What's wrong with the horror genre?
 

How come no one can make a decent horror movie anymore? The rancid waste passing as "brilliant" horror these days (brilliant being a term used by certain critics to describe some of the more recent offerings) is nothing more than cheap and easy crap.

Poor writing has always been a trademark of lower quality films (especially horror it seems), but the recent glut of fright films is only frightful in terms of their utter lack of coherence. These movies feebly attempt to mask poor writing and sometimes special effects with scenes of over-the-top "terror" and psychological horror. It's as if the cheap slasher flicks of the 80's and 90's that bathed themselves in gore have given way to the cheap visceral flicks of the 00's that envelope themselves in unimaginitive menace and confrontation.

The result is something I call the "ugly" movie. These movies are not scary, nor are they creatively disturbing. They are just ugly and gratuitous, elevating the "grind-house" flick to mainstream status. And they are usually quite silly.

High Tension (Haute Tension) Implausible plot.

The Devil's Rejects Started off surprisingly entertaining but got mired in its own ugliness.

Saw II Ridiculous.

Wolf Creek Had promise and could have been done better.

Hostel The worst of the bunch. Pure crap. Even unintentionally funny at times. Eli Roth sucks (including his terribly overrated Cabin Fever) and Quentin Tarantino has never been an endorsement for quality.

In addition to the sub-genre of flicks above, we have also become bombarded with remakes of horror movies that sucked in the first place: The Fog, The Hills Have Eyes, When A Stranger Calls.

And then we have just plain awful and boring offerings that many critics endorse as entertaining such as Boogeyman, and the unwatchable indie Undead.

It really makes you appreciate the very, very few and far between high quality horror movies of recent years. 28 Days Later is not only a great horror movie but a great film in general.

Nothing else I can think of recently I would call truly special.

Well, I didn't think 28 Days Later was all that spectacular. But I understand what you're talking about. I'm rather upset with the horror genre of the 2000's, although it's been entertaining watching it go by. I've seen a sucky remake of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, but then I also saw Freddy Vs. Jason finally hit reality and it was fantastic. Chucky had a crossdressing killer son, Paris Hilton starred in a remake of House of Wax, a maniac called Jigsaw made people kill themselves and had a little creepy doll that laughs ride around on a tricycle, Jason went to outer space but the film sucked by having zero terror, George A. Romero brought back his zombies, some guys got trapped in the midst of murder while visiting a foreign country, and then there's a bunch of stuff I haven't seen yet and forgot about...

What I want to see in the genre is NEW stuff, not the same old tired killers and zombies, but new things that are memorable. I can't tell you what those things are, but I really enjoy creativity in my horror, but if it's not that creative, then I'm willing to go with something really moody and dark. I am not for just lots and lots of blood and gore (which isnt bad, though) or spooky, annoying kids or remakes that retell the original movie with a bad storyline and feature hot young actors.

I'm liking the Saw series now. I like the idea of this cancer patient putting people into traps that will kill them if they don't do something extreme to get out of the trap alive. I like that he has a weird doll that rides around on a tricycle, too. This isn't the best thing that's come out of the horror genre, but it's making sequels (I like sequels!) and 2 was entertaining.

More later...

What exactly is your idea of a "brilliant" horror film?

The majority of horror that comes out these days is forgetable trash that dates itself within a year, but that doesn't mean there isn't anything enjoyable, if not pretty damned good, still being made.

Hell, 2006 alone has seen The Hills Have Eyes and Slither. I think they'll be the best we get all year, but still, they're fantastic films. Especially The Hills, which you've already given the cold shoulder just because it's a remake. And, for the record, the original Fog is a great horror flick.

Horror is a genre that is always burdened with countless, horrible films. It doesn't matter what time period you're looking at, good horror is always the minority. You're just remembering the greats and forgetting the junk of the past - which is exactly what will happen in 8 years when someone somewhere makes a post exactly like this.

Horror's Not Dead. You're just looking in the wrong places.

Also, what's more implausible, a psychotic serial killer with an infatuation with the unatainable who selectively envisions the world around them or that a genetically create strain of "rage" that can only be contracted through the blood would spread across the UK, turning everyone into blood thirsty monsters and reducing the population of millions to mere hundreds in only 28 days?

I'm not defending the logic of Haute Tension, it certainly has little, but I don't see how you can call it implausible and then praise any other fantasical horror flick.

Yes, I'd ask when this supposed Golden Age of the horror movie took place? I mean, you can point to a few classics starting with Rosemary's Baby and Night of the Living Dead and through the '70s entries like The Exorcist, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre and Halloween when the modern genre was being essentially created, but even during that period the great ones were sparsed by mostly disposable crap. By the time the 1980s rolled around and there was a whole industry devoted almost specifically to the genre, you still had mostly crap.

How can you be a horror movie fan and be terribly critical of the genre? You either suspend your disbelief and go with it, even though you've likely seen the exact same thing done a dozen times already, or you don't. But I don't see how the general crop of horror movies "these days" is any better or worse than the last two or three decades.

I think he's looking for something that really stands out to him. I'm guessing 28 Days Later is the only gold he's found.

Horror Films aren't designed to be fantastic films anymore .. producers just aid in there creation in order to pull in some money .. horros are always going to be watched regardless of how good they are .. it appeals the the largest target audiances too the teenages who see it for cheap thrills and if accompanied by there girlfreind some contact .. producers and directors realise this and jsut churn out the ****... its all about money in the horror industry now .. i don;t see it changing any time soon .

if your going to be a fan of horror movies then you can't act like a movie critic. Don't get me wrong there are many great horror ovies wich are also great films like Holden Said Rosemary's Baby, The Exorcist and also The Shining. However most of my favorite horror movies are crappy films but that doesn't mean that they are very entertaining. For example I recently bought the Nightmare on Elm Street Box Set. Part 1 and New Nightmare are the only movies in the set i consider to be really good horror movies but the other 5 movies are great to sit back and watch some quality slashing. So part of being a big fan of the genre is not being overly critical and just enjoying the movie for what it is. So today when movies like High Tension, Slither or FInal Destination 3 come out I just go to see them for what they are and don't think about them too much

Here here.

I always cringe when a critic gives a sequel to a horror film a bad rep, although sometimes I do agree with them. But I can see where you're coming from with the rest of your Nightmare on Elm Street Box Set. One of my favorite horror films of all time is Halloween, and although many feel the sequels minus 2 suck, I think they're fine. Same goes with Friday the 13th.

You're right. A horror fan can't act like a regular Roger Ebert.

I don't know if this is going off-topic, but the same point goes with the Alien series. I personally enjoy all of the films, as well as Aliens vs. Predator. Any cross-over to me is cool, despite bad reviews or if it does suck. One thing though that I just realized was that you really didn't see a whole lot more Alien in Aliens (at least to me you didn't) but I'm sure the reason why was to budgetary and whatnot, or they just plain chose not to show them. Not a big thing, though. The film is still great.

The point is there are two different realities. In one reality, the existing premise (psychotic killer) is based on real life possibilities. In the other premise (hyper-evolved virus killing machine), the expectations of real-life are somehwat suspended-- although technically possible perhaps. But both premises must adhere to common sense and the laws of physics/statistics/etc.

For example, if there is a movie about brain-eating eels from the planet Phagina attacking the earth, I don't expect there to be flying cows with rocket launchers bolted to their craniums, with the cows turning out to be the ultimate guardians of humans. Flying cows are not consistent with our laws of physics, regardless of any strange premise necessary for the plot.

So if really unlikely or borderline impossible stuff is happening in a slasher flick, I consider that a lot more implausible than a super-human virus story with credible narrative.

At least you could point to probably 2 or 3 decent genre flicks in each year. I don't think you can do that any longer. Like I said, I haven't seen a really decent horror movie in the last 10 yrs except maybe 28 Days Later. I liked the remake of DOTD, but that was a remake. Everthing else has been pretty lame.

I think the ratio keeps shrinking, Holden.

What's more, there are certain trends taking over the genre, which I pointed out in my first post. Those trends really seem to be bringing down the entire genre, and I don't think that has ever happened before.

Why can't I act like a critic? There can be good horror.

So where are this era's Rosemary's Baby and The Exorcist and The Shining? And why did it take a $35,000 indie film from this era (The Blair Witch Project) to compare favorably with the uber-Hollywood films, mentioned above, from the past era?

The last 10 years:

1995 - Se7en, In The Mouth of Madness, The Prophecy
1996 - Scream, The Frighteners, From Dusk Til Dawn
1997 - Event Horizon, The Devil's Advocate
1998 - Cube, Blade, Ringu
1999 - The Blair Witch Project, The Sixth Sense, Stir of Echoes, Idle Hands
2000 - American Psycho, Audition, The Cell, Final Destination
2001 - Ginger Snaps, Session 9, The Devil's Backbone
2002 - Frailty, Dog Soldiers, The Ring, One Hour Photo, The Eye
2003 - 28 Days Later, Dead End, May, Cabin Fever, House of 1000 Corpses, Bubba Ho-Tep
2004 - Dawn of the Dead, Shaun of the Dead, The Ordeal, Shutter, Dumplings, Saw
2005 - The Devil's Rejects, Land of the Dead, Saw 2, The Descent, The Exorcism of Emily Rose
2006 - The Hills Have Eyes, Slither, Hard Candy, Hostel, Silent Hill (for the visuals)

You can pick and choose as you like, but no matter how you cut it the last 10 years have already borne a pretty impressive catalog of more than decent horror flicks that will certainly be close to the heart of this and future generations. And if you're saying you can't find a "decent" horror movie out of that entire list, you're just lying. Hell, I can pick out close to a dozen which are better than 28 Days Later, which you claim is the only decent horror of the past decade.

Some of those are actually pretty seminal horror films as well, such as Se7en, Scream, The Sixth Sense, Ringu, Audition, and 28 Days Later. I'd even argue that what the Shining did for camera work, Se7en did for production design. Scream gets falsely remembered as a spoof, but when it came out it was a straight shot of slasher rejuvination. The Sixth Sense redefined the ghost film permanently, for better or worse. Ringu played a huge role in re-introducing the Asian market to American audiences, and not just for the horror genre.

If anything, I would say they have gotten a little smarter; ironic excess is now the standard, whereas it used to be the exception. That's the only noticable general change. My feeling is that there are three basic tiers of horror movie.

There's also the type of horror movie that is a good idea, just wrapped in bad acting and some pandering. These are super rare now, but I don't think any more so than the 80s. I would list the first Nightmare on Elm Street plus New Nightmare, maybe even that one about kids trying to cheat death/fate. Then there are the super, super rare ones that are also well put together movies, with good (or at least clever and imaginative) production values, competent direction etc. Rosemary's Baby (though I also liked The Ninth Gate), Carnival of Souls, Texas Chainsaw Massacre (the first), maybe being the classics. I would put Blaire Witch up there as well. Below are the unwashed masses: Friday the 13th pt. V, Chopping Mall, Halloween 3-thru-newest, Zombie 2, Hell Night, Elves, Ghoolies, Critters, Silent Night Deadly Night, I Spit on Your Grave (how is this any better than Hostel?), Driller Killer.

The avg. horror fan is addicted to bad movies and either: a) is too dumb to notice how bad they are, b) notices, but still gets a thrill, or c) revels in his addiction for the meager reward of some campy laughs. I must admit that it is generally less fun to make fun of newer bad horror movies, but that's not because the movies have gotten worse at being bad movies, but that they've gotten better at making fun at themselves (the Scream series, esp. the one with Parker Posey).

Look at some particular genres that bridge the last 3-4 decades. My reaction to Freddy vs. Jason was 'well, it's certainly not the worst "Nightmare" movie, and it actually may be the best "Friday" movie'. And even Jason in Space was better than Jason Gets Resurrected by Lightning.

The Later Alien movies aren't as good as the first two, but I don't discount the franchise spinning off some good ones again, since no two of them have been alike so far. 4 was good, maybe overall not as good as 1 and 2, but hard to compare any of the three to each other anyway. 1 is as different from 2 as 4 is from either.

If you're looking for new images, 13 Ghosts. Not a great movie by any stretch, but the house is somewhat original. The one about death: I thought the idea was promising and even conveyed effectively at points (showing the minute and improbable mechanical failures that the characters never see, only vaguely sense). For me those are about as successful as those mid-level "idea" horror movies from any decade. I like them as much as Nightmare 1, perhaps even as much as They Live.

I guess the point is, just based on the stuff I've seen (obviously), I can't find any trend quality wise.

Your list.

I can't find a great or even decent horror flick in this list ('cept BWP and The Eye), not necessarily one that is just decent. I deleted the ones I haven't seen. 28 Days Later just blows all of these away. I actually feel uncomfortable calling 28 Days Later a great horror flick because I think I might be doing it injustice somehow. It is a great movie, period.

1995 - Se7en
1996 - Scream, From Dusk Til Dawn
1998 - Blade
1999 - The Blair Witch Project, The Sixth Sense
2000 - Final Destination
2001 - Session 9,
2002 - Frailty, Dog Soldiers, One Hour Photo, The Eye
2003 - 28 Days Later, Cabin Fever, House of 1000 Corpses, Bubba Ho-Tep
2004 - Dawn of the Dead, Shaun of the Dead, Saw
2005 - The Devil's Rejects, Land of the Dead, Saw 2,
2006 - Hostel

Seven is overrated psychological quasi-cool Quentin Tarantinoish pap.

Scream is afraid to take itself seriously.

From Dusk Til Dawn is definitely entertaining, but not horror. It is a comic book.

Blade is also a comic book movie. Not horror.

The Blair Witch Project is admittedly excellent, and one which should be included as great horror in the last 10 yrs. My mistake.

The Sixth Sense is also a very influential and somewhat groundbreaking film. Mostly psychological suspense than horror, however.

The Final Destination series is admittedly entertaining. But only because you know the deaths are going to be ridiculously theatrical and gory. Yet they are no more scary than two turtles having sex, and therefore, not horror.

Session 9 I thought would be better. I kept waiting for something compelling to happen, but it never did. It was, collectively, an admirable attempt at psychological horror, but it failed.

Frailty was not as good as the critics made it out to be. I found it mediocre.

Dog Soldiers was an awesome indie flick, but it was not horror. The emphasis was on action.

One Hour Photo was one of the coolest and underrated movies I have seen in awhile. It got crappy reviews, and didn't deserve them. But it is NOT horror, just suspense.

The Eye was actually pretty creepy. I would say that is a decent modern horror flick. Another one I missed. (That makes two if you are counting.)

28 Days Later is an all around great film. But it is not that scary. It would definitely categorize itself as horror, moreso than anything else. Therefore, by default, it is an excellent horror flick.

Cabin Fever was just plain awful. The ending was intentionally funny, so I can give it at least one full point.

House Of A Thousand Corpses, although entertaining, was more of a midnight cult flick, a cheap grindhouse psychedelic nod to the Italian giallo films of the 70s. Not horror.

Bubba-Ho-Tep was not horror, but spoof. The fact that Bruce Campbell was the leading actor is proof enough of that. This movie was basically unwatchable. (Horror? You got to be kidding me.)

Dawn Of The Dead was a great remake of a great film. I excluded it because of its status.

Shaun Of The Dead was a spoof. Come on. You are clutching at straws. (It was an enjoyable flick, however.)

Saw was ok. But nothing great.

The Devil's Rejects started out okay, but devolved into what I am complaining about as the topic of this thread.

The Land Of The Dead was decent enough. But this sub-genre has been getting stale, and this newest Romero flick offered nothing fresh, unlike the remake of DOTD.

Saw 2 was just ugly and gratuitous.

Hostel was awful and silly.

For the record, H.P. Lovecraft's Dagon was also a pretty good horror flick, if anyone is interested.

Now you're just being a curmudgeon.

I'm not going to address every film individually (though I'll hit on some at the bottom) since it's pretty obvious you're not going to let any arguement persuade you, but as a whole I think your main problem is that you have a very, very narrow definition of the word horror. What makes you the law as to what is and isn't horror?

If a film's main intent is to evoke a horrorific response in the viewer, irregardless of the means, it can be considered horror. There isn't a requisite of gore, scares or thrills before something is called horror. On top of that, there's no law anywhere that says genres have to be mutually exclusive; it is possible for a movie to be a drama, comedy, science fiction and horror all at the same time.

You can try and hide behind these modern terms like "psychological suspense" (what kind of bull**** is that?), but they're all just marketing words created to substitute for horror simply because horror is a tainted word. Filmmakers, and more importantly studio marketing departments, know that horror is a dirty word when it comes to trying to sell a movie to a more serious crowd. You're not classifying things into genres, you're classifying them by buzzwords. Not to mention it's pretentious as hell.

Se7en - In less than a dozen words you were able to deftly defy what the movie truly is, and to that I give you props. Psychological? What is psychological about Se7en? It has to do with the human psyche, but there's little psychological to the filmmaking or narrative. It is a sociological examination of how society constructs social problems. I see zero resemblance between what Fincher did with Se7en and anything Tarantino has EVER done.

Scream - Just because the movie examines the mechanics of the slasher film while itself being a slasher movie doesn't make it any less serious. It gets remembered as a joke of a movie that was just riffing on the genre, which is bull****. Scream is possibly the biggest breath of fresh air the genre got during the '90s. It's a pity people forget how shocking and original it was when it came out, thanks wholly to the myriad of films which have impersonated it since.

From Dusk Til Dawn, Blade - You've got to be kidding me with the things you're calling 'not horror'. A movie based on a horror comic book isn't a horror movie? That's just stupid.

The Sixth Sense - Again with the psychological suspense buzzword bull****. 'Psychological' isn't a genre.

One Hour Photo - Just because it's tame as far as the genre's shock standards go doesn't make it any less horrorific. Plus, you've just broken out that suspense buzzword once again. Suspense isn't a genre.

House of 1000 Corpses - Not horror? What movie were you watching? Midnight cult flick's can't be horror?

Bubba Ho-Tep - This is the only thing on the list which is argueably not horror, because it really isn't horrorific at all. However, given it's roots in the monster mythos that made up decades worth of early horror films, it certainly deserves to walk in the genre. "The fact that Bruce Campbell was the leading actor is proof enough of that." What the ****? I'm sure you're just going to tout that same chorus, but the Evil Dead films are horror. In fact, they're some of the slickest and most energetic horror films ever made.

Dawn of the Dead 2004 - A remake that bares nothing but setting and title to its source material. However, even if it was a frame for frame remake, that doesn't make it any less great, any less entertaining, or any less of a horror movie.

Shaun of the Dead - May be comedic, but that doesn't mean it is any less shocking or horrorific. At the least it's a shining example of how horror has evolved since Scream first introduced the idea of smart horror movies that examine themselves on screen. Hell, the make up effects and Dawn inspired gut ripping sequence are more gore-tastic than anything in 28 Days Later. A movie isn't disqualified from the genre simply because it has laughs.

There's nothing wrong with the horror genre. It's the same it's been for decades. Lots and lots of mediocre stuff and even more crap interspersed with some gems. The only thing wrong is your definition of what is horror.

i agree with most of what the topic starter said about modern horror films, the genre itself is dying a painful death. here are some horror films i recommend that you may or may not have seen:

the descent - heart attack worthy,amazing
the changeling- a 1979 psychological horror that was sadly ignored. excellent stuff
jacobs ladder- technically not a horror but its got its really disturbing moments in it
mothman prophecies- amazing psychological horror,it isnt cheesy either
the eye- a bit like mothman, but its japanese and its much more 'in your face' horror

It's actually Korean, but they all look the same, right? :(

Oh my god, how can you give anything a chance? Listen, I understood what you said about horror being a little more lackluster these days, but I was a big fan of the Scream movies, particularly 1 & 2. 3 wasn't so great, I was expecting something darker.

It's like every decade some people totally bash horror. When I was 13 and got AOL, I used to post in the horror movie boards, and this was around the time Scream came out. A lot of people loved it, including myself, but there were a few of these boobahs who were like, "Oh, this sucks! Oh, just watch Suspiria! Oh, bring back real horror!" It got so bad that I used to fight with them and one ***hole thought he could get rid of me so he reported me to AOL when I wrote "****" in a post and my account got deactivated! These people were totally nuts and utterly pretentious. I remember the biotch who reported me was named Obsidian something. I think he was gay too because his AOL profile said he was interested in "queer theory". I giggle at that now... my queer theory is that he sucked!

See, these people make me so mad and I have a razor sharp memory and I won't forget one of you!

No problem, I'm just a dick who points things like that out. :p

well, May makes three. in my top ten list, but that's just me. although it would perfectly fit in your "psychological genre"...

some of the worst horrors ive ever seen are :(in order of which ones i hated most)

THE CAVE - terrible terrible unconvincing acting, stupid plot, UTTERLY stupid cave beasts(i dont care how much these things are supposed to have evolved from human beings,beasts should NEVER have tattoos)over the top special effects and completely emotionless

dreamcatcher- i cant stress it enough,never ever ever watch this film,im telling you.disgusting stephen king film.

deathwatch- god,give me a break! there wasn't ONE moment through that whole movie that even made me flinch with fear.terrible terrible plot

ghost ship- cant remember much about it but i remembered i was bored to death and it wasnt scary

cabin fever - has already been mentioned in this thread. it had some jumpy moments at least,but still pathetic.

urban legend - was quite scary at times but it just wasnt a good film,total scream rip off

cant think of any more right now

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:

The teenagers, and modern cinema fans who actually do watch horror movies, have seen everything done. Over and over. When there were original elements, they were milked to death, as OG mentioned when he listed off just how many sequels to any relatively good film there were (and the hundreds of ****ty ones).

If there were any originality left in the genre, then we would not see retreads in the same old crap. Every ounce of originality squeezed out never gets realized to its full potential. And then to try and make up for it, they give us 800 sequels. The genre is being beaten like a dead hore. The more remakes and sequels we get, the more heavily it gets beaten.

If there were any ground left to be tread, then the movies would be hot pressed and promoted like they were millions of times better than any great horror movie ever made. Until that moment comes, I'm going to stick to my claim that the genre is dead or dying.

Of course, it doesn't mean that no one can still attempt and enjoy anything in the genre. It's just that the whole thing is a crap shoot that no one can really win with.

I just got back from Silent Hill and I have to say that, while changing the genre any time soon, it was definitly one of the better horror movies to come out in the last decade or so. Some may argue that it's because of the source material, I'd agree with that, but it's still an enoyable experience.

Look at what's come to our cinema in the last couple of years....REMAKES. Whether it's from old school directors (Romero/Craven) or movies from overseas (Grudge/The Ring) you have to admit that the horror genre is grabbing at straws. For ideas anyway, how it's presented will make or break the film. Dawn of the Dead (2004) did a good job at being a remake and being a film on it's own. Let's hope the upcoming evil dead can do the same, though I have my doubts.

Let's hope that one day some new guy can come along and make a film that we've never seen before, instead of trying to get us "shocked" (hostel), because frankly, it doesn't work anymore.


But why attack horror?? Because it follows a formula, well then what about some action movies? Have you seen any good ones lately?

You missed my point entirely. It wasn't that sequels kill originality, it was simply that this is always how the studio system has operated. Always. You have to sit through countless crap until you get the gems. It's simple math. It's no sign that the genre is dead or dying. If it was, the genre has been dying for over 26 years. That's one long ass "death"...

There are still very, very original horror films coming out. And even if a film is a sequel or a remake, it doesn't mean it's automatically bad. The Hills Have Eyes is the most vicious and visceral horror film in a decade. The Dawn of the Dead remake is straight horror and has helluva lot more horror credentials than anyone could have predicted. Those are just two fantastic studio films. And if I have to wade through miles of crap just for a gem like Hills, I will.

And then you get into the really refreshing indie/foreign stuff like The Descent (which I personally didn't go ape**** for, but a LOT of people have), May, Dead End, The Last Horror Movie, Creep, The Eye, Audition, The Ordeal, Shutter, Dumplings.

One final time: Horror is not dead. Your patience is. Don't blame the genre because you can't be bothered to appreciate the good stuff and only judge it based on the market driven PG-13 fluff.

And on a sidenote, are you (or anyone) really that offended by the flood of remakes? Are the originals really that holy to you that you think it's so revolting if they're ever touched? Quit jumping on the bandwagon.

Don't put Dumplings in the list.

To the "An American Haunting" remark....it's PG-13, so I'm skipping it.

I'm not saying remakes get the stake in the heart because the're remakes. I'm interested in seeing Pulse, even though it was a Japanese horror film prior. I give all remakes a chance...unless it Psycho. :p

Avoid films that have a list actors, from a major studio...so on and so fourth???? I'm sorry, but there is a lot more crap from indie horror films then mainstream. I only have to say one word....CARNIVORE (Worst...Movie...Ever)

I'd like to see a flick take an old and use genre in the horror field and renew it. Much like Ginger Snaps and Dog Soldiers did with the werewolf flicks.

(Ive got to say it) Just because you have been writing for four years doesnt mean your any good at it or judging it! and judging by your inability to use any words in something that resembles english grammer, I'd say your more of a tinker.

Dont even go there....idiot. TIP: Dont be a smartass to people who have provern themselves to be worthy contributors to the site.

I dont even know what that means...and we arent supose to 'abuse' the newbies?????, COME ON!! this is a classic example of a idiot, the worst kind of idiot as well! the kind of moron that feels compelled to speak! My gentle advise is to SHUT UP, but thats just my opinion :):(;):D:goof::rotfl: :rolleyes:

All the boofhead above aside...

I feel that horror has been on the decline for the past decade simply because even though the tech. exists to create truely disturbing creatures and thrilling sounds and events. There are still laws against what can and cant be viewed. Even your R18+ movies are still very limited in what can be released (sue to that wonderful censorship). I guess a writer may have a truely gorey and nightmarish situation and may be able to express this idea through a screenplay...but the approval by the law (and director for that matter) is still a problem. Im sure there are some disturbing horror's out there on the "black market" but trying to find the balence of scaring the crap out of the audience and not scarring them for life is still a formula thats to be created...

Horror today really doesnt exist for me, the films rated as horror for me personally have become thriller's at best and boring at worst.

Im Naisy and that was my two cents (please note I didnt read much of what was said before me so if im WAAAYYY off track dont tell me I'd rather like to think I didnt say something stupid and actually contributed something worthy :eek: )

-OG, Taxi Driver, Holden, and Sexy, I agree with you all

I will say this much. No horror film, or any film can be truly defined as good or bad. Every hit will always be criticized by people, and every financial flop will still have a fan-base that adores it. Quality is truly just a popularity contest. No film will ever get 100% or 0% of an audience.

The horror genre is the same as it has always been...that could be good or bad according to your taste. It is just that the audience gets jaded. Once you have seen enough horror films you get kind of immune to their charms/shocks etc. Perhaps it is because production gets slicker in films like Final Destination, further away from the grainy nastiness of TCM or Night of the Living Dead...but then you get stuff like Blair Witch Project (although personally I didn't think it was all that) which is about as low budget as it gets. Horror isn't dead, it's just mutating...

No, I'm not offended. And yes, there are some remakes that are better than others. But then, there are a lot that are not that great either. But yes, they also owe a lot to the source material, which like you said, are not always as good as they are claimed to be. But on the other hand, there are still many original films are superior to their remakes (the Dawn of the Dead remake is nowhere near as good as the original).

I'm just saying that horror seems to repeat more of the ideas then any other genre (other than buddy comedy). It is a bad thing, and yes, I know that's how the system works. But while a lot of other genres are attempting to spice things up, you never see as many other genre films that are the same or very similar, in one year, than you would a horror movie.

I still enjoy watching horror films, and I will watch the likes of the Hills Have Eyes remake, but to me, the horror genre is slowly dying out. It's dripping for good ideas moreso than any other genre.

So it maybe the case that horror films are repeating themselves but that does not necassarily mean they are going to be crap. A well used plot can be tweaked into something special.

Horror is merely experimenting with variations of those previously used themes. Ringu set a new precident and that has not been out long, there are great horror films coming out its just that the money making machines behind the film industry are saturating the market with ideas they know are going to bring in the bucks leaving undiscovered gems lying in the dust.

so far, in my point of view, nobody has captured the real essence of a horror movie genre since the '70s..George Romero's zombies haven't been better and those japanese horror flicks (some of em) are quite good..the best horror movie for me is The Ring, that darn sadako/samara spooked the hell outta me..the earth needs a good horror movie director for horror's sake..

Oh, God, maybe the horror genre really is dying. Blair Witch was 1999, Texas Chainsaw Remake Massacre was 2003. Noooo... Blair Witch didn't need to end like 03's Chainsaw, 'cause I didn't like it.

A good horror film, at least IMO, must have an element of mystery to make it stand out above the rest. Horror can be mixed with all other kinds of films and it usually is: love/horror, scifi/horror, etc... but a real horror film does not let anything else get in the way. Mystery however should place a good close 2nd. I tend to find movies that overdo the gore are actually gore films and not horror films. To me there is a difference. Not that there is anything wrong with gore films per se, but when I see horror I want to be shocked and scared not disgusted and ill. Gore has its place in horror, but when all it is is gore then it just stops being horror to me. I do not think the genre will ever die and we will see new horror movies come out every year. It is not just horror though, it seems to be the whole industry. Comedy seems to be lacking lately also.

I think that Hollywood has replaced fear and suspense with gore and shock, and that doesn't work entirely.

A little review for this thread... I just watched Wolf Creek last night and I cannot recommend it. I'm not against the sadistic violence it showed, which wasn't that bad compared to what I imagined, but the whole movie was just boring. I almost turned it off/went to bed. Thank God I rented it and didn't purchase it. Beautiful cinematography showing Australia, but that's it. That's the only best thing about it, for me. I don't think I could ever watch it again. Many people hate Hostel, but I think this is worse. I want to see The Devil's Rejects sometime soon, actually. I didn't like House of 1000 Corpses, but this one got better reviews. I should have rented that instead. But anyways, avoid Wolf Creek.

There's good and bad within any genre...you just have to look hard enough.

How many great horrors have people missed seeing? How many people have seen Black Christmas, Stagefright, Lighthouse, Session 9....

You may have to search a bit harder, but I promise there are great horrors to be seen.

Wolf Creek was quite a bit boring I agree. Not too much mystery either. Like S.C, says avoid it. The only thing that was even remotely entertaining was the head on a stick scene, but then it was over and I was bored again.

If anyone thinks that the Blair Witch Project is original, then you better check out some older horror movies. ;)

The Blair Witch Project is a very original movie. Cannibal Holocaust may have dabbled in the idea of blending documentary footage with real footage and questioning whether it is right for the civilized world to crave such extreme imagery, and this blending was certainly an influence on Blair Witch, but they're still two very different films.

Maybe I'm ignorant to some other movies here, but name some other films which have used the internet and word of mouth to alter the psyche of the viewer in such a profound way. Or name some other movies which consist ONLY of "documentary" style footage shot with such chaos and horror. Or any other movie with an all amateur cast that truly delivers performances which are arguably the most believable the genre had seen in years.

If you want to argue chronology, yes Cannibal Holocaust was first with the idea of "recovered" footage, but past that the two have nothing in common.

Well, no.1-horror is cheap to make (sorry but it just is), no.2-the acting isn't that hard (because really how hard is it to live, possible have intercourse, then die)

With these two things in mind, all a horror movie needs is a good script, plot, and a little originality...this is an opinion of course and I am hoping for comments.

What about The Last Broadcast? I haven't actually seen it, but fans often make comparisons between the two.

Anyway, I am one of many who thinks that horror is dead. Or at least, the certain kind of horror that I like is dead - which is the psychological, atmospheric kind. Horror has actually been revived recently with films like House of 1000 Corpses, Switchblade Romance, Hostel and Wolf Creek - homages to the sleazy grindhouse type flicks of the 70s, such as Last House on the Left, The Hills Have Eyes and Texas Chainsaw Massacre (and, predictably, two of those have all ready been remade). Personally, I'm not a fan of those sort of films. Many love the fact that they are so disturbing and raw, but in my opinion, they are quite unimaginative and it takes real talent to scare the audience when very little is happening.:)

Not that I hate gore, by the way. I do love comedy-horror, like Evil Dead 2 and Re-Animator, which was why I was looking forward to Slither (unfortunately, I found that too cliched and predictable. Come on, I've seen someone get sliced in half and slowly fall to pieces loads of times! What happened to the outrageously inventive stuff like flying eyeballs?)

I think that the last decent horrors I saw was 28 Days Later and Ginger Snaps.

Please dont tell me you think Ginger Snaps rates? Why? Eye-candy cant be a reason.

It's not the horror genre that is dying, but rather originality in the film industry. for example "the ring". Based on the japanese "ringu", which also spawned "ju-on" and in turn was remade as "the grudge". Four movies that stem from the same concept. and as if that weren't enough, we get "the ring 2" and the upcoming "the grudge 2". all we need is for someone to come up with a new idea rather than regurgitating what has already been done.

After that all I want is a cast suited to the movie. cast unknowns if you have to but watching Tara Reid play the part of a scientist in "alone in the dark" was not unlike watching a dog humping at slipper. Good for a giggle at first until you realise how truly wrong it is.

I hate most of the new "Horror" movies. Most of them seem pointless with stupid titles. They all do the same thing,they try to scare you by showing nothing. I like movies that are original with a point in it.

Originally Posted by Karl Childers:

The Devil's Rejects Started off surprisingly entertaining but got mired in its own ugliness.

My Reply:

I do not believe you can call The Devil's Rejects simply a horror film. It falls into just about every genre. It is scary. It's funny. It's a dramatic and heartbreaking character study of these three individuals and the twisted yet pure and loving bond that holds them together, and as this type of film, it succeeds and proved to be the best film of last year and my favorite film of all time.

More accurately, The Devil's Rejects falls in that universal, multi-media genre known as "total crap" (which it shares, interestingly enough, with everything else Rob Zombie has ever had anything to do with in his long and rather putrid career).

1. I can't tell whether your bashing these films or crediting them.

2. The term "Psychological Suspense" is not bulls**t at all, or modern. While you tell everyone not to hide behind the term and basically telling them they are blind, you are too blind to see that "Psychological Suspense" is not bulls**t at all, only now because it is lost in greed for money. Psychological Suspense used to be, atleast, a very real description for yester-year's old classic horror flicks that were so innovative for their time for involving psychological suspense. For a more recent film, look at Jacob's Ladder.

3. And yes, infact, the horror genre has changed, alot and for the worse. Decades and decades ago, the genre had lots of gems and little mediocre stuff interspersed with it. Now horror flicks are only made for money because crappy horror movies are what atrracts teenagers which attracts boatloads of cash.

Why waste lots of time and effort to make an innovative and brilliant horror film that won't gross as much money when you can just save your effort and time and make a crappy horror flick that will gross 3 more times the amount?

Well, you either love it, or you hate it. There is no in between with this film. Concerning Rob Zombie though, I think you are completely wrong. I believe he evolved so much between House of 1000 Corpses and The Devil's Rejects and that he will continue to do so, bringing us more quality films from different genres. I know that there is no convincing you of that. You seem pretty content with your opinion of his work, but that's fine. To each his own...

Do people even read the words I type?

1. I thought it was pretty clear that I was defending each and every one of those films as good genre flicks of the last few years. And were you to read the few posts prior, you would realize that each of those films was pulled from a list of good horror films from the last 10 years.

2. The words "Psychological Suspense" are most certainly marketing buzzword bull****. I've said time and time again that genres are not exhaustive and they are not mutually exclusive. Apparently that needs some explanation. Movies can have more than one defining attribute, and the presence of multiple attributes does not mean they can no longer fall under the horror genre.

The crux of a film's style and script may be psychologically damaging, or suspenseful, but how this doesn't make them horror films is beyond logic. The only reason I ever even fought these stupid words is because Karl was implying that any film that can be labelled by these words somehow is no longer a horror film - which is just plain stupid.

3. No. No. No. The horror genre has not changed one ****ing bit. Decades and decades ago it was still the same ****ing thing. Decades and Decades ago? I've already detailed how the trend happened rampantly in the 80s, and that was over two decades ago. Do you want me to go back even farther?

Let's go back three iterations to the '70s. Lemme know how many of these horror movies you've seen, you remember, or that you think are these golden era classics people keep eluding back to:

The House that Dripped Blood
The Wizard of Gore
The Wicker Man
Dr. Jekyll and Sister Hyde
I Drink Your Blood
Willard
Blacula
The Texas Chainsaw Massacre
Frogs
Jaws
The Last House on the Left
The Exorcist
Flesh for Frankenstein
Black Christmas
It's Alive!
Vampyres
Dawn of the Dead
Piranha
The Driller Killer
Jaws 2
When a Stranger Calls
Day of the Woman
The Car
Killdozer

I'm sure you can pick out the gems, like The Exorcist, Texas Chainsaw, Jaws, Black Christmas, Dawn of the Dead etc, but do you see how just from an almost entirely random sampling of films from the 70s, how many stand the test of time? How many are dreadfully campy or just plain bad? How many are exploitation shockers?

I'm the only person in this thread who actually bothers to cite films, so unless you want to prove me wrong by providing empirical evidence that there was some golden age of horror, decades and decades ago, in which no two productions were alike and that every other horror movie coming out was a thoughtful, innovative, briliant, impactful or long lasting production, you need to get over your selective memory and admit the genre doesn't change.

"Selective Memory..." Wow, you really know who I am.

On average, 3 horror movies are released a month. On average, all three suck. That wasn't the case decades ago...

That wasn't the case for ANY genre decades ago, but it's the case for EVERY genre now. How can you single this out as some kind of fault of the horror genre and not any others?

You are totally right. This is the very same case for every genre nowadays. But, all humor aside, weren't we talking about the horror genre?

We are talking about the horror genre, but I still think it's silly to try and use this as the sole point of an arguement, when it's not an arguement against the genre, but rather the entire film industry.

But irregardless, the quantity of movies being produced is higher, but the proportion of good to bad is always the same, and is always skewed heavily towards bad - just because there is more of it, doesn't mean the trend has changed at all.

I understand what you just said; "just because there is more of it, doesn't mean the trend has changed at all."

But I still think, if now we are talking about the industry as a whole, that the trend has changed. Look at most 100 or 50 Greatest Movie Lists compiled by magazines, film schools or critics, and 80-90 percent of the films on the list are from the 20s to the 70s. Doesn't that say something? That in the past two decades, movies have sucked in general.

In the last two decades, a shockingly low number of films produced were amazing. All the brilliance, excellence, innovation, and art of film has been lost. The proportion of good to bad has changed dramatically. Yes, I can name a few films that are amazing from those two decaded. But only a few.

Lists are entirely arbitrary, and given the nature of film and film critics, it's practically an unforgiveable sin to not list the classics. The bet couldn't be settled for another thirty years, but if you were to look at a top 100 list then, I guarantee it will include a large chunk of films from the 70s to the 2010s, but would include very little from 2010-2030. It's just the way the process works.

Also, the majority of critics who contribute to the lists have a tendency to favor the films they grew up with. As the new crop of critics is merged in, they'll be more prone to favor films from their generation. There will always be timeless films that transcend all generations, but to say that films, as a whole, have taken such a sharp dive in quality is a little unfounded, I think. At least on the basis of top 100 lists.

Hell, just one small example of this would be how many critics despised Eyes Wide Shut when it came out, and that was less than a decade ago. Now it pulls great weight in lists. Time changes taste.

If you want a good example of this, take a look at the imdb top 100, which I think reflects more of the popular (though not necessairly better) trend of how tastes are going. By just a quick count 47 or so of the top 100 are from the last 25 years. That's a pretty solid share...

Of course, critics are some of the most sinful, greedy, corrupted people on earth. BUT nevertheless, it is in plain view and blatant that film is nowhere near as good as it once was.

The trend of film has changed dramtically. I'm just gonna say it now; movies suck these days! Compare the amount of great films from yesterday to the amount of great films today! The industry today has a damn hard time producing something as good as The Godfather, Sunset Boulevard, Some Like It Hot, Best Years of Our Lives, Psycho, Casablanca, Citizen Kane, On the Waterfront, or North By Northwest.

C'mon! It's right there for you. I can't think of more than around 5 movies from the 80s or 90s that can be compared to the ones I listed. Now We have to find excuses for great films and our standards have lowered drastically.

There are several factors at work here:

1. It is far, far easier to make and distribute (in some fashion) a film than ever before, so there are simply a lot more films being released (and seen). And a lot of them are bound to be crap.

2. The DVD market and the internet have fundamentally changed the financial equation. It is now quite possible to make money with a box office bomb. The end result is a lot of films get funded that never would have seen the light of day in the box office only era. And again, the odds are that a lot of those are going to be crap.

3. The in-the-theaters demographic has shifted. What used to represent a broad spectrum of society is now, particularly in the US, an audience that is much younger and much less educated than the population as a whole. Not suprisingly, the studios increasingly target their films to the young and the stupid...which is perhaps not the best way to ensure quality works of outstanding merit.

All of this is, of course, even more true of genre film, and especially horror (which always had an especially young, male, and blue collar audience).

The industry, ie. the Hollywood system, may not churn out greats with regularity, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. As for truly fantastic films from the 80s or 90s...

Do The Right Thing, Goodfellas, JFK, Eyes Wide Shut, Blade Runner, The Shawshank Redemtion, City of God, Mullholland Drive, Requiem for a Dream, Raging Bull, Cinema Paradiso, Fargo, Miller's Crossing

All amazing films, all from the 80s and 90s... :-\

Darn, Pund, you just made my point for me: that, since the advent of VCRs and the cheap distribution of films into the home, filmmakers no longer have to rely on box office receipts alone to make their money. They often can lose money at the box office and break even or do well with videos and DVDs (rentals and sales) later. These also can be ongoing, unlike the box office life of that film.

That kind of change in viewing habits alone, I think, changes filmmaking from top to bottom. And, we'll never go back to how selective things used to be, now that we have the omnipresent "Straight To Video!" phenomenon.

Carry on.

Give me a break. The movies you just listed are amazing to today's standards, but none of the movies you listed can be compared to The Godfather, Casablanca, On the Waterfront, Sunset Boulevard, or Psycho.

Welp, we're just gonna have to be inflexible here, because I'll personally take Blade Runner over The Godfather, or Eyes Wide Shut over Psycho any day of the week.

That isn't to say the films you're listing are bad films, but if we're trying to rank things here, that's just my preference...

I love Blade Runner, and honestly, there are better movies out there but I would probaly rahter watch Blade Runner instead. And don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the films you listed are bad either...

The films you have listed are nine of the most recognized, most heralded films ever made. It's a tall order, but I don't think film is as dead as you say it is. Consider the following films from the 80s and beyond:

Unforgiven, Raging Bull, Eyes Wide Shut, Blade Runner, Miller's Crossing, Goodfellas, The Player, The Thin Red Line, Short Cuts, Cidade De Deus, Mulholland Drive, Raiders of the Lost Ark, LA Confidential....

The above films weren't as groundbreaking as the films you listed, but the medium has been around much longer now, so breakthroughs in technique and style will be less frequent these days. The above films represent what I love about film at least as much as the classics you mentioned. They are as indelible as stuff like Rear Window, Vertigo, The Godfather, The Treasure of the Sierra Madre, and other classics I love.

That said... The 40-70s is my favorite era for film, so I sort of agree to a point that that era holds a lot of the best cinema ever created. Still, I love many films from the 80s, 90s and this decade, as well.... The medium is far from dead, and I am off to watch a film. :)

Don't forget Rain Man and Schindler's List:D...

I don't know what people see in Schindler's List as a film, it is, to my mind, the supreme example of modern cinematic propaganda and little else.

Wow, this has been quite a heated discussion. It all comes down to this. Times and people change, with that so does film. While it is true that there is much more crap being released every weekend, there is also a great amount of very high quality work out there. You just have to keep your eyes open. Personally, I feel that the best work right now is the stuff that only gets a limited release. So far this year movies like Thank You For Smoking and Hard Candy have come along and are fresh and stylish and really powerful in their own way. Last year, noir films had great success with Sin City and Kiss Kiss Bang Bang. Films like Crash, Capote, Munich, A History of Violence, and wonderful biopics like Ray, Walk the Line, Man on the Moon, The People vs. Larry Flynt, Capote. Comedies like Anchorman, Wedding Crashers, The American Pie Trilogy, The Austin Powers films. These are just a handful of the movies that have captivated me over the last few years, some of them as much as the classics of yesteryear that have been mentioned in this thread. Film is as alive now as it was then, it is just in hiding and it is left up to us to discover it. As long as there are writers, directors, and people with passion and vision who want to make films out there, we will continue to see quality work produced, and these are the people who recognize the true roots of what they do and want to preserve it. As long as they exist, the spirit will remain alive.

The Blair Witch Project is not as original as you claim it to be. I'm talking about the film itself, not it's marketing campaign, which was brilliant and truly original.

What's destroying the horror genre? Remakes. Plain and Simple.

Let's take a look at what the horror genre has offered us over the past few years and years to come.

The Ring (Remake)
The Grudge (Remake)
TCM (Remake)
Hills Have Eyes (Remake)
Dawn of the Dead (Remake)
The Omen (Remake)
When A Stranger Calls (Remake)
ETC
ETC

Seriously, am I typing in invisible ink or something? How can you possibly say remakes are killing the genre, when just from that small sampling above, the actual number of remakes are tiny drops in the bucket?

couldn't tell you cuase I probably haven't watched a horror film in over a year.

Wow, funny how you forget to mention some films in those years.

I wasn't talking about the last TEN years. Try 2 or 3.

Finally, why the hell is The Devil's Advocate in there? That is not horror. As well as Hard Candy. :rolleyes: