Movies: Horror Movie Discussion

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

Forgot about those posts from last October ,, Might as well continue on with Texas Chainsaw Massacre series

Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974) = 9/10

A classic of genre and a film that is close to masterpiece. Sure it has some flaws and its is a cheaply made film but those add to the quality and the cast of relative unknowns works well for the teen victims while the family of killers add to the odd/creepy feel of movie

Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2 (1986) = 6/10

A film that came about as part of the Hooper/Cannon deal (Hooper's big deal with major studio saw 3 disappointing if outright box office bombs). A drastically different take from first film as black comedy is amp'd up on steroids and Tom Savini effects help take center stage. It is all in all a movie that is either loved or hated by TCM fans for most part. I find it overall entertaining and Dennis Hopper's shines as obsessive uncle on revenge trip.

Major cuts take away some of the Savini magic and some scenes simply dont work well honestly overall its a a mixed bag for me

Leatherface: The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 3 (1990) = 6/10

A film that had so much promise sunk as a result of budget , forced MPAA cuts and a storyline that lacked cohessiveness. But I still enjoyed this take on series and the film was well cast with some pretty good performances. Overall its a film that tries to find balance between original tone and part 2's campy/black comedy overdrive. Overall like part 2 its a mixed bag but a decent effort to bring new life into franchise under New Line Cinema (Who had part rights hoping to parlay series into success like Nightmare on Elm Street but it failed at box office)

Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Next Generation (1995) = 0/10

I hated this f***ing film ,,,, Absolutely no redeeming qualities from the weak kills to , poor acting and the stupid decision of making Leatherface into an emotional/angry drag queen. I dont know what the hell Henkel thought he was accomplishing with this absolute trash

And that ending is absolutely terrible with the whole "This was part of conspiracy" nonsense. I mean holy shit that makes the Halloween Druid angle look amazing by comparison. If not for McConaghey an Zellweger becoming stars this movie would have stayed buried in trashcan of history. They tried to capitalize on stardom of those two in 97 with re-release that no doubt was embarrassing to the stars and saw film fail at box office again

Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2003) = 4/10

Why does this film exist ,, Why? As we saw in that decade there was rush to remake many horror classics but with very little noteworthy changes making them unneeded rehashes of original films. This film really adds nothing of value to franchise

I did enjoy the acting in film (Ermey especially) and effects were fine but outside of that there was very little to like or love

Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning (2006) = 4.5/10

This quasi prequel is not much better then 2003 remake and with a bunch of plot points that fall flat or make no sense but overall I found this take to be slightly more enjoyable then 2003 remake and I dont honestly know why. Overall effects and acting are fine in this film as they were in remake but it really did nothing for me and is rather forgettable film

Texas Chainsaw 3D (2013) = 0/10

A so called prequel to original that ignores all sequels and leaves us with an absolute mess... Jesus christ this film sucked from beginning to end and even the kills were underwhelming. The plot is full of holes and inconsistencies. And the acting was pretty bad

Leatherface (2017) = 3/10

Hey look another prequel that again falls flat and is littered with a mess of a storyline/script and an ending that seemed to try to purposely go against what fans were expecting intentionally in a "Gotcha moment" that didn't work. Also this movie seems strangely tame outside of a scene or two with very little

There was potential here with this project and the cast was pretty good collection of talent. But in end it just ended up being an underwhelming film

Assessment/future

Honestly at this point the TCM franchise should probably be put down for good but yet another sequel is in pipeline one that is already a disaster with leaked plot points making it seem like a really generic rip off of various other films in series and the fact the brother duo directors were fired one week into production shows how much of a mess this film likely will be

Yes!! Love these posts! I would answer again with my own ranking, but I can't make sense of what is what in this series, and I quit half way and haven't seen the recent ones.

Again, please do Amityville!

 

[Blackhawkswincup]

Again, please do Amityville!

I think I will later

That and Puppet Master series are long and full of Yikes

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

I think I will later

That and Puppet Master series are long and full of Yikes

I'm a huge fan of Amityville II, that's one of my favorite horror films. 1 & 3 have their moments too. Beyond that, things get really low. I started watching the one on Netflix last night, didn't get through it yet, but for a PG13 flick, it kind of delivers (it's still has its dumb moments and heavily teen-oriented, but it's a lot better than what I expected, considering most of the franchise).

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

Oh, Hellraiser needs to be done too! I finally found the 3rd one, I've been looking to see it again for years (it's worse than I remembered), and I'd like to have another look at the 4th one too (the one in space that everybody disowned).

 

[Osprey]

I didn't realize that there were that many Texas Chainsaw Massacre movies. I think that I've seen only the original and the remake. I think that maybe the disturbing subject matter (as if most horror isn't) is why I've never been very keen on exploring the rest of the series.

Then again, I somehow made it through all of the Saw movies a few years ago. I guess that I didn't review them at the time because I was ashamed to admit it. I sort of still am and can't believe that I sat through all eight. I don't think that I could review them now, though, because they're mostly all a blur and run together.

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

I didn't realize that there were that many Texas Chainsaw Massacre movies. I think that I've seen only the original and the remake. I think that maybe the disturbing subject matter (as if most horror isn't) is why I've never been very keen on exploring the rest of the series.

Then again, I somehow made it through all of the Saw movies a few years ago. I guess that I didn't review them at the time because I was ashamed to admit it. I sort of still am and can't believe that I sat through all eight. I don't think that I could review them now, though, because they're mostly all a blur and run together.

I quit on Saw at about half point too. There was one in there that I kind of liked, the second probably (probably the one that has the worst reputation). This series never got near the low points the TCM or Amytiville series crashed to.

As for TCM, the first is a classic of course, the second one proved that Hooper had no idea what he was doing, the third one was fun and had a cool soundtrack. I've only seen one after that, I thought it was the first remake, but reading Blackhawkswincup's post, I'm 100% sure it's the 2003 version. There's a few available through Netflix and Prime, I might risk myself...

 

[Osprey]

I quit on Saw at about half point too. There was one in there that I kind of liked, the second probably (probably the one that has the worst reputation). This series never got near the low points the TCM or Amytiville series crashed to.

As for TCM, the first is a classic of course, the second one proved that Hooper had no idea what he was doing, the third one was fun and had a cool soundtrack. I've only seen one after that, I thought it was the first remake, but reading Blackhawkswincup's post, I'm 100% sure it's the 2003 version. There's a few available through Netflix and Prime, I might risk myself...

It's hard for me to quit on a series halfway through because that's kind of the point of no return for me. I feel tempted to just get the rest over with so that the completionist in me is satisfied and I'll never wonder if I missed one and get tempted to re-visit.

I'll likely go through the TCM franchise eventually. Picking a horror franchise to watch all of has become a bit of a yearly October ritual. I think that I did 'Friday' 4 years ago, 'Nightmare' 3 years ago, 'Halloween' 2 years ago and Child's Play last year. I have enough other horror movies that I want to watch in the next week and a half, so maybe I'll make the TCM series my big project next year.

 

[Martinez]

The Autopsy of Jane Doe is a very solid horror film on Netflix if anyone is in the mood for a suspenseful/creepy movie

 

[Osprey]

Sad Michael.

 

[Osprey]

I hadn't seen any of The Hills Have Eyes movies, so I decided to watch them all this past week.

The Hills Have Eyes (1977) - 6/10 - It's far from the quality of opening installments like Halloween and A Nightmare on Elm Street, but I thought that it was decent. It has that gritty 70s horror look and vibe. I could tell that Wes Craven was inspired by Deliverance and The Texas Chain Saw Massacre, since it's about travelers who get lost and attacked by rural freaks. I liked the unique setting of the desert. It's not the scariest movie (anymore, at least), partly because the freaks are slightly amusing, but it's never boring. I may have to use "fat and juicy" in everyday conversation from now on.

The Hills Have Eyes Part II (1984) - 3/10 - You'd think that 7 years would be long enough for Craven to come up with a better sequel idea than dirt bike riders just happening to wind up in the same hills as the original while coincidentally having with them one of its survivors. Apparently, it was long enough, though, that Craven felt that no one would remember the original, so he peppered this sequel with lots of clips from it (mostly all of the deaths). There's even a flashback memory for a dog, which may be a cinematic first. Everything about this movie feels lower budget than the original, which was already low budget. There's really not much to like about it and it probably deserves a lower score, but I didn't find it offensively bad, just plain bad.

The Hills Have Eyes (2006) - 4/10 - This is mostly a scene for scene remake of the original, except for the major difference that the freaks are now victims of U.S. nuclear testing. It really goes out of its way to explore this and make the premise seem plausible, even though it's very silly and felt pretentious. Too much explanation and backstory isn't good for horror, IMO. At least this film is probably the best of the series in terms of directing, acting and other production values, so it's watchable for those reasons, but the similarities make it kind of pointless if you've seen the original, much like most of the horror remakes of the 2000s.

The Hills Have Eyes 2 (2007) - 3/10 - U.S. National Guard trainees investigate disappearances in the seeing hills. At least the premise is a bit different than happy-go-lucky vacationers getting lost, which I was thankful for at this point. Unfortunately, that's the only thing that was interesting. From there, it plays out just as you'd expect, with all of the characters dying that you'd expect to die and all of the characters surviving that you'd expect to survive, making it one of the most predictable horror films that I've seen. That and just a very thin plot make it a rather boring and forgettable film.

 

[MetalheadPenguinsFan]

Watched Friday The 13th: Part 2 (the ‘81 film) last night for the first time in over 20 years.

Surprisingly, it was better than i remembered it being. I was a tad surprised by that, as most horror franchises are usually hot garbage after their original films.

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

I hadn't seen any of The Hills Have Eyes movies, so I decided to watch them all this past week.

The Hills Have Eyes (1977) - 6/10 - It's far from the quality of opening installments like Halloween and A Nightmare on Elm Street, but I thought that it was decent. It has that gritty 70s horror look and vibe. I could tell that Wes Craven was inspired by Deliverance and The Texas Chain Saw Massacre, since it's about travelers who get lost and attacked by rural freaks. I liked the unique setting of the desert. It's not the scariest movie (anymore, at least), partly because the freaks are slightly amusing, but it's never boring. I may have to use "fat and juicy" in everyday conversation from now on.

The Hills Have Eyes Part II (1984) - 3/10 - You'd think that 7 years would be long enough for Craven to come up with a better sequel idea than dirt bike riders just happening to wind up in the same hills as the original while coincidentally having with them one of its survivors. Apparently, it was long enough, though, that Craven felt that no one would remember the original, so he peppered this sequel with lots of clips from it (mostly all of the deaths). There's even a flashback memory for a dog, which may be a cinematic first. There's really not much to like about this movie and it probably deserves a lower score, but I have a soft spot for 80s cheese, even if it's as bad as this.

The Hills Have Eyes (2006) - 4/10 - This is mostly a scene for scene remake of the original, except for the major difference that the freaks are now victims of U.S. nuclear testing. It really goes out of this way to explore this and make the premise seem plausible, even though it's very silly and felt pretentious. Too much explanation and backstory isn't good for horror, IMO. At least this film is probably the best of the series in terms of directing, acting and other production values, so it's watchable for those reasons, but the similarities make it kind of pointless if you've seen the original, much like most of the horror remakes of the 2000s.

The Hills Have Eyes 2 (2007) - 3/10 - U.S. National Guard trainees investigate disappearances in the seeing hills. At least the premise is a bit different than happy-go-lucky vacationers getting lost, which I was thankful for at this point. Unfortunately, that's the only thing that was interesting. From there, it plays out just as you'd expect, with all of the characters dying that you'd expect to die and all of the characters surviving that you'd expect to survive, making it one of the most predictable horror films that I've seen. That and just a very thin plot make it a rather boring and forgettable film.

I really hate these films. All of them. Probably bottom of the Craven pile for me, and that says a lot because he has more crap than good films to his name.

Watched Friday The 13th: Part 2 (the ‘81 film) last night for the first time in over 20 years.

Surprisingly, it was better than i remembered it being. I was a tad surprised by that, as most horror franchises are usually hot garbage after their original films.

As slasher films go, the Friday films hold their own. 4-3-2 are all pretty good (4 being the best of the bunch for me and one of my favorite slashers).

 

[Blackhawkswincup]

Time to go down the Amityville hole

The Amityville Horror (1979) = 5/10

The film at times works real well but it to me always seemed to fall flat at its biggest moments. Much like Omen and Exorcist I have never been the world's biggest fan but it does have its moments but you end up hoping for a better product overall

The acting is solid , the setting is good and the plot is fine but the film just meanders along to unsatisfactory conclusion. Overall its a film that has fans and is not a bad film but its just one of those you will either enjoy or find lackluster

Amityville II: The Possession (1982) = 7/10

This film like most sequels isn't going to win award for originality but raises the material beyond the original. The acting in this film from Burt Young is excellent and the dynamics around the family in this one having dysfunction plays better into the plot then the original films family

This is one of the times when I feel the sequel ends up better then original

Amityville 3-D (1983) = 2/10

The franchise jumps into 82/83 revival of 3-D of time across theaters/genre (Jaws and Friday the 13th franchises also made leap into 3-D) and does so poorly

3-D of era was not great but this film was especially difficult with many of the 3-D scenes coming out soo poorly that viewers/reviewers couldn't help but complain. But those complaints pale in comparison to the complaint from audiences that this film was just simply not that good

The film despite a quality cast has that is at times is amateurish and mostly stiff/uneven which likely is result of a script/plot that is beyond weak and the special effects really fall flat especially the forced efforts at 3-D. Perhaps the only thing this film is remembered for is that it was early acting vehicle for young Meg Ryan and Lori Loughlin

The film underachieved at box office and ushered in a quiet period for franchise and end of its theatrical releases (Until remake)

Amityville 4: The Evil Escapes (1989) = 2/10

The cursed lamp! ,, Ugh

A film that was low budget made for TV attempt at reviving interest in Amityville franchise the film is a mess when it comes to story , plot , acting , effects , etc. The film actually has a cast that theoretically should have been a + but my god did everything about this suck

The ending of film makes the viewer roll eyes and shake head but given the lamp angle to begin with its shouldn't be shocking

I give this film a 2 simply because I understand that as TV film it had extreme limitations on budget and what they could actually do and it has campy moment or two worth a chuckle

Amityville Curse (1990) = 3/10

A film that has nothing to do with the Amityville house and is essentially just a slap on of Amityville name to draw interest to story that on its own would have just been seen as a mediocre book/film

The acting in this film is fine for what it is a low budget straight to VHS film and it has a young Kim Coates in starring role. The film is passable for what it is but is something one easily forgets minutes after watching and never goes out of way to watch again

Amityville: Its About Time (1992) = 1/10

Forget the lamp of part 4,, Now we got a haunted clock

How do they manage to get a cast with some notable acting talent just to squander it in yet another muddled mess?

Everything about this film blows from the plot to the acting to the stupid f***ing ending that makes a person even more pissed they wasted time and money on this film (I rented it on VHS from Midtown Video in 90's)

Amityville: A New Generation (1993) = 1/10

Forget the haunted lamp and clock of previous films now we got a haunted Mirror...... Are you f***ing kidding me?

Again a cast with some considerable talent (Terry O'Quinn notable) rots in an awful film...... The storyline rehashes the usual rehash of franchise with the mirror being connection to massacre at original home but now its a new massacre that occurred unrelated to other one's

Guess who wasted time/money on this film? Me again renting it alongside its about time at Midtown Video

Amityville Dollhouse (1996) = 0/10

Yeah this thing is mess from start to finish with stupid plot , terrible cast and a series of moments that make one go "WTF"

You sit there thinking to yourself at least they tried something new but then realize the mystery dollhouse modeled from house of original film is no better then the lamp , the clock or the mirror

Frustratingly you find yourself looking more fondly upon those devices as storyline plots because they made more sense then this haunted dollhouse (With voodoo doll for some reason as well) randomly being in shed in a new build house on other side of country... Again "WTF"

This film would mark end of the Amityville franchise as we knew it being so bad that even straight to VHS market wasn't viable anymore

The Amityville Horror (2005) = 4/10

The remake craze of 00's strikes again with this rehash of original this time starring pre-Deadpool Ryan Reynolds

Overall the film does nothing to really build off or improve original though at times the acting in this film is improvement and the effects work at times to elevate the film but also at times show this one doesn't really stand out as far as atmosphere , story , etc

Overall me ,, I haven't watched it since it came out and never felt desire to stop channel on it when its on unlike original which I have watched countless times while channel flipping

I have not watched any of the last 3 films nor do I desire to because this franchise is among the bottom of the barrel with regard to horror franchise

Hell the Puppet Master and Children of Corn series both end up better then Amityville franchise

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

Time to go down the Amityville hole

The Amityville Horror (1979) = 5/10

The film at times works real well but it to me always seemed to fall flat at its biggest moments. Much like Omen and Exorcist I have never been the world's biggest fan but it does have its moments but you end up hoping for a better product overall

The acting is solid , the setting is good and the plot is fine but the film just meanders along to unsatisfactory conclusion. Overall its a film that has fans and is not a bad film but its just one of those you will either enjoy or find lackluster

Amityville II: The Possession (1982) = 7/10

This film like most sequels isn't going to win award for originality but raises the material beyond the original. The acting in this film from Burt Young is excellent and the dynamics around the family in this one having dysfunction plays better into the plot then the original films family

This is one of the times when I feel the sequel ends up better then original

Amityville 3-D (1983) = 2/10

The franchise jumps into 82/83 revival of 3-D of time across theaters/genre (Jaws and Friday the 13th franchises also made leap into 3-D) and does so poorly

3-D of era was not great but this film was especially difficult with many of the 3-D scenes coming out soo poorly that viewers/reviewers couldn't help but complain. But those complaints pale in comparison to the complaint from audiences that this film was just simply not that good

The film despite a quality cast has that is at times is amateurish and mostly stiff/uneven which likely is result of a script/plot that is beyond weak and the special effects really fall flat especially the forced efforts at 3-D. Perhaps the only thing this film is remembered for is that it was early acting vehicle for young Meg Ryan and Lori Loughlin

The film underachieved at box office and ushered in a quiet period for franchise and end of its theatrical releases (Until remake)

Amityville 4: The Evil Escapes (1989) = 2/10

The cursed lamp! ,, Ugh

A film that was low budget made for TV attempt at reviving interest in Amityville franchise the film is a mess when it comes to story , plot , acting , effects , etc. The film actually has a cast that theoretically should have been a + but my god did everything about this suck

The ending of film makes the viewer roll eyes and shake head but given the lamp angle to begin with its shouldn't be shocking

I give this film a 2 simply because I understand that as TV film it had extreme limitations on budget and what they could actually do and it has campy moment or two worth a chuckle

Amityville Curse (1990) = 3/10

A film that has nothing to do with the Amityville house and is essentially just a slap on of Amityville name to draw interest to story that on its own would have just been seen as a mediocre book/film

The acting in this film is fine for what it is a low budget straight to VHS film and it has a young Kim Coates in starring role. The film is passable for what it is but is something one easily forgets minutes after watching and never goes out of way to watch again

Amityville: Its About Time (1992) = 1/10

Forget the lamp of part 4,, Now we got a haunted clock

How do they manage to get a cast with some notable acting talent just to squander it in yet another muddled mess?

Everything about this film blows from the plot to the acting to the stupid f***ing ending that makes a person even more pissed they wasted time and money on this film (I rented it on VHS from Midtown Video in 90's)

Amityville: A New Generation (1993) = 1/10

Forget the haunted lamp and clock of previous films now we got a haunted Mirror...... Are you f***ing kidding me?

Again a cast with some considerable talent (Terry O'Quinn notable) rots in an awful film...... The storyline rehashes the usual rehash of franchise with the mirror being connection to massacre at original home but now its a new massacre that occurred unrelated to other one's

Guess who wasted time/money on this film? Me again renting it alongside its about time at Midtown Video

Amityville Dollhouse (1996) = 0/10

Yeah this thing is mess from start to finish with stupid plot , terrible cast and a series of moments that make one go "WTF"

You sit there thinking to yourself at least they tried something new but then realize the mystery dollhouse modeled from house of original film is no better then the lamp , the clock or the mirror

Frustratingly you find yourself looking more fondly upon those devices as storyline plots because they made more sense then this haunted dollhouse (With voodoo doll for some reason as well) randomly being in shed in a new build house on other side of country... Again "WTF"

This film would mark end of the Amityville franchise as we knew it being so bad that even straight to VHS market wasn't viable anymore

The Amityville Horror (2005) = 4/10

The remake craze of 00's strikes again with this rehash of original this time starring pre-Deadpool Ryan Reynolds

Overall the film does nothing to really build off or improve original though at times the acting in this film is improvement and the effects work at times to elevate the film but also at times show this one doesn't really stand out as far as atmosphere , story , etc

Overall me ,, I haven't watched it since it came out and never felt desire to stop channel on it when its on unlike original which I have watched countless times while channel flipping

I have not watched any of the last 3 films nor do I desire to because this franchise is among the bottom of the barrel with regard to horror franchise

Hell the Puppet Master and Children of Corn series both end up better then Amityville franchise

Amityville 2 is very close to a 9/10 for me, even though I really don't like the Exorcist-humping of the last 20 minutes (I'm trying to understand where/who the ideas come from in all this, they stroke gold getting Damiano Damiani and I think he really wanted to push things real far with this film, so the facilité of the ending seems out of character from him on both levels of intention and talent).

I've just watched 3 of the post-3D films, I posted my reviews in the last-film-you've-watched thread. I was thinking of watching a few more, but damn you might have convinced me not to!!

 

[Blackhawkswincup]

Yeah those 90's films are bad

Basically studio's pumped out content just to stock store shelves at video stores with those one's

 

[Martinez]

New study ranks scariest horror films by average heart rate

Scariest movies by heart rate, Sinister takes the cake

 

[ManwithNoIdentity]

Best/Worst films of the Nightmare on Elm Street series?

Best: Dream Warriors

Worst: Freddys Dead

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

You`d know better than I would, P.O., but we seem to get long stretches of poor horror films. Then, every so often, we'll get a bunch of quality horror films. My guess (and feel free to tell me I'm wrong)...

A few film makers take horror in a new direction and it becomes original, scary and inventive.

Then people start copying that new style and it becomes tired and old - and that last for years as we wait for something new and inventive, again.

Does that sound right?

TBH, I can't remember the last time a movie REALLY scared me - maybe I Trapped The Devil.

I really wouldn't know. I think it has a lot to do with when you were a teenager, but there's been important exterior elements in the last 30 years too. In the mid-8os, the introduction of the PG-13 rating changed horror films for the worst. Before that, it was established that horror films were adult material, and they had an aura of "taboo" for kids, kind of like porn. It came right when horror was in kind of an identity crisis trying to find the right dosage of gore and atmosphere, some directors were going pretty far now that they had the means and the artists to do it. PG-13 meant a lot more audience and an easier way to (more and better) theater screens. Best example of this effect is probably found in some sequels:

House (1985) is a great dark horror comedy, House II (1987) is a lame comedy with horror themes. The Howling (1981) is a dark gritty horror film, Howling II (1985) is lame but tried to keep up with the tone of the original, and Howling III (1987) introduced comedy elements and went for the PG-13 rating (and is even lamer).

Then in the 90s came another blow to strict and serious horror: Silence of the Lambs. "5 oscars, another 63 wins and 51 nominations" + 273M$ in boxoffice. Producers realized they didn't have to dumb down their horror films with jokes and lesser gore, or go for the Gremlins family treatment to make money, they could also make pseudo-horror films and that would reach to a wide adult audience. I remember Fangoria had to include a "This is not horror" section to the magazine, but they still discussed these films. For a while, honest horror films were relegated to the lesser production companies and the direct-to-video treatment, and no serious directors wanted to touch that.

I don't think the genre ever healed from this. Now to get a great horror film, you most often need the involvement of a special director. But again, I think it also depends on when you were a teen. The teens I work with really enjoy these Insidious and stuff and don't mind that's it's oh so very formulaic all the time, they haven't known the time when the horror genre was the nest for experimentation and when directors would just push and try to go too far.

 

[ORRFForever]

I really wouldn't know. I think it has a lot to do with when you were a teenager, but there's been important exterior elements in the last 30 years too. In the mid-8os, the introduction of the PG-13 rating changed horror films for the worst. Before that, it was established that horror films were adult material, and they had an aura of "taboo" for kids, kind of like porn. It came right when horror was in a kind of an identity crisis trying to find the right dosage of gore and atmosphere, some directors were going pretty far now that they had the means and the artists to do it. PG-13 meant a lot more audience and an easier way to (more and better) theater screens. Best example of this effect is probably found in some sequels:

House (1985) is a great dark horror comedy, House II (1987) is a lame comedy with horror themes. The Howling (1981) is a dark gritty horror film, Howling II (1985) is lame but tried to keep up with the tone of the original, and Howling III (1987) introduced comedy elements and went for the PG-13 rating (and is even lamer).

Then in the 90s came another blow to strict and serious horror: Silence of the Lambs. "5 oscars, another 63 wins and 51 nominations" + 273M$ in boxoffice. Producers realized they didn't have to dumb down their horror films with jokes and lesser gore, or go for the Gremlins family treatment to make money, they could also make pseudo-horror films and that would reach to a wide adult audience. I remember Fangoria had to include a "This is not horror" section to the magazine, but they still discussed these films. For a while, honest horror films were relegated to the lesser production company and the direct-to-video treatment, and no serious directors wanted to touch that.

I don't think the genre ever healed from this. Now to get a great horror film, you most often need the involvement of a special director. But again, I think it also depends on when you were a teen. The teens I work with really enjoy these Insidious and stuff and don't mind that's it's oh so very formulaic all the time, they haven't known the time when the horror genre was the nest for experimentation and when directors would just push and try to go too far.

Let me ask you this...

With ALL the horror films you've watched, is there anything that REALLY scares you or do you become numb to it all?

I, of course, don't mean "jump scares". I mean, sitting in your room alone, lights off, looking over your shoulder, skin crawling kind of scares? Scares that stays with your for a day or two?

Did movies like Under The Shadows or The Wailing scare you?

***

I am off to cut / rake a lawn (or two). I'll see your response when I get back.

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

Let me ask you this...

With ALL the horror films you've watched, is there anything that REALLY scares you or do you become numb to it all?

I, of course, don't mean "jump scares". I mean, sitting in your room alone, lights off, looking over your shoulder, skin crawling kind of scares? Scares that stays with your for a day or two?

Did movies like Under The Shadows or The Wailing scare you?

***

I am off to cut / rake a lawn (or two). I'll see your response when I get back.

It's true that I've watched a lot of horror films, mostly strictly for fun, and then for a while I was paid to (so I guess, even more fun), but since I've slowed down a lot. Under the Shadows and The Wailing were both suggested in the best of 2010s poll I had not long ago and I hadn't seen either. Since then, I've only managed to see The Wailing, which I thought was borderline boring...

With a little effort, I found my short comment on it:

The Wailing (Hong-jin Na, 2016) - suggested in the horror polls, really can't say I liked it. The film really never can find its footing, messing around with different genres and never mastering any. It's neither scary nor funny, but it over-tries at both. A horror film of that length better establish a hell of a setting/atmosphere to work well, not the case here. 4/10 (with one whole point for being a little different)

I'll try to see the other one, I was supposed to, and forgot... As for films that truly scared me... Only going with post-2000 films, I think Antichrist had somewhat of a lasting effect, but it's probably the only one. Hereditary, The Strangers, Zombie's Halloween 2 (I know, everybody despise this film) were horror films I thought were very effective in their respective genre. Maybe The House of the Devil, but I should watch it again. There's other films that I found interesting, more interesting than most of these, but not really scary.

 

[ORRFForever]

It's true that I've watched a lot of horror films, mostly strictly for fun, and then for a while I was paid to (so I guess, even more fun), but since I've slowed down a lot. Under the Shadows and The Wailing were both suggested in the best of 2010s poll I had not long ago and I hadn't seen either. Since then, I've only managed to see The Wailing, which I thought was borderline boring...

With a little effort, I found my short comment on it:


I'll try to see the other one, I was supposed to, and forgot... As for films that truly scared me... Only going with post-2000 films, I think Antichrist had somewhat of a lasting effect, but it's probably the only one. Hereditary, The Strangers, Zombie's Halloween 2 (I know, everybody despise this film) were horror films I thought were very effective in their respective genre. Maybe The House of the Devil, but I should watch it again. There's other films that I found interesting, more interesting than most of these, but not really scary.

Fair enough and thank you.

P.S. I am going to watch The House Of The Devil.

 

[ORRFForever]

It's true that I've watched a lot of horror films, mostly strictly for fun, and then for a while I was paid to (so I guess, even more fun), but since I've slowed down a lot. Under the Shadows and The Wailing were both suggested in the best of 2010s poll I had not long ago and I hadn't seen either. Since then, I've only managed to see The Wailing, which I thought was borderline boring...

With a little effort, I found my short comment on it:


I'll try to see the other one, I was supposed to, and forgot... As for films that truly scared me... Only going with post-2000 films, I think Antichrist had somewhat of a lasting effect, but it's probably the only one. Hereditary, The Strangers, Zombie's Halloween 2 (I know, everybody despise this film) were horror films I thought were very effective in their respective genre. Maybe The House of the Devil, but I should watch it again. There's other films that I found interesting, more interesting than most of these, but not really scary.

I thought about what you said before and I think you are spot on about our youth playing into what scares us. As you know, "the dogma lives loudly within me" and that faith strongly plays into the movies that keep me up at night.

P.S.

How did you get paid to watch horror movies? Wow! Pretty sweet!!!!

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

I thought about what you said before and I think you are spot on about our youth playing into what scares us. As you know, "the dogma lives loudly within me" and that faith strongly plays into the movies that keep me up at night.

P.S.

How did you get paid to watch horror movies? Wow! Pretty sweet!!!!

Go back 10-15 years, I taught film studies and art history. Most fun I've had was a Horror film Summer class that I did 2 or 3 times. And even before that, I've been a film critic for a little while too (so I was technically "paid" - ahahah - to watch films then too).

And about faith, there's nobody who gives less of a f*** about that than me, but still, the demonic possession gimmicks are some of the scarier tricks for me too.

 

[ORRFForever]

Go back 10-15 years, I taught film studies and art history. Most fun I've had was a Horror film Summer class that I did 2 or 3 times. And even before that, I've been a film critic for a little while too (so I was technically "paid" - ahahah - to watch films then too)

Nice !!!! Being paid for something you love to do. Good for you. Too bad it ended.

Still....

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

Nice !!!! Being paid for something you love to do. Good for you. Too bad it ended.

Still....

It ended by choice, to do stuff I enjoy more ;-)
(loved the teaching part, but the whole University circus was a chore to me)