Everything mentioned in the OP was either a gorefest or a monsterfest. I think you guys are focusing on those movies specifically, which really cuts out a lot of the good stuff.
Everything mentioned in the OP was either a gorefest or a monsterfest. I think you guys are focusing on those movies specifically, which really cuts out a lot of the good stuff.
Except for Alien, which is arguably one of the best horror films of all time. The rest in the OP were merely entertaining slasher flicks.
Alien is definitely more than a monsterfest. The build up of suspense, the play of the light, every thing was done in a very horror-inducing way. It wasn't Pumpkinhead tearing a dude in half. It was "What was that noise? Oh shit."
Alien is definitely more than a monsterfest. The build up of suspense, the play of the light, every thing was done in a very horror-inducing way. It wasn't Pumpkinhead tearing a dude in half. It was "What was that noise? Oh shit."
Of course, it was a great movie. But it's still a monster movie at its heart.
I'm not saying it's a bad movie. I'm just saying it's a monster movie.
There is a monster, yes, but it is frightening because of what the monster represents, not what the monster is capable of. The monster is just the delivery mechanism for one of the most bleak incarnations of cosmic horror ever to grace film.
EDIT: I mean obviously it's a monster movie in the mundane sense, because it is a movie with a monster in it. But there's more to it than that. To call it a monster movie is reductionist.
There is a monster, yes, but it is frightening because of what the monster represents, not what the monster is capable of. The monster is just the delivery mechanism for one of the most bleak incarnations of cosmic horror ever to grace film.
EDIT: I mean obviously it's a monster movie in the mundane sense, because it is a movie with a monster in it. But there's more to it than that. To call it a monster movie is reductionist.
You're right. I really meant it more in a categorical way. There is a lot more to Alien than just a scary monster. Which is why it is so amazing.
But _____ of the Dead is often referred to as a zombie trilogy, which it is. But it's for the sake of easily categorizing it. There is a lot more to Dawn of the Dead than 99% of other horror films. But it's still a zombie movie.
Anyhow, back to the "monsterfest" thing. I think that a lot of movies now have really regressed back to the 1950's style of horror, where it's all about a cheap scare, but not much substance. Most of Wes Anderson's movies are like that (I'm sorry, but I'm sticking to that), and he is seen as one of the fathers of modern horror, and I think his style has penetrated the horror genre much more as of late.
I really liked guys like Romero, Kubrick, Hitchcock, and Scott because they don't focus on gore or cheap thrills. Those are more of the side-effects of what they are trying to do. They focus more on putting people in terrible situations, and showing how they react. Which is how a lot of horror films really miss out on genuinely inducing horror into their audiences, because they put emphasis on cheap thrills, and special effects, while simultaneously cutting out the narrative's substance.
Se7en is arguably not a horror movie, though. It's a crime thriller, and although it gets disturbing, it's not even close to being scary in any form usually associated with a horror film - hell, Silence of the Lambs is probably more of a horror movie than Se7en is, and I wouldn't call that a horror movie either.
It's still one of the best movies ever made.
Cherrn on
All creature will die and all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai.
There is a monster, yes, but it is frightening because of what the monster represents, not what the monster is capable of. The monster is just the delivery mechanism for one of the most bleak incarnations of cosmic horror ever to grace film.
EDIT: I mean obviously it's a monster movie in the mundane sense, because it is a movie with a monster in it. But there's more to it than that. To call it a monster movie is reductionist.
Only if you say that it's just a monster movie.
Monster movies are horror movies, for the most part. Alien is probably the best monster movie ever made, but it's still a monster movie. Sure, you can argue that the creature is a physical manifestation of some disturbing abstract quality, but you can argue that about virtually any creature feature creature. The fact that Alien is more intelligent and patient and artfully made than most monster movies doesn't mean it's not also a monster movie; it just means it's a better one.
I'd argue that Alien is the prototypical monster movie of the last 30 years, since almost every monster movie made since owes some dept to it.
Remember, "horror" is not about being scared. Horror is about having your sense of normality undermined. It is about being disturbed and unsettled.
Nonsense. Of course it's about being scared. Being disturbed and unsettled, in turn, provokes fear. That's what "horror" means. Whether movies are successful or not is an entirely different matter.
Cherrn on
All creature will die and all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai.
0
Options
FalloutGIRL'S DAYWAS PRETTY GOOD WHILE THEY LASTEDRegistered Userregular
edited January 2008
I'd like to challenge one of these horror movie writers to a contest and bet them their next movie deal that i could write a better damn movie than them
Remember, "horror" is not about being scared. Horror is about having your sense of normality undermined. It is about being disturbed and unsettled.
Nonsense. Of course it's about being scared. Being disturbed and unsettled, in turn, provokes fear. That's what "horror" means. Whether movies are successful or not is an entirely different matter.
"Scared" is a short term thing. Horror is long term. Being startled is scary. Finding a snake in your shoe is scary. Being chased by a monster is scary.
But the existence of monsters is horrific. The two often, but not always, go hand in hand.
There is a monster, yes, but it is frightening because of what the monster represents, not what the monster is capable of. The monster is just the delivery mechanism for one of the most bleak incarnations of cosmic horror ever to grace film.
EDIT: I mean obviously it's a monster movie in the mundane sense, because it is a movie with a monster in it. But there's more to it than that. To call it a monster movie is reductionist.
Only if you say that it's just a monster movie.
Monster movies are horror movies, for the most part. Alien is probably the best monster movie ever made, but it's still a monster movie. Sure, you can argue that the creature is a physical manifestation of some disturbing abstract quality, but you can argue that about virtually any creature feature creature. The fact that Alien is more intelligent and patient and artfully made than most monster movies doesn't mean it's not also a monster movie; it just means it's a better one.
I'd argue that Alien is the prototypical monster movie of the last 30 years, since almost every monster movie made since owes some dept to it.
If that's your thinking, imagine what Ridley Scott could have done with The Thing if he were at the helm. The Thing demands everyone be closely inspected and I was sad when they didn't find any skeletons in each other's closets.
"Are you an alien?! I'm going to closely inspect you and your bunk for evidence!"
*finds hidden bizarre pornography collection*
"Ha! You might not be an alien but you sure are a monster!"
As a random question, how was the recent Invasion of the Body Snatchers remake? It actually looked like it might be quality from the previews.
Ha ha ha hahahah ahahaha.
Seriously though, no.
I don't watch many movies in theatres, but the whole "puppet masters" concept has been quite freaky. Shame it wasn't handled properly.
Have you seen Puppet Masters? It's a pretty good Sci-fi horror.
Note: I am not talking about Puppet Master.
Yes (a long time ago, admittedly), and I know that Puppet Master isn't The Puppet Masters, which is in turn based off a Heinlein novel. Although I've not seen all the remakes of the Body Snatchers series, if that's what you're referring to. In retrospect, I think those two (the Puppet Masters/Puppet master) exemplify the differences we've been discussing in this thread: the former is an unsettling concept, while the latter is pretty much a slasher flick that spawned 8 sequels.
Speaking of which, I do need to read that book to compare it to the movie. Anyone know if this one was written before or after Heinlein got real into his fetishes?
"ATMOM is a delicate project to push through a studio: no love interest, no female characters, no happy ending...
BUt i believe its time to resurrect the BIG TENTPOLE horror movie. The EVENT HORROR movie. Like THE EXORCIST was or THE SHINING or ALIEN or JAWS in their time..."
This man sounds like he knows exactly what to do with a H.P. Lovecraft film.
IShallRiseAgain on
0
Options
Muse Among MenSuburban Bunny Princess?Its time for a new shtick Registered Userregular
edited January 2008
Reading this reminds me of a friend of mine:
"So ... you don't want to see Across the Universe?"
"No! I wanna see _____!" (I forget the name)
I won that day. I was proud of my accomplishment. My enthusiasm was dampened the next day however:
"So? I told ya, wasn't it good?"
"I don't know, I wasn't really paying attention. You know I wanted to see _____."
"What for? It's nothing but stab-stab-stab, blood-blood-blood, guts-guts-guts, die-die-die."
"Exactly!"
"So ... you only watch for the blood?"
"Of course."
I sighed, wanting to tell her that what she'd just told me was an insult to whatever modicum or intelligence there is.
Posts
Except for Alien, which is arguably one of the best horror films of all time. The rest in the OP were merely entertaining slasher flicks.
Your sig owned my face. I spat out coffee at work onto my keyboard.
Well played, sir.
Of course, it was a great movie. But it's still a monster movie at its heart.
I'm not saying it's a bad movie. I'm just saying it's a monster movie.
Oh, no no, no.
No.
There is a monster, yes, but it is frightening because of what the monster represents, not what the monster is capable of. The monster is just the delivery mechanism for one of the most bleak incarnations of cosmic horror ever to grace film.
EDIT: I mean obviously it's a monster movie in the mundane sense, because it is a movie with a monster in it. But there's more to it than that. To call it a monster movie is reductionist.
You're right. I really meant it more in a categorical way. There is a lot more to Alien than just a scary monster. Which is why it is so amazing.
But _____ of the Dead is often referred to as a zombie trilogy, which it is. But it's for the sake of easily categorizing it. There is a lot more to Dawn of the Dead than 99% of other horror films. But it's still a zombie movie.
Anyhow, back to the "monsterfest" thing. I think that a lot of movies now have really regressed back to the 1950's style of horror, where it's all about a cheap scare, but not much substance. Most of Wes Anderson's movies are like that (I'm sorry, but I'm sticking to that), and he is seen as one of the fathers of modern horror, and I think his style has penetrated the horror genre much more as of late.
I really liked guys like Romero, Kubrick, Hitchcock, and Scott because they don't focus on gore or cheap thrills. Those are more of the side-effects of what they are trying to do. They focus more on putting people in terrible situations, and showing how they react. Which is how a lot of horror films really miss out on genuinely inducing horror into their audiences, because they put emphasis on cheap thrills, and special effects, while simultaneously cutting out the narrative's substance.
Seven was just a perfect horror movie.
Xbox Live Gamertag: Suplex86
It's still one of the best movies ever made.
Only if you say that it's just a monster movie.
Monster movies are horror movies, for the most part. Alien is probably the best monster movie ever made, but it's still a monster movie. Sure, you can argue that the creature is a physical manifestation of some disturbing abstract quality, but you can argue that about virtually any creature feature creature. The fact that Alien is more intelligent and patient and artfully made than most monster movies doesn't mean it's not also a monster movie; it just means it's a better one.
I'd argue that Alien is the prototypical monster movie of the last 30 years, since almost every monster movie made since owes some dept to it.
They may not mean to, but they do.
They fill you with the faults they had
And add some extra, just for you.
It was horror in the sense that anything gritty or gory is horror.
Nonsense. Of course it's about being scared. Being disturbed and unsettled, in turn, provokes fear. That's what "horror" means. Whether movies are successful or not is an entirely different matter.
"Scared" is a short term thing. Horror is long term. Being startled is scary. Finding a snake in your shoe is scary. Being chased by a monster is scary.
But the existence of monsters is horrific. The two often, but not always, go hand in hand.
If that's your thinking, imagine what Ridley Scott could have done with The Thing if he were at the helm. The Thing demands everyone be closely inspected and I was sad when they didn't find any skeletons in each other's closets.
"Are you an alien?! I'm going to closely inspect you and your bunk for evidence!"
*finds hidden bizarre pornography collection*
"Ha! You might not be an alien but you sure are a monster!"
Seriously though, no.
I don't watch many movies in theatres, but the whole "puppet masters" concept has been quite freaky. Shame it wasn't handled properly.
Note: I am not talking about Puppet Master.
Yes (a long time ago, admittedly), and I know that Puppet Master isn't The Puppet Masters, which is in turn based off a Heinlein novel. Although I've not seen all the remakes of the Body Snatchers series, if that's what you're referring to. In retrospect, I think those two (the Puppet Masters/Puppet master) exemplify the differences we've been discussing in this thread: the former is an unsettling concept, while the latter is pretty much a slasher flick that spawned 8 sequels.
Speaking of which, I do need to read that book to compare it to the movie. Anyone know if this one was written before or after Heinlein got real into his fetishes?
"So ... you don't want to see Across the Universe?"
"No! I wanna see _____!" (I forget the name)
I won that day. I was proud of my accomplishment. My enthusiasm was dampened the next day however:
"So? I told ya, wasn't it good?"
"I don't know, I wasn't really paying attention. You know I wanted to see _____."
"What for? It's nothing but stab-stab-stab, blood-blood-blood, guts-guts-guts, die-die-die."
"Exactly!"
"So ... you only watch for the blood?"
"Of course."
I sighed, wanting to tell her that what she'd just told me was an insult to whatever modicum or intelligence there is.