Horror Movies

Post Reply New Topic

I haven't seen the film but I've heard of it.

*spoilers*

And I know the main character has sex with like, her brother and vagina-bites his pierced c-ck off after which it gets eaten by a dog. I can sometimes appreciate messed up humour but that's just an ounce too f-cking disgusting. No thank you.

Never watched any (I get really scared when I see stuff like that on film) but I love the concepts of The Thing and Event Horizon. (I read about them instead.)

I haven't read it yet (I'd like to), but The Thing is based on a short story if you haven't read it
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Goes_There%3F

I haven't seen the original movie yet, either (the black & white 50s one, as featured in Halloween).

The John Carpenter one is pretty gruesome, Rob Botin and Stan Winston both worked on it.

The Carpenter version is much closer to the novella than the original Howard Hawks movie was.

back in howard hawks' day the hays office would not have let them get anywhere near the original novella.

Both the 50's film and Carpenter's 1982 film are great classics but before watching Carpenter's film watch van Heijningen's 2011 prequel--it was made independently almost 30 years after Carpenter's film but was beautifully reverse-engineered to be a seamless prequel.

Not only that, but they wouldn't have been able to create the effects to match the novella, Who Goes There.

I wasn't a big fan of the prequel.

I was in the perhaps unusual position of not having seen the 1982 film before we saw the 2011 prequel in a theater. I thought it was OK but not particularly impressive, and it had a few things that just seemed too much.

Then I saw the 1982 film and that is when I developed my high opinion of the prequel. The things in the prequel that I wondered why were there turned out to be necessary to match the 1982 film. Across the board the reverse-engineering they did was awesome and they blended magnificently into the 1982 film.

I think it is their wonderful job of reverse-engineering that I like most about the prequel. It was made 29 years later, completely independently, and the only "cooperation" I've read they got from the 1982 film was Carpenter's blessing. Outside the terrific reverse-engineering it is just OK.

I think the prequel looks best if viewed immediately before watching the 1982 film...not if it is viewed separately.

P.S. I stumbled across this Medium/Cinapse article with an entertaining title: "THE THING (2011): It’s Probably Better Than You Remember".

I did a search last night to see if anyone had it streaming for free, but they don't at the moment.
I'm sure Carpenter's movie is much, much better, but I'm still curious to see the original, especially since it was one of HIS favorite movies.


I felt about the same. It was definitely better than the straight remake that we thought it was going to be when it came out, but it felt like they were a little limited with the story they could tell, having to shoehorn it to fit in with Carpenter's "sequel".

It was kind of like the Hannibal Rising film, how (if you read the Hannibal novel) you already knew most of what was going to happen in it.

I don't want many Horror movies because they can be very traumatizing but I like

1. The Shining
2. Coraline

Though I have not seen Candyman, I saw the trailer and thought the plot looks interesting the character.

I watched it for the first time ever last month, it was a little different than I had expected.

I'm something of a wimp when it comes to horror movies.Classic 1930s and 1940s horror movies-fine. Ditto Hammer horror. Modern horror-!! ! way too scary.

I've enjoyed reading all of these posts.
Horror/Fantasy/Terror/Scary/Monster movies have been near and dear to me my whole life, ever since I can remember from the early '60s. I have seen so many films in the theater and on televsion, many mentioned here. It is not uncommon for me to stream a movie and then realize I saw it at the theater eight years ago.
Horror is so difficult to pin point, to define. I'm sure some of you have heard Boris Karloff did not like the phrase "Horror" movies. By his definition, the only really Horror movie he was in was Peter Bogdanovich's film, Target (1968). The Hunchback of Notre Dame shows up in books on horror movies, but is it really a horror movie? The Phantom of the Opera is another example, but it comes closer.
Sometimes we define horror as the point of suspense in a film that we see but the on screen character does not. The opposite is true too. We are surprised by the sudden attack/danger. Sometimes it is shocking imagery. That can range from Boris Karloff slowly turning around and the camera jumping closer and closer to Jack Pierce's beautiful makeup for the Frankenstein monster. Or the film maker distracts you with silence, music, a calm scene, and then something is presented that startles or scares the crap out of you. Sometimes it might be a sound, usually loud. That was a device used in the budget pictures produced by Val Lewton, like The Cat People (1942 directed by Jacques Tourneur). I don't think he invented it, but I've seen it referred to as the Val Lewton effect.

I have not seen Teeth, but now I want to. It's a great title. The title sounded familiar, so it might be I've seen it and have forgotten. It happens.


I would recommend The Babadook. It is a 2014 low budget, independent film written and directed by Australian Jennifer Kent. I personally think it is brilliant, and I think it will make your skin crawl, and make you jump.

Does jaws count as a horror movie?

It certainly does.