if you wan to avoid these "poor horror" movies I suggest you follow the tell tale signs of a bad horror movie:

1. Has any character played by an "A" rated movie actor
2. Is advertised on TV
3. Has the budget of a blockbuster
4. Is a remake
5. Opens in any major theatre complex
6. Can be labeled as mainstream

If the horror movie you want to see, and you think will be good, has any combination of the aforementioned tell tale signs...it will be a bad horror movie.

Whatever happened to the "killer being a mysterious and unseen character until the end of the movie" gone? This was the best aspect of any great horror movie...

There's no single quality that makes a horror movie great, it's a combination of all kinds of things. Leaving the mysterious until some end reveleation doesn't really doing anything...

And as for that list, bollocks I say. Dawn of the Dead and Hills Have Eyes are both remakes, both mainstream, both advertised on tv, and both opened in major cineplexs. And funny, those two films alone comprise the best the genre has seen in years.

I agree with the original post about the glut of 'gore' movies out recently. More guts than suspense.

first off, I did not say one quality makes a horror movie great...you misinterpreted...I said "the best aspect...", not the only aspect

secondly, sure they may the best in recent history, but Dawn of the Dead was not great, and is far inferior to Romero's originals...haven't seen Hills yet, so I cant comment

Everything is far inferior to Romero's originals. The Dawn remake is in name and setting only, they're entirely different films with different agendas. And the Dawn remake is balls out fun and does a damned good job of instantly jumping from the playful to the serious. It's a very popular film, but I think it's severely underrated simply because so many people can say, "eh, the original was better", and ignore giving credit where credit is due.

Darkness Falls was especially ridiculous. I cant tell you how disappointed I've become with the horror genre.

Has anyone seen the previews for An American Haunting? How do we feel - excited? Skeptical?

I actually kind of agree with Karl about 7 not being horror. Og, when Karl called it psychological, I assumed he was speaking in genre terms (thriller). Saying that it's about society tells us what the message is, not that the genre is horror. My own feeling is that it's more a spin on the detective/mystery subgenre where a detective battles it out with a criminal mastermind in a sort of writing game. It has more in common with, say, Insomnia (definitely NOT a horror movie) than it does with Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Jason (or, on the other side of the Horror coin, Freddy) etc.; it's just that the murders are a little more sensational and grisly in the case of 7, Red Dragon and some of these others (maybe this applies to Saw as well, I'm not sure since I never saw it).

Re - Karl, on things not being scary. Scaryness isn't really my distinction of good horror. I can honestly say the only horror movie that has ever scared me to the point where I didn't want to sleep, was the Blaire Witch Project (and this when I was an adult). Most horror movies - even the great ones - aren't really that scary. It's that basic cliche that any monster they show is less scary than what you can imagine, so no matter how competently crafted production, refined the message, compelling the drama or acting, it's not really going to be scary. In a way, that's why my definition of "a decent" horror movie isn't one that has to succeed as cinema. That's why I would list crap like 13 Ghosts and Final Destination. both had a decent idea, in other words, I could imagine a good movie taking place in the strange, glass house of 13 Ghosts, so it doesn't matter that one didn't take place there, dramatically, or in other cinematic quality terms. Thing I liked about Final Destination was the mechanics of the world, where the characters don't see the killer but we do (sort of). doesn't matter that the acting sucks, dialog is cheesy, some characters don't make sense, and the ending is a let down.

Horror for horror's sake is pure cheese thru and thru - lets admit it people! :D


I watched Jason, etc. like any other preteen, but then, it was always the mental idea of pushing the envelope further and further. Then you grow up, and it just becomes trite - macabre for the sake of it? I couldnt stand it, not for blood reasons, but because I couldnt justify even wanting to see plain...old...blood...with absolutely no plot. Over. and. over. again. [/bored rant]

Then you got the Screams, etc, which went a long way NOT to take themselves too seriously, and I can live with horror like that. Somehow (and I cant remember when or where) the zombie genre, which never interested me was reinfused and legitimized for mainstream audiences (how else can Resident Evil movies be "blockbusters?")[/isolated, disjointed, unconnected with any line of thought blurb]

I find I prefer psychological thrillers, and the more plausible the story (less blood/gore, more backstory), the more I enjoy it. Not "horror" per se, but entertaining enuf. :D

Think:
1) Event Horizon - movie was positively demonic - I had nightmares like a child and I was college. Im considered the one with the strongest stomach, and even I cant work up the courage to watch that one again though I really want to.
2) Mothman Prophecies - now, Im sure it would be ultra cheese to me - but the whole "others" approach was quite unsettling at the time.
3) Solaris - depressing and disturbing on a subconscious level.
4) It - interesting and disturbing - watched it as a child with all of my siblings one night until morning, and we all ended up sleeping in a pile on the floor together. From that day forward Stephen King movies were a bonding experience like no other: its what we do on holidays - The Stand, It, Rose Red, The Shining, Storm of the Century, etc. I consider these "soft horror/intellectual thrillers" and they are the only scary films that I am guaranteed I can get the softies together to watch! :D

(Speaking of: While in Denver, do as the Denver-ites! We visited the OVERLOOK HOTEL from The Shining, and actually went inside and looked around. Apparently they have weddings there, and house students)[/entire conversation before I lose my train of thought!]

It seems like the crux of the disagreement in this thread has fallen on the definition of horror itself.

I guess we have our own ideas about what concepts or elements of a film lends themselves to a horror label. For example, I can't think of too many films more unsettling and horrific than David Lynch's Eraserhead, and I don't think too many consumers will find that film in the horror section of their video store.

Mack, I love your icon.

On with the horror conversation...

And yet it's listed on the imdb as Horror. Funny how these genre things work, what with them not being mutually exclusive or all exhaustive.

Modern horror is falling apart because unfortunately, everyone has seen everything that's been done.

In years past, horror films actually used to be able to scare us. They did this, because we had no idea how it was done (think of the first time you saw The Exorcist, as long as it wasn't within the last few years). You had to have been freaked out, because you didn't realize what was going on at all.

Now, we do know how these effects (or lack thereof) are done, and it's not frigthening anymore. Plus, there's nowhere left to go with horror. Hollywood cinema has basically milked the genre dry, and now we're just seeing rehashing of the same old **** year after year. One good concept will come by (28 Days Later, Saw), and the movie won't be that great, but then 20 will come out the next year trying to rip it off.

Horror is dead, and the faster that people stop buying into it, the faster Hollywood will let it just go the way of the dodo. But until these stupid teenagers stop paying $15 for one cheap scare, and 90 minutes of crap, we can just expect this trend to go on and on and on.

Why are people so convinced that the last few years have seen the death of some golden age of horror? Horror trends have been the same for decades, so where were your complaints 15-20 years ago?

Take a look at the '80s. We saw:
8 Friday the 13ths
5 Halloweens
5 Nightmare on Elm Streets
5 Howlings
3 Zombis
3 Prom Nights
3 Slumber Part Massacres
2 Return of the Living Deads
2 Phantasms
2 Creepshows
2 Evil Deads
2 Jaws
2 Ghoulies

Stuff like:
C.H.U.D.
Killer Klowns From Outer Space
Sleepaway Camp
Night of the Comet
Fright Night

Blockbuster Studio remakes like:
The Thing
The Fly
The Blob

This isn't anything new so get over it and stop believing horror used to be some sacred ground of unprecedented originality. Horror's Not Dead. Horror has never been dead. Sh*tty movies are dead. Sh*tty movies will always be dead.

Well suck on this!!!
 

These movies that u have listed may have been on the horror genre but it also goes on other genres like gore and comedy it doesn't mean film makers are starting to make crappy ass movie like for example who couldn't forget the Classic "Amitiville Horro, Friday the 13th 1-vs freddy,Halloween,Exorcist and other great films if we stop forgetting about these movies then how will we servive in movie developing like for example I'm fifteen and I've been writing since i've been 11 and I can tell you this Hostel and all the other movies that have been coming out now a days are perfect examples of heart thumping films because you never know whats going to happen so Like why judge these film makers their trying to be like the film makers that made the classics!!!:D ;) :mad: :cool: :p :D ;) :) :(

You have a good point but they have been tryng their best and we can't forget that their making the money and where judging them.

Did my post get deleted? Or did I forget to hit post.... ARG!!! I wrote a few paragraphs on this subject, and specifically in response to the (false) claim that horror is dead lately. I also wanted to weigh in about how Saw and 28 Days Later did not bring anything new to the table. Saw and it's sequel were crap, and 28 Days Later certainly didn't bring anything new to bear. No, zombies (or whatever) that run is NOT a new concept, at all. If anyone thinks it is, they just haven't seen enough cinema to be talking about the subject.

A silly, silly claim. No, everyone has certainly not seen everything. In fact, most people that watch films have seen approximately 3% of the films available to watch. Silly, I tell you.

Blanket statements don't go 'round these parts, law dog.

Since age 11 huh.... wow

thanx
 

So how long have u been in to movies and what do u do for fun as in directing etc..

Hey man I agree that Saw 2 sucked ass and all and even wolf creek but you got to admit that Hostel is kinda retarded and all from all the time I spent studieng movies up to this time tells me all..Even Doom sucks donkey!!!!:)

Pathetic grammar aside (maybe you should spend the time 'studieng' movies studying in school), did you not just say that Hostel and the other recent films like it were "perfect examples of heart thumping films"?

:rolleyes: