Why is it that modern horror films are less scary?
- Thread starter Phantom
- Start date
"If you know me at all, you know that death is my bread and danger my butter. Or, uh, no... danger's my bread and death is my... uh, well, death and danger are my various breads and my various butters."
Best recent ones are:
It Follows
The Babadook
The Conjuring
You're Next
What We Do In The Shadows (comedy)
Housebound (slightly less comedy)
There's a movie called Spring that I've been meaning to watch and just haven't gotten around to yet. Anyone here see that one? I've heard good things.
There's a slightly older horror movie called Kill List (from 2011) that a lot of horror fans love, but it just didn't quite click for me. (Perhaps I was in the wrong frame of mind when I watched it.) Anyone want to speak for or against that one?
I watched Kill List with high expectations, but it didn’t really click for me either. I can see the vibe the director was going for
but I just didn’t find it nearly as unsettling as a lot of horror critics and aficionados had suggested it was. The naturalistic/improvised style might have put me off. I liked Wheatley’s A Field in England much more (though it’s still a weird film)
I really wanted to go see It Follows but it wasn’t on at the cinema very long so will catch it on DVD.
It’s odd how some films are sold as horror films. I watched You’re Next for the first time recently, and whilst I enjoyed it I’m not sure I’d call it a horror film,
.
(the Wicker Man)
I really wanted to go see It Follows but it wasn’t on at the cinema very long so will catch it on DVD.
It’s odd how some films are sold as horror films. I watched You’re Next for the first time recently, and whilst I enjoyed it I’m not sure I’d call it a horror film,
I thought it was more of a thriller. I’m not suggesting that a horror film has to feature a supernatural element, but in the end it wasn’t even a serial killer/psychopath kind of film. Really it’s Die Hard meets Home Alone meets the last half hour of Skyfall
Oh my God is this movie ever funny, by the way. One of those films you have to resist the temptation to go quoting half the lines at your friends afterward because they'll wind up braining you with a frying pan, but like... ZOMG. The werewolves. The werewolves.
,
I've seen Spring and it's...interesting. The thing is, I don't know if it's actually trying to be a scary. It's almost a modern fantasy movie, but it's got an early Cronenberg-y edge. I did like it, it's just hard to describe.
Besides some of the ones already mentioned, reasonably recent horrors I liked were:
-Horns. It's not as good as the book and it's not scary, but it was entertaining and different.
-The Woman in Black.
-Sinister. Except for the ending. I think I was fine with the twist, it's just the execution of it didn't work for me.
- Insidious and Insidious 3.
-Home Movie. One of the few exceptions to my 'I fucking hate killer kids' rule.
- The Loved Ones
- Wyrmwood
-Starry Eyes
I don't actually know if I'd say horror films as a whole have gotten 'less scary'. I collect old horrors, and there was always a lot of derivative and cheap crap for every genuinely good one.
I've seen Spring and it's...interesting. The thing is, I don't know if it's actually trying to be a scary. It's almost a modern fantasy movie, but it's got an early Cronenberg-y edge. I did like it, it's just hard to describe.
Besides some of the ones already mentioned, reasonably recent horrors I liked were:
-Horns. It's not as good as the book and it's not scary, but it was entertaining and different.
-The Woman in Black.
-Sinister. Except for the ending. I think I was fine with the twist, it's just the execution of it didn't work for me.
- Insidious and Insidious 3.
-Home Movie. One of the few exceptions to my 'I fucking hate killer kids' rule.
- The Loved Ones
- Wyrmwood
-Starry Eyes
I don't actually know if I'd say horror films as a whole have gotten 'less scary'. I collect old horrors, and there was always a lot of derivative and cheap crap for every genuinely good one.
Last edited:
^Horns was always a lot more about the feels than the horror though.
I watched an indie horror movie "Thale" the other day as part of learning a language mainly, but it was pretty interesting. But again it was done largely to play on the audiences emotions than alarm them.
I'm seeing more horror going this way, far too much sympathy building and not enough actual scare material.
I watched an indie horror movie "Thale" the other day as part of learning a language mainly, but it was pretty interesting. But again it was done largely to play on the audiences emotions than alarm them.
I'm seeing more horror going this way, far too much sympathy building and not enough actual scare material.
I really liked Paranormal Activity 3. Not any of the others, just that one. I think it was because a) it had the most sympathetic characters, b) some actual world building, and c) got an insane amount of mileage out of strapping a camera to an oscillating fan.
The only problem I had was the theatre audience was screaming at parts that were pretty obviously meant to be just tension builders, not jump scares (like said fan moving to reveal nothing. Teenage girls screamed anyway.)
There was one I saw on DVD called 'Vanishing on Seventh Street'. It could have used some polish (some characters make weird decisions and there's not quiet enough plot to fill the run time), but I found the whole idea of it interesting and creepy. I even thought Hayden Christianson was pretty good in it, but the refusal to explain anything seemed to turn alot of people off.
Oh, they did an adaptation of 'The Whisperer in Darkness' a few years back. The whole thing was in the style of a 1930's film, and I thought it was pretty good. Quiet faithful too.
The only problem I had was the theatre audience was screaming at parts that were pretty obviously meant to be just tension builders, not jump scares (like said fan moving to reveal nothing. Teenage girls screamed anyway.)
There was one I saw on DVD called 'Vanishing on Seventh Street'. It could have used some polish (some characters make weird decisions and there's not quiet enough plot to fill the run time), but I found the whole idea of it interesting and creepy. I even thought Hayden Christianson was pretty good in it, but the refusal to explain anything seemed to turn alot of people off.
Oh, they did an adaptation of 'The Whisperer in Darkness' a few years back. The whole thing was in the style of a 1930's film, and I thought it was pretty good. Quiet faithful too.
The first Paranormal Activity scared me so badly that I had to sleep with the lights on that night. That had NEVER happened to me before. Movies, horror movies, don't usually scarem me but this one, especially the ending, made me it's bitch.
I can't resist pointing out that Trilogy of Terror (with the infamous Zuni fetish doll) and that episode of the Twilight Zone ("The Invaders") were both written by the same guy: Richard Matheson.
To quote the New York Times several years ago:
"Perhaps no other author living is responsible for chilling a generation with tantalizing nightmare visions."
See also Duel, The Night Stalker, "Nightmare at 20,000 Feet," I am Legend, Stir of Echoes, etc.
Why is it that modern horror films are less scary?
Because there's nothing subtle about torture porn.
Because there's nothing subtle about torture porn.
But I thought the torture porn thing had come and gone? And even when it was going strong, it was never the only kind of horror film being produced, as evidenced by several of the films cited in this thread.
Personally, I think The Descent was the scariest horror film I've seen in recent memory, although The Conjuring was good, too, and I'm trying to find time to see The Visit . . ..
And I have to throw in another recommendation for The Orphanage, which is a modern classic.
So what is it, this fascination with the Gothic? For me, it offers the fascination of secrets, dreads and guilts. Modern horror is too easily explained; indeed, the real world has outrun horror, and the headlines are now worse than anything Stephen King can imagine. In the 19th century, there was belief in evil, because there was belief in good.
- Roger Ebert, on 1996's Mary Reilly
Was he really saying Mary Reilly fit that definition? I have soft spot for it (first exposure to Jekyll and Hyde), but it's kind-of reallyreallyreallyreally flawed.
I was never into 2000's gorno craze all that much. But I can't exactly hang too much shit on it when I have half a dozen Fulci and Argento movies on my shelf.
I was never into 2000's gorno craze all that much. But I can't exactly hang too much shit on it when I have half a dozen Fulci and Argento movies on my shelf.
The silent movie version of "Call of Cthulhu" was great. I didn't think much of the follow-up "Whisperer in darkness". Apart from being shot in widescreen, the lead actor's style was much too contemporary, and the plot was silly. But do seek out the first one.
I have looked for the Cthulhu one, but I don't think it has a R4 DVD release (if it did, it's out of print.) I give 'Whisper...' a pass on silliness because quiet a lot of Lovecrafts stuff was really 'pulp'.
I really liked parts of the first two V/H/S films and ABC's of Death. They just have the usual compilation issue of being uneven.
I really liked parts of the first two V/H/S films and ABC's of Death. They just have the usual compilation issue of being uneven.
Similar threads
