Is there a new direction for horror?

[Darkthoughts]

It seems to me that horror, like fashion, has lost a bit of its originality and we're now just rehashing old genres as fashion does old styles (incidentally, I'd like to see a horror where the fashion designer who bought back the 80's look is horribly and gruesomely killed:thumbsup: )

Has horror reached the end of the spectrum of possibilities with the likes of nothings-shocking-so-we'll-gross-you-out films like Hostel and Saw? Which direction will it take next?

Thoughts please afficionados :D

[Mattrick]

Horror has been bad for a long time (well, almost forever) besides a few gems and some guilty pleasures. I like some bad horror movies but I know they're bad.

I think horror movies need to go really psychological. I hate when I go to a horror movie and I think 'oh, here comes a jump scare (often the common random cat)' and everyone screams, then talks about how freaky it is. Jump scares should be used once or twice in a movie and should be enhanced by setting a good atmosphere.

Too many horror movies are about going over the top; blood, gore, deaths, monsters etc. I'd like to see more horror movies use very subtle things. Horror movies work best when the situation is realistic and believable. If you utlize the supernatural in a highly realistic setting it works as per The Exorcist in a normal house and a little girl. I enjoyed Silent Hill for it's atmosphere but some dull parts, bad script and acting killed it.

There are three key things to a creepy, gripping horror movie:

1. Music/sound. I put this as number one because it supplements the visuals to intensify the experience. In some cases, no sound adds the chill.

2. Visuals. Now, by visuals I don't mean CGI and fancy stuff. Just finding the right shots, angles, lighting, colours, environtment to set the right mood.

3. Story. Many horror movies have gotten by with a basic story but number 1 and 2 are done great (descent). For a horror movie you just need a gimmick or an attraction: monster, ghost whatever. To have a good story to go with an original/semi-original gimmick is huge. I like The Ring for all these reasons. You can see with crap like Hostel how a gimmick is everything as the movie has no substance.

Horror movies are just slapped together now. I hate it.

[Matt]

I have been very disappointed with horror lately, but probably not for the same reason. Its too damn gory man, just because we can do something doesn't mean we should.

I am more of an intellectual thriller kind of guy so I don't go for the slash stuff anyway but I think the actual head coming off could be done in silhouette like the old days. <_<

[Darkthoughts]

Matt, I agree with you completely!

[Hannah]

I've noticed that horror movies are pretty much just as lame as they were when I was growing up, only in different ways. I refuse to watch movies like Hostel or Saw. I don't want that sort of graphic imagery in my head.

[Matt]

I agree, you can't unsee stuff.

[Jean]

I agree, you can't unsee stuff.
it depends on whether your perception is primarily visual, audial, or verbal. I can easily "unsee" whatever I see, not only horror, but I can't "unread" anything, so horror books are a lot more "horrible" for me than movies.

[Matt]

Hmmmm...that is a good point. I am that on all levels.

I can't unsee, unread, unhear, unrealize anything.

[Brice]

I don't really mind gore, jump scares, or anything like that. I mean done properly they can be useful in a horror movie.

I'd agree totally with mattrick's three key elements and I'd probably put them in the same order.

Honestly though I liked Hostel (although I'd never argue it was a great horror movie and I thought The Ring was abysmal. I didn't understand why people liked it. I guess I just didn't get it. Generally though I've seen very little Japanese horror that does anything for me, with the exception of Takashi Miike who does often lean toward the gory end of horror.

As to the original question of whether the genre has lost it's originality. I think it's been a long time since it had any. They are all new twists on old archetypes. It is just how you choose to use those existing archetypes. There seems to be a tendency to put focus on getting a few creatively gory kill scenes in (which I don't have a problem with) and neglecting the development of the story.

[Wuducynn]

Honestly though I liked Hostel (although I'd never argue it was a great horror movie and I thought The Ring was abysmal. I didn't understand why people liked it.

While I was the opposite, I didn't think much of Hostel and loved The Ring..the second The Ring I thought was awful. The Ring scared me, thats why I liked it. I love a good scare and it did it.

[Matt]

And without being too gory.

The Ring didn't scare me but I would almost rather that.

[Mattrick]

More horror movies need for focus on it's characters as well as setting the mood. Both should co-exist as per The Descent.

It's funny how horror movies now rely on shock effects when in essence it really isn't all that shocking. Gorefests have ruined the effect of loosely used gore in other horror movies. Gore should reflect the type of movie. Some movies gore cannot be avoid but it can be exploited. A zombie movie needs to have gore for realism, while a vampire movie needs an emphasis on blood. High gore used well if it's spaced out but if it's constant, well, what's the point?

[Wuducynn]

I loved The Descent too, great horror movie.

[Girlystevedave]

There is defintely a difference in horror movies now. I grew up on Freddy, Jason, Vampires, Werewolves...just good scary stuff. People can't be very creative when making movies anymore, maybe it's because so much has been covered. Now, creators have turned to just plain disturbing stuff. Scary movies are just about psycho, torturing, murderers now. It's one thing to pull the covers tight because you almost worry that a monster may get you in your bed (that's in good fun), but I don't want to go to bed thinking about how demented PEOPLE are. Michael Myers is a good example. He was scary BECAUSE he was crazy, but he wasn't methodic in his killing like all these new characters in scary movies. He didn't take them into a dak cellar and torture them for days. He just follwed people around, and when he got close enough, he killed them. That's classic scary in my world.

[Jean]

He just follwed people around, and when he got close enough, he killed them. That's classic scary in my world.
I believe the following was more scary than the actual killing? I think we must draw the line between "scary" and "revolting", "disgusting", "nauseating", stuff like that. I've just seen the first two Saw movies; it is not scary, it's sick. There ought to be a special name for such movies - gut-spillers, vomit-inducers, something along those lines, - but not "horror".

[Letti]

He just follwed people around, and when he got close enough, he killed them. That's classic scary in my world.
I believe the following was more scary than the actual killing? I think we must draw the line between "scary" and "revolting", "disgusting", "nauseating", stuff like that. I've just seen the first two Saw mivies; it is not scary, it's sick. There ought to be a special name for such movies - gut-spillers, vomit-inducers, something along those lines, - but not "horror".

Yeah but if you think this way we should have much more types. Sometimes horrile things can get into drama chategory.

[ZoNeSeeK]

The Ring, The Grudge, Dark Water etc are all japanese films and the originals are much better than the american remakes, so please try and watch the originals if you can get hold of them. The original for The Ring is awesome :)

I find the way the Japanese incorporate modern technology into their art and modern day myths really interesting - Ghost in the Shell et al. Their culture is eerily plugged in and its showing in their media expression.

[Storyslinger]

:excited:

What Zone said, I agree

[Matt]

I've just seen the first two Saw mivies; it is not scary, it's sick

And that is the truth...

[Storyslinger]

I've just seen the first two Saw mivies; it is not scary, it's sick

And that is the truth...


Nods in agreement

[fernandito]

I've just seen the first two Saw mivies; it is not scary, it's sick

And that is the truth...


Nods in agreement

[nods to the nod in agreement]

[ZoNeSeeK]

*wood*

[Jimmy]

I've grown really tired of horror movies where the scariest thing is how loud the music gets when something supposedly terrifying happens.

I jumped 4 different times watching Resident Evil : Extinction and it wasn't even scary. I hate that.

[ZoNeSeeK]

go watch Alien again :D

[Jean]

have watched the third Saw, too. Well, if the very first one at least aroused some unhealthy curiosity, and the second was mildly entertaining (in a way a computer quest is when you're watching it over someone's shoulder...), the third was a sheer triumph of idiocy.

[Storyslinger]

I've just seen the first two Saw movies; it is not scary, it's sick.

And that is the truth...


Nods in agreement

[nods to the nod in agreement]

Nods to the nodding of the nods

[Jean]

since the quotation that raised all that hell of re-quoting belongs to me, and unexpectedly made it to both next page and the top of the said page, I would be greatly obliged to Storyslinger if he edits it the way 1) the core quotation is credited to me; 2) the typo is corrected. It's movies, of course. I already noticed elsewhere that I make approximately one typo a month, and that post is always quoted before I have time to correct it; but this time it's a real record of a typo being re-quoted.

[Storyslinger]

There you go Jean, did I catch it all ? :)

[Jean]

http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k291/mishemplushem/Facilitation/thankyou14.gif

[Storyslinger]

:thumbsup::blush:

[Jean]

have just watched The Blair Witch Project. It didn't really scare me, but it disturbed some part of my soul horror movies have no business touching. I wish I had never seen it.

[alinda]

Do not worry too much Jean, it is quite forgetable!!

[Storyslinger]

I heard Saw 4 is following the 'new' horror skeme

[Matt]

Pushing the grossness envelope are they?

[Storyslinger]

From what I've heard, yes. But, I heard there is a huge tie in

[Storyslinger]

have just watched The Blair Witch Project. It didn't really scare me, but it disturbed some part of my soul horror movies have no business touching. I wish I had never seen it.

That really messed with me too

[Darkthoughts]

Shan't ever watch any of the Saw films myself, but some woman caller came on Radio One today and "accidentally" spoiled Saw 4 in a major way :rolleyes:

[Storyslinger]

Yep, I had a friend give me the whole run down, because I wouldn't see it till it came out on dvd anyways, pretty f'd up

[Heather19]

can someone tell me what happens? I refuse to see it because I thought the last 2 were so horrible, but now you've got me curious about what happens

[ZoNeSeeK]

Saw is the only movie even worth glancing at, it had an original horrifying idea, the rest are just sick fetish. Its a little disturbing when Saw II - IV, hostel etcare available in new release and R rated porn is kept in a restricted section.

[Jean]

anyone see Hannah House (2002, by Chad and Max Smith)? It's made like an old, poor quality copy of a black-and-white silent film of (I think) the early 20s. Extremely stylish, visually briliant, inventive, - especially if you fast-forward, or else it's way too slooowwwwwwww. But at least it doesn't look like any other horror movie I have seen as yet.

[Storyslinger]

Was it any good Jean?

[Matt]

can someone tell me what happens? I refuse to see it because I thought the last 2 were so horrible, but now you've got me curious about what happens

I'm interested in this too--totally morbid sure, but still interested. :lol:

[Storyslinger]

You want horror. It's right on this site.

The way O just beat me down for no reason, just horrific:lol:

[Jean]

Was it any good Jean?
hard to tell. I have no idea what happened. I am not sure there was any story at all. Anyway, there wasn't any talk (the movie was silent). But it was, at times, very, exquisitely beautiful in a weird way. If it was about 15 minutes long, it would be a masterpiece of photography, but alas, it's much longer. But if you like experiment, it's at least interesting.

[Storyslinger]

I may have to do just that

Thanks

[RUBE]

Saw is the only movie even worth glancing at, it had an original horrifying idea, the rest are just sick fetish. Its a little disturbing when Saw II - IV, hostel etcare available in new release and R rated porn is kept in a restricted section.

Yeah, I agree. Anything that is gory enough to classify as "torture porn" (a phrase a number of critics now use) should not be right down from the children's movies...

OR we should go the other extreme and just have all movies, including porn, right there on the shelf for anyone to see. I think the main reason it is the way it is now is because most Americans have such a complex about sex they avoid the conversation as long as possible with their children. Having a movie about sex visible on the shelf might mean a parent has to answer a question they do not want to answer. In the case of horror movies they can just say, "That is just make-believe, honey."

(Wow, I sound like I'm liberal.)

[ZoNeSeeK]

Yeah, its definitely a worry in a gun and violence saturated culture that sex is somehow something to protect people from.

Dont get me wrong, I love plenty of violent movies, but there's differences between edgy or gritty violence (thats an accurate representation of reality) and putting people in rooms and telling them they have to butterfly their own ballsacks to find a key to unlock a vice around their head which is going to show them endless repeats of Madonna's Swept Away if they don't. Thats just sick :)

[CyberGhostface]

I've just seen the first two Saw movies; it is not scary, it's sick.

And that is the truth...


Nods in agreement

[nods to the nod in agreement]

Nods to the nodding of the nods

Shakes head in disagreement

I've enjoyed the Saw franchise (at least up until the fourth one). Its certainly not up to Hichcock's standards but its much better than, say, the Friday the 13th films or the Halloween films (excluding the John Carpenter original of course). Granted, I'm not in favor of much of the rest of the "new wave" of horror like Hostel or Captivity, though.

[Jean]

Cyber: I see your position (although I personally didn't like Saw at all, from any point of view), but my point here was solely that it was sick as opposed to scary (it's in that other thread that I argued that it was pathetic). I have just watched Wrong Turn 2 and can say the same about it, - by the way, if someone wants a thoroughly sick entertainment, not overburdened with pseudo-existential snot, it is highly recommended.

[Heather19]

I just rented Wrong Turn 2 as well. I think I fast forwarded thru most of the film. All it was, was just graphic violence, no story what so ever.

[Jean]

Story is deplorably neglected in most movies I've recently seen. I think Wrong Turn 2 is for those who want to lose weight and, thus, to experience loss of appetite.

[Mattrick]

Cyber: I see your position (although I personally didn't like Saw at all, from any point of view), but my point here was solely that it was sick as opposed to scary (it's in that other thread that I argued that it was pathetic). I have just watched Wrong Turn 2 and can say the same about it, - by the way, if someone wants a thoroughly sick entertainment, not overburdened with pseudo-existential snot, it is highly recommended.

I've never considered SAW horror. Often when I think of a horror movie it's often because of supernatural forces or monster or anything that is unnatural to the human mind. The unknown is the most terrifying thing for mankind. I like the saw franchise mainly because of the traps, how they set them up. SAW was about it's characters and the quality of the actors keeps dropping. It also doesn't help Darren Lynn Bousmann is a shit director who, after three movies, as proven that he can't surpass the original - he's just rehashing it.

What made SAW so good was the focus on Dr. Gordon and Adam, the intimate atmosphere and how the room itself was a character. It should be filmed very plain and very real looking. No jump cuts, or loud scratching noises (to display insanity of course DUH LSOLS) and other stuff that makes it flashy and hip instead of suspensful and dramatic, which is how they should.

[CyberGhostface]

I liked Saw II and III better than the first one, mainly for their focus on Jigsaw's character and the building on the initial storyline. IV, on the other hand, was by far the weakest out of all the films but I think that has more to do with the new scriptwriters than Bousman's directing abilities. I still think that III should have ended the series. (BTW, the original Saw had a number of 'jump cuts'--just look at Amanda's initial beartrap scene)

I don't see how they rehashed the plot of the first one either. Aside from the main theme of "Jigsaw 'tests' those who don't appreciate their lives" (which is a given) the latter two have been quite different in terms of how the storyline progressed.

[Vasagi]

It seems to me that horror, like fashion, has lost a bit of its originality and we're now just rehashing old genres as fashion does old styles (incidentally, I'd like to see a horror where the fashion designer who bought back the 80's look is horribly and gruesomely killed:thumbsup: )

Has horror reached the end of the spectrum of possibilities with the likes of nothings-shocking-so-we'll-gross-you-out films like Hostel and Saw? Which direction will it take next?

Thoughts please afficionados :D

Horror movies are in a slump right now. It comes and goes in ebbs and waves just like any other genre. Once in a while, you get the one or two really good, groundbreaking flicks, and then you've got years of sequels as the production companies try to squeeze as much cash out of it as they can. It's the way things have been going for decades.

Saw came out years ago, and while it was a 'splatter' flick, it was fairly innovative: set people up in these traps where they have to face their deepest darkest to get out. Now they're releasing a new Saw-quel every halloween.

Follow that same pattern back to Nightmare on Elm Street ... Friday the 13th ... hell ... even Night of the Living Dead. All interesting concepts, where a good part of the movie was just figuring out what the 'gimmick' was. You hit the sequels, and the 'gimmick' is old news, so a lot of times the directors just splash more blood and guts than before.

Eventually, somebody's going to come up with something new and innovative, and the wheel will turn again.

[fernandito]

And again, and again, and again.

[Woofer]

Please spoiler tags on Saw IV if anyone does decide to post what happens. I will see it eventually. Thankee-sai.


Horror movies are in a slump right now. It comes and goes in ebbs and waves just like any other genre. Once in a while, you get the one or two really good, groundbreaking flicks, and then you've got years of sequels as the production companies try to squeeze as much cash out of it as they can. It's the way things have been going for decades.

Or indeed follow it for the entirety of horror filmmaking. Tod Browning's Dracula directly spawned Son of Dracula, House of Frankenstein (multi "sequel" to Frankenstein, The Wolf Man and Dracula, brilliant!), and House of Dracula. And that's not even considering all the other off-shoots, adaptations, and re-envisionings.

Of the new, gorier horror, I truly enjoyed Saw. I thought the puzzles were interesting and unique. For some reason, I don't consider it terribly gory. I think the puzzle aspect of it overshadows that because every time I watch it I am reminded of how much gorier it was than I remembered. :doh:

Sometimes I am sucked into watching a movie even though I didn't like the original, and so it was that I recently watched Hostel II. I was genuinely surprised as I thought it much better than Hostel. I told Mr. Woofer (who is not a fan of the realistic gore horror) the next morning that Hostel II felt like it should've been the original and Hostel the cheap, soft-core porn sequel.

[William50]

I agree about Hostel. I never really liked either of the movies though. I am a fan of the Saw saga.

[ATG]

I have been very disappointed with horror lately, but probably not for the same reason. Its too damn gory man, just because we can do something doesn't mean we should.

I am more of an intellectual thriller kind of guy so I don't go for the slash stuff anyway but I think the actual head coming off could be done in silhouette like the old days. <_<



I agree, the crap by Rob Zombie is a good example.
He's touted as sort of the new horror guy but his movies are nothing but explorations of tackiness, seediness and violence.

[Mattrick]

I liked Saw II and III better than the first one, mainly for their focus on Jigsaw's character and the building on the initial storyline. IV, on the other hand, was by far the weakest out of all the films but I think that has more to do with the new scriptwriters than Bousman's directing abilities. I still think that III should have ended the series. (BTW, the original Saw had a number of 'jump cuts'--just look at Amanda's initial beartrap scene)

I don't see how they rehashed the plot of the first one either. Aside from the main theme of "Jigsaw 'tests' those who don't appreciate their lives" (which is a given) the latter two have been quite different in terms of how the storyline progressed.

Each saw movie follows a similar story arc; start with a string of deaths before the real plot begins. Add bits of backstory and some blood. A few twists and turns, some brutal deaths and of course a twist ending where in the Bousmann films always have a long, drawn out OMG THIS IS WHAT HAPPENED. Let's not forget the way the bad guy wins and each film ends in tragedy.

I'm not a fan of the jump cuts in the original either but they're used a lot more in the sequels. The SAW series became less original and more stylish. The original was gritty, thought provoking with a great ending. The sequels were all about how flashy they could make it and how much more outrageous. SAW 4 was the worst for this. Spent more time with the traps and set design than a plot or characters that made sense. Half the events that happened made little sense.

[Brice]

I have been very disappointed with horror lately, but probably not for the same reason. Its too damn gory man, just because we can do something doesn't mean we should.

I am more of an intellectual thriller kind of guy so I don't go for the slash stuff anyway but I think the actual head coming off could be done in silhouette like the old days. <_<



I agree, the crap by Rob Zombie is a good example.
He's touted as sort of the new horror guy but his movies are nothing but explorations of tackiness, seediness and violence.


Actually IMO if you can look past the admittedly excessive gore and violence I think he's a damn good filmmaker. I absolutely hate remakes of movies, but I thought his remake of Halloween was very impressively done. I also enjoyed both of his earlier films.

[Jimmy]

I had written off Saw as torture porn and decided not to see it a long time ago. Rjeso and I finally both saw it about a week ago and I was rather impressed. I'm still not a fan of the sub-genre and I've no intention of seeing the Hostel movies, nor will I even rush out to see the other Saw movies.

I miss the old slasher films, but even those were derivitive and repetitive.

Nowadays if I'm watching a horror film, it's to laugh at how awful they are.

[Heather19]

Actually IMO if you can look past the admittedly excessive gore and violence I think he's a damn good filmmaker. I absolutely hate remakes of movies, but I thought his remake of Halloween was very impressively done. I also enjoyed both of his earlier films.

I agree. I love Rob Zombie's films, and I think he's brought some life back to the horror genre.

And Jimmy, don't worry about seeing the other Saw movies. The only one worth watching is the first.

[Jimmy]

And Jimmy, don't worry about seeing the other Saw movies. The only one worth watching is the first.

I'm not really for watching the same movie again and again.

I really enjoyed the Jeepers Creepers movies because while they were both under the same premise, they were 2 completely different movies.

[CyberGhostface]

How are the Jeepers Creepers films completely different from each other and yet the Saw films are "the same movie"?

I enjoyed the first Jeepers Creepers but the second was absolutely pointless and only made the barest effort to continue the previous storyline from the first film. (Besides having the Creeper, that is.)

The Saw films, or at least the first three, were all fairly unique with each other and did a decent job continuing the storyline.

[Jimmy]

How are the Jeepers Creepers films completely different from each other and yet the Saw films are "the same movie"?

I enjoyed the first Jeepers Creepers but the second was absolutely pointless and only made the barest effort to continue the previous storyline from the first film. (Besides having the Creeper, that is.)

The Saw films, or at least the first three, were all fairly unique with each other and did a decent job continuing the storyline.

JC 1 - Killer stalks a brother and sister killing everyone in his path to get at them

JC 2 - Killer traps a group of reens in a bus and picks only certain ones to eat, thereby creating paranoia and dissension between the characters.

Saw 1 - People in a room with crazy killer traps.

Saw 2 - People in a room with crazy killer traps.

Saw 3 - People in a room with crazy killer traps.

Saw 4 - People in a room with crazy killer traps.

[Vasagi]

Or indeed follow it for the entirety of horror filmmaking. Tod Browning's Dracula directly spawned Son of Dracula, House of Frankenstein (multi "sequel" to Frankenstein, The Wolf Man and Dracula, brilliant!), and House of Dracula. And that's not even considering all the other off-shoots, adaptations, and re-envisionings.

And exploitation spinoffs!! Don't forget Blackula!! MUAHAHAHAHA!

[CyberGhostface]

JC 1 - Killer stalks a brother and sister killing everyone in his path to get at them

JC 2 - Killer traps a group of reens in a bus and picks only certain ones to eat, thereby creating paranoia and dissension between the characters.

Saw 1 - People in a room with crazy killer traps.

Saw 2 - People in a room with crazy killer traps.

Saw 3 - People in a room with crazy killer traps.

Saw 4 - People in a room with crazy killer traps.

Wow...I don't know if you've even seen the films now. Obviously they're going to going to involve traps in each film because that's the premise of the film series! :panic: It'd be like saying each Dark Tower book has "Crazy gunslinger looking for Dark Tower".

Especially since "People in a room with crazy killer traps." would only really apply to the second film.

The Saw films actually build upon each and compliment each other. Yeah, "crazy killer traps" are used in each film, but there's a lot more to it than that. Compare how Jigsaw was little more than a voice in the first film and he becomes a fleshed-out character in the sequels. There's actually a sense of continuity with the films. (For example, the character of Amanda.)

The only time that I felt it started to get repetitive was with Saw IV, and that was because it had different writers than the first three. (But even Saw IV was better than the snoozefest that was Jeepers Creepers 2)

Don't get me wrong, I thought the first JC was great. It had two main characters that I cared about, was pretty scary, had a great villain and was involving. JC2 was a minimalist creature feature at best. I didn't care about ANY of the characters, except for the father. I was bored to tears throughout most of the film. :yawn: Yeah, it was "different" from the first film but not in a good way.

[CyberGhostface]

Each saw movie follows a similar story arc; start with a string of deaths before the real plot begins. Add bits of backstory and some blood. A few twists and turns, some brutal deaths and of course a twist ending where in the Bousmann films always have a long, drawn out OMG THIS IS WHAT HAPPENED.

And you could just as well say the Bachman books (with the exception of maybe Regulators or Thinner) follow a formula as well. "Doomed protagonist attempts to fight back against society and ultimately pays for it in the end." And so forth. Yeah, thats pretty simplistic, but so was your "Saw formula".


Let's not forget the way the bad guy wins and each film ends in tragedy.

So?


I'm not a fan of the jump cuts in the original either but they're used a lot more in the sequels. The SAW series became less original and more stylish. The original was gritty, thought provoking with a great ending. The sequels were all about how flashy they could make it and how much more outrageous. SAW 4 was the worst for this. Spent more time with the traps and set design than a plot or characters that made sense. Half the events that happened made little sense.

Again, as good as the first film was, I thought the sequels improved on the original story. They could have easily gone the route of the Friday the 13th films but they didn't. And for the record, the sequels did try staying in the spirit of the original without going for the big budget sequels that Hollywood usually churns out.

[Jimmy]

You weren't supposed to like the kids on the bus in JC2, you were supposed to feel the tension that they were creating. JC2 was not a character driven piece, it was plot driven.

[Mattrick]

Wow...I don't know if you've even seen the films now. Obviously they're going to going to involve traps in each film because that's the premise of the film series! :panic: It'd be like saying each Dark Tower book has "Crazy gunslinger looking for Dark Tower".

It is true of the SAW series. I own the first three of them and while I like them they are all really similar, they use the same formula for each movie. copy/paste story telling. The format was great the first time but it's a series where each movie could be 'people in a room with traps' but done in different fashions. That is what made the Alien series so good. Each movie (ressurection aside) provided a different experience with the same premise.

I enjoyed the change from two people chained in a room to a group of people in a house there are many factors that kill it. SAW is a character oriented series. If they weren't so concerned with pumping out a movie every year they could take the time to write a better script and better direction which would give the series that edge. The first movie had some talent to work with where the rest of the movies rely on Tobin Bell and a Donnie Whalberg cameo.


Especially since "People in a room with crazy killer traps." would only really apply to the second film.

No. Many traps are a person trapped in a room (barb wire, candle/safe, Amanda's trap, original SAW) are all trapped in a room, most with crazy killer traps. Now, while they may not be everywhere the like the second one, there was also a trap for each person in the house, which accounted for that.


The Saw films actually build upon each and compliment each other. Yeah, "crazy killer traps" are used in each film, but there's a lot more to it than that. Compare how Jigsaw was little more than a voice in the first film and he becomes a fleshed-out character in the sequels. There's actually a sense of continuity with the films. (For example, the character of Amanda.)

They've relied on Jigsaw the whole series. The cast and characters from the originals are all but gone now, the twist in the last movie had zero effect on me. The first is the best (8/10), second and third are around a 6/10 and the 4th was a 3/10. The story gets weaker and weaker. The fourth movie SHAT on everything the other movies built up.

SPOILER AHEAD SAW 4 AHEAD

In saw four we see Jeff randomly get shot at the end (making the end of the third movie shit) and Eric Matthews is killed (making his test and surviving last movie moot...why wasn't he released? no explaination, at all). The ended so much with no explaination. The twist is some guy who is really a nobody is working with Jigsaw (uuh, wow?) we find out at the beginning (which is really the end) that he's now being tested. Wow, what a waste of a movie. They could have skipped all of that and summed it up in a flashback, instead of showing a few random deaths.


The only time that I felt it started to get repetitive was with Saw IV, and that was because it had different writers than the first three. (But even Saw IV was better than the snoozefest that was Jeepers Creepers 2)

I'm sure it was, but it was still shit and I'm glad someone else paid for me to see it.


Don't get me wrong, I thought the first JC was great. It had two main characters that I cared about, was pretty scary, had a great villain and was involving. JC2 was a minimalist creature feature at best. I didn't care about ANY of the characters, except for the father. I was bored to tears throughout most of the film. :yawn: Yeah, it was "different" from the first film but not in a good way.

The first jeepers creepers was shit. I don't get what all the fuss was about. I take craps that are scarier than jeepers creepers.

[CyberGhostface]

It is true of the SAW series. I own the first three of them and while I like them they are all really similar, they use the same formula for each movie. copy/paste story telling. The format was great the first time but it's a series where each movie could be 'people in a room with traps' but done in different fashions. That is what made the Alien series so good. Each movie (ressurection aside) provided a different experience with the same premise.

Haven't seen the Alien films (I plan to in the future though) so I can't comment on that. And obviously there are certain "staples" that appear in each of the films (the directors and writers have admitted it) but I don't think that means they are following a copy-paste formula.


SAW is a character oriented series. If they weren't so concerned with pumping out a movie every year they could take the time to write a better script and better direction which would give the series that edge. The first movie had some talent to work with where the rest of the movies rely on Tobin Bell and a Donnie Whalberg cameo.

I don't see how the first film had better 'talent'. Tobin Bell's the star of the films, but that doesn't mean the films have no talent in them. I can probably find a handful of actors who aren't the best, but the "main" ones (Shawnee Smith, Angus McFayden, etc) have all been pretty decent.


The story gets weaker and weaker. The fourth movie SHAT on everything the other movies built up.

SPOILER AHEAD SAW 4 AHEAD

In saw four we see Jeff randomly get shot at the end (making the end of the third movie shit) and Eric Matthews is killed (making his test and surviving last movie moot...why wasn't he released? no explaination, at all). The ended so much with no explaination. The twist is some guy who is really a nobody is working with Jigsaw (uuh, wow?) we find out at the beginning (which is really the end) that he's now being tested. Wow, what a waste of a movie. They could have skipped all of that and summed it up in a flashback, instead of showing a few random deaths.

I agree with you on this part. Saw IV left a bad taste in my mouth.

[Jimmy]

The first jeepers creepers was shit. I don't get what all the fuss was about. I take craps that are scarier than jeepers creepers.


It wasn't supposed to be scary, it was taking the regular routines of horror and spinning them in a different way.

It was the "The Quick & The Dead" of horror. All the cliches at once, told in a different way.

[CyberGhostface]

I don't think when Victor Salva made the film(s) he thought "This film isn't supposed to be scary" or intended it to be intentionally cliched.

[Jimmy]

I don't think when Victor Salva made the film(s) he thought "This film isn't supposed to be scary" or intended it to be intentionally cliched.

I'm not trying to get into the guy's mindset, cause he's an abomination of pure evil in human form. This is just how I, and others I've spoken to about the films, have seen them.

[Heather19]

I have to agree with Mattrick about the Saw movies. I really enjoyed the first one, and thought it was very creative. However the second and third I felt were just cheesy knockoff's of the first. There wasn't really anything original about them and I didn't like the direction they took the story in pertaining to Amanda's character. And the third one, I think I was just so bored with it, I can't even really remember much of anything that happened in it. I've said it before, and I'll say it again, I really wish they would have left it as a stand alone movie. I don't know why they feel they need to add sequels onto every horror movie that does well.

[CyberGhostface]

I'm not trying to get into the guy's mindset, cause he's an abomination of pure evil in human form.

Are you making reference to Salva's child abuse case, or am I missing something???


I have to agree with Mattrick about the Saw movies. I really enjoyed the first one, and thought it was very creative. However the second and third I felt were just cheesy knockoff's of the first. There wasn't really anything original about them and I didn't like the direction they took the story in pertaining to Amanda's character. And the third one, I think I was just so bored with it, I can't even really remember much of anything that happened in it. I've said it before, and I'll say it again, I really wish they would have left it as a stand alone movie. I don't know why they feel they need to add sequels onto every horror movie that does well.

Then I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this account, because I think the series improved itself as it went along. Even at their worst, the sequels were far from being cheesy ripoffs of the first. It would have been all too easy to do retreads of the original (ala the F13 sequels) but instead they did a continuing storyline that added to the original. (Like the S3 flashbacks to what happened before and after the first film)

As for why they felt the need to make sequels...well, lets face it, the first film was incredibly low budget and made a ton of a money. A sequel was inevitable.

[alinda]

Last night my son asked that I watch a movie with him. It was Rob Zombies
version of Halloween .......I did not enjoy it. I do not think newer means better. I'm not sure I enjoyed the originals that much, but oh well.
Its been some years since I spent $ to view a film at theatre, I wait to buy a DVD, and only after I feel safe (via communication like this forum) that it would not be a total waste of my time and money to view said film.
Boy ! That sounds crappy , but its true. My opinion is that too much
language, blood, and sex is what ruins a film.

[Vasagi]

Last night my son asked that I watch a movie with him. It was Rob Zombies
version of Halloween .......I did not enjoy it. I do not think newer means better. I'm not sure I enjoyed the originals that much, but oh well.
Its been some years since I spent $ to view a film at theatre, I wait to buy a DVD, and only after I feel safe (via communication like this forum) that it would not be a total waste of my time and money to view said film.
Boy ! That sounds crappy , but its true. My opinion is that too much
language, blood, and sex is what ruins a film.

There should be a certain level of expectation when you sit down to watch a movie of any genre. If you watch a horror flick, you should be prepared to see some blood. If you watch an action flick, you should be prepared to see some explosions. If you watch a drama, bring along the kleenex. If you watch some porn, you should be prepared to see some facials (kleenex may be handy here too).

Keep in mind that blood isn't a requirement for a good horror flick, but it is a very common element. You should be prepared for it. Different sub-genres to Horror are going to have more or less blood and gore. Zombie movies (my personal favorite): consumption of gore. Slashers: blood and screams. Thrillers: less blood, more whodunit. Directors and producers play a big part, too: Rob Zombie or Eli Roth ... expect to be splattered.

Also some advice: Netflix! For under $10/month, you can screen however many movies your heart desires ... after reading detailed reviews and suggestions based on how you rate the films you've seen already.

[alinda]

Oh, I was expecting blood, and killing ( it was after all Halloween) I just didnt like it I guess. Thanks for the thumbsup on Netflicks, I've been considering it as a way to watch more films....I assume its pretty inexpensive way to check out films . My sons watch the satilite, I dont like that much either I am afraid. You can usually find me curled up reading horror. Where the visuals are typically in just the right amount/angle/ etc.....LOL!

[TerribleT]

Oh, I was expecting blood, and killing ( it was after all Halloween) I just didnt like it I guess. Thanks for the thumbsup on Netflicks, I've been considering it as a way to watch more films....I assume its pretty inexpensive way to check out films . My sons watch the satilite, I dont like that much either I am afraid. You can usually find me curled up reading horror. Where the visuals are typically in just the right amount/angle/ etc.....LOL!

I LOVE netflix, it totally rocks!!!!!

[Jimmy]

Last night my son asked that I watch a movie with him. It was Rob Zombies
version of Halloween .......I did not enjoy it. I do not think newer means better. I'm not sure I enjoyed the originals that much, but oh well.
Its been some years since I spent $ to view a film at theatre, I wait to buy a DVD, and only after I feel safe (via communication like this forum) that it would not be a total waste of my time and money to view said film.
Boy ! That sounds crappy , but its true. My opinion is that too much
language, blood, and sex is what ruins a film.

The remake of Prom Night is due in a month or two. Too many craptacular remakes lately.

The remake of Hellraiser is currently gearing up, from what I hear.

And yes CyberGhostface, the abuse case was what I was talking about.

[Heather19]

Alinda, you should check out the film The Others if you haven't seen it yet. There's no blood or killing, just a very good ghost story. It might be more up your alley.

And that's another pet peeve of mine when it comes to horror films, is that they're always doing remakes, and very few of them are better than the original. They've redone so many older horror films, and now the other latest trend seems to be remaking all of the asian horror films. Even ones that weren't any good to begin with, I don't know why they think they'll do better in the US.

[HanzouNorak]

dont get me started, horror these days ether sucks or is a boring-ass remake. most of the current horror goes like this:
boring, screaming, blood, boring, more screaming, gore, blood, boredom, sum1 gets nailed, gore,gore,gore, screaming, cliffhanger.
i have some real 80s characters for friends, they're apt to get on their knees and cry if you even mention any new horror movies. they cant stand em, nether can i.

[Mattrick]

This is why I want to get into making horror movies. If there is anything I truly understand is horror. I just think to my horrorific nightmares and night terrors as a kid. Nothing on film nor print has come close to those yet.