At least big-budget takes on the genre. We went to see It Chapter Two last week, and... *sigh* it was OK, I guess. I liked Chapter One better, mainly because the characters were more likeable as kids. But when those kids grow up and turn into Bill Hader and James Ransone, they're just annoying. Sure, Jessica Chastain and James McAvoy are good in basically everything I've seen them in, but their performances won't save a flawed movie. Or a flawed genre.
Why is it that horror has become synonymous with jump scares? MONSTER™ jumps on the screen accompanied by LOUD OBNOXIOUS SOUND EFFECT™. That's not what the genre is about... is it? Being scared/creeped out and being startled are two very different things, and the latter is so cheap and done to death that I can't take anything that claims to be a "horror movie" seriously anymore. It's all the samey boring tripe.
A real horror movie, if you ask me, is a movie that will make you uncomfortable. Something that will worm its clammy fingers into your brain and disturb you on some level. Not make you go OOOH and AAAH like riding a roller coaster.
Man, I agree with you so much about the genre. Every now and then a great indie comes along and gives me hope. But, that's how it's always been. Most "big budget" horror flicks have been pretty lackluster throughout the last 3 decades, save a few here and there.
I totally agree with the jump scares, loud noises, etc. It's all fluff in order to make you feel the most basic emotion associated with fear. I love horror movies that don't spoon feed you and are patient. Hereditary is an example of patience yet it still used jump scares and loud noises as a crutch in some scenes which is what made it miss a near perfect modern horror movie for me. My two favorite "recent" horror flicks are It Follows and The Babadook. Yes, both are flawed but that's the beauty of the genre to be fair. The one thing they both did well was setup basic rules and stick to them without trying to over explain too much. It left a lot open to the imagination. They both also were an allegory for deeper topics which make for a great analysis later.
Speaking of horror movies that were done well, Scream has held up surprisingly well. It's on Netflix if you want to give that one a re-watch. I certainly enjoyed the 90's nostalgia trip.
I used to enjoy horror movies when they were new to me. Now I don't bother watching them because I mostly find them boring or just comical. There are 2, in somewhat recent history, that I recall finding to be good though even after I'd become bored with the genre. "The Ring" (I haven't seen the sequels) and the "Saw" series of movies (I've seen all the sequels). "Saw" is definitely more of a psychological horror movie that leaves you wondering "what would I do", or "could I survive that"?
It's that sense of the formulaic, isn't it? What was used effectively by some other film makers becomes run of the mill by someone else's standards. Like how the Lord of the Rings movies seemed like the film makers used discretion, and held everything to a standard, and then the Hobbit films largely felt like someone just used a "LotR" preset in their editing program.
(10-06-2019, 11:06 PM)Nayrb Wrote: [ -> ]It's that sense of the formulaic, isn't it? What was used effectively by some other film makers becomes run of the mill by someone else's standards. Like how the Lord of the Rings movies seemed like the film makers used discretion, and held everything to a standard, and then the Hobbit films largely felt like someone just used a "LotR" preset in their editing program.
There is definitely a formulaic approach to horror writing, especially in the smaller studios like Lions Gate. Horror movies are one of the few genres where it's almost super easy to make a huge profit on it, as long as the budget is kept low. It could be a total piece of crap movie but still make a great profit in ticket sales and streaming rentals, especially around October. I disagree about The Hobbit though. That trilogy failed from a different issue, costs. I have sources that worked on that movie and a lot of issues were constraints by the studio. Peter Jackson and his team originally had the money for all three pictures but I do believe halfway through shooting the first Hobbit, the studios cut his budget down by a 1/3 which meant he had to cut corners. I can't find the article to support this so if I do, I will be sure to update this post. From what I recall, the studio said they would grant the full budget if he shot it in America but he didn't want to leave NZ and rightly so. NZ is the look of LoTR and The Hobbit should only be shot there in my opinion. So, he took the hit. He brought a lot of jobs to locals and it became a sort of hallmark to their community, despite it not turning out so well. Most of my NZ friends really admired that production because of how it positively effected their communities. Had the studios not cut a large portion of the trilogy's cost, something tells me they would have produced something better.
If I may suggest some modern works to check out. Take a look at what MIke Flanagan has been doing. He's been producing indie style horror/suspense films for quite a few years now. Most are on Netflix and worth a watch; Hush, Before I Wake, Gerald's Game, and The Haunting of Hill House. He's also currently in post production on Doctor Sleep (the sequel to The Shining). His approach is definitely influenced by the big horror icons but he's making it his own and creating some great stuff in today's horror genre.
(10-07-2019, 09:19 PM)The Darris Wrote: [ -> ]There is definitely a formulaic approach to horror writing, especially in the smaller studios like Lions Gate. Horror movies are one of the few genres where it's almost super easy to make a huge profit on it, as long as the budget is kept low. It could be a total piece of crap movie but still make a great profit in ticket sales and streaming rentals, especially around October. I disagree about The Hobbit though. That trilogy failed from a different issue, costs. I have sources that worked on that movie and a lot of issues were constraints by the studio. Peter Jackson and his team originally had the money for all three pictures but I do believe halfway through shooting the first Hobbit, the studios cut his budget down by a 1/3 which meant he had to cut corners. I can't find the article to support this so if I do, I will be sure to update this post. From what I recall, the studio said they would grant the full budget if he shot it in America but he didn't want to leave NZ and rightly so. NZ is the look of LoTR and The Hobbit should only be shot there in my opinion. So, he took the hit. He brought a lot of jobs to locals and it became a sort of hallmark to their community, despite it not turning out so well. Most of my NZ friends really admired that production because of how it positively effected their communities. Had the studios not cut a large portion of the trilogy's cost, something tells me they would have produced something better.
Interesting insider info. I had no idea! I suppose it makes sense, though. Money is always the main factor, isn't it?
(10-08-2019, 03:13 AM)Nayrb Wrote: [ -> ] (10-07-2019, 09:19 PM)The Darris Wrote: [ -> ]There is definitely a formulaic approach to horror writing, especially in the smaller studios like Lions Gate. Horror movies are one of the few genres where it's almost super easy to make a huge profit on it, as long as the budget is kept low. It could be a total piece of crap movie but still make a great profit in ticket sales and streaming rentals, especially around October. I disagree about The Hobbit though. That trilogy failed from a different issue, costs. I have sources that worked on that movie and a lot of issues were constraints by the studio. Peter Jackson and his team originally had the money for all three pictures but I do believe halfway through shooting the first Hobbit, the studios cut his budget down by a 1/3 which meant he had to cut corners. I can't find the article to support this so if I do, I will be sure to update this post. From what I recall, the studio said they would grant the full budget if he shot it in America but he didn't want to leave NZ and rightly so. NZ is the look of LoTR and The Hobbit should only be shot there in my opinion. So, he took the hit. He brought a lot of jobs to locals and it became a sort of hallmark to their community, despite it not turning out so well. Most of my NZ friends really admired that production because of how it positively effected their communities. Had the studios not cut a large portion of the trilogy's cost, something tells me they would have produced something better.
Interesting insider info. I had no idea! I suppose it makes sense, though. Money is always the main factor, isn't it?
Yeah, it can make or break a production for sure. This is all second hand information and from what I can remember hearing years ago about. Nevertheless, they are from New Zealand and live pretty close to PJ's production facility so there are a lot of locals that work there and despite the NDA's, information gets out unfortunately. I could not find that article which is my main source of the whole budget issue. So, that information could be wrong and therefore it was retracted. Either way, a lot of the other things I heard really stemmed around push back from the studios and their lack of wanting to do things PJ's way because of the cost.
I just saw this commercial again recently and it still makes me laugh out loud. Seems fitting for this thread on horror films.
(10-17-2019, 11:31 PM)Paul Battersby Wrote: [ -> ]I just saw this commercial again recently and it still makes me laugh out loud. Seems fitting for this thread on horror films.
Very fitting!
I was also reminded of this thread a few days ago when my favorite movie buff slobs
Red Letter Media posted this celebration of a horror film that is actually creepy as f--k: The Exorcist III.
(Yes, I am a fan of the original Exorcist as well, but IMO it hasn't aged all that well. And no, we don't talk about The Exorcist II.)
(10-18-2019, 11:24 PM)Mattias Westlund Wrote: [ -> ]Very fitting!
I was also reminded of this thread a few days ago when my favorite movie buff slobs Red Letter Media posted this celebration of a horror film that is actually creepy as f--k: The Exorcist III.
(Yes, I am a fan of the original Exorcist as well, but IMO it hasn't aged all that well. And no, we don't talk about The Exorcist II.)
I love Red Letter Media. I have unfortunately watched more of their videos than the actual movies at this point, so I don't know anything about The Exorcist III...