What Are The Things You Dislike most about Modern Horror Movies ?

[BAYLOR]

I think that stupid (or at least foolish) characters are pretty much a requirement for a horror movie. But the thing with horror is there are so many kinds. For some, just having lots of blood and gore is enough, for others they want to see a horrible looking ghost or monster, and for others (like myself) the unknown, or the thing hiding in the shadows is far more terrifying than anything a film producer could put on screen. Having said that the creatures with no faces in 'Sapphire and Steel' scared the life out of me as a kid (and as an adult too) !

The Very first Halloween Film was pretty good in terms of being scary. Unfortunately , it spawned sequels and copy cat franchises that were unscary and terrible .

Friday the 13th( The Saga of Jason Voorhees) begs the question of why teenagers keep returning to to Camp Crystal Lake.

 

[paranoid marvin]

The Very first Halloween Film was pretty good in terms of being scary. Unfortunately , it spawned sequels and copy cat franchises that were unscary and terrible .

Friday the 13th( The Saga of Jason Voorhees) begs the question of why teenagers keep returning to to Camp Crystal Lake.

Halloween II was still pretty good (starting exactly where Halloween finished). Halloween III tried something different which I thought was very good, but should never have been released as part of the 'Halloween' franchise.

A Nightmare on Elm Street did something similar. Extremely good, and quite frightening, first movie followed by a series of comedic and self-parodying sequels. The first one still holds up very well today.

 

[BAYLOR]

Halloween II was still pretty good (starting exactly where Halloween finished). Halloween III tried something different which I thought was very good, but should never have been released as part of the 'Halloween' franchise.

Halloween II wasn't bad. Halloween III Cpapenter tried to sent the series in whole new direction , The script for the film was original written by Nigel Kneale but , Carpenter wasn't satisfied with the script that Kneale wrote and made changes which caused Kneale to take his name of the script. The film we got wasn't great but it had potential . I often wondered how much better the film would have been like if had they not changed Kneale's script at all.

A Nightmare on Elm Street did something similar. Extremely good, and quite frightening, first movie followed by a series of comedic and self-parodying sequels. The first one still holds up very well today.

Yes, Craven series of films were fun. Other film by him that I liked was Deadly Friend and The Serpent and the Rainbow


I do have a bit of a soft spot for Freddy vs Jason We vert neatly got a sequel to that Freddy vs Jason Vs Ash ( it did become a comic book )


Then there the Evil Dead films with Bruce Campbell who played ash in three films and the television series My favorite of that series is Army of Darkness its got everything !

 

[CrazyKB]

I think that stupid (or at least foolish) characters are pretty much a requirement for a horror movie. But the thing with horror is there are so many kinds. For some, just having lots of blood and gore is enough, for others they want to see a horrible looking ghost or monster, and for others (like myself) the unknown, or the thing hiding in the shadows is far more terrifying than anything a film producer could put on screen. Having said that the creatures with no faces in 'Sapphire and Steel' scared the life out of me as a kid (and as an adult too) !

I disagree that stupid characters are necessary to move the plot along, however that's usually the case. For example, Alien used a clever (at this point cliché) plot device to get the alien on board, as opposed to subsequent films (Prometheus and covenant) that used dumb as fu.. idiots (who deserved to die). I agree, what's not on screen can be more terrifying, assuming you don't mind using your imagination (which leaves out most modern audiences). However, the Xenomorph of Alien is the exception, Giger created a truly terrifying creature, both in its surrealistic nature and sexual overtones (rape).

 

[paranoid marvin]

I disagree that stupid characters are necessary to move the plot along, however that's usually the case. For example, Alien used a clever (at this point cliché) plot device to get the alien on board, as opposed to subsequent films (Prometheus and covenant) that used dumb as fu.. idiots (who deserved to die). I agree, what's not on screen can be more terrifying, assuming you don't mind using your imagination (which leaves out most modern audiences). However, the Xenomorph of Alien is the exception, Giger created a truly terrifying creature, both in its surrealistic nature and sexual overtones (rape).

Yes at least there was a rationale for bringing the alien on board. Although we do get to see it, for the most part of the movie we only catch glimpses, which are more effective than when we see it whole (although for me the face huggers are far more terrifying).

And in Aliens the beeps on the radar tracking ramped the fear factor far more than when the aliens came charging at them. Sound and suggestion was used very effectively here, just as it had been in Jaws.

Giger's aliens though are amazingly designed, and startlingly brought to life in the movies.

 

[BAYLOR]

Yes at least there was a rationale for bringing the alien on board. Although we do get to see it, for the most part of the movie we only catch glimpses, which are more effective than when we see it whole (although for me the face huggers are far more terrifying).

And in Aliens the beeps on the radar tracking ramped the fear factor far more than when the aliens came charging at them. Sound and suggestion was used very effectively here, just as it had been in Jaws.

Giger's aliens though are amazingly designed, and startlingly brought to life in the movies.

Combed with sheer claustrophobia and dreariness of the Nostromo.

 

[KGeo777]

Giger is the star of ALIEN. I can't imagine that film doing so well with someone else doing the FX design although I wonder what Stuart Freeborn or Roger Dicken (UK-based fx people) might have come up with.
Yet again--another example where the blockbuster is on the shoulders of the FX people.

The Exorcist was so dependent on Dick Smith and crew. If the makeup for Brando in the Godfather had been inferior--it would have ruined the film since he is in makeup all through it.
If the makeup for Max Von Sydow had been inferior, it could have been laughable. Likewise for Regan.

Jaws was mostly character-focused but they had revolutionary aquatic FX stuff you take for granted like the barrels or the fin--that had never been done before. Imagine in 1975--the giant shark fin coming for the boat--it was unique as a visual experience.

Trouble is--as time marched on--acting and writing just got worse for these things.
I must say, Jurassic Park is no Jaws. It is not written to maximize suspense or seriousness. Jeff Goldblum gets some decent dialogue in part but there's a lot of dumb comedy and Sam Neill is wasted. JP 3 is a more character-focused film. They actually give characters something more to do and Alan Grant is fascinating--he's someone who threw away his personal life either because of the island or just because he was more devoted to dinosaurs than people. And he's bitter--but returning to the island (or rather another one where they are roaming freely) it gives an epiphany when he can communicate with the raptors and makes him feel better about himself.

Some effort was put into characterization and from what I read--the cast improvised a lot of it.

One thing I particularly liked in Jaws was the fact that Brody starts off neurotic and when they get to the boat--he's the third wheel--he's afraid of water--he has no experience with the sea--and yet--when the shark starts chasing them--Quint and Hooper are nervous but not him!
That was a nice touch.

 

[paranoid marvin]

I'd lay Michael Hordern's crumpled bedsheet against against any multi million dollar CGI special effect that Hollywood could hurl at the screen for scare effects.

You know that that gruesome demon in the latest slasher horror is made up, but when you wake in the night and hear the rustle of linen...

 

[CrazyKB]

Yes at least there was a rationale for bringing the alien on board. Although we do get to see it, for the most part of the movie we only catch glimpses, which are more effective than when we see it whole (although for me the face huggers are far more terrifying).

And in Aliens the beeps on the radar tracking ramped the fear factor far more than when the aliens came charging at them. Sound and suggestion was used very effectively here, just as it had been in Jaws.

Giger's aliens though are amazingly designed, and startlingly brought to life in the movies.

Both Jaws and Alien used 'sound and suggestion' because in the former film the Shark rarely worked, forcing Spielberg to rely more on sound, atmosphere and character interaction, while the latter film's director (Scott) didn't like how the suit looked, so he only showed briefly, using low lighting conditions, both films were better as a result.

 

[paranoid marvin]

Both Jaws and Alien used 'sound and suggestion' because in the former film the Shark rarely worked, forcing Spielberg to rely more on sound, atmosphere and character interaction, while the latter film's director (Scott) didn't like how the suit looked, so he only showed briefly, using low lighting conditions, both films were better as a result.

I think sound is the most important element in a horror/ghost movie/tv show.

 

[KGeo777]

Walt Disney said sound was at least half the experience of a film.
I think it is true.
Good sound is more important than best quality image.

ALIEN has less characterization than JAWS. You don't feel that you get to know the characters well. It is a simpler situation. The horror comes so much from the monster itself. And the nature of its method of killing.


A story like Night of the Demon works differently--the train scene is tense but it isn't the same situation of being trapped in a space with a physical monster. There's a ticking clock and the novelty of a piece of paper being the life or death critical issue. The fact that you get caught up with the importance of this paper--is really brilliant storytelling--especially the performances of Niall MacGinnis and Dana Andrews in the sequence.
"You're staying with me, Karswell. You've sold your bill of goods too well, because I believe you now. I believe that in five minutes something monstrous and horrible is going to happen. And when it does, you're going to be here so that whatever happens to me will happen to you."

 

[paranoid marvin]

Walt Disney said sound was at least half the experience of a film.
I think it is true.
Good sound is more important than best quality image.

ALIEN has less characterization than JAWS. You don't feel that you get to know the characters well. It is a simpler situation. The horror comes so much from the monster itself. And the nature of its method of killing.


A story like Night of the Demon works differently--the train scene is tense but it isn't the same situation of being trapped in a space with a physical monster. There's a ticking clock and the novelty of a piece of paper being the life or death critical issue. The fact that you get caught up with the importance of this paper--is really brilliant storytelling--especially the performances of Niall MacGinnis and Dana Andrews in the sequence.
"You're staying with me, Karswell. You've sold your bill of goods too well, because I believe you now. I believe that in five minutes something monstrous and horrible is going to happen. And when it does, you're going to be here so that whatever happens to me will happen to you."

Night of the Demon is an unusual film. We see the demon in all its glory right at the beginning of the movie. It could look a bit silly, because it should look a bit silly; but it doesn't, it's terrifying and memorable. Quite a divergence from M R James' story, where we never know for sure if the demon is real, or just a set of coincidences, imagination running wild and self-fulfilling prophecies. The movie could quite easily have not featured the demon, and perhaps been better for it. Was that the scream of the train, or of a demon; was the victim torn apart by a monster or run over by a locomotive?

Alien does to some extent rely on the visuals; when you have someone like Giger on board, you use them to their full potential. Much of the Alien movie relies on an absence of dramatic music, a lot of the background sound being the hum of computers, lights, doors and the warning noises and jet streams. One way that some movies use music is to help warn the viewer when danger is near (Jaws quite cleverly plays with the audience by deceiving them at times) whereas with Alien, you have little forewarning when one of the crew is about to be attacked .

 

[Le Panda du Mal]

Yeah I actually quite like the demon in Night of the Demon. I understand why Tourneur et al objected to it, but I actually found it effective and eerie, particularly the shots from a distance, where it's walking mid-air and billowing smoke.

 

[BAYLOR]

Yeah I actually quite like the demon in Night of the Demon. I understand why Tourneur et al objected to it, but I actually found it effective and eerie, particularly the shots from a distance, where it's walking mid-air and billowing smoke.

In that era of Cinema audiences wanted a tangible monster on the screen that they could actually see .

 

[KGeo777]

I am a mildly curious about Thanksgiving--since they finally made a film based on that Grindhouse spoof trailer.
It would be interesting to see a real sincere attempt at doing a film pastiche, but I suspect it won't adhere to that and I am not fond of slasher films anyway.
I would be more interested in the DON'T movie because it was referencing 70s UK film but the trailer was kind of dull (I thought the best part was the Roddy McDowall lookalike).

 

[BAYLOR]

A remake of The Keep would be nice.

 

[Rurherfurd Poma]

I am not a great lover of horror movies, I can't even remember the last one that I've watched and the movies that came out recently couldn't caught my attention.

 

[BAYLOR]

They're boring .

 

[paranoid marvin]

I recently watched The Pope's Exorcist, and it epitomises everything wrong with horror today. Starts off very well, and promises to be an interesting movie in the footsteps of The Exorcist. Then for some reason (around the discovery of the well) it slams on the brakes and degenerates into a CGI shocj-fest with a ridiculous plot.

I also watched M3gan, which actually wasn't too bad as a comedy-horror. But there are very few modern horror movies that send you to bed unnerved like the films of the 60s and 70s did.

 

[BAYLOR]

I recently watched The Pope's Exorcist, and it epitomises everything wrong with horror today. Starts off very well, and promises to be an interesting movie in the footsteps of The Exorcist. Then for some reason (around the discovery of the well) it slams on the brakes and degenerates into a CGI shocj-fest with a ridiculous plot.

I also watched M3gan, which actually wasn't too bad as a comedy-horror. But there are very few modern horror movies that send you to bed unnerved like the films of the 60s and 70s did.

There will likely be an sequel to M3gan.