Yesterday I caught a 2015 horror movie on DVD that I never heard of, if it had a theatrical release I must have missed it. Maybe it went straight to DVD, but in any case I liked it. It's called Dark Was the Night, starring Kevin Durand and Lukas Haas. It's not a great film, it could have used more money in the budget, but it was very well acted and the story tried to provide for fuller characters. When it was over I didn't feel like I wasted the last 98 minutes of my life.

This got me thinking why I don't like modern horror movies anymore, actually hate most of them, even though I used to love them. Not to provide spoilers, but this film is an old fashioned, slow boil "monster in the woods" story that is not played for laughs and has almost zero gore. What it does have is human characters that act in rational ways and a certain amount of suspense because you are drawn into the story. Even though the payoff could have been done better, the ending does not ruin the film, which is what happens so many times.

I mention this not just to recommend the movie, but also to get opinions about the modern horror film, if anyone is so inclined. I feel the gore factor and the sadistic streaks that have become common in horror movies have changed their purpose. It used to be just to imaginatively scare the audience, but then it got to be to disgust the audience, and then it got to be to disgust them so much that everything is billed as a black comedy. It's so over the top you are supposed to find it funny.

I think Cabin in the Woods is a prime example, along with any zombie and vampire film in the last 3 years. Now I liked The Evil Dead and Dawn of the Dead and From Dusk Till Dawn, so it's not as though I don't enjoy horror films. I just don't like what passes for horror movies these days, namely watching someone get chopped up and devoured in close up living color.

Whether you agree or disagree, it's a place to hear your thoughts.

Ah, the modern horror movie. Such a love/hate relationship I have with that genre.

I love horror films, but I'm talking about the old Universal Monster movies up through the Hammer films of the late 50's thru early 70's. The former for the appreciation of the sets and the story-telling (and Jack Pierce's makeup artistry) and the latter for again the story lines and the sense of historical drama and suspense.

But this thread is about modern horror, isn't it? My favorite modern horror movie has to be Halloween. (the original, not any of the follow-ups) Very, very little on-screen blood and consistent on the edge of your seat suspense (open the door Tommy, open the door!) When I first saw it in the theater, I jumped three feet in the air when Michael Meyers sat up from behind that sofa!

The "slasher" films that followed next - Friday the 13th, Nightmare on Elm Street, etc. - I found rather gross and disturbing, mainly because of the gratuitous violence, which seemed "new" at the time and only designed to shock. Although I did appreciate Freddy's makeup! FWIW though, there was a Nightmare on Elm St. marathon on TV last week and after watching the first one, I decided that it wasn't frightening or sick, but just plain stupid, lol.

One set of modern horror films that I do still enjoy watching are the Hellraiser movies, at least the first three (#'s 1 and 2 being the best.) Those films to this day still make me shudder. Yes, they do contain a lot of disturbing imagery and sexualized violence, but what keeps me from being totally turned off by them is that the perpetrators in these films, along with the monsters and the deamons from the earlier movies, aren't real. I know that I can get a good, visceral scare from these movies and enjoy it because there are no Cenobites that are going to come out of the walls after me, no vampires or Frankenstein monsters, no demons conjured up by satanic devil worshippers - it's all make-believe. Which brings me finally to the modern "horror" movies that I will not watch: Saw, Hostel and **** like that. Why? because unlike the make-believe monsters, the sadistic psychopaths in those movies could in fact exist, and that scares the hell out of me. So I don't feed that monster, so to speak.

Next?

My son, 15, and his friends have been going back to the classics. He picked up a box set of 50 horror films from the 20's to the very early 60's. I grew up on horror films from the 70's (which as a kid I found to be really disturbing) and the 80's which were so jokey they were funny. Let's flash forward past 9/11 and the fun and shock is gone and the torture,pain,and gore has gone over the top. Do I really need to see the ax go into the person, get stuck, yanked out, insides falling everywhere yet the person is still alive and takes another whack? I don't need that but that is what people are getting.

I don't watch horror films. I grew up watching them on TV, and used to see them in the theater. I don't mind some violence but most of these films go over the top. Also, I don't like the fact the murders are meant to be humorous, like in that new show Scream Queens.
The horror that you see on American Horror Story is still violent and shocking, but it isn't played for laughs, which sends a twisted message to young would be murderers.
Do we need more films about a bunch of teenagers being killed by an ax murderer in a mask? When will people stop supporting this stuff?

My problem with modern horror films is they're all rehashing the same things over and over. They're very easy books to judge by their covers and rarely offer any real scares.

As far as being turned off to gratuitous violence being shown - this really ramped up in the 1970s so it's not really a new thing. What's new is the creative ways they try to show the same thing. Yes, you know the axe is going into the guy's head, but the results may vary - if last time an eyeball went this way, next time it'll go that way.

I think what's going on is a lack of respect for the genre. Horror movies have always been the cheapest to make, and I think The Blair Witch Project pushed the idea of making a lot of money on a cheap horror film into the stratosphere to where EVERYONE wants to cut their teeth on one, so you see a lot more of the same old same old. It's easy to pick out the ones who really care about the movie they're making.

Slashers always get the most attention and that sub-genre does tend to be pretty "low-brow", but there are exceptions even there. Gore in film is a lot like nudity in this way: generally neither NEEDS to be in the movie and is often only in there only to titillate. With some gore, though, like nudity, there are cases where the use of it enhances the plot, so it's best to not cast the whole enterprise away. There have been some good slashers over the years, but it is the low-hanging fruit of the horror genre to be sure.

With that in mind, I do prefer the more thoughtful psychological-type horror films like most people do, but appreciate that it's the money from the cheap popular slashers that allow studios and producers to risk making the more experimental stuff where the real gems are found from time to time.

Thinking about this, I did a Google search of the most popular horror films of the last 15
years (the 2000's, basically) and I would say the best horror film in that span is "Audition"
by Takashi Miike, and sure enough, that is
goodly mix of the high and low arts of horror.
No matter what, they're here to stay. Just be glad a good one does through once in a while. It could be even worse...

This message has been edited. Last edited by: chesspieceface,

I think there has been a reaction against the gore-fest type horror and we're seeing it on television with "The Walking Dead" (AMC) and "The Strain" (FX). Just when we were wondering if we really needed another zombie and vampire show, these shows offer more of a story and realistic characters. I like "The Strain" more than "The Walking Dead" because it has an interesting mix of history, mythology, and horror. In fact, "The Walking Dead" seems rather plodding compared to it.

My favorite old horror movie is "The Creature from the Black Lagoon." "The Last Man on Earth" with Vincent Price was a fantastic vampire movie though I didn't like the ending. "Night of the Living Dead" was truly creepy. "The Omen" was a good movie. "Alien" remains an all-time classic. The best "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" was the 1979 one with Donald Sutherland. The only other decent remake I can think of was the 1982 version of "The Thing." It had some gore but it was well-done within a suspenseful story - great ending.

With real terrorists killing or disabling real people these days I think the over-manufactured shocks of recent horror movies don't have the same impact especially when the idea gets stretched across a few sequels. In the old days there was a limit to the amount of skin, blood, and pain you could show, but once the safeties were flipped off, even pushing the limit starts to get old to a lot of people and we gain more of an appreciation for those who told their stories creatively leaving something to the imagaination.

quote:

Originally posted by catskilleagle:
The best "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" was the 1979 one with Donald Sutherland. The only other decent remake I can think of was the 1982 version of "The Thing.

Agreed, almost all remakes of good horror movies range from bad to unwatchable, even when they have much better production values.

In the case of Carpenter's The Thing however, which was a good movie, I don't really count it as a remake because he went back to the original short story as source material and made a very different film out of it. I just watched the original The Thing From Another World a few weeks ago and it still holds up as a classic 50's horror/science fiction movie despite the B/W and dated style.

I would also add The Blob remake that I think was done maybe 15 years ago as an exception to the rule. It is a much better movie than the original. The special effects and acting can't be compared to the cheap Steve McQueen film of the 50's.

quote:

Originally posted by dcole:

The "slasher" films that followed next - Friday the 13th, Nightmare on Elm Street, etc. - I found rather gross and disturbing, mainly because of the gratuitous violence, which seemed "new" at the time and only designed to shock. Although I did appreciate Freddy's makeup! FWIW though, there was a Nightmare on Elm St. marathon on TV last week and after watching the first one, I decided that it wasn't frightening or sick, but just plain stupid, lol.

This is an old discussion but I felt I needed to throw my two cents in re: A Nightmare on Elm Street.

I too don't like the gratuitous violence in the Friday the 13th series- never have. I don't put the Elm Street films in the same slasher category however. (I also am not counting Freddy Vs. Jason as I haven't seen it- since it plays more like an FT13th movie anyway)

Yes there are bloody moments throughout all of the films but what really struck me about the series was how little Freddy actually slashes anyone. Quite a number of the dream sequences do end in someone dying but there have been quite a few that were nearly bloodless. I was also astounded by how little body mutilation there is within the seven original films- Freddy is a masochist and inflicts damage upon himself and there are some limbs that fall off during a memorable metamorphosis, but otherwise no on-screen decapitations (the one decapitation scene in Dream Warriors was done off-screen), no real guts spilling out, not even anyone being sliced in half.- All of which I am quite OK with.

I've grown to love the majority of the Elm Street films so I had to comment on this. I don't feel the series is as gratuitously violent as it could have been and I am thankful for that.

quote:

Originally posted by CordeliaChase_Fan:
I've grown to love the majority of the Elm Street films so I had to comment on this. I don't feel the series is as gratuitously violent as it could have been and I am thankful for that.

I won't say I loved them, doubt if I even saw all of them, but they at least had a certain amount of creativity in them and Freddy, unlike Jason, had personality.

However the recent remake of A Nightmare on Elm Street was dead on arrival. So that's another bad movie made for no reason other than cashing in on the name.

The remake wasn't that great but I still get a kick out of watching it occasionally. I prefer it to Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare which was mostly inane. I also enjoyed the remake for Katie Cassidy's brief role.