The Horror Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
This got me thinking... What are some Horror movies from the 90's and early 2000's that when you look back at them, you're shocked to see a familiar face who's big now, but wasn't back then?

A couple off the top of my head:

Jack Black - I Still Know What You Did Last Summer
Owen Wilson - Anaconda / The Haunting
Jesse Eisenberg - Cursed
Jeremy Renner - Dahmer

Another one that always cracks me up because I always forget about it is Joseph Gordon-Levitt in Halloween: H20.


You can go back even farther, into the 70's & 80's, and find a whole slew of big stars who were then unknowns.

A Nightmare On Elm Street (1984) = Johnny Depp

Friday The 13th (1980) = Kevin Bacon

Halloween (1978) = Jamie Lee Curtis

Black Christmas (1973) = Margot Kidder

The Burning = Jason Alexander

Often times it's the easiest way to break into show business. The guy who wrote and directed the original Black Christmas said in an interview "The two easiest ways to break into the movie industry as a film maker are by making horror movies, and by making porn. I didn't want to shoot a porno, so I made a horror film."
 
I don't think you can really count Jamie Lee Curtis considering it was her onscreen debut.
 
At this point I feel like I've seen every worthwhile horror movie ever made. It's been so long since I've been able to find another good one.


I'm in pretty much the same boat as you. I keep looking out for new horror films, hoping to find something that's genuinely good. But all I find is crap. But I keep right on looking.
 
To throw in my 2 cents on the whole "Slasher vs Supernatural" debate, I tend to lean more heavily towards the Slasher sub-genre of horror. Serial killers and mass murderers are very real, though not as prolific as their Hollywood Slasher counterparts. Thus the thought of some maniac in a mask hiding in the shadows waiting to attack me with a knife is infinitely more terrifying to me than some killer demon possessing someone's body.

On the flipside, while I don't believe in demons or The Devil, I do believe in ghosts. I grew up in a haunted house, so I have personally witnessed many creepy things. Luckily the ghosts who dwell in my mom's house aren't mean or violent, they just show up every now and then to say "hello" in their own ghostly way (turning the TV on & off, moving furniture, stuff like that). Therefore, to me, supernatural stories like Poltergeist are infinitely more frightening than The Exorcist. I will agree, however, that The Exorcist was a very well made film. I just don't find it very frightening.
 
I don't think you can really count Jamie Lee Curtis considering it was her onscreen debut.


Kevin Bacon & Johnny Depp had their on screen debuts in Friday The 13th & A Nightmare On Elm Street. Only difference is Jamie Lee's character survived and theirs didn't.

Another relative unknown who had a role in a horror movie, but is a big star now. Lawrence Fishburne in A Nightmare On Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors. It certainly wasn't his first movie (I had seen him in other movies which came out earlier, like Death Wish 2), but he certainly wasn't the big star he is today back then.
 
I wouldn't count Depp either personally considering his role is a significant one. Bacon's wasn't that significant to me in Friday the 13th.

I agree about Fishbourne though.
 
Honestly, the last decent one was the 5th.

:dry: No


Dance of the Dead was pretty good, I think it was direct to DVD.

I think they're all some degree of good except for Hellworld and the last one without Doug Bradley.
 
I don't remember the one without Doug Bradley. Which one was it again?

I felt the one about the detective was the worst. And Hellworld and the euro-zombie one are tied for not as bad as the detective one.
 
Some of my all time favourite horror films:

John Carpenter's Halloween

Sean S Cunningham's Friday The 13th

Tobe Hooper's Texas Chainsaw Massacre

Wes Craven's A Nightmare On Elm Street

Bob Clark's Black Christmas

As far as the remakes of these films are concerned, Rob Zombie should go back to making music. He sucks as a film maker.

And Michael Bay should stick to high action movies with lots of explosions. His horror remakes all suck. I'll give him credit where it's due, they do have some nice imagery. But they're always really badly written, changing vital elements of the back stories, while staying true to story elements that could be changed without hurting the overall film. It should be the other way around.
 
I don't remember the one without Doug Bradley. Which one was it again?

I felt the one about the detective was the worst. And Hellworld and the euro-zombie one are tied for not as bad as the detective one.

The one with the detective was the fifth, it was called Inferno...which one were you referring to as "the last decent one"?

The one sans Doug Bradley, which was only made so the Weinsteins could maintain the rights to the series and had almost no money behind it (and it showed), was called Revelations.
 
The one with the detective was the fifth, it was called Inferno...which one were you referring to as "the last decent one"?
The one with the return of Kirsty, Hellseeker, was the last decent one. I thought that was the fifth and the detective one was the 6th, but I made a mistake. Inferno was all sorts of bad.

The one sans Doug Bradley, which was only made so the Weinsteins could maintain the rights to the series and had almost no money behind it (and it showed), was called Revelations.
I managed to miss that one. Maybe the internet will help me with that sometime.
 
Discussions on The Exorcist.

People say it's not scary?

Well I disagree.

It's my favourite film. The way it was shot, acted, just everything. The film is incredibly timeless. It's hard to tell it's an early 70's film. Which is why, when I watch it, it still has an effect.

What is scary, is the way it's done. So serious and gritty. Like it could be right next door to anyone of us.
And the fact that all the horror we see is not coming from Regan. It's happening to her. A 12 year old girl is going through all that, so much physical and mental torment, til it kills her. Which will break the mother, and the hope and faith in God from the Priests.

That's why the film is scary to me.
 
I liked all of that in concept, I just wish they hadn't gotten so insanely over the top with the demonic imagery, worked against the tone and themes of the film for me.
 
It was done to shock. It was more or less the same in the book.

However, the book kept you guessing til the end about whether Regan was truly possessed or not, the film had it done straight away. But it's understandable given that couldn't achieve what was done in the book.

Regan's head appeared to twist around in a hasty daze of the mother in the book, it was obvious done on film, which did go against things.
 
The one he meant to say was the sixth, Hellraiser: Hellseeker...and yes, that's the one that brought her back.
 
It was done to shock. It was more or less the same in the book.

To me it was just silly, no more shocking than goofy demon movies like Night of the Demons or Evil Dead.

I much prefer the approach in films like Emily Rose and Last Exorcism. I'd have liked it better if they went for a more subtle take on whether she was possessed or not. The possession scenes are by far the worst stuff about the movie for me.
 
Am I the only one who is super bored with exorcism movies being centered around young girls in white night gowns?
 
To me it was just silly, no more shocking than goofy demon movies like Night of the Demons or Evil Dead.

I much prefer the approach in films like Emily Rose and Last Exorcism. I'd have liked it better if they went for a more subtle take on whether she was possessed or not. The possession scenes are by far the worst stuff about the movie for me.


Mostly because we live in a world where things like Evil Dead have existed for decades. The same cannot be said for the audiences of 1974.
 
Exactly, it was 'shocking' to that audience because of over the top imagery and effects that could easily be done by any amateur filmmaker, but just hadn't been done yet at the time.
 
You can go back even farther, into the 70's & 80's, and find a whole slew of big stars who were then unknowns.

A Nightmare On Elm Street (1984) = Johnny Depp

Friday The 13th (1980) = Kevin Bacon

Halloween (1978) = Jamie Lee Curtis

Black Christmas (1973) = Margot Kidder

The Burning = Jason Alexander

Often times it's the easiest way to break into show business. The guy who wrote and directed the original Black Christmas said in an interview "The two easiest ways to break into the movie industry as a film maker are by making horror movies, and by making porn. I didn't want to shoot a porno, so I made a horror film."


Well the Jaimie Lee Curtis isn't really the same. For many years she was primarily known for being in horror films.


Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Next Generation has Matthew McConaughey and Rene Zellweger.
 
Exactly, it was 'shocking' to that audience because of over the top imagery and effects that could easily be done by any amateur filmmaker, but just hadn't been done yet at the time.

Well also just the fact that they committed to having it all happen to a young girl, the corruption of it all. Plus this was a movie with some respectable actors and production values. and along with novel, there were the claims that it was all based, at least partially, on a true story.

Basically, from the imagery, to the tropes, to the marketing this film established a huge amount of what is now standard for so many horror films and at that point became the most successful film of all time. Adjusting for inflation, the film's theatrical gross would be over 800 million dollars. Imagine a horror film today making more money than the latest Spiderman film. Pretty much couldn't happen.
 
As for the supposed "true story" nature of the Exorcist, the case upon which it is loosely based actually involved a 13 year old boy in 1949. The boys family lived in Washington DC. They started hearing scratching noises in their walls and got an exterminator thinking it was rats or something but it didn't stop the noises. Not long after the boy started acting bizarrely, and welps appeared on his torso. The family decided to leave and visit relatives in the midwest, but the boy's behavior turned for the worse and he began acting hateful and more bruises and cuts and things appeared on his body. One of his family members was a student at St. Louis University and sought help from one of the Jesuit professors. Eventually the boy was brought to campus, kept in a room on the top floor of Verhagen Hall. Apparently they had to restrain him. At some point while he was on campus, the the words "NO" and "LOUIS" appeared scratched into his chest. Several Jesuit Preists, including Father William Bowdern partook in an exorcism. Before they began the boy was moved to Alexian Brother Hospital a few miles south of SLU. The exorcism ceremony, which is supposed to take 10 minutes, took several hours do to difficulty with the boy. What ever the case may be as to the cause, the boy snapped out of his behavior claiming that St. Michael saved him.

Personally I don't believe in possession, but the Jesuits at SLU certainly do. I'm a student at Saint Louis University currently and while its not something they advertise, SLU in no way denies the events said to have taken place on campus or involving their employees. The room in Verhagen Hall was walled off for decades, first with drywall but later a full wall was built when the whole building was restored in the late 80s. They had to do some work a few years back though because they had some problems with the room. Apparently through some old chimney pipe or something there was access to the outside and several dozen pidgeons and squirrrels had made their way into the room and died.

Several of Father Bowdern's personal effects including a crucifix they claim was used in the exorcism reside in SLU's art museum, the top floor of which is devoted to Jesuit history.

The ward of Alexian Brothers Hosipital was not in active use even in '49 when the boy was taken there. It too was walled off after the events and was actually torn down about 15 years ago.

It's all rather strange. Something certainly happened. It is a fact the boy was brought here. Even if it all was a complete myth, it certainly wouldn't be the most ridiculous thing treated as fact at this Catholic school.
 
Well the Jaimie Lee Curtis isn't really the same. For many years she was primarily known for being in horror films.


Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Next Generation has Matthew McConaughey and Rene Zellweger.

If she had starred in other horror movies before Halloween, I would agree. But Halloween was her very first movie ever. Its what jump started her career. And as much as they want to deny it, the same can be said for Johnny Depp in A Nightmare On Elm Street and Kevin Bacon in Friday The 13th.

And Viggo Morgensen (I'm not sure if a spelled that right) was in Texas Chainsaw Massacre 3.
 
What I meant was that unlike some of these other people, its not really surprising that Jaimie Lee Curtis had her start in horror films as she was in a bunch of them, where as with Johnny Depp and McConaughey its far less known.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Staff online

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
200,558
Messages
21,759,585
Members
45,595
Latest member
osayi
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"