R Horror Movies Going Down Hill? [Archive] - Movie Fan Central Discussion Forums

SoundXscape

08-31-2007, 11:45 AM

Originally posted by LordSimen
R rated Horror Movies haven't been this good since the late 70's early 80's. Unfortunately, people have been trying to bring down R Rated horror films by leaking work prints of unfinished versions of the films so that people who had no intention of seeing the film in the first place watch them and review them, and those become the only reviews anyone reads and thus believe the movie sucks and choose not to go. It's annoying. Happened to Hostel 2 (a wonderful follow up to a modern horror masterpiece) and looks like it is happening to Halloween (haven't seen it yet) and I hope it doesn't continue with the horror movies of the next few years.

Not trying to come off like an expert here, but I'm sorry, I don't consider films like Hostel to be legitimate "Horror" films. Yep, they have horrible slasher type stuff in them and there is no doubt that there was plenty of horror and fear running through the minds and spines of the victims, but in my mind you need a monster of somewhat fantastic proportions and if not, at least some degree of supernatural something or other. Basically sick human psyches like those of serial killers just don't cut the fictional mustard of what I consider true Horror. I really liked Hostel. I just considered it more of a gruesome suspense flick I guess.

The problem with the slasher films is that they just seem at the core to rely on that same old (extremely worn out) insanity plea (Psycho/Deranged) mentality in one form or another.

The thing with most of the recent "R" horror movies is that you find few really "new" ideas. Just mostly glorified serial killers which to me is disappointing in light of what the imagination can really do on it's own.

zombievictim

08-31-2007, 12:53 PM

While I've grown to dislike Hostel I, for once, agree with Simen on this one in the aspect that Hostel is a horror movie. Suspense flick? And is A Nightmare on Elm Street a Supernatural Thriller? Halloween a suspenseful thriller? You get the point. And as for the workprint comment, I really didn't think that that was the point of this thread. We're talking about quality here, not how much the film DIDN'T make.

SoundXscape

08-31-2007, 01:45 PM

zombievictim

08-31-2007, 05:04 PM

Uuuuummmmm....yeah......I'm not sure how to respond to this mainly because I'm pretty sure I'll go into a very long rant and piss off the mods so I'll just leave it at the fact that your take on horror is FAR different than what horror is.

Kikabi

08-31-2007, 05:11 PM

The Horror Movie High freshman will try to take a stab at this. You can grade me if you like.

Originally posted by SoundXscape
I know it's technically a "horror" movie, but to me, not in the truest sense. I mean, isn't horror supposed to be that which removes us from a stage that could be set in typical reality?

No, not necessarily. It's meant to remove us, the audience, from our reality while we watch the movie, which is part of the purpose of all movies, including science fiction and fantasy.

Hostel could happen tomorrow in real life, may not be on quite the same "organized" level, but nonetheless, it most certainly could happen.

As I see it, one of the main things that makes Hostel scary is the fact that not only could it happen, but that it most likely does to a far lesser extent elsewhere in the world.

Take a look at the movie Psycho. This is not a "horror" film. For Pete's snake, it was modeled after Ed Gein with a Hitchcock twist.

Too realistic.

I am certain however, because those bozo's of yesteryear considered it a "horror" movie, that it will continue being a "horror" movie.

Not sure what "bozos" you're referring to. I don't know about Psycho being modeled after Ed Gein, but it is the realism of the movie that made it terrifying to its audience in its day. Especially when the leading lady, Janet Leigh, is killed so early in the movie, letting the audience know that if that can happen then [i] anything[i] can! It's still scary to this day. "Psycho" remains a true horror classic; one of the very first "slasher" movie.

The writer and critic, Charles Derry, in his book, "Dark Dreams: A Psychological History of Modern Horror Film," identifies three divisions - sub-genres - within the genre: "the horror of the demonic," "the horror of Armageddon", and "the horror of personality."

The "horror of personality," which includes both Hostel and Psycho and most, but not all slasher movies (NOES would fall under "horror of the demonic"), is a recognized and legitimate sub-genre of horror.

Part of their horror and appeal is that they do take place in our typical reality, since they have to do with the darkest depths of the human pysche. They're more likely a source of nightmares because of this than a movie packed with zombies or vampires.

You might not like that fact, and you can convince yourself that movies which fall into this category aren't "true" horror all you want, but facts are facts.

Give me the imagination turned inside out at it's best.

I prefer other sorts of horror than slasher and torture movies, myself, although there are many exceptions.

zombievictim

08-31-2007, 05:29 PM

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Awwww I'm so proud!

Kikabi

08-31-2007, 05:34 PM

:D Thank you!

zombievictim

08-31-2007, 05:51 PM

Yeah, see I have a short temper for people like that so I would have used much harsher words and sorta threw it in their face. You did it in a polite way while still conveying the truth. So good on you!

LordSimen

08-31-2007, 07:34 PM

Originally posted by zombievictim
While I've grown to dislike Hostel I, for once, agree with Simen on this one in the aspect that Hostel is a horror movie. Suspense flick? And is A Nightmare on Elm Street a Supernatural Thriller? Halloween a suspenseful thriller? You get the point. And as for the workprint comment, I really didn't think that that was the point of this thread. We're talking about quality here, not how much the film DIDN'T make.

You are correct sir, I posted without reading first. I assumed the thread was one of those "R Rated Horror Movies Are Dying Box Office Wise" arguments that have become so popular since Hostel 2's release, and I was wrong.

Not trying to come off like an expert here, but I'm sorry, I don't consider films like Hostel to be legitimate "Horror" films. Yep, they have horrible slasher type stuff in them and there is no doubt that there was plenty of horror and fear running through the minds and spines of the victims, but in my mind you need a monster of somewhat fantastic proportions and if not, at least some degree of supernatural something or other. Basically sick human psyches like those of serial killers just don't cut the fictional mustard of what I consider true Horror. I really liked Hostel. I just considered it more of a gruesome suspense flick I guess.

The problem with the slasher films is that they just seem at the core to rely on that same old (extremely worn out) insanity plea (Psycho/Deranged) mentality in one form or another.

The thing with most of the recent "R" horror movies is that you find few really "new" ideas. Just mostly glorified serial killers which to me is disappointing in light of what the imagination can really do on it's own.

I've noticed a trend in recent people who have started to take this stand on horror, and I simply do not understand it. A horror film does NOT have to be supernatural in nature to be considered a horror film. A horror film is not always a science fiction or fantasy film by definition. This is not what a horror film is.

A horror film is any type of film that specifically attempts to scare, frighten, disturb, terrorize, horrify and/or disgust the audience through the art of film making. That, at it's core, is what a horror film is. A horror film does not have to do this through supernatural methods because sometimes it's much scarier to go for the cold, hard, mundane truth of the world. That is what a film like Psycho or even a film like The Texas Chainsaw Massacre or Last House on the Left goes for, the mundane truth of what would happen if a psycho like you see in horror movies really existed. Sometimes that in and of itself is scarier than a true monster.

By saying that a horror film needs a 'monster' and some sort of supernatural undertone, you immediately elliminate the aforementioned films, when all of which are considered by the true masters of horror themselves as horror classics. While yes, it is debatable for a film like Psycho, for it is truly one of those films that falls under the catagory of both a thriller and a horror movie. At times it tries to scare you (shower scene) while at other times it tries to thrill you (every scene before she gets to the Hotel), thus it's both.

I know it's technically a "horror" movie, but to me, not in the truest sense. I mean, isn't horror supposed to be that which removes us from a stage that could be set in typical reality?

Hostel could happen tomorrow in real life, may not be on quite the same "organized" level, but nonetheless, it most certainly could happen.

Take a look at the movie Psycho. This is not a "horror" film. For Pete's snake, it was modeled after Ed Gein with a Hitchcock twist.

Too realistic.

How is Hostel NOT a horror movie? It has horrifying things happening to people in an attempt to scare, frighten, disgust, disturb and/or terrorize it's audience. It is a horror film through and through.

As I've stated before the, fact that it does take the realistic approach is what makes it much scarier than if it had gone with a supernatural approach. Not everyone is scared by the same things, some people find mundane realism scarier than the fantastic supernatural.

I am certain however, because those bozo's of yesteryear considered it a "horror" movie, that it will continue being a "horror" movie.

Give me the imagination turned inside out at it's best.

You are right though, this thread was never supposed to be about what is and what is not horror, it was pointing out that there is sooooo much utter crap being called horror these days!!!! oops! There I go again. ;-)

The amount of imagination and the quality of the film is also not what defines it as a horror film, and I'll leave that at that because the rest of that is simply subjective.

SoundXscape

08-31-2007, 11:49 PM

Originally posted by zombievictim
Uuuuummmmm....yeah......I'm not sure how to respond to this mainly because I'm pretty sure I'll go into a very long rant and piss off the mods so I'll just leave it at the fact that your take on horror is FAR different than what horror is.

How grandiose and unimaginative you seem. Save your rants and egotistical pseudo intellectual horror know it all hot rodding for someone slightly south of 17. As if you were worthy of stating "what horror is" lol!

I can see via your posting you're a bit of a bully. Very sad and antagonistic you are.

Please name me the first 10 post silent film horror movies. We will see what the core definition of horror movies *is* & not what merely the word horror means.

Thank you my son. You may go back to your sand box when your done.

That is all.

zombievictim

09-01-2007, 12:10 AM

Originally posted by SoundXscape
How grandiose and unimaginative you seem. Save your rants and egotistical pseudo intellectual horror know it all hot rodding for someone slightly south of 17. As if you were worthy of stating "what horror is" lol!

I can see via your posting you're a bit of a bully. Very sad and antagonistic you are.

Please name me the first 10 post silent film horror movies. We will see what the core definition of horror movies *is* & not what merely the word horror means.

Thank you my son. You may go back to your sand box when your done.

That is all.

Okay let me first just say that my age has NOTHING to do with my love for the horror genre. I have been into horror my entire life and though that may not be as long as yours, it doesn't mean you know it any better.

And as for the bully part, I take offense to that. I have been a faithful member of these boards and gotten into VERY few arguments with people on these boards. None of which are hostile. While I do not agree with some, I get along with them and respect them and I believe they the same to me.

One thing that I took note is that you completely ignored the other posts and went right for mine, which I admit was ignorant but still true. So other people posted, saying their true thoughts on the genre in a polite way. Something that I didn't want to do because I wasn't really in the mood to type out a long response. So others posted stating pretty much my exact feelings so I felt even more so that I didn't have to retread the same thing.

The rest I don't really want to respond to mainly because it was childish and not something I really feel like pursuing. I don't mainly because I know even more immature responses along the lines of "I'll listen to your opinion when you reach puberty" will follow.

SoundXscape

09-01-2007, 12:18 AM

*How is Hostel NOT a horror movie?*

*It has horrifying things happening to people in an attempt to scare, frighten, disgust, disturb and/or terrorize it's audience. It is a horror film through and through.*

This concise misconception (within your question) is where you can see the the truth most clearly. I wish the board would let me highlight stuff as I could emphasize your words, but look at your qualifier or justification factor for that which constitutes your definition of a horror film.

Now please tell me why Saving Private Ryan is not a "horror movie" by your definition? According to what you said, it would be.

Aberrant violent, criminal, savage, insane or mentally unstable behavior in and of itself is not enough to define a horror film. The idea or premise of a horror film as DEFINED BY THE MASTERS is not just to grip the viewer with merely a strong reaction to repulsive and horrid acts. Those are merely human reactionary ingredients found within many different types of movies & stories. Horror as a type of film is more, much more, but not so much more that it's degraded through vague generalities to less than what it really is.

The amount of imagination and the quality of the film is also not what defines it as a horror film, and I'll leave that at that because the rest of that is simply subjective. [/B]

Of course what you say above is true. I never stated otherwise.e, However, it would do your objectivity as a movie appreciator a great courtesy to concede to the FACT that the aforementioned qualities most certainly divide "good from LAME"

:)

X-Nightcrawler

09-01-2007, 12:25 AM

Oh come on you two.

Am I going to have to get my videocamera again?

LordSimen

09-01-2007, 01:12 AM

Originally posted by SoundXscape

This concise misconception (within your question) is where you can see the the truth most clearly. I wish the board would let me highlight stuff as I could emphasize your words, but look at your qualifier or justification factor forthat which constitutes your definition of a horror film.

:)

... ? You effectively and completely ran around my question by asking me to look at my own question.
Originally posted by SoundXscape

Now please tell me why Saving Private Ryan is not a "horror movie" by your definition? According to what you said, it would be.

Saving Private Ryan is NOT a horror film by my definition for the very reason that frightening, scaring, disturbing or terrorizing the audience was not the focus NOR the intent of the filmmaker in making the film.

The horrors that are shown in Saving Private Ryan were created in an attempt to make a realistic vision of what war would really look like. That was why the graphic content was shown. The reason why Hostel qualifies as a horror movie for it's graphic content and Saving Private Ryan does not is because the violence in Hostel was made to scare the audience while Saving Private Ryan's violence was made for the simple reason of realism. Two different intents on both the filmmakers and the over all film's part.

Saving Private Ryan's core plot also focus' on the drama rather than the horror, focusing on the soldiers and their problems in trying to find Ryan. This plot focus' on the drama and not the horror. Hostel, on the other hand, focus' on the horror of what happens to the characters and not the dram. This is why Saving Private Ryan is a War Drama and Hostel is a Horror film. Two different focus'.

Now this isn't to say a horror film can't have a strong focus' on drama, there are many who do and do so very well. Films like The Exorcist did this as well as Carrie. What makes these films horror is the intent of the filmmaker, rather than what the movie focus' on.

Originally posted by SoundXscape

Aberrant violent, criminal, savage, insane or mentally unstable behavior in and of itself is not enough to define a horror film. The idea or premise of a horror film as DEFINED BY THE MASTERS is not just to grip the viewer with merely a strong reaction to repulsive and horrid acts. Those are merely human reactionary ingredients found within many different types of movies & stories. Horror as a type of film is more, much more, but not so much more that it's degraded through vague generalities to less than what it really is.
:)

Horror as a genre and premise is to grip the viewer with a strong reaction. A horror movie that doesn't intend to scare is like a comedy movie that doesn't intend to make people laugh. It looses it's purpose.

SoundXscape

09-01-2007, 01:30 AM

*And as for the bully part, I take offense to that. I have been a faithful member of these boards and gotten into VERY few arguments with people on these boards. None of which are hostile. While I do not agree with some, I get along with them and respect them and I believe they the same to me.*

You write:

1) "I, for once, agree with Simen" (degrading and condescending)

2) "You get the point. And as for the workprint comment, I really didn't think that that was the point of this thread. We're talking about quality here, not how much the film DIDN'T make."

(this is also condescending. It also states that my thread was about "quality" which it wasn't specifically" I think MR. Simen had an interesting point. At least he had one bro. Is it really your place to interpret what is an appropriate response here? Seems a little arrogant & mean to me but maybe that's just your style and you have a heart of gold)

3) "Uuuuummmmm....yeah......I'm not sure how to respond to this mainly because I'm pretty sure I'll go into a very long rant and piss off the mods so I'll just leave it at the fact that your take on horror is FAR different than what horror is."

(not antagonistic eh? coulda fooled me 'o sage of all that's horror - black n white conceded)

4) "Yeah, see I have a short temper for people like that so I would have used much harsher words and sorta threw it in their face. You did it in a polite way while still conveying the truth. So good on you!"

(this was the creme de la creme here. Man, if you aren't looking for trouble in this post, you must be brushing up on your "how to be a jerk" moves. How dare you say that "my type of people piss you off" You come off here like a condescending john wayne wanna be just to impress your lady friend. That sucks and was the clincher in terms of my response to you. A real barometer as to your maturity level. Time to practice being cool kiddo)

5) "The rest I don't really want to respond to mainly because it was childish and not something I really feel like pursuing. I don't mainly because I know even more immature responses along the lines of "I'll listen to your opinion when you reach puberty" will follow."

On the above, I truly believe you are an expert. ;)

As far as not responding to the other posts, please see the post that I wrote in response to Simen's about 5 minutes after I wrote mine in response to that which I had merely had enough of.

So the next time you get the urge to snidely respond that:

"I'll just leave it at the fact that your take on horror is FAR different than what horror is."

You might just want to respond something to the effect:

Respectfully, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

It's a lot easier than being mean and conceded. :)

SoundXscape

09-01-2007, 01:41 AM

Originally posted by LordSimen
... ? You effectively and completely ran around my question by asking me to look at my own question.

Saving Private Ryan is NOT a horror film by my definition for the very reason that frightening, scaring, disturbing or terrorizing the audience was not the focus NOR the intent of the filmmaker in making the film.

The horrors that are shown in Saving Private Ryan were created in an attempt to make a realistic vision of what war would really look like. That was why the graphic content was shown. The reason why Hostel qualifies as a horror movie for it's graphic content and Saving Private Ryan does not is because the violence in Hostel was made to scare the audience while Saving Private Ryan's violence was made for the simple reason of realism. Two different intents on both the filmmakers and the over all film's part.

Saving Private Ryan's core plot also focus' on the drama rather than the horror, focusing on the soldiers and their problems in trying to find Ryan. This plot focus' on the drama and not the horror. Hostel, on the other hand, focus' on the horror of what happens to the characters and not the dram. This is why Saving Private Ryan is a War Drama and Hostel is a Horror film. Two different focus'.

Now this isn't to say a horror film can't have a strong focus' on drama, there are many who do and do so very well. Films like The Exorcist did this as well as Carrie. What makes these films horror is the intent of the filmmaker, rather than what the movie focus' on.

Horror as a genre and premise is to grip the viewer with a strong reaction. A horror movie that doesn't intend to scare is like a comedy movie that doesn't intend to make people laugh. It looses it's purpose.

Life cannot be all debates Simen. Very quickly, and then it's time to hit the hay. 1) The director of Saving Private Ryan was MOST CERTAINLY attempting to disturb and impress the audience as much as is possible when it served his horrific purpose. 2) I don't know of ANY horror movie that does not work through various perspectives and motives to accomplish a basic "good conquers evil" theme. That may only be served up punitively in the end, but nonetheless, almost always, not EVERY TIME but almost always, we have resolve. That's why so many people find the Freddy & Halloween movies such a joke. Anyone for ping pong? lol! Frankly, I found the beach scene in Saving Private Ryan 1000 times more hideous and insurmountable than anything in Hostel. Hostel in it's darkest and most evil over driven garden of torture moments couldn't touch the terror that the beach scene evoked in the viewer. No way.

SplatterMaster5

09-01-2007, 01:45 AM

All horror is good in my opinion, whether it be slasher or supernatural. All works for me.

LordSimen

09-01-2007, 01:52 AM

Originally posted by SoundXscape
Life cannot be all debates Simen. Very quickly, and then it's time to hit the hay. 1) The director of Saving Private Ryan was MOST CERTAINLY attempting to disturb and impress the audience as much as is possible when it served his horrific purpose. 2) I don't know of ANY horror movie that does not work through various perspectives and motives to accomplish a basic "good conquers evil" theme. That may only be served up punitively in the end, but nonetheless, almost always, not EVERY TIME but almost always, we have resolve. That's why so many people find the Freddy & Halloween movies such a joke. Anyone for ping pong? lol! Frankly, I found the beach scene in Saving Private Ryan 1000 times more hideous and insurmountable than anything in Hostel. Hostel in it's darkest and most evil over driven garden of torture moments couldn't touch the terror that the beach scene evoked in the viewer. No way.

This is not an argument debating what you find scary vs. what I find scary. Nor is this an argument about whether or not Saving Private Ryan was scary vs. Hostel being scary. What this argument is about is what a horror film is and why or why not Hostel is more of a horror film than Saving Private Ryan.

Spielberg's intent was not to scare the audience on Saving Private Ryan, it was simply to give a realistic portrayal of war. It never attempts to purposefully scare, disturb, frighten or terrorize. It wanted to play the horrors at face value as they are. Spielberg never mentioned at any point that Saving Private Ryan was designed to scare people. Never. He just wanted to tell a story within a war, and war just so happens to be graphic.

Hostel's intent WAS to scare the audience. It's why the filmmaker made the film and is what drove every choice and action within making the film. That is exactly why Hostel is a horror film, and Saving Private Ryan is not. The intent.

zombievictim

09-01-2007, 01:57 AM

Originally posted by SoundXscape
You might just want to respond something to the effect:

Respectfully, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

It's a lot easier than being mean and conceded. :)

I don't agree to disagree because you're being EXTREMELY rude. The points you made were taken completely out of context and just made me seem like the bad guy. If you had been here longer than a few days then you'd know that me and Simen disagree on Hostel. We debated about it long ago. THAT was why I said that remark and I'm sure he didn't take offense to it like you did.

The rest of your things are pretty much the same thing over and over and have no thought put into them whatsoever so my response to those will be the same....

LordSimen

09-01-2007, 01:59 AM

Originally posted by zombievictim
I don't agree to disagree because you're being EXTREMELY rude. The points you made were taken completely out of context and just made me seem like the bad guy. If you had been here longer than a few days then you'd know that me and Simen disagree on Hostel. We debated about it long ago. THAT was why I said that remark and I'm sure he didn't take offense to it like you did.

The rest of your things are pretty much the same thing over and over and have no thought put into them whatsoever so my response to those will be the same....

No offense taken here. We're all one big happy (albeit at times dysfunctional) family around these parts. :D :cool:

zombievictim

09-01-2007, 02:01 AM

Originally posted by LordSimen
We're all one big happy (albeit at times dysfunctional) family around these parts. :D :cool:

I couldn't have said it better myself.

Kikabi

09-01-2007, 11:53 AM

The idea or premise of a horror film as DEFINED BY THE MASTERS is not just to grip the viewer with merely a strong reaction to repulsive and horrid acts.

First, SoundXcape: Please define for us "The Masters." I cited my source in my arguement; please do the same. Not all of us here are equally knowledgeable about the horror genre. It's why folks around here know me as the "Horror Movie High freshman." I'm still learning.

You make some interesting points, some I agree with and some that I don't. I'd like debate some things with you . . .

However . . .

Second, I feel the need to warn you that you are skating on very thin ice with me. Zombievictim has been fairly tolerant of your insults against him, in that he hasn't reported you to the moderator, which is his right. However, I consider him a friend here, and I'm very loyal to my friends, and I am extremely offended o his behalf.

Insults such as these are NOT allowed on JoBlo:

"How grandiose and unimaginative you seem. Save your rants and egotistical pseudo intellectual horror know it all hot rodding for someone slightly south of 17. As if you were worthy of stating "what horror is" lol!"

"I can see via your posting you're a bit of a bully. Very sad and antagonistic you are."

"Thank you my son. You may go back to your sand box when your done."

And you accuse him of not being respectful, of being mean and conceited?? What you posted is very condenscending and dismissive. Frankly, I expect this sort of behavior from an immature teenager or a 20-something, not from someone who's 44 years old. And this is coming from a 45 year old woman, so don't think you can get away with the same condensending attitude with me.

Or is that why you didn't respond to my post as you did with others - easier to pick on the younger members because you are "an elder" and therefore more enlightened and experienced than they are?

Go to the top of any board here and READ THE RULES. Personal insults, attacks, and disrespect shown to any fellow schmoe are not only not allowed but can get you removed from JoBlo permanently.

You're new here, so let this be the time to learn your lesson if you don't want to be kicked out. Lose the attitude, and address everyone with respect.

Any more condensending posts, and any wiff of an insult I see from you from now on, and I will report you to the modertor. If you haven't been already.

!MorganOnyx!

09-02-2007, 12:44 PM

He he he, SOUNDXSCAPE just got schooled BIG TIME!

I've been having a great time reading this thread! Keep it up you lot, I'm pissing myself over here! *changes his pissy pants* :D

teenkiller

09-02-2007, 01:02 PM

You guys should know by now that I'm right about everything and everyone else's opinion is dumb.

sarcasm...

Well thats all for now GOoD JOURNEY my fellow schmoes.

Kikabi

09-02-2007, 01:49 PM

Well, I hope I haven't scared him away.

Originally posted by SoundXscape
. . .1) The director of Saving Private Ryan was MOST CERTAINLY attempting to disturb and impress the audience as much as is possible when it served his horrific purpose.

Very true, except Speilberg did not have a "horrific purpose." His purpose was to show an accurate depiction of the events of D-Day and the few days following it, from the slaughter and taking of the beaches like Omaha, to the fact that scores of paratroopers were dropped far their appointed destinations, some over a hundred miles away. LordSimen has made the point well. We all know that Saving Private Ryan is not a horror movie, so enough about that.

2) I don't know of ANY horror movie that does not work through various perspectives and motives to accomplish a basic "good conquers evil" theme. That may only be served up punitively in the end, but nonetheless, almost always, not EVERY TIME but almost always, we have resolve. That's why so many people find the Freddy & Halloween movies such a joke.

And many people don't, witnessed by their legions of fans. I understand your point. However, the foundation of all horror movies and literature maybe "good conquers evil," the mainstay of horror, and indeed, stories as a whole, is that evil is never truly conquered. This is best described by Joseph Campbell in "A Hero of a Thousand Faces." The "Shadow," the projection of our darkest selves, keeps resurfacing only to be beaten back again.

So, to, Freddy and Michael and their kind keep returning, because, again, evil can never be truly defeated. It's why so many horror movies and novels don't end with everything perfectly resolved. Just like in Carrie, one never knows when evil will surface again, perhaps in another form.

Aberrant violent, criminal, savage, insane or mentally unstable behavior in and of itself is not enough to define a horror film. The idea or premise of a horror film as DEFINED BY THE MASTERS is not just to grip the viewer with merely a strong reaction to repulsive and horrid acts. Those are merely human reactionary ingredients found within many different types of movies & stories. Horror as a type of film is more, much more, but not so much more that it's degraded through vague generalities to less than what it really is.

Yes, the horror genre is much more than just slashers and the above behaviors are found in other types of movies. However, again, the "horror-of-personality" is a sound and legitmate species of the horror genre that is not going to go away. It is as old as Mary Shelley's "Frankenstein," Robert Louis Stephenson's "The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde" and several of Edgar Allen Poe's works.

It seems to me that you would like to separate all slasher movies from other horror movies, making them a seperate genre of their own, perhaps because you feel that they give the horror genre the poor reputation that it has. While that's true, such separation can't be done.

You have yet to answer LordSimen's original question: How is Hostel NOT a horror movie?

Stabby McStab

09-02-2007, 03:06 PM

I think there's lots of reason why there's tons of crap horror movies lately. I didn't read all the posts so I'm sure I might repeat something so if I did sorry.

First off with horror being so big in the 80s alot of kids were into the genre, so now they're all grown up in this wonderful world of technology where all it takes is a handful of friends, some fake blood and a computer and you can make a movie. Shooting on digital is cheaper than film and CGI is cheaper than real special fx so your basic everyday horror fan can make a movie. Movie companies are realizing this and buying the stuff for cheap and marketing it, etc or the guys that made the movie are making their own film companies. If you go to any horror con every other table is some indie film company with a table full of titles.

Second, to me anyway, there was a big interest in asian horror films recently and big film companies jumped on that too and made a ton of shitty remakes. Granted they're not all bad but for the most part they are.

Third, remakes. Once again the big film companies take great movies that were made 20 years ago and put some big name actors in a remake and totally screw it up. I can't really think of many remakes that have actually been good.

Fourth. I've been seeing alot of movies come out that are really good and then all of a sudden there's a bandwagon of shitty imitations because the original idea and movie is doing so well. Even movies that aren't in the same genre. For example ever since Pirates Of The Caribbean came out I can't tell you how many pirate movies there are that I see on the shelves in every genre.

Scream_Kid

09-03-2007, 08:52 PM

ok, soundXcape, get your head out of the clouds, nobody wants to hear an egotistical rant.

horror is horror people, no matter how crappy or great it can be, so deal with it.

montanetti

09-03-2007, 09:04 PM

Originally posted by zombievictim
Yeah, see I have a short temper for people like that so I would have used much harsher words and sorta threw it in their face.

Internet hard man?

EVILxxx

09-04-2007, 10:45 AM

The horror genre seems to be Hollywood's bitch. Whatever idea hooks will be done and redone to death until all possible money from said idea is milked dry. PG-13 ghost movies, Japanese remakes, horror classic remakes, and torture films have all suffered from this. I have found some of the best films in recent years by watching these boards. Movies that I would never have heard of, or would never have thought to watch.

Bourne101

09-04-2007, 06:00 PM

R horror has actually been better recentley than in quite a long time. With great ones like Halloween, The Descent, Dawn of the Dead, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, The Hills Have Eyes, The Devil's Rejects, Cabin Fever, Hostel, Saw, 28 Weeks Later, High Tension and some others I'm just not thinking of right now. Technology and unoriginal ideas may be taking the "scare" out of horror films lately, but they are sure as hell way more realistic then they've ever been.

And 30 Days of Night looks mucho kickass!

PG-13 horror on the other hand, we've got 1408 and that's about it.

Bourne101

09-04-2007, 06:01 PM

SoundXscape

09-05-2007, 03:04 PM

Originally posted by Kikabi
Well, I hope I haven't scared him away.

Very true, except Speilberg did not have a "horrific purpose." His purpose was to show an accurate depiction of the events of D-Day and the few days following it, from the slaughter and taking of the beaches like Omaha, to the fact that scores of paratroopers were dropped far their appointed destinations, some over a hundred miles away. LordSimen has made the point well. We all know that Saving Private Ryan is not a horror movie, so enough about that.

And many people don't, witnessed by their legions of fans. I understand your point. However, the foundation of all horror movies and literature maybe "good conquers evil," the mainstay of horror, and indeed, stories as a whole, is that evil is never truly conquered. This is best described by Joseph Campbell in "A Hero of a Thousand Faces." The "Shadow," the projection of our darkest selves, keeps resurfacing only to be beaten back again.

So, to, Freddy and Michael and their kind keep returning, because, again, evil can never be truly defeated. It's why so many horror movies and novels don't end with everything perfectly resolved. Just like in Carrie, one never knows when evil will surface again, perhaps in another form.

Yes, the horror genre is much more than just slashers and the above behaviors are found in other types of movies. However, again, the "horror-of-personality" is a sound and legitmate species of the horror genre that is not going to go away. It is as old as Mary Shelley's "Frankenstein," Robert Louis Stephenson's "The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde" and several of Edgar Allen Poe's works.

It seems to me that you would like to separate all slasher movies from other horror movies, making them a seperate genre of their own, perhaps because you feel that they give the horror genre the poor reputation that it has. While that's true, such separation can't be done.

You have yet to answer LordSimen's original question: How is Hostel NOT a horror movie?

LOL! No, you didn't scare me away, but I have "been" away. I am also attempting to get a screen name because I have since discovered that someone else already uses the name "soundXscape" As you probably know, Google owns the Internet these days. I don't want the poor guy's rep to suffer because of some whim I had when I thought up that name. The moderators have not responded to my request as of yet.

as far as your previous "warning" post, please, save that type of threat for someone that HONESTLY cares. This is an Internet forum friend. Just one of 10 million. I said NOTHING that was not merely a merited response to the other persons remarks that were made FIRST. My motto is, "if you don't like what's in your dish, go for take out"

I will say this however, you say that the director of SPR did not have a "Horrific Purpose" in mind and was just going for accuracy. I say that's like saying McDonald's just advertises to kids accurately in order to get their parents to eat their more often. Of course it was a "horrific purpose". One that served up the most exact depiction of the horror he most certainly and purposefully conveyed. As horrific a purpose as there could possibly be. It depicted the ultimate horror of reality (war). Just because that very real horror's specific context within the film aligns itself with a "bigger picture" does in no way diminish the horror the viewer experiences itself. I believe you KNOW all this, but this very point underlines the fact that just because something is horrible, does not make it a horror movie. You need a visually identifiable element within a film that completely enunciates it's "non real" quality or that film is not Horror, but rather Shock. This is so old school. Why, I am SHOCKED that you didn't know that Hostel (a very monotonous film at times) is just a very noir Shock or Gore film.

BTW, I used to use that taxonomy BS with respect to the arts that I was discussing until I realized I was just glorifying myself in the process by doing so. We love to masturbate don't we? Genus, sub genus, subspecies, imitators, species...again let's keep that which is real within a context of that which really is. dig? In discussions like this, NO ONE is an official key, just another person proposing a different viewpoint.

BYE,
me

!MorganOnyx!

09-05-2007, 04:15 PM

Dude, I'm not saying that you started the "discussion" or anything, but why are you so bothered about labelling these films, stating which film lies within which genre and so on? We were talking about this in a thread a few days back. Most of us couldn't give a fuck what defines a horror film because what's horrific to one person may not be to another etc. Who cares if HOSTEL IS a horror, who cares if it's exploitation, shock , schlock or torture porn?! I don't. And yeah, I can see why SAVING PRIVATE RYAN could be described as a horror, but either way it doesn't matter.

But don't get me wrong, I really enjoyed the fact you spoke your mind. These days we get too many people pussy footing around each other, not always saying what they really want to. Something to do with respect I think. ;)

LordSimen

09-05-2007, 05:48 PM

Originally posted by SoundXscape
I will say this however, you say that the director of SPR did not have a "Horrific Purpose" in mind and was just going for accuracy. I say that's like saying McDonald's just advertises to kids accurately in order to get their parents to eat their more often. Of course it was a "horrific purpose". One that served up the most exact depiction of the horror he most certainly and purposefully conveyed. As horrific a purpose as there could possibly be. It depicted the ultimate horror of reality (war). Just because that very real horror's specific context within the film aligns itself with a "bigger picture" does in no way diminish the horror the viewer experiences itself. I believe you KNOW all this, but this very point underlines the fact that just because something is horrible, does not make it a horror movie. You need a visually identifiable element within a film that completely enunciates it's "non real" quality or that film is not Horror, but rather Shock. This is so old school. Why, I am SHOCKED that you didn't know that Hostel (a very monotonous film at times) is just a very noir Shock or Gore film.

BTW, I used to use that taxonomy BS with respect to the arts that I was discussing until I realized I was just glorifying myself in the process by doing so. We love to masturbate don't we? Genus, sub genus, subspecies, imitators, species...again let's keep that which is real within a context of that which really is. dig? In discussions like this, NO ONE is an official key, just another person proposing a different viewpoint.

BYE,
me

Yes, Saving Private Ryan does have horrific images, but it was not the intent of these horrific images to be used to horrify the audience. It was use to produce reality, a real war-like situation and put the viewer in the situation of a war zone. It wasn't meant to scare the audience, that was not the intent or reason behind the film. That's why it's not a horror movie, and Hostel is. Because Hostel DOES attempt to use it's horrific images to scare, frighten, disturb and/or terrorize it's audience. This is why a violent movie like Kill Bill is an action/revenge movie and not a horror movie, because it uses it's violence and action with the purpose of entertaining the audience and thrill them. It's all about the intent of the filmming.

Whether or not the film actually succeeds in scaring or thrilling the audience is irrelevant because what scares and what thrills is completely subjective. That's what the film's genre depends upon the intent. An unfunny comedy movie is still a comedy movie, and so on and so forth. Hostel is a horror movie and I am SHOCKED that you argue that point.

Kikabi

09-05-2007, 10:28 PM

Originally posted by SoundXscape
LOL! No, you didn't scare me away, but I have "been" away. I am also attempting to get a screen name because I have since discovered that someone else already uses the name "soundXscape" As you probably know, Google owns the Internet these days. I don't want the poor guy's rep to suffer because of some whim I had when I thought up that name. The moderators have not responded to my request as of yet.

It's a bummer that you can't change your name here, especially if you've been here a long time and have gone up in "status". I know someone who tried and got nowhere. Since you're new, though, you could just cancel your membership and register with a new name. But someone who's been here longer than I have might have a better solution, or instructions about how to do that. Check the Site Suggestions board.

as far as your previous "warning" post, please, save that type of threat for someone that HONESTLY cares. This is an Internet forum friend. Just one of 10 million. I said NOTHING that was not merely a merited response to the other persons remarks that were made FIRST. My motto is, "if you don't like what's in your dish, go for take out"

It wasn't a threat, and you should care if you like it here at JoBlo's. This isn't just any Internet forum site. This is not IMDb or any other place where people can get away with trading insults. Your response wasn't "merited" (those kinds of remarks and attitude, frankly, are never merited. They only serve to continue to make this world an ugly place.) It is preferred that if you feel a fellow schmoe has insulted you in a post that you report the post to the moderator, rather than turning around and insulting that schmoe back. You would know this if you had followed my advice, well, instructions, to read the rules.

Perhaps I misread the meaning of your statement: "The director of Saving Private Ryan was MOST CERTAINLY attempting to disturb and impress the audience as much as is possible when it served his horrific purpose."

You made it sound as Spielberg had a horrific purpose in mind when making the movie. I argue that he didn't. Yes, in certain scenes, he wanted to horrify, disturb, shock the audience with the horror of war. In other scenes, his purposes were to show the hardships soldiers had to endure, the dangers, the loss, the camaraderie, etc. The point is, he didn't approach Saving Private Ryan with the single purpose to shock and horrify, which is what your statement seems to imply.

You need a visually identifiable element within a film that completely enunciates it's "non real" quality or that film is not Horror, but rather Shock. This is so old school. Why, I am SHOCKED that you didn't know that Hostel (a very monotonous film at times) is just a very noir Shock or Gore film.

Excuse me for shocking you. I've never heard of the "Shock" genre or of the "Gore" genre. Perhaps my fellow schmoes have?

I disagree that it is "so old school," just as I disagree that all Horror films need a "non real" quality in order for them to fall into the Horror genre. If that is required, then many films considered Horror movies no longer are. It would eliminate such movies as Psycho, Black Christmas, The Last House on the Left, Halloween, The Texas Chain Saw Massacre, The Wicker Man (1973), The Hitcher, Audition, and on and on.

Do you honestly believe that none of these movies are Horror movies?

BTW, I used to use that taxonomy BS with respect to the arts that I was discussing until I realized I was just glorifying myself in the process by doing so. We love to masturbate don't we? Genus, sub genus, subspecies, imitators, species...again let's keep that which is real within a context of that which really is. dig? In discussions like this, NO ONE is an official key, just another person proposing a different viewpoint.

No, I don't "dig," since you've just dismissed much of what I've said and the referrences I've used in this debate to make my points as meaningless. We are talking about a specific and recognized sub-genre within the Horror genre, and, by your words, you seem to want to deny that recognition. Yes, let's keep what's real in its context, instead of dismissing that reality. I love hearing different viewpoints within context.

And I don't "dig" your statement that I'm "just glorifying myself" and masturbating my ego. What fancy ways you have to try to hide your insults. Was writing the above quote truly necessary? The insults and utter dismissal did hurt. Undoubtedly, that was your intention.

If you believe that No One is an official key (even a referrenced expert??) what did you mean by this: "The idea or premise of a horror film as DEFINED BY THE MASTERS . . . ." Specifically "THE MASTERS." They seem to hold a key for you. Now I ask twice, who are THE MASTERS?

SoundXscape

09-06-2007, 12:07 AM

Originally posted by Kikabi
It's a bummer that you can't change your name here, especially if you've been here a long time and have gone up in "status". I know someone who tried and got nowhere. Since you're new, though, you could just cancel your membership and register with a new name. But someone who's been here longer than I have might have a better solution, or instructions about how to do that. Check the Site Suggestions board.

It wasn't a threat, and you should care if you like it here at JoBlo's. This isn't just any Internet forum site. This is not IMDb or any other place where people can get away with trading insults. Your response wasn't "merited" (those kinds of remarks and attitude, frankly, are never merited. They only serve to continue to make this world an ugly place.) It is preferred that if you feel a fellow schmoe has insulted you in a post that you report the post to the moderator, rather than turning around and insulting that schmoe back. You would know this if you had followed my advice, well, instructions, to read the rules.

Perhaps I misread the meaning of your statement: "The director of Saving Private Ryan was MOST CERTAINLY attempting to disturb and impress the audience as much as is possible when it served his horrific purpose."

You made it sound as Spielberg had a horrific purpose in mind when making the movie. I argue that he didn't. Yes, in certain scenes, he wanted to horrify, disturb, shock the audience with the horror of war. In other scenes, his purposes were to show the hardships soldiers had to endure, the dangers, the loss, the camaraderie, etc. The point is, he didn't approach Saving Private Ryan with the single purpose to shock and horrify, which is what your statement seems to imply.

Excuse me for shocking you. I've never heard of the "Shock" genre or of the "Gore" genre. Perhaps my fellow schmoes have?

I disagree that it is "so old school," just as I disagree that all Horror films need a "non real" quality in order for them to fall into the Horror genre. If that is required, then many films considered Horror movies no longer are. It would eliminate such movies as Psycho, Black Christmas, The Last House on the Left, Halloween, The Texas Chain Saw Massacre, The Wicker Man (1973), The Hitcher, Audition, and on and on.

Do you honestly believe that none of these movies are Horror movies?

No, I don't "dig," since you've just dismissed much of what I've said and the referrences I've used in this debate to make my points as meaningless. We are talking about a specific and recognized sub-genre within the Horror genre, and, by your words, you seem to want to deny that recognition. Yes, let's keep what's real in its context, instead of dismissing that reality. I love hearing different viewpoints within context.

And I don't "dig" your statement that I'm "just glorifying myself" and masturbating my ego. What fancy ways you have to try to hide your insults. Was writing the above quote truly necessary? The insults and utter dismissal did hurt. Undoubtedly, that was your intention.

If you believe that No One is an official key (even a referrenced expert??) what did you mean by this: "The idea or premise of a horror film as DEFINED BY THE MASTERS . . . ." Specifically "THE MASTERS." They seem to hold a key for you. Now I ask twice, who are THE MASTERS? [/B]

The masters are the people that made (produced & directed) and acted within the first horror films. They are not that difficult to look up. You know, Nosferatu, the Universal stuff, blah, blah, blah. If you have never really heard of Shock or Gore, friend, I say here, with all respect, you got some homework to do. Have you heard of Video Watchdog, Psychotronic Video, Film threat, Fangoria, Famous Monsters of Filmland, etc.? This are all worth checking out and make very common reference to the different schools of scary & disturbing cinema. I have no problem with your taxonomy analogy even though it's all self postulated, fabricated & non scientific self serving personal opinion. If you want to blanket all the scary movies under the genera or genus "horror", go right ahead. Your entitled to your opinion as I am to mine and no you are certainly no more correct than I am. We are NOT talking science here friend, we are talking personally interpreted artistic expression. All the classification in the world is not enough to justify this whole discussion as being right or wrong. My initial and original point was that there is just a lot of unimaginative, copycat, pseudo horror crap in the independent sector as far as what is at the video store currently. Of this you can rest assured.

As for the last movies you mentioned (forgive me friend, I am extremely tired tonight and doing you the service of my reply this evening is frankly more than enough to assure you of my sincere respect) in the last part of your post, most of those are not horror movies. Hitchcock himself did not like psycho or The Birds to be refereed to as "Horror" films, nor did he want to be referred to as a horror director. Christopher Lee has said on MANY occasions that the Wicker Man was in fact in no way a true "Horror" film like for instance his many portrayals of Count Dracula were. In fact the reason he initially did the film and took so much interest in it was to specifically change his acting direction away from horror. He wanted to expand his acting horizon.

ZZZZzzzzzzz

!MorganOnyx!

09-06-2007, 08:00 AM

Oh, he was too tired to respond to what I had to say. *shame spiral oncoming* ;)

SoundXscape

09-06-2007, 08:26 AM

Originally posted by !MorganOnyx!
Oh, he was too tired to respond to what I had to say. *shame spiral oncoming* ;)

I will say one thing for this forum that is honestly head & shoulders above any other film related post system I have ever participated on, the people here are "with it". No lack of response or intelligent com. here.

You are right about speaking ones mind. Except, please don't get the wrong impression. I do not think I know it all. I just believe that a frank and genuine reply to be a sincere compliment and anything but disrespectful. I also believe in meeting what I discern to be challenges to my reasoning or ethics head on. I do think pussy footin' is kind of like etiquette for birthday party going adolescents. Useless really in the scheme of that which is so passionately removed from common place consideration.

"Only those who attempt the absurd will achieve the impossible. I think it's in my basement... let me go upstairs and check."
M. C. Escher

!MorganOnyx!

09-06-2007, 08:41 AM

Ok cool, well now we've managed to define what horror is and what it isn't (oh wait no we didn't!!) let's do what we do best and discuss "horror" movies. You seem to have been around the block, but are new here (welcome by the way!) so tell us a bit about yourself. What's your favourite horror movie? Who is your favourite director? What are your horror likes and dislikes? How do you feel about remakes?

On your marks, get set....... :)

LordSimen

09-06-2007, 12:38 PM

Originally posted by SoundXscape

As for the last movies you mentioned (forgive me friend, I am extremely tired tonight and doing you the service of my reply this evening is frankly more than enough to assure you of my sincere respect) in the last part of your post, most of those are not horror movies. Hitchcock himself did not like psycho or The Birds to be refereed to as "Horror" films, nor did he want to be referred to as a horror director. Christopher Lee has said on MANY occasions that the Wicker Man was in fact in no way a true "Horror" film like for instance his many portrayals of Count Dracula were. In fact the reason he initially did the film and took so much interest in it was to specifically change his acting direction away from horror. He wanted to expand his acting horizon.

By stating what you are stating you are effectively cutting off at least 50% of the horror movies made since the 70's. There are no supernatural elements to the Texas Chainsaw Massacre, there are no supernatural elements to Last House on the Left, the Friday the 13th movies before they made Jason a zombie had no supernatural elements, neither do movies like Prom Night, or Scream, neither do movies such as The Hills Have Eyes or even modern films such as High Tension.

You seem to be mistaking all horror films as being monster films. Your definition of horror includes the 40's, 50's, 80's and effectively skips over the 70's, 90's and 2000'S. A horror movie is not a horror movie once they change their serial killer from a murderer to a zombie. If it's the same damn movie regardless of if they make they change or not, how the HELL is that one change going to make a difference on whether or not it's horror or not? The answer is none. It makes no difference, it's just one tiny aspect of the horror.

BugMuffins

09-06-2007, 03:13 PM

Originally posted by !MorganOnyx!
Ok cool, well now we've managed to define what horror is and what it isn't (oh wait no we didn't!!) let's do what we do best and discuss "horror" movies. You seem to have been around the block, but are new here (welcome by the way!) so tell us a bit about yourself. What's your favourite horror movie? Who is your favourite director? What are your horror likes and dislikes? How do you feel about remakes?

On your marks, get set....... :)

psssst...psst...it's me, soundXwhatever. I "lost" that other name that I forgot to check before registering, and here I is, regurgistrated as none other the "bugmuffins"

a little about me: I am 44 years old (ouch!), been a musician for 30 of those years, always loved film (not just scary stuff either) Currently I am trying to get "into" film music scoring/arranging/composing and when it comes to horror music, of course I am busy decomposing. ;)

I don't know if I could honestly name you a "favorite" from any specific film type because there are just so many to be appreciated for so many different reasons. I can start by naming you a few films in the last few years that impressed me as great original horror films.

Of course the greats of the last 20 years include Clive Barker's stories and Stephen King's stories. Same with SOME of Wes Craven & John Carpenter's stories/movies. Getting right down to it
in the last few years to the last few months.

Jeepers Creepers
Dagon
Memory
Dead Silence
The Grudge
Dead Birds
The Cave

With respect to what simen said about me excluding certain films. Maybe you are right. Possibly we should just call all these films one big batch of horror movies. I don't really lay any claim to an "official" this or that. I just know that what was once a potent drink called horror is now basically a diluted and flatly unimaginative punch. I just find it all just a tad too indifferent to lump a film like Hostel in with The Exorcist. I like originality too much I guess. I will say that a person would have to lump movies such as Alien into this Horror soup de jure. After all It's a very scary film so we should just toss the Science Fiction aspect of the film's context. It's Horror man, it's ALL just horror.

LordSimen

09-06-2007, 03:26 PM

Originally posted by BugMuffins

With respect to what simen said about me excluding certain films. Maybe you are right. Possibly we should just call all these films one big batch of horror movies. I don't really lay any claim to an "official" this or that. I just know that what was once a potent drink called horror is now basically a diluted and flatly unimaginative punch. I just find it all just a tad too indifferent to lump a film like Hostel in with The Exorcist. I like originality too much I guess. I will say that a person would have to lump movies such as Alien into this Horror soup de jure. After all It's a very scary film so we should just toss the Science Fiction aspect of the film's context. It's Horror man, it's ALL just horror.

Of course Alien is a horror movie, it's basically a haunted house movie in space. :D

!MorganOnyx!

09-06-2007, 04:02 PM

So we have an aspiring HARRY MANFREDINI on our hands then do we?! Thats cool, people usually aspire to be a movie star or director or a music star, as in rock star, hip hop star etc. Very rarely do I meet someone who wants to create the music behind the scenes. Well kudos to you - I still stand by belief that if done correctly and played in the right moments, a horror movie score can make or break that movie. See HALLOWEEN, PHANTASM or any of ARGENTO'S films featuring GOBLIN. Man those scores kick soooo much ass!!

As for your choice of movies, there's some interesting stuff. JEEPERS CREEPERS is largely despised around these parts mainly because the second half of the movie is a "monster movie". I happen to like it. I also have a soft spot for THE CAVE (it's basicaly a watered down MTV version of THE DESCENT, but that's cool with me). DEAD BIRDS showcased some neat visuals which creeped me out, but I was a little disappointed on the whole.

Whether you're talking about the original or the remake, THE GRUDGE is one of the scariest films I've ever seen. Good choice. :D

BugMuffins

09-06-2007, 05:14 PM

Originally posted by !MorganOnyx!
So we have an aspiring HARRY MANFREDINI on our hands then do we?! Thats cool, people usually aspire to be a movie star or director or a music star, as in rock star, hip hop star etc. Very rarely do I meet someone who wants to create the music behind the scenes. Well kudos to you - I still stand by belief that if done correctly and played in the right moments, a horror movie score can make or break that movie. See HALLOWEEN, PHANTASM or any of ARGENTO'S films featuring GOBLIN. Man those scores kick soooo much ass!!

As for your choice of movies, there's some interesting stuff. JEEPERS CREEPERS is largely despised around these parts mainly because the second half of the movie is a "monster movie". I happen to like it. I also have a soft spot for THE CAVE (it's basicaly a watered down MTV version of THE DESCENT, but that's cool with me). DEAD BIRDS showcased some neat visuals which creeped me out, but I was a little disappointed on the whole.

Whether you're talking about the original or the remake, THE GRUDGE is one of the scariest films I've ever seen. Good choice. :D

I love Italian Horror soundtracks. I have most all the Goblin stuff on disc and a bunch of Fellini material as well. I was completely demented by the Suspiria soundtrack.

As far as The Cave vs, The Descent. Hmmm, well I have seen both and could not help but view the The Descent as a much lower budget copy of The Cave. The Cave provided a MUCH deeper & entertaining story that was certainly no less suspenseful or unnerving. You also weren't just watching a movie that seemed like it was shot in a shoe box or an abandoned mobile home. I am sorry my friend, but to me the Descent was an utter low budget disappointment. The ending flat out sucked. Now please bare in mind these are just 2 cent personal OPINIONS and I respect yours as well.

Kikabi

09-06-2007, 06:07 PM

Originally posted by BugMuffins
psssst...psst...it's me, soundXwhatever. I "lost" that other name that I forgot to check before registering, and here I is, regurgistrated as none other the "bugmuffins"

:) I'm glad you worked it out.

a little about me: I am 44 years old (ouch!), been a musician for 30 of those years, always loved film (not just scary stuff either) Currently I am trying to get "into" film music scoring/arranging/composing and when it comes to horror music, of course I am busy decomposing. ;)

What a great profession to have! I wish you the best luck. :D As far as having to admit your age, yeah, I didn't like to have to either, but darn JoBlo! You can't hide it here since it's on your profile for all to see - I should have lied about my birth year!

With respect to what simen said about me excluding certain films. Maybe you are right. Possibly we should just call all these films one big batch of horror movies. I don't really lay any claim to an "official" this or that. I just know that what was once a potent drink called horror is now basically a diluted and flatly unimaginative punch. I just find it all just a tad too indifferent to lump a film like Hostel in with The Exorcist. I like originality too much I guess. I will say that a person would have to lump movies such as Alien into this Horror soup de jure. After all It's a very scary film so we should just toss the Science Fiction aspect of the film's context. It's Horror man, it's ALL just horror.

Originally posted by SoundXscapeI have no problem with your taxonomy analogy even though it's all self postulated, fabricated & non scientific self serving personal opinion. If you want to blanket all the scary movies under the genera or genus "horror", go right ahead. Your entitled to your opinion as I am to mine and no you are certainly no more correct than I am. We are NOT talking science here friend, we are talking personally interpreted artistic expression. All the classification in the world is not enough to justify this whole discussion as being right or wrong. My initial and original point was that there is just a lot of unimaginative, copycat, pseudo horror crap in the independent sector as far as what is at the video store currently. Of this you can rest assured.

First up, I agree with your initial point, and it's not only in the independent sector. Hollywood studio-backed films haven't been very impressive either. I think what we've really been debating is what is "psuedo horror."

Second, you're right, I still have a lot to learn about horror and my fellow schmoes know this. It's why I sometimes refer to myself as a Horror Movie High freshman. I'm relatively new to the horror genre compared to everyone else here. I don't believe this negates my right to hold opinions about the genre based on what I've learned and seen over the years.

Third, I think you're contradicting yourself. You take me to task because I classify things, when there's nothing wrong with doing that, but then you say it's wrong to lump Hostel in with films like The Exorcist under the general heading of Horror. Because I do classify things, I consider them both Horror, but I don't lump the two together as the same type of "Horror." They belong in two different classes of horror.

Fourth, on to the unpleasantness - to quote you again "I have no problem with your taxonomy analogy even though it's all self postulated, fabricated & non scientific self serving personal opinion. If you want to blanket all the scary movies under the genera or genus "horror", go right ahead."

As I've just said, I don't blanket all "scary movies" under the "genera" of horror. I made that point clear much earlier by citing the work of Charles Derry and his classifications from his book. So you see that your accusation that it's all self-postulated, fabricated, and self-serving is unfounded. Perhaps it's too much to ask for an apology for your accusation?

I agree that it's not scientific, but it is a classification system that is logical, and from a man who has studied and written about the horror genre. You may not like having things placed in different types of classes and such, but that's simply the way I think and do things - what's so wrong with it that you feel the need to get on my case about it?

Fifth, and most important for us, we actually agree in our preferrences! I prefer the more supernatural and fantastic kinds of horror movies. They're generally far more imaginative and interesing. Not to say there aren't some slashers that I don't like, but give me Dawn of Dead or Dog Soldiers over Freddie and Hostel any day of the week.

I agree that we've been inundated with copy-cat deviant psycho-killers and that Horror is so much more than that. It's a sad thing that when most people hear "Horror" they think screaming teenage girls and bloody knives. While most horror fans are done with horror-torture and want something different.

My only disagreement with you is what I precieve is your desire to divorce the psychotic, deviant torture-slasher "could really happen" films from the horror genre. And I guess you disagree with the way I separate these types of films from other types of horror films, such as demonic, while still maintaining they all belong under the Horror umbrella.

Kikabi

09-06-2007, 06:22 PM

Originally posted by LordSimen
Of course Alien is a horror movie, it's basically a haunted house movie in space. :D

So is Event Horizon. ;) I like horror/science fiction. Although I think of Alien as a monster movie in space.

I like Jeepers Creepers, too, and have Dead Silence and Dagon lined up in my rental queue. Never heard of Dead Birds; I'll have to check that one out. Heard too many bad things about The Cave and Memory, so I've passed on those. Maybe I should give Cave a chance now that it's been talked up. I'm a big asian horror fan, so, not surprisingly, I prefer Ju-On to The Grudge. For one thing, it's a lot less "hairy."

zombievictim

09-06-2007, 06:38 PM

Originally posted by Kikabi
Heard too many bad things about The Cave and Memory, so I've passed on those. Maybe I should give Cave a chance now that it's been talked up.

For the love of god, please don't watch the Cave. It is one of the biggest pieces of shit in recent years. Honestly, this is like if The Descent had shat out a tumor. Actually no, this movie cannot be compared to The Descent in any way. It's THAT bad.

BugMuffins

09-07-2007, 11:44 AM

Being a musician is not my profession although I did do it professionally for a number of years. Unless one is in the union and very well connected, there is little dependability or stability being a musician. Professionally speaking I am just a retail sales mgr. guyee. :rolleyes: I just LOVE music! Always have.

The Cave is honestly an excellent film. It's a good old fashioned monster flick with a really cool premise. I think you would enjoy it.

Let's put something to rest. I never condemned you for using Taxonomy. I merely said that we (as in those that post on most forums) love to stimulate ourselves via personal analogous interjections. I even said that I used to do the same (in my case it was music) regularly. I thought it to be logical because I understood the process and figured others would relate to it the way I did. In the end everyone thought of me as a knowitall because they misunderstood that all I was really doing is "going for" clarity of expression. Then I got to thinking "maybe I am honestly trying too hard, maybe I am glorifying that which is liberal (liberal arts) with an inappropriate scientific classification system. I personally chalked this chapter in my oh so insignificant life up to that which I could subtitle: Toxic Taxonomy - My Pseudo Scientific Self Important Hair Splitting Revelation Concerning That Which Has No Hair To Begin With. :p

For several heavily concentrated years in my life, I was very involved in the keying and procuring of various extremely rare species of South American wild life. Trust me when I say I am more than familiar with that which constitutes real taxonomy. Right down to anatomical semi soft tissues, skeletal & dental structure. (oh boyee!)

Can you see where I am coming from now? What I had done was to take a small portion of my personal identification process and adaptively stimulate my own external interests via this abstract transposition.

There is so much to talk about, but I will end here on this note. I will concede here and now to the entirety of that which is Gore, Slasher, Black Comedy, Science Fiction, Gothic, Surreal, Fantasy, Monster, Shock & Euro Trash Cinema, etc. as being generalized brands of Horror. This being just to show everyone that I am more than open to new possibilities and interpretations.

This being as long as we can all agree on the fact that it is truly the imagination that distinctively separates great from lame "horror" movies. A copy is a copy is a copy and when we define a copy, we MUST stay chronologically linear in terms of which is the original and which is the copy.

The following is only opinion, so be warned:

To not be able to clearly distinguish that The Cave is 10 times the movie with respect to it's vivid depth of imagination and creature effects, as opposed to the lame & dry copy that The Decent offers us, is basically to admit a somewhat tone deaf capacity for that which constitutes great & powerful story telling. With The Cave it's a matter of "whoa, that was cool"! with the The Decent it's more like "when are we coming to the good part cause it seems like we are going in circles here"? In the back of a semi trailer at that...OK, maybe two semi trailers put together at best.

end personal opinion rant:

Watched a GREAT (what a flick!) movie last night but it wasn't Horror so I won't mention that it was Spy Game with Brad Pitt & Robert Reford. :D

Kikabi

09-07-2007, 12:42 PM

Originally posted by BugMuffins
Being a musician is not my profession although I did do it professionally for a number of years. Unless one is in the union and very well connected, there is little dependability or stability being a musician. Professionally speaking I am just a retail sales mgr. guyee. :rolleyes: I just LOVE music! Always have.

Then me let rephrase - what a great ambition you have to enter such a profession. Again, I wish you luck. Keep at it!

Let's put something to rest. I never condemned you for using Taxonomy. I merely said that we (as in those that post on most forums) love to stimulate ourselves via personal analogous interjections. I even said that I used to do the same (in my case it was music) regularly.
Yes, you did, along the lines of how "we love to masturbate, don't we," which was a bit condensending. But you've pulled back from that attitude towards me for the most part and I appreciat that.

I want to put this to rest as well and have peace between us. But I did feel that you WERE condemning me for using my own classifications of Horror, which is why I've been like a dog with bone about it. Which is why I asked for an apology when you said I fabricated things, basically stating that I've been dishonest, disceitful. That was out of line, and I would appreciate if you would admit to that.

Can you see where I am coming from now? What I had done was to take a small portion of my personal identification process and adaptively stimulate my own external interests via this abstract transposition.

Yes, I do, and thanks for explaining that because you got caught up in thinking in those minutia of terms that you might see someone like me being the same way. I'm not scientifically minded, though, but I am fascinated in how things fit together. Maybe it's the historian in me. I'm not sure about that, though! :p

This being as long as we can all agree on the fact that it is truly the imagination that distinctively separates great from lame "horror" movies. A copy is a copy is a copy and when we define a copy, we MUST stay chronologically linear in terms of which is the original and which is the copy.

Now you're appealing to the historian in me!

The following is only opinion, so be warned:

To not be able to clearly distinguish that The Cave is 10 times the movie with respect to it's vivid depth of imagination and creature effects, as opposed to the lame & dry copy that The Decent offers us, is basically to admit a somewhat tone deaf capacity for that which constitutes great & powerful story telling. With The Cave it's a matter of "whoa, that was cool"! with the The Decent it's more like "when are we coming to the good part cause it seems like we are going in circles here"? In the back of a semi trailer at that...OK, maybe two semi trailers put together at best.

end personal opinion rant:

I will have to see to it form my own opinion. Personally, I really liked The Descent, and the twin meanings of that title, but not everyone does. I didn't find it "lame." I liked the build-up to the main events. I'll have to see for myself whether it's truly a copy of The Cave or not, though. That could be discussed in a different thread.

BugMuffins

09-07-2007, 01:40 PM

K
You are still not "getting" the part about masturbation. Masturbating in this sense is not something to be ashamed of (nor is it ever for that matter) or an analogous reference to condescendingly judging you, but rather refers to drawing from (and thereby stimulating ) a response based on a personally preferred identification process. Yes, in this sense, we do love to masturbate don't we? (that's also "we" as in plural and not "we" as in you)

EDIT: Masturbation because of it's sexual definition was a POOR choice of words here. Although, I can't honestly think of another word that serves up the purpose anymore. Maybe "self adulate" "self ascribe"

The taxonomy was something I related to. The "warning" bit and lecture on my etiquette was the part that set me off a bit and if you will forgive me for saying so, it seemed, well, just a bit...

condescending.

Kind of like saying "I don't have a scientific mind"

Yes you most certainly do because in this sense "a scientific mind" is merely an intelligent curiosity and you certainly have one. Period. What you don't have is an analytical mind. If you did, you wouldn't be here.

Now, get back to the Horror.

Kikabi

09-07-2007, 03:03 PM

Originally posted by BugMuffins
The taxonomy was something I related to. The "warning" bit and lecture on my etiquette was the part that set me off a bit and if you will forgive me for saying so, it seemed, well, just a bit...

condescending.

I suppose it was at that, although I don't take back what I said. It's important to understand why JoBlo is different from other forums, and it's because of the rules against insulting fellow schmoes. I really didn't want to see you kicked out of JoBlo, thus the warning. And I admit, I was angry when I wrote that post, although I tried to be assertive rather than aggressive or passive-aggressive.

Kind of like saying "I don't have a scientific mind" Was I being condensending when I wrote that? I never meant to come off that way. I'm sorry if I did.

What you don't have is an analytical mind. If you did, you wouldn't be here.

I don't understand your meaning. I suppose I'll have analysis it.;)

Now, get back to the Horror.

Yes, let's. Went to run some errands and picked up The Cave while I was out, in spite of dear Zombievictim's warnings. I'll give it a watch and post my reaction to it in the Past Horror section, probably tomorrow.

BugMuffins

09-07-2007, 03:49 PM

Originally posted by Kikabi
I suppose it was at that, although I don't take back what I said. It's important to understand why JoBlo is different from other forums, and it's because of the rules against insulting fellow schmoes. I really didn't want to see you kicked out of JoBlo, thus the warning. And I admit, I was angry when I wrote that post, although I tried to be assertive rather than aggressive or passive-aggressive.

Was I being condensending when I wrote that? I never meant to come off that way. I'm sorry if I did.

I don't understand your meaning. I suppose I'll have analysis it.;)

Yes, let's. Went to run some errands and picked up The Cave while I was out, in spite of dear Zombievictim's warnings. I'll give it a watch and post my reaction to it in the Past Horror section, probably tomorrow.

I really wish I knew better how to use this forum's text editor. All the other VB forums I use do not work like this one it seems. Normally I just "drag n highlight" and then press whatever "Bold" "Italic" or whatever button...this one seems messed up.

Anyhow...I agree with everything you said.

You are a little too nice to me so I am bit buffered at the moment, but I'll be back, more sanctimonious than ever I am certain. LOL!

Thanks for being "here"

I am super curious as to your reaction to The Cave. I can't be as bad as everyone is saying. I honestly thought it was excellent.

No one has commented on Dagon. That was a WICKED movie. Truly unique and way twisted.

Got an honest/sincere question for everyone. Trying to remember this killer horror movie I watched not too long ago. It was about this girl that was drawn back to this town that had been covered in ash because of underground nuclear testing (I think, totally unsure) You could see down into the ground where it was like glowing. In the end she becomes this incredible force to be reckoned with at which time she strings all these people up with barbed wire. Man, is this ever a COOL movie. I just can't seem to remember the name. Seems like it had something to do with going to the basement floor. The movie was released in the last year or so.

What is this????

LordSimen

09-07-2007, 03:55 PM

Originally posted by BugMuffins

To not be able to clearly distinguish that The Cave is 10 times the movie with respect to it's vivid depth of imagination and creature effects, as opposed to the lame & dry copy that The Decent offers us, is basically to admit a somewhat tone deaf capacity for that which constitutes great & powerful story telling. With The Cave it's a matter of "whoa, that was cool"! with the The Decent it's more like "when are we coming to the good part cause it seems like we are going in circles here"? In the back of a semi trailer at that...OK, maybe two semi trailers put together at best.

The Descent was made before the Cave. The Cave was made as a result of a studio head seeing the success the Cave was making over in England and decided "Hey, let's copy that movie." In other words, The Cave was a rip off of the Descent.

Not to argue over the quality, (I personally believe the Cave was a piece of crap but that's neither here nor there) but The Descent isn't the copy. The Cave is.

Cronos

09-07-2007, 04:00 PM

Originally posted by Kikabi
Yes, let's. Went to run some errands and picked up The Cave while I was out, in spite of dear Zombievictim's warnings. I'll give it a watch and post my reaction to it in the Past Horror section, probably tomorrow.
NOOOOOOOOOOOO, don't do it, save yourself the pain of that shitfest and watch The Descent instead.

BugMuffins

09-07-2007, 04:27 PM

Originally posted by LordSimen
The Descent was made before the Cave. The Cave was made as a result of a studio head seeing the success the Cave was making over in England and decided "Hey, let's copy that movie." In other words, The Cave was a rip off of the Descent.

Not to argue over the quality, (I personally believe the Cave was a piece of crap but that's neither here nor there) but The Descent isn't the copy. The Cave is.

That's very interesting. I swear I looked yesterday and one (The Cave) was 2005 and The Descent was 2006. maybe I am wrong, but I do know for certain that the Cave is MILES deeper than the Descent.

BugMuffins

09-07-2007, 04:39 PM

Originally posted by LordSimen
The Descent was made before the Cave. The Cave was made as a result of a studio head seeing the success the Cave was making over in England and decided "Hey, let's copy that movie." In other words, The Cave was a rip off of the Descent.

Not to argue over the quality, (I personally believe the Cave was a piece of crap but that's neither here nor there) but The Descent isn't the copy. The Cave is.

http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/1808643047/info

http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/1808715948/info

zombievictim

09-07-2007, 04:43 PM

Simen is right, The Descent came out before The Cave. Those dates that you posted are for the US release dates. The Descent came out in other places MUCH sooner than that. Sorry to spoil your fun.

LordSimen

09-07-2007, 04:54 PM

Originally posted by BugMuffins
http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/1808643047/info

http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/1808715948/info

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0435625/releaseinfo

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0402901/releaseinfo

Kikabi

09-07-2007, 04:59 PM

Originally posted by BugMuffins
I really wish I knew better how to use this forum's text editor. All the other VB forums I use do not work like this one it seems. Normally I just "drag n highlight" and then press whatever "Bold" "Italic" or whatever button...this one seems messed up.

It is annoying - you have to do the HTML yourself - You have to separate the parts of response you want to reply to with [*QUOTE][*B] [*/B][*/QUOTE] No * but I'm sure you know that.

You are a little too nice to me so I am bit buffered at the moment, but I'll be back, more sanctimonious than ever I am certain. LOL!

Thanks for the warning ;) I don't know about being too nice; I'm just being myself and want peace between us, which we've acheived. Honestly, it takes alot to get me angry, and I do stand up for myself and for my friends. But I'm also a forgiving person on the whole.

I am super curious as to your reaction to The Cave. I can't be as bad as everyone is saying. I honestly thought it was excellent.

No one has commented on Dagon. That was a WICKED movie. Truly unique and way twisted.

My reaction? I don't have one yet, accept to decide to see it for myself so we can discuss it. Although the others are right about it not being a copycat. They both came out in 2005, and The Descent is a UK production whilst The Cave is a US one. My reaction is accusations of rip-offs and copycatting is generally scepticism since they're often baseless. But not always.

I have Dagon in my rental queue. Maybe I'll move it up some notches.

Got an honest/sincere question for everyone. Trying to remember this killer horror movie I watched not too long ago. It was about this girl that was drawn back to this town that had been covered in ash because of underground nuclear testing (I think, totally unsure) You could see down into the ground where it was like glowing. In the end she becomes this incredible force to be reckoned with at which time she strings all these people up with barbed wire. Man, is this ever a COOL movie. I just can't seem to remember the name. Seems like it had something to do with going to the basement floor. The movie was released in the last year or so.

What is this????

That sounds like Silent Hill, with its perpetual coal fire. Did it have Sean Bean in it? I really liked that one

Kikabi

09-07-2007, 05:06 PM

Originally posted by Cronos
NOOOOOOOOOOOO, don't do it, save yourself the pain of that shitfest and watch The Descent instead.

Too late! It is here at home with me. Hey, I survived the Wicker Man remake ::shutter:: (although, listening to the RiffTrax of it afterwards helped.) Besides, one person's shitfest is another person's lovefest (or something like that) I mean I think Child's Play is a shitfest, and many of my fellow schmoes would throw rocks at me for saying such a blasphemous thing. :D

Anyway, diving into The Cave with an OPEN mind.

Cronos

09-07-2007, 05:12 PM

Originally posted by Kikabi
That sounds like Silent Hill, with its perpetual coal fire. Did it have Sean Bean in it? I really liked that one
Definitely Silent Hill.
Originally posted by Kikabi
Besides, one person's shitfest is another person's lovefest (or something like that)
Very true, after all i did really enjoy Battlefield Earth :D.

BugMuffins

09-07-2007, 05:20 PM

Originally posted by LordSimen
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0435625/releaseinfo

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0402901/releaseinfo

OK guys. I am going at this with complete objectivity. It's obvious IMDB is incorrect as their release dates are identical for both. I read somewhere after Simen's original response about the The Descent coming first that the Descent was released in July of 05 and The Cave came out in August of 05. I will try and get to the bottom of this so that I know the facts. But fact is, for me, The Descent was lame by comparison to The Cave no matter how I slice it. Sometimes it's good to be in the minority. :)

BugMuffins

09-07-2007, 05:24 PM

Originally posted by Cronos
Definitely Silent Hill.

Very true, after all i did really enjoy Battlefield Earth :D.

Thanks to Kikabi & Cronos...yes! I really like this film.

X-Nightcrawler

09-07-2007, 05:33 PM

Originally posted by BugMuffins

Got an honest/sincere question for everyone. Trying to remember this killer horror movie I watched not too long ago. It was about this girl that was drawn back to this town that had been covered in ash because of underground nuclear testing (I think, totally unsure) You could see down into the ground where it was like glowing. In the end she becomes this incredible force to be reckoned with at which time she strings all these people up with barbed wire. Man, is this ever a COOL movie. I just can't seem to remember the name. Seems like it had something to do with going to the basement floor. The movie was released in the last year or so.

What is this???? omg dude, that movie came out a year ago!

And it's based on a HARDOCRE videogame.

Kikabi

09-07-2007, 07:22 PM

Originally posted by Cronos
Very true, after all i did really enjoy Battlefield Earth :D.

You're a truly brave soul to have admitted this in public. :p

Finished watching The Cave. Not a shitfest, not a lovefest - not for me. But taking that topic over to Past Horror Movies.

LordSimen

09-07-2007, 08:34 PM

Originally posted by BugMuffins
OK guys. I am going at this with complete objectivity. It's obvious IMDB is incorrect as their release dates are identical for both. I read somewhere after Simen's original response about the The Descent coming first that the Descent was released in July of 05 and The Cave came out in August of 05. I will try and get to the bottom of this so that I know the facts. But fact is, for me, The Descent was lame by comparison to The Cave no matter how I slice it. Sometimes it's good to be in the minority. :)

That's fine. I didn't want to debate the quality, just, wanted to correct which was made first. =P

BugMuffins

09-07-2007, 11:48 PM

Originally posted by LordSimen
That's fine. I didn't want to debate the quality, just, wanted to correct which was made first. =P

LordSimen, although I am not doubting your being correct about the RELEASE of the The Descent having beat The Cave by roughly 1 month, I believe you will find the following relevant quote a bit unsettling as to which is a copy of the other and which was truly made first.

Pathé, the company behind the film, deliberately released the film a bit early, forcing it to appear in theaters before another caving themed horror film titled The Cave. According to director Neil Marshall, this was "just to try and beat The Cave to the punch, piss on their chips a bit."

What do you have to say about that Perry Mason?

:p

LordSimen

09-08-2007, 12:45 AM

Originally posted by BugMuffins
LordSimen, although I am not doubting your being correct about the RELEASE of the The Descent having beat The Cave by roughly 1 month, I believe you will find the following relevant quote a bit unsettling as to which is a copy of the other and which was truly made first.

Pathé, the company behind the film, deliberately released the film a bit early, forcing it to appear in theaters before another caving themed horror film titled The Cave. According to director Neil Marshall, this was "just to try and beat The Cave to the punch, piss on their chips a bit."

What do you have to say about that Perry Mason?

:p

Hahaha. That quote really makes it sound like neither copied each other, but rather, just have similar things around the same time.

BugMuffins

09-08-2007, 08:23 AM

Originally posted by LordSimen
Hahaha. That quote really makes it sound like neither copied each other, but rather, just have similar things around the same time.

Yep, my feelings exactly. You know Simen, doing all the research on these two somewhat similar films was actually pretty interesting. It seems that psychologically speaking the thing that the majority of The Descent fans find most impressive was the claustrophobic atmosphere (or lack there of) that the film was shot in. The thing that seemed to turn the heads of The Cave's fans was the story itself which borders on Science Fiction because of it's depth.

This is my bottom line analysis of the two films.

The Descent is actually a clever psychological thriller of a movie that operates on the premise of a horror film.

The Cave seems to be more an earth based Science Fiction suspense story that operates on the premise of a horror film.

The vast majority of horror fans seem to prefer the Descent. Their reasoning is often somewhat weak however. It seems to be the opposite with The Cave. The minority like it, but have MUCH more solid reasons (do less name calling which in this case I am admittedly guilty of)

Ultra Bottom line: Reviewers rarely ever praise both films. I have not run across one case yet. Personally, I still prefer The Cave, BUT, I wonder how much that honestly has to do with which film I saw first.

Kikabi

09-08-2007, 12:48 PM

Originally posted by BugMuffins
Ultra Bottom line: Reviewers rarely ever praise both films. I have not run across one case yet. Personally, I still prefer The Cave, BUT, I wonder how much that honestly has to do with which film I saw first.

That's a very good question about whether we're influenced by which film we see first. It can cause us to go into the second one with expectations. I never felt it was fair to a movie to come into with any expectations, besides expecting it to entertain me on some level. I feel if you have expectation of a movie, 98% of the time, you'll be disappointed, especially if you catch yourself sitting there comparing one film to the one you're watching!

I posted my reaction to The Cave in the Past Horror Movie section, BugMuffins, if you want to go and take a look at it.

There was something you had posted earlier - something like Horror hiding behind the insanity plea for too long? Something like that, but I liked how you phrased that. Anyway, just out of curiosity, are there any slasher/serial killer movies, that don't fall into your "non-real" qualification, that you do like? While you and I prefer the "non-real" there are some that I like. Black Christmas is one of my favorites.

!MorganOnyx!

09-08-2007, 02:36 PM

Originally posted by BugMuffins
As far as The Cave vs, The Descent. Hmmm, well I have seen both and could not help but view the The Descent as a much lower budget copy of The Cave. The Cave provided a MUCH deeper & entertaining story that was certainly no less suspenseful or unnerving. You also weren't just watching a movie that seemed like it was shot in a shoe box or an abandoned mobile home. I am sorry my friend, but to me the Descent was an utter low budget disappointment. The ending flat out sucked. Now please bare in mind these are just 2 cent personal OPINIONS and I respect yours as well.

That's cool dude. When I said THE CAVE was a "watered down, MTV style" version of THE DESCENT, I wasn't trying to badmouth it. I was merely pointing out that it was less bloodthirsty and aimed a little more at the MTV generation because of the name actors (COLE HAUSER from 2 FAST 2 FURIOUS, PIPER PERABO from COYOTE UGLY, CHEAPER BY THE DOZEN). Both films have their merits. I understand sci-fi fans would appreciate the qualities of THE CAVE, whilst die hard fear fans preferred the claustrophobic scare tactics of THE DESCENT.

Oh, and to clear up the argument over which movie came into fruition first I'm afraid the award goes to THE CAVE. Shooting began in APRIL 2004. THE DESCENT began filming DECEMBER 2004. I remember all of the problems THE CAVE had with securing a decent release date. It was shelved for over a year. I read all about it in FANGORIA.

So if one film was "ripping off" the other, the makers of THE DESCENT were the guilty party. ;)

BugMuffins

09-09-2007, 09:09 AM

Originally posted by !MorganOnyx!
That's cool dude. When I said THE CAVE was a "watered down, MTV style" version of THE DESCENT, I wasn't trying to badmouth it. I was merely pointing out that it was less bloodthirsty and aimed a little more at the MTV generation because of the name actors (COLE HAUSER from 2 FAST 2 FURIOUS, PIPER PERABO from COYOTE UGLY, CHEAPER BY THE DOZEN). Both films have their merits. I understand sci-fi fans would appreciate the qualities of THE CAVE, whilst die hard fear fans preferred the claustrophobic scare tactics of THE DESCENT.

Oh, and to clear up the argument over which movie came into fruition first I'm afraid the award goes to THE CAVE. Shooting began in APRIL 2004. THE DESCENT began filming DECEMBER 2004. I remember all of the problems THE CAVE had with securing a decent release date. It was shelved for over a year. I read all about it in FANGORIA.

So if one film was "ripping off" the other, the makers of THE DESCENT were the guilty party. ;)

wow! You KNOW your stuff & I appreciate you sharing this. I apologize for misunderstanding the MTV comment. That comment, as per your clarification, is very pertinent.

I watched a very sensual and high quality cinematographed movie yesterday (note: I didn't say high budget). I am interested in other's feelings here on this one. It was called "In A Dark Place"

I thought the ending absolutely SUCKED. What a shame (in my selfish eyes anyhow), with 15-20 more minutes and a slightly modified story line, this film could have been a supernatural femme fatale classic. It's like they ran out of time or money or both and just said "CUT"!

If anyone can "fill me in" on their more satisfying interpretation or psychological understanding of the film's ending, PLEASE, I WANT to like this film.