Re: Horror movies that dont deserve to called Horror.

Ghostseeker wrote:

However, if you are going to say its not horror, you should at least be fair about it.  No it is not just kids running around the woods crying.  There was much more than that, including the bloody parts showing up, the creepy noises (maybe just to me), the attack at the tent, and then the ending.

The reason I listed it here wasn't simply because I don't like it (although the title of the thread does say 'deserve'). I simply don't equate it with horror, not anymore than I do Unsolved Mysteries or the like. Yes, there are bloody parts, not very bloody mind you or realistic. Yes, it had strange noises and there was an 'attack' on the tent. But, it never once felt like horror to me. To be honest and fair, it doesn't seem to fit too nicely into any category.

It was unique for its time and the marketing was genius. But, it fails to deliver what I consider horror. Had it had a little more experience behind it and better writers, it could have been brilliant. But, that's just my opinion.

Last edited by Ms.Gorefiend (2012-07-22 08:11:00)

Re: Horror movies that dont deserve to called Horror.

I wouldn't consider Hard Candy a Horror film, but it was fantastic.  It made me cringe but never actually showed anything.    I also think Silence of the Lambs and Se7en are both excellent thrillers but not Horror.  Yet, they are widely accepted as part of Horror.


However,  I would put Psycho under Horror because it shows the shower death scene and has a lot of suspense. 

The suspenseful nature of Blair Witch and the supernatural ending make it Horror for me.

Last edited by DirtyGirl (2012-07-22 07:58:39)

Re: Horror movies that dont deserve to called Horror.

Vasquez wrote:
wolfman1959 wrote:
A Lost Boy wrote:

Hum,
-Jaws (1975)
-Aliens (1986)
-The Silence of The Lambs (1990)
-The Sixth Sense (1999)
-Psycho (1960)
-Donnie Darko (2001)
-War of The Worlds (2005)
I'm just giving out some that doesn't pretty much contain any scary features.

that's interesting because looking at that list i would say not one of those films are 100 % horror but i would include "Psycho", "The Sixth Sense" and "The Silence Of The Lambs" as horror films.the rest are ethier action/ thriller/ sci fic/ or in the case of Donnie Darko just plain weird. i do have a problem calling some of the "Serial Killer" movies horror where the main protaginist is just a "normal Human" these are more "Thrillers" surely? although i except films like " silence of the lambs " have their horrific  elements. not talking about films featuring JASON, michael myers etc. am i talking my usual mixed up, confused English balderdash? i dunno...... tell me what do you think?

Surely films with a 'human monster', a serail killer deserved to be called Horror because they are very realistic. Serial Killers really exist and they be walking down the street beside you and u wouldn't even know it. Just look at the case of the recent batman shooting. They just had to be at the wrong place at the wrong time. Also look at Ed Gein. Here was a real person so monstrous he had a significant influence on Psycho and the Texas Chainsaw Massacre. Hell some of the stuff that Ed Gein did was so hideous that they surpass the disturbing aspects in both of those films. Indeed Horror films as most recognize significantly draw from the real world.

Therefore perhaps some 80's cheesy films like The Stuff could be argued as having no horror elements because they are so unintentionally ridiculous, and therefore hilarious to watch, drawing from me at least no emotional horror. Thats not to say 'unrealistic' horror is necessarily unscary. THe Thing (Carpenters) though not realistic in terms of its story of shapeshifting aliens is or The Descent with its mutant creatures are absolutely terrifying for example.

i know what you're saying but i don't think you are fully understanding what i'm trying to say and i think it's the way i'm saying it.to me horror films have to have the element of the fantastic to them, something supernatural, strange, unbelievable to them . Of course a serial killer is scary and horrific but unless they have a " supernatural " element  to them i don't consider them proper horror more  thriller/ drama  even if based on a true killer documentary like.just my personal opinion but it is an interesting subject. i mean do you consider most war films "Horror films " then? there's an argument or even something like "Soldier Blue" where do you draw the line? in a recent book i read about horror films, a film was included as a horror film  that made me gasp! it was   "The Towering Inferno"! brilliant film but horror?
Ghosty. i didn't say " Blair Witch" isn't a horror film. to me it is, it features a supernatural prescense. to me the way it's presented and done it's not a very good one. not the worst, it has it's moments but i just don't like it. you and many others do, that's perfectly fine no problem at all, if you enjoy it, good. smile

Last edited by wolfman1959 (2012-07-22 08:22:20)

Re: Horror movies that dont deserve to called Horror.

DirtyGirl wrote:

I wouldn't consider Hard Candy a Horror film, but it was fantastic.  It made me cringe but never actually showed anything.    I also think Silence of the Lambs and Se7en are both excellent thrillers but not Horror.  Yet, they are widely accepted as part of Horror.


However,  I would put Psycho under Horror because it shows the shower death scene and has a lot of suspense. 

The suspenseful nature of Blair Witch and the supernatural ending make it Horror for me.

Hard Candy doesn't have to explicitly show anything to be considered Horror does it. Believe me as a guy the scene where she POSSIBLE SPOILERS BELOW

pretends to castrate him (filmed in a way where u initially believe it to be true) is very horrifying. Dont some of the best, most atmospheric films refrain from showing us everything anyway. Indeed Horror as a whole does have to explicit in showing stuff to horrify the audience. For example in Hard Candy at the start where they are talking frankly about sex is pretty creepy and disturbing. As long there is a horrifying, disturbing or an element that evokes disgust/abhorrence either suggested, which are central to the movies concepts or explicitly communicated is Horror to me.

Last edited by Vasquez (2012-07-22 09:13:43)

Re: Horror movies that dont deserve to called Horror.

LoudLon wrote:

Jaws.  And I don't even care that I'm going to catch shit for it. smile

Not from me you won't, when I saw the thread title I thought JAWS JAWS JAWS.  Which is, or rather was, for many many years my #1 film of all time.  Recently however it has been displaced by The Good, The Bad and The Ugly.  Still I feel it will hold on to #2 spot with ease.

I'd like to add one to this list / discussion - The Wicker Man.