the scene in TOP 100 Scariest Movies and it seriously creeped me out. RUN AWAY!!!

Hunt out your low budget Horror flicks.

Typically, these are far better than ones with a decent budget, as the director etc have to get more creative to get the horror across, rather than just have manky looking gribblies. Look at the classic ones. Pretty much all made on a veritable shoestring budget, which is part of the reason they work so well.

As for stuff like Ring, Saw etc, you need to get the concept. Ichi The Killer for instance, is an exploration of the Masochist and Sadist relationship. Saw poses some interesting questions, as in how far does your survival instinct go?

I like 'em!

I don't reckon that the genre has degraded per say, but there are some movies that are down right stupid, overglorified and too conventional.

When watching a horror the same steps are always normally taken;
1. Bunch of people enter a place.
2. They get picked off one by one.
4. SEX
5. Realise there's an evil creature/demon/angel/mad man/mummy/etc. about and run away.
6. More people die.
7. Woman kills the bad guy

The End, and those movies are soooo boring even with the supense and "horror" they put in. Too gory, too tedious.

But i like movies like 1408 (a good pychological horror), the Grudge (god i jumped soooo many times), and other stuff that is unconventional. Oh, and Shaun of the dead because that's down right an amazing laugh.

Oh I forgot the original Amytiville Horror. That was really scary.


GG

The original Jo-On, The Grudge in Japanese was pretty scary. Watched it in an old house at 3am after a bottle of port during a force 9 gale, creepy.

Audition was a film that freaked me out, I watched it with some horror buffs and a couple of them got palefaced and left during it. I love it and thought it was beautifully shot and acted...

But I love Pinhead, hellraiser was amazing for it's time, the film shot on a tiny budget but shocked so well and the boss cenobyte stole the show, to this day no other villain gets lines like Pinhead, I heard Clive Barker is going to re-imagine it soon, I hope it's done justice and I hope they get Doug Bradley back to play him, since Barker has stated they will kill him off for sure this time and I think the guy who acted him so well should get to lay him to rest.

Audition is a very slow burn. I think someone compared it to something Hitchcock would do in terms of the pacing and building, and I think I agree with that.

And MDG, I have to disagree with your premise. The budget really doesn't have anything to do with it. Either it's a scary story, or it's not. There are countless more terrible low-budget horror films than low-budget gems.

I think we're all confusing horror with gore flicks here:

Horror: The film lets you decide what's going on; i.e. what's actually scary is determined by your own brain.

Gore: The film gives you a hook and some nasty scenes and ramps it up. Less thinking required.

Ringu is a great example of my first point; all the nastiness is in your own head... Nothing really happens!

The Thing is a great example of the second; we are given a reason to be horrified and some horrible sh*t to back it up.

A good horror movie should make you afraid to go to sleep at night.

A slasher flick should merely give you some bad dreams.

gorgon wrote:Audition is a very slow burn. I think someone compared it to something Hitchcock would do in terms of the pacing and building, and I think I agree with that.

And MDG, I have to disagree with your premise. The budget really doesn't have anything to do with it. Either it's a scary story, or it's not. There are countless more terrible low-budget horror films than low-budget gems.

Well thats because there are so many of them.

I might have spazzed up my point int he last post. What I was trying to say is that my favourite Horror Films tend to be low budget affairs, stuff like Evil Dead, Hellraiser etc. The lack of budget means to carry it off, you have to get creative, whereas with a larger budget, you can afford to sling around buckets of blood, and pay some fairly well known actress to whap her norks out in an effort to cover up the otherwise complete lack of artistic content.

This is not to say all high budget Horror films are arse, don't get me wrong. There are some good ones, I'm just struggling to remember any.

But the worst crime, to my mind, is the re-making of Asian Horror films. Whats the point? Are people really thick enough that they can't read the subtitles? Why not save yourself money and dub it? Surely that is much easier?

Never been a big fan of horror movies, but I have a definate few. House on haunted Hill, both versions, The Hills Have Eyes, and Trilogy of Terror.
TRi-Ter were three very low budgetfilms, but I watched em when I was six. Had trouble sleeping for a week. But the best one...


JOHN CARPENTER'S THE THING.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Cheese Elemental wrote:I had a long argument with my friend about that when we were playing Left 4 Dead, which borrows heavily from 28 Days Later.

He maintains that a zombie is the classical Romero figure, the T-Virus zombie, shambling, rotted and clumsy. I say that anyone infected with a disease that makes them zombie-like (i.e. mindless killers with no regard for their own safety) is classed as a zombie, so I think the rage victims count.

ditto.