Too much action in modern horror?

[Servo]

So I was surfing the IMDB.com boards (bless me Arrow for I have sinned) and I came across a thread where a guy was ranting about how today's horror movies are more like action/thrillers. I can kind of see where he's coming from, since a lot of horror that's come out recently has featured some serious ass kicking by the protagonist to the villain/monster/killer/whatever.

So what do you guys think? Is there too much action in horror movies? Is that a good thing? A bad thing? An okay thing? I wanna know what you guys think.

[X-Nightcrawler]

Unless you/he meant the horror/action movies (Resident Evil: Apocalypse) I really wouldn't think that there's too much action in horror today.

[Inglorious]

X started to venture the path really... but your question is sort of in the dark... it's not very specific.

Horror has MANY MANY sub-genres, hence; Action/Horror, Thriller, Horror/Comedy, Psychological Horror, Etc. The list really does go on forever. So basically what I am saying is no, there isn't too much action in modern horror, because where one horror film has a ton of action, the one that isn't supposed to have much action doesn't.

[countchocula]

Modern day fright fests are more eventful and have a quicker pace, if that's what he was getting at. I miss atmospheric slow burners myself (or "decaf" horror films, if you will).

[Servo]

Originally posted by countchocula
Modern day fright fests are more eventful and have a quicker pace, if that's what he was getting at.

That's pretty much what I'm getting at. These films usually rely on "jump scares" and music appearing at just the right time as the killer shows up. I'm not really sure if that could be considered a bad thing...because it is pretty effective. Jump scares usually work on me.

I'm sorry if my question sucked. These boards have been lacking lately and I'm trying to spark at least some kind of new conversation.

[Inglorious]

Originally posted by Servo
I'm sorry if my question sucked. These boards have been lacking lately and I'm trying to spark at least some kind of new conversation.

No no no. Your question didn't suck, I didn't mean it to be taken that way. Any question with a base, and point... and hopefully a returning answer - is a good question.

But uh, I suppose it is too action filled, for the most part if you mean it that way. I do miss such films as Carnival Of Souls (1966) and The Exorcist (1973)...

[Cronos]

depends where the horrors from, american horror, yes theres more action than scares in it whereas in japanese horror, theres more scares than action

[spacemonkey]

Action/Horror films are a little sub genre in the whole horror pantheon.

Just this week I had the displeasure of watching one such Hybrid....Blade Trinity. I think the Blade films are a fine example of action/horror films.

Me myself, I dont mind them. I think they have there own little niche in the horror world. Just as long as they dont only make action horror films....then its ok. Id have a problem if they were taking over the genre wich I dont think is really happening.

[pyscho dude]

I guess it depends on the type of horror movie. The Blade films have a good amount of action but still maintain being horror.

[ComeNightfall]

I don't care much for action/horror, but a lot of people enjoy it and if the movie is good, it's entertaining enough for me.

[TheDeadWalk]

I think what he means is that a lot more of the modern slashers or supernatural movies involve some victims or the protagonist into trying to play billy badass.

You've got the people fighting off ghost face in the scream films, People giving Jason Voorhees shot after shot to show his invincibility, and Busta Rhymes doing Kung Fu on Michael Myers. Not to mention also the pent up rage in the new Dawn of the Dead, and of course a fighting Jessica Biel in the new Texas Chainsaw Massacre. Comparing those films to their older counterparts shows off a huge increase in "action".

Blade, Underworld, and the like I don't think are what's being referenced.

[ERIN_LoJ]

Sometimes it's overdone, yes. Like in Underworld. THe movie was more action than anything else.

[TheDeadWalk]

I expected Underworld to be action, and to be the prime carrier of the film.

But standard horror, if we can all agree on the concept, has me looking at things like Scream where the killer and the soon-to-be victim get into a WWE hardcore title match in the garage.

[skweemkween]

I will second the motion; I didn't think your question blew goats at all. I got it and I understand it.

There is a cliche when we hear the word 'action movie' and by those standards (guns, explosions, king fu, femme fatale who has embraced her kung fu, lots of pecs, machismo, bad one-liners, cue cool soundtrak, the latest sports car or amped up Subaru) YES modern horror has had a LOT of them.

Unfortunately, Blade Trinity (and I never wanted to say this) epitomizes those standards and 'tis such a hard thing for me to swallow cause I believe the first Blade and yes, the second Blade were great examples of 'action horror' done right. It had GREAT characters, it had a uniqueness,timing, and memorable sequences; something lacking in the modern day cliche that is 'action horror.'

One of the most important mantras that I believe in when it comes to horror (well, in films and movie making in general ) is the phrase : allow for comfortable silences.

Some of the GREATEST moments and sequences in some of our favorite horror movies (ok, maybe a lot of them are old school) have beautiful silences, pauses, and a stillness to them that only emphasize the drama and horror going on on screen. There isn't always this rush, rush, rush pace to them, there isn't a always a drop dead beauty with her own pecs holding a gun, there isn't a semblence of anything mechanical with 500 horsepower.

In that sense, yes modern 'action horror' lacks that, that beautiful silence and tone.

[Mr-Blonde]

With movies like Resident Evil: Apocalypse, Van Helsing, and Underworld being released in increasing frequency my answer to the question posed is yes-- there is too much action in horror movies. I miss the psychological mind fuck horror of old that wasn't as in-your-face.

More mystery and more shadows = more creepy and more scary.

More action ala RE: Apocalypse = WWE cheesefest

[C-Desecration-]

More mystery and more shadows = more creepy and more scary.

More action ala RE: Apocalypse = WWE cheesefest




Has there ever been an action-horror that manages to be scary (I don't mean to anyone personally, just, you know, scary in the broadest sense, other than BOO!)? Or do those two just not go well together, because when the lead can kick ass, there's no danger, so not much fear.
Any buff here know the roots of action horror? Because I have a feeling it's increased - or maybe even started, really - with the whole "let's make the heroes heroines." Because movies are still tinkering with the tough female angle. Like most of the movies listed, RE, UW, Screams, notice that the ones that fight back - successfully at least - are the chicks. Girls overcoming peril is the popular thing to do nowadays, and horror brings the most peril with it.
Hell, remember The Haunting? I know what you did?
Pretty much all the "hero gets badass" movies (recently) are because of that heroine craze.

[TheDeadWalk]

The Night of the Living Dead remake went with the tough female angle, and I felt pulled it off nicely.

Its got the gobs of headshots, fighting, struggling, shouting and explosions that you find in an action movie, but still keeps its tense atmosphere and genuine scares.

[syxxpac]

I don't want to sound misogynistic, but it's become a cliche nowadays for the female to be the only survivor in these movies. I don't even have to see movies like Ghost Ship or Resident Evil to know who the sole survivor is going to be. Don't get me wrong - I luuuurve strong female characters (Ripley is of course the tits), but it seems like formula standard to keep that woman's pulse going till the credits roll. It would be nice if victims-to-be were equally divided in gender.

As for action/horror being scary...Aliens absolutely terrified me the first time I saw it as a wee lad, and it's regarded more as an action movie than a horror movie. Same with Night Of The Living Dead '90, the first zombie movie I ever saw, and one of the first horror movies to truly get under my skin.

Hell, I still think Jurassic Park is much scarier than a lot of recent "pure horror" offerings.

[Servo]

I was just about to mention Aliens. Good call. Now there's your perfect action/horror. It has some of the coolest, most memorable action scenes and some of the most horrifying images in Hollywood (of course, it's my opinion that Alien was more horrifying). Night of the Living Dead (1990) is a good example as well. I remember watching it for the first time: first time I was scared shitless, second time I was pumped due to the action.


EDIT: So I've come to my own personal conclusion (so far) to this matter and it goes something like this: Action/Horror is not a bad thing. However, these days a lot of horror filmmakers try to milk the action in their action/horror films, creating an unbalanced film. There needs to be balanced. So yes, there is too much action in horror, and not enough scares; not just BOO! scares, but scares that involve camera movement, sound editing, all of the factors that create a "creepy vibe." Add these elements to an all out BANG BANG fest, you got yourself one hell of a horror movie.