[Souflay123]

Okay, so I just got back from seeing the 4th installment of the Saw series. The first three were pretty good, yes they are filled with frightful feast of gore and killings... like most horror genre movies. But I have to say, if you are going to see a horror film for this halloween season, go see saw 4. I thought it was really good, my boyfriend, and his friend from MO before the movie was released we were all saying it was pointless (must see first three to understand). It gives allot of back story behind the first three, and is overall very well done. All fellow ANians you should go see it, and comment on what ya think

[chucker]

Wake me up when horror movies actually get made by directors with brains again.

[Koodari]

Originally Posted by chucker Wake me up when horror movies actually get made by directors with brains again.

Example of horror movie directed by a person with a brain?

[chucker]

Originally Posted by Koodari Example of horror movie directed by a person with a brain?

Anything by Hitchcock, I suppose.

Eli Roth films seem to focus on finding new lows in dumbness and absurdness.

[turbulentfurball]

If by absurdness you mean unfettered gore and gratuitous blood, then I agree wholeheartedly. However, I'm undecided whether or not that's a good thing. Heh

[Dave]

My roommate's view is that modern horror movies aren't scary, just startling. Having never seen any of the Saw movies, I can't comment on whether or not this is true of the series.

[cosus]

Night of the Living Dead, 28 Days Later... all good.

But torture flicks? I can't even imagine watching them on a moral level.

Secretly the Saw series is a ploy by the bush administration to desensitize the populous so he can finally say "torture is s good thing."

[Koodari]

Dave: there is startling (as in, startling you out of your seat), then there is the kind of scary where you worry that something bad is about to happen, and then there is grueling horror where you squirm worrying about how much worse things can get.

Teen horror movies are built around startling. The Others is scary, and Saw belongs into the last category.

I'm not a Saw fan really but I have watched the first three. Unlike something like Roth's Hostel which basically presents one vision or tableau without any compelling turn in the plot, Saw's plot stays relatively unpredictable and keeps attention up that way throughout the series. Saw doesn't startle or scare at all basically. It intrigues and revolts. I don't think they are bad movies as such. The concept is original and it's reasonably well executed.

I liked 28 Days Later. Zombie movies are pretty much a distinct style of movie and seem to usually have motivations beyond these archetypes of horror.

For startling and scary, I'd recommend Ju-On. I don't usually value startling movies highly, but for me this is incredibly scary in addition to startling.
For scary and grueling: Audition, Descent.
Scary and creepy: The Others, The Exorcist, May.
And some random: Nosferatu, Deep Red, Suspiria, Shaun of the Dead.

Also, with horror movies it's imperative to plant your butt in a theater seat or at least see that you can watch in the dark and uninterrupted if at home. You only get the first shock once, don't dilute it. Small picture, bad sound -> no immersion. Breaks are the worst. A little relaxation can dissolve a huge stockpile of terror the movie carefully built in the preceding half an hour, and after you continue watching and the movie is out of tune with your state, it might not be scary at all.

[Souflay123]

Originally Posted by cosus Night of the Living Dead, 28 Days Later... all good. But torture flicks? I can't even imagine watching them on a moral level. Secretly the Saw series is a ploy by the bush administration to desensitize the populous so he can finally say "torture is s good thing."

But this is a classic example of people not seeing the larger picture, under all the bad he has a good intention. He wants people to value there lives, and their family. This, the 4th one, explains why he wants to try to make society better. It kinda is endorsing torture for the better good. All of the "games" that he plays are winnable if you follow the rules of them, the times where people die, and the major gore happens is when people follow their human nature and break the rules when is this situation of being forced to change. For someone to disagree with it on a moral level you are contending that change is a bad thing when it comes to evil human nature. It is a movie that makes you think, if you have a brain, that is why i kinda enjoyed these series of horror flicks, b/c unlike other horror series this actually underneath all the blood has a good "intentions", all he wants is for you to cherish your life.

[Kickaha]

Murderers of abortion doctors have 'good intentions' as well.

Doesn't make me want to have dinner with them.

I'm a gore hound, but I won't watch this genre.

What actually bugs me is an argument like yours, Souflay123... "Oh, you're just not seeing the *big picture*... if you were *intelligent enough*, you'd agree with me."

Sounds like justification for enjoying watching torture to me, and frighteningly similar to the most terrifying movements in history. "If only you were more pious/intelligent/aware/insightful/Aryan, you'd see that this is perfectly justified for the larger good."

Sorry, but bullshit.

The only thing a thinking, reasoning, human being needs to see is that this is a sham. There's nothing deep here, just self-delusion.

[Banana]

I was never big in such category myself. IMO, an example of a good horror movie would be Village of the Damned (remake with Christopher Reeves). There's probably better but I mention this movie because it shows that you don't need to have blood'n'gore to make it scary.

[cosus]

Originally Posted by Souflay123 But this is a classic example of people not seeing the larger picture, under all the bad he has a good intention. He wants people to value there lives, and their family. This, the 4th one, explains why he wants to try to make society better. It kinda is endorsing torture for the better good. All of the "games" that he plays are winnable if you follow the rules of them, the times where people die, and the major gore happens is when people follow their human nature and break the rules when is this situation of being forced to change. For someone to disagree with it on a moral level you are contending that change is a bad thing when it comes to evil human nature. It is a movie that makes you think, if you have a brain, that is why i kinda enjoyed these series of horror flicks, b/c unlike other horror series this actually underneath all the blood has a good "intentions", all he wants is for you to cherish your life.

It sounds more like a weak premise for a torture movie. It's like saying "doom" had a plot. No, the plot exists to facilitate the action, not the other way around.

Actually, the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre had very little gore.... just a lot of potentially smelly scenes.

[psmith2.0]

I'm not a big horror fan (I get scared). I've not seen any of the recent (past 10 years or so) horror stuff...the Eli Roth stuff, the various chainsaw and Halloween remakes and prequels, the "Saw" movies, and all that "Grudge", "Final Destination", "Skeleton Key", etc. stuff either.

They seem to come fast and furious, these days. Horror flicks big on shocks (and gore).

I like "The Exorcist" okay, but, over time, its effect has worn off a bit. Truthfully, having read the novel several times before ever seeing the movie, the movie never really got to me as much as it did others. The book, however, gave me nightmares and messed with me for years! Way more background, encounters with Regan/the demon, some really strange, unsettling scenes and dialogue, etc. that never made it from the book to the movie! If you want to get scared and experience a genuine chill, read that damn thing from cover to cover. William Peter Blatty is the author, and it's probably out there in some used bookstore...maybe even on iTunes audiobooks?



For my money, you'd be hard-pressed to top something like "Jaws" in terms of suspense, genuine thrills and for sticking with you for years and years (I still, at 38, won't go into the ocean much above my thighs...I just can't; when the water gets up to my tummy or chest, I have a minor wig-out and immediately work myself back toward the shore and shallower water...that's 100% "Jaws", and that's quite an enduring legacy...30-plus years later, and my swimming/water recreation habits are still affected). You can't say that about many other movies; Spielberg nailed it, IMO.



I did see a movie a few years ago with Richard Gere, about a moth guy or something, and it was genuinely creepy. Those "Grudge" movies, just from the trailers, looked like that might give me the willies, but I've never seen them.

[Kickaha]

I'm fine, unless I can't see through the water, for silt or darkness. Then I kind of hate it. Same reason, too. *Damn you Spielberg*

_Cube_ actually freaked my shit right out. OTOH, I find most splatter movies to be comedies, more than scary. I used to devour issues of Fangoria, and some of my favorite movie moments turn most people's stomachs... but movies like Saw? No thanks.

[turbulentfurball]

I'm about the right age for the target demographic for the second coming of the teen-slasher when that happened in the late 90s beginning with Scream. I really loved those movies at the time although looking at them now, most of them have lost their appeal. However, at the time I saw them all at the cinema and bought the DVDs: The Scream Trilogy, I Know what you did last summer, Final Destination, Urban Legends and more. They weren't exactly 'scary', but they certainly loved their 'jump from your seat in fright' moments. I do still love the original Scream film. It renewed the teen-slasher genre and the intentionally self-referential plot and dialogue were great.

I am still a big horror fan. The horror films I find genuinely scary are Japanese, or to a lesser extent, their American remakes; for example Ring, the Grudge and Audition.

I find it interesting reading other's perspectives on The Exorcist. I watched it on it's TV premiere which was a big deal at the time, since it was banned for so long. I guess I was desensitised to it, because I spent most of the film rolling about in tears of laughter. I thought seeing a young girl shout 'Your mother sucks cocks in HELL!!!1' was the funniest thing ever, and I still feel the same way. I'm not religious in the slightest, so maybe that's some part of my reaction to the film, but I didn't find it scary in any way whatsoever.

[psmith2.0]

It's creepy, but I find it even creepier in the scenes not featuring Regan. The clock stopping in Iraq, the news of Burke found at the bottom of the stairs below Regan's window with his neck broken/head turned around (hence the "do you know what she did, your ****ing daughter..." scene a bit later, during Regan's 180-degree head swivel, speaking in Burke's voice/accent)



The scenes of Father Karras and his mom in that facility (sad and eerie), the desecration of the statue at the chapel, the bum in the subway station ("could ya help an old altar boy, father?") which, again, Regan later parrots to further wig Karras out, the 2-3 subliminal flashes and oddball sound effects throughout, etc.

And I love when Regan screams Merrin's name when he arrives at the house. He's still downstairs and hasn't even met her, but you know, right then and there, there's a history/connection...these two - priest and demon - have met before. That's good stuff!



Most of the scenes with Regan are - at this point - familiar and not so shocking. But I always found the other parts, the overall movie itself, creepy. It was set during Halloween (kids trick-or-treating at the beginning), the cold wind and leaves blowing, the sky is always grey and gloomy, those damn stairs, Father Merrin standing face-to-face with that Pazuzu statue in Iraq (and realizing what was sure to come), etc.

It's a good movie. It gets too much talk and attention for the pea-soup vomiting, crucifix masturbation and head swiveling scenes, but those are, to me, just accents. The rest of it, to me, was just eerie and felt creepy and unsettling for some reason (that everyone in Georgetown was going about their business, while this little girl was in the throes of this possession in a house that anyone could walk or drive past, but never realized it...that always fascinated me).



As I said earlier, there are scenes and dialogue in the novel that didn't make it to the movie. I wish some of them did, because they're both terrifying and give so much more weight/foundation to the story. I hear that Friedkin filmed some of them, but they were not in the final cut. There is an enhanced edition I saw a few years ago, with some added footage, where Father Merrin and Karras sit on the stairs outside Regan's room, taking a break from the exorcism ritual, and they're discussing the nature of evil and suffering, and why this is happening, and why it's this little girl who did nothing to bring it on or deserve it. Father Merrin drops a little nugget of wisdom and insight that is really neat. It's in the book, and goes on for a bit and it's really beautiful writing and dialogue. They put a bit of that in this restored version, and it helps what makes follow seem even "bigger"...the death of Merrin, and the sacrifice Karras ultimately makes, just rings heavier to me, having heard that discussion between the two priests, the old, experienced one, and the younger one, struggling with his faith.

Little things like that makes it a better-than-average movie, IMO.

[Foj]

I've seen the EXORCIST ABOUT A HUNDRED AND SIXTY-SEVEN TIMES, AND IT KEEPS GETTING FUNNIER EVERY SINGLE TIME I SEE IT...

[spotcatbug]

Originally Posted by Koodari Example of horror movie directed by a person with a brain?

Seriously?

How about The Thing? That's just the first one that popped into my head.