Posted June 2, 200619 yr The Kubrick/Shining thread got me thinking... If you watch the documentary shot by his daughter, you see that Kubrick's style of directing was very intense. He pushed all the actors and production crews to their very limits and damn near killed Shelley Duvall. Friedkin took a similar approach and the result was astonishing, visceral performances in The Exorcist. I'm not condoning torturing actors... but at the very least it shows that there was a lot of passion for these films from their creators. Is the problem with modern horror films that there is no passion? I think if a truly visionary writer/director took on a horror film, a fantastic and actually scary film could be made even today. But they (few that they are) won't touch horror films... why?? They are the films that can exploit emotional vulnerabilities the most!!! Instead we're left with the arrogant 90's directors who think they invented the slasher film (sorry Wes...) and the newest trend... insipid remakes. Which reminds me, since nothing is sacred anymore, I hope King and Kubrick's relatives are holding those trademarks tightly. Or we could see a remake even worse than the miniseries... Now that I've rambled on in a messy, inarticulate manner... anyone else have a thought? :lol: :lol:
June 2, 200619 yr The Kubrick/Shining thread got me thinking... If you watch the documentary shot by his daughter, you see that Kubrick's style of directing was very intense. He pushed all the actors and production crews to their very limits and damn near killed Shelley Duvall. Friedkin took a similar approach and the result was astonishing, visceral performances in The Exorcist. I'm not condoning torturing actors... but at the very least it shows that there was a lot of passion for these films from their creators. Is the problem with modern horror films that there is no passion? I think if a truly visionary writer/director took on a horror film, a fantastic and actually scary film could be made even today. But they (few that they are) won't touch horror films... why?? They are the films that can exploit emotional vulnerabilities the most!!! Instead we're left with the arrogant 90's directors who think they invented the slasher film (sorry Wes...) and the newest trend... insipid remakes. Which reminds me, since nothing is sacred anymore, I hope King and Kubrick's relatives are holding those trademarks tightly. Or we could see a remake even worse than the miniseries... Now that I've rambled on in a messy, inarticulate manner... anyone else have a thought? :lol: :lol: I'd largely agree with that, but I think you're bing a tad unfair to Wes Craven, he did create on of the most memorable of cinema bogeymen - Freddie Krueger, it wasn't his fault really that the people who came after him turned Krueger into a joke - the "Nightmare..." films that Craven made (the original and "New Nightmare") were intense and visceral, and let's not forget about "The Hills Have Eyes" and "Last House on the Left"..... The real problem with the "Scream" films is Kevin Williamson and his Tarantino-lite attempts to post-modernise the horror genre with his scripting I think Alexandre Aja truly understands horror, "Switchblade Romance" was an incredibly horrifying and intense film, and the twist in the tail was really well constructed and shocking and I was genuinely impressed by what he did with "The Hills Have Eyes". Rob Zombie has done two very creditable horror films as well - "The Devils Rejects" in particular has the spirit and atmosphere of "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" about it, as well as having some pretty monstrous characters (Capt Spaulding in particular quite jarringly goes from hilarious and jocular to terrifying and capable of horrific violence in a heartbeat, bringing up all sorts of psychological themes surrounding clowns). "Silent Hill" was another pretty good one, understanding the power of suggestion and pretty weighty themes as well and played extremely well on a mother's fear of losing her child... So, it's not all bad, there are some good films out there, but in general it is a bit disappointing - too many bad, unnecessary remakes such as "House of Wax" and "Texas Chainsaw..."
June 2, 200619 yr Rob Zombie has done two very creditable horror films as well - "The Devils Rejects" in particular has the spirit and atmosphere of "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" about it, as well as having some pretty monstrous characters (Capt Spaulding in particular quite jarringly goes from hilarious and jocular to terrifying and capable of horrific violence in a heartbeat, bringing up all sorts of psychological themes surrounding clowns). "Silent Hill" was another pretty good one, understanding the power of suggestion and pretty weighty themes as well and played extremely well on a mother's fear of losing her child... even though i think they got slagged off in the press for being totally evil, i thought the two rob zombie films were good and out of the two like the seconds one as it was like a long lost grindhouse road movie shocker that had been found in a shack after 30 or so years however didnt watch silent hill as my mate said it was c**p. So, it's not all bad, there are some good films out there, but in general it is a bit disappointing - too many bad, unnecessary remakes such as "House of Wax" and "Texas Chainsaw..." as for the Texas Chainsaw remake, i saw that version before the original so kinda like that version. however both are better than the one with Renee Zellweger and Matthew McConaughey in it :lol: :yahoo:
June 2, 200619 yr Problem is that they think trying to make people jump, girls screaming and computerised gore is scary. Bring back the real gore, the pigs intestines and whatever they used for blood! lol.
June 2, 200619 yr Problem is that they think trying to make people jump, girls screaming and computerised gore is scary. Bring back the real gore, the pigs intestines and whatever they used for blood! lol. well horror is like comedy (not talking about slapstick) where you got to get the punches right in the script or it wont work. both rely on distraction and misdirection (like in those jokes where you say something like whats the different between pete doherty and a seven day old raddish? http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cb/Daikon.Japan.jpg and then the answer starts off with well ones a smelly old decomposing vegetable so people are thinking your talking about the raddish but you flip it because the second part of the joke lets you know your actually talking about Pete!!!) a lot of horror films dont have any scares or jumps in them because a lot of the upcoming shocks are obvious.
June 2, 200619 yr Author I think the genre has sort of diverged too. After 1999's The Sixth Sense, there was a sort of sub-genre of milder "thrillers" and several were quite good. I don't mean to be sentimental, either, because everyone knows there have been AWFUL horror films since the earliest days of cinema. Still, I just hope the talent doesn't further distance itself just because of the onslaught of bad slashers and dissapointing remakes.
June 2, 200619 yr I'm not condoning torturing actors... ...not even Tom Cruise?! I've yet to see Devil's Rejects, but I've heard it's great. Wolf Creek, too - any opinions?
June 3, 200619 yr Alot of todays horror film are so bloody predictable and samey. :rolleyes: They are more like Hollywood popcorn type of films as appose to classic horrors these days . -_-
Create an account or sign in to comment