Movies to avoid.

[dicconzane]

So what is the difference between Alien and Signs then? Both deal with aliens. Both attempted not to show the alien for a long period. The only real difference from my perspective is that one was done well and one not. One achieves the sense of dread and foreboding it aims for, though both are attempting to.

[tic]

I said this before $lasher$, I don't know which is worse the fact I thought it may be good - game show where contestants run around trying to evade psychos (think of it as a very, very, very, bad Running Man) or the fact i paid £20 for it.

[stygianwitch]

Originally Posted by dicconzane

So what is the difference between Alien and Signs then? Both deal with aliens. Both attempted not to show the alien for a long period. The only real difference from my perspective is that one was done well and one not. One achieves the sense of dread and foreboding it aims for, though both are attempting to.

In a word...atmosphere

Alien definitely achieved it's objective, it had everything, the right kind of creepiness, very dark, confined space - nowhere to run situation, the right score, good direction etc.

Signs was just a good yarn, broad daylight is very rarely spooky and although the aliens were here to do bad things, they weren't the least bit frightening, even when seeing them only in part, too much light and not enough atmosphere, the score doesn't build you up enough, i enjoyed this film too but i wouldn't call it horror

And i just know you're going to ask me about The Village so, the best way i can describe that is 'a horror movie without any horror' i enjoyed this one too, and although it was done in daylight and i said daylight isn't scary, the score created the atmosphere in this one

[dicconzane]

But surely you can't define the genre by whether or not it achieves its objectives otherwise you would have no such thing as a bad horror film? You can say a film was well done and badly done without having to redefine its genre. Just because Signs didn't achieve the atmosphere that alien did doesn't mean its goals were not the same just how well it achieved them. Like all other genres you get good and bad examples but you wouldn't say that should redefine the genre otherwise a poorly done remake of the same film would have to be reclassified. Plus this would make it even more subjective since I cannot think of a film that truly chilled me for a long ime so by that token there would be no horror films of recent years. Something I think most would disagree with.

[dicconzane]

Originally Posted by tic

I said this before $lasher$, I don't know which is worse the fact I thought it may be good - game show where contestants run around trying to evade psychos (think of it as a very, very, very, bad Running Man) or the fact i paid £20 for it.

Thanks. I'll be sure to pass over this one then next time I'm looking.

[stygianwitch]

Originally Posted by dicconzane

But surely you can't define the genre by whether or not it achieves its objectives otherwise you would have no such thing as a bad horror film? You can say a film was well done and badly done without having to redefine its genre. Just because Signs didn't achieve the atmosphere that alien did doesn't mean its goals were not the same just how well it achieved them. Like all other genres you get good and bad examples but you wouldn't say that should redefine the genre otherwise a poorly done remake of the same film would have to be reclassified. Plus this would make it even more subjective since I cannot think of a film that truly chilled me for a long ime so by that token there would be no horror films of recent years. Something I think most would disagree with.

Sorry, i'm real crap at explaining what i mean :(

I wouldn't call Signs a horror movie, to me it's pure science fiction, so it was a bad example to use, again my apologies, but if it is classed as a horror movie, then by not achieving it's objective i'd say "yes, it's a bad horror movie". I'm not saying redefine it's genre, or that it's a bad movie, because i enjoyed it, only that in my opinion it isn't horror

There are very few movies that have scared the pants off me, and most of them when i watched as a teenager, the only one since then has been The Descent, as i have gotten older and have more 'life' experience fewer things on the screen freak me out, which would mean that even by my own definition horror movies fail miserably, however, i can still say that something was a great movie or a bad movie, whether it scared me or not, i have long since given up on finding a movie that will truly terrify me so i suppose i should say that if i enjoyed it it's a great movie, which is a different thing entirely

Even though movies have lost the power to scare, for the most part anyway, i can still see how they spook others, my brother, for example, couldn't watch The Ring all the way through he was so freaked out by it, when he told me how much it had spooked him i knew straight away which part of the movie had done it, just because it didn't frighten me doesn't mean it was a bad movie, it just means that, for me, it didn't reach it's objective, i still enjoyed it though

Still not sure i've explained what i mean very well, sorry

[dicconzane]

Which brings me back round to how do you actually define a horror film? If it's one that could be scary to others, or one that is likely to scary this again makes it very subjective. It becomes very hard to draw the line for where movies move from another genre into horror, even badly executed horror. Is it done by a majority vote? But then as we've already seen something scary would not necessarily be considered horror, even by those that were scared by it.

So what is it that might set horror aside from say a thriller or suspense. And is a slasher a sub genre or something different? What about alien? Is that a sci-fi or a horror, or a sci-fi horror?

[urgeok]

Originally Posted by evildemontoo

Question to (older) members of this board: Have you noticed how in this day and age alot of stuff gets classified by people as horror when it doesn't even come close to the genre

Yes!! you are so right!

i think each of us has our own lines drawn in the sand that denotes horror from - lets say thriller.

personally i dont consider things like Se7en or Silence of the lambs as horror movies - to me they are crime thrillers.

I dont have too many hard/fast rules for it - i guess i think that if the film is highly exploitive - with only the goal of terrifying the audience (or deeply disgusting it) i consider it horror (i spit on your grave, last house of the left)
there are no cops - no mystery to solve .. etc .. just pure torture and revenge.

i also classify any film with a 'supernatural element' in it to be horror.
(ghosts, monsters, etc)

when the sci-fi and horror lines are blurred - i tend to keep those flicks in with sci-fi.


for the most part - as stated before - i file this way mainly for convenience - so i have a better chance of finding what movie i'm looking for.

[swiss tony]

i think its pretty easy to eliminate the sci-fi movies from the horror section. aliens, predator etc. they are just about man taking on little green men. they should be filed with independence day and mars attacks. horror needs to have not just atmosphere and gore. it needs to be sinister, weird, eerie macabre etc. like the shining or event horizon. serial killer stuff should be considered horror if it focuses on the killing rather than the investigation. at least those are my rules

[trx1]

blood feast, one HORRIBLE fucking movie...its playing now on comcast.