What Makes a Horror Movie Innovative Instead of Sleazy

[Hobgoblin]

Maybe I've gotten too desensitized, but when I watch a horror flick, I want it to push the limits. Isnt that what horror is supposed to do, show us things that make us uncomfortable? Take Rosemary's Baby, for instance. Its a story about a nice young woman that is raped by Satan to produce the Anti-Christ. It deals with some pretty distasteful themes, but is considered a classic movie. Humanoids From the Deep, on the other hand, is considered misogynistic schlock. Yet they both deal with inhuman creatures raping human women for breeding.

Then there is the violence aspect. All horror movies are violent in one way or another, but Psycho or Halloween are seen as works of art while Friday the 13th or The Texas Chainsaw Massacre are a disgrace to cinema.

We cant keep making movies that rely on being stabbed in a shower or people will get bored. So film makers try new things, more shocking things. But that seems to be when people start getting offended. No one sees Roger Corman as a successor to Alfred Hitchcock.

Thoughts?

 

[Watchman]

Texas Chainsaw Massacre is consider one of the greatest horror movies ever made.

Yeah, while I've never seen Humanoids of the Deep it doesn't have the A-list creative team that Rosemary's Baby has. The film is a bit more deeper than woman getting raped by the devil. While Humanoids sounds like the usual monster feast with more sex and blood. Same goes with Psycho and Friday the 13th

 

[venom892]

Well the original Halloween didn't have much gore.It was more about the atmosphere and suspense it created.

 

[webhead731]

For a GOOD horror movie (not cheesy 80's slasher FUN), I say it needs good story, likable characters (big plus), and a great villain/monster. The scares can't rely on jump scares, it has to just make you feel tense and sick inside.

 

[Jackasscoley15]

For a GOOD horror movie (not cheesy 80's slasher FUN), I say it needs good story, likable characters (big plus), and a great villain/monster. The scares can't rely on jump scares, it has to just make you feel tense and sick inside.

I agree with this. What makes a truly innovative horror movie isn't the subject matter, but how the filmmaker goes about executing it.

 

[Doctor Jones]

Take Stephen King for example. In the wrong hands his adaptations could be a disaster, in the right ones like Kubrick, Darabont, or Reiner, they can be ****ing great films. So yes, it is about the execution.

 

[TheVileOne]

The Thing (1982) = innovative

new Nightmare and Friday the 13th movies = sleazy

 

[Heretic]

"Sleazy" is such a...bad...word. I think that the only truly sleazy horror films are the poorly done exploitation films that are just an excuse to show topless nuns getting butchered. Movies like Hanger (about a failed abortion that grows up and goes on a killing spree) or any of the multitude of zombie stripper type movies.

Things like the Nightmare On Elm Street remake aren't so much sleazy as they are just crap, lazy movies. Much closer to sleazy would be something like the French film Inside...which has one of the worst scripts I've ever seen in a "real" film. The characters exist solely to die due to their own stupidity, and the entire point of the movie is to show sharp objects trying to cut open a pregnant woman's stomach. It does seem that the makers aren't aware of their sleaziness, like a zombie stripper style or nun-killer type film.

Innovation in Horror films to me would mean trying something new to expand what Horror is. So many people praised Hatchet as an awesome return to oldschool slasher films...but I thought it was a piece of garbage retread of something I've seen a thousand times. Take a movie like Anti-Christ. Not a typical horror film at all...but I absolutely consider it a Horror film, because...otherwise, what the heck is it? Martyrs took the torture porn concept and made art with it. Let The Right One In redefined and rejuvenated vampires. To a lesser extent something like Heartless would fit in here, as it is clear that they were attempting new things with the genre, and mixing in new genres to create something bold (but ultimately that movie isn't nearly as great as they want it to be). None of these films are particularly violent, but certainly have horror elements. They definitely expand what horror is, and that should be respected.

 

[danoyse]

Take Stephen King for example. In the wrong hands his adaptations could be a disaster, in the right ones like Kubrick, Darabont, or Reiner, they can be ****ing great films. So yes, it is about the execution.

Actually, Kubrick's version of The Shining is a terrible adaptation. Great movie, one of my favorite horror films, but it's nothing like the book.

I think the most innovative horror movies are the ones that take something that everyone is familiar with and makes it terrifying. People can relate to it in some way and it scares the crap out of them.

 

[Thundarr]

I agree with this. What makes a truly innovative horror movie isn't the subject matter, but how the filmmaker goes about executing it.

I absolutely agree. The original Halloween (1978), Friday The 13th (1980), and Nightmare On Elm Street (1984), were each terrifying in their own right. Some are more violent or sexual than others (especially F13 & NOES), but they all relied more on suspense than cheap thrills. These remakes by Rob Zombie and Michael Bay have all upped the sex and the gore, but at the expence of the suspense needed to make their films good. This is why the originals are all, and forever will be, classics while the remakes are, and always have been, utter crap.

 

[Doctor Jones]

Actually, Kubrick's version of The Shining is a terrible adaptation. Great movie, one of my favorite horror films, but it's nothing like the book.

I think the most innovative horror movies are the ones that take something that everyone is familiar with and makes it terrifying. People can relate to it in some way and it scares the crap out of them.

Meh, even though it's an adaptation, I don't look at them in the same light. True the film takes the book and adapts it, but it's still different for a different medium. I never waste my time comparing book to film. I always thought it was wrong. If you compare, most likely the negatives outweigh the positives and you're not able to enjoy the film itself. It never sets out to be a great adaptation, just a great film translating a book, but respecting it and keeping the spirit alive but put on film. I'm probably in the minority on this one. Jaws, The Godfather, Bourne, The Shining, etc. Those films are so good they stand on their own without the book's scrutiny and they never should be compared.

 

[Thundarr]

Meh, even though it's an adaptation, I don't look at them in the same light. True the film takes the book and adapts it, but it's still different for a different medium. I never waste my time comparing book to film. I always thought it was wrong. If you compare, most likely the negatives outweigh the positives and you're not able to enjoy the film itself. It never sets out to be a great adaptation, just a great film translating a book, but respecting it and keeping the spirit alive but put on film. I'm probably in the minority on this one. Jaws, The Godfather, Bourne, The Shining, etc. Those films are so good they stand on their own without the book's scrutiny and they never should be compared.

Actually, that's a good way to look at film adaptations of books. To be honest, I've never read Carrie, Christine, The Shining, or Jaws, but I do love all of the movies based on those books. I've never read The Body either, but Stand By Me is one of my all time favorite movies.

 

[Doctor Jones]

I don't plan to read Jaws either. I know the changes that they made. But if I did read it I'm pretty sure I would still love the movie a hell of alot more. I read the Jurassic Park novel. It was great but I still prefer the film. I'd just rather not think of the changes. It's distracting. That's why I don't intend to read HP7 before the film comes out.

 

[Dark Victory]

Actually, Kubrick's version of The Shining is a terrible adaptation. Great movie, one of my favorite horror films, but it's nothing like the book.

I think the most innovative horror movies are the ones that take something that everyone is familiar with and makes it terrifying. People can relate to it in some way and it scares the crap out of them.

While it's definitely a loose adaptation, Kubrick truly made it his own and demolished King's book with his own idea. People who think that The Shining is about a haunted hotel really need to rewatch it. IMO, The tv movie shows that Kubrick's take was better than any faithful adaptation could muster.

 

[PyroChamber]

What I find interesting about horror is that of the different genres of film, horror seems to be the one where no one really knows which movie is considered the greatest.

 

[S.A.A.D.]

I absolutely agree. The original Halloween (1978), Friday The 13th (1980), and Nightmare On Elm Street (1984), were each terrifying in their own right. Some are more violent or sexual than others (especially F13 & NOES), but they all relied more on suspense than cheap thrills. These remakes by Rob Zombie and Michael Bay have all upped the sex and the gore, but at the expence of the suspense needed to make their films good. This is why the originals are all, and forever will be, classics while the remakes are, and always have been, utter crap.

Not always. It's been proven time and time again.

It doesn't hurt when one finds the movie good aside from that.

 

[Heretic]

What I find interesting about horror is that of the different genres of film, horror seems to be the one where no one really knows which movie is considered the greatest.

That's because Horror can be so many different things. A court room drama is limited to a court room. A war movie is limited to war scenes. Therefore, you can just compare them all and make a nice list of the 5 best. With Horror, we have Alien, which is vastly different from The Exorcist, which is vastly different from Psycho, which is vastly different from Nosferatu. Horror is anything that horrifies...and that can include ANYTHING (and if you've seen lots of slashers, it can be any career choice).

However, I think that if you took a wide enough survey of true horror fans, then you'd still end up with a pretty short list of the best ever movies...and my guess would be a clear cut winner on points (likely The Exorcist).

 

[Hobgoblin]

That's because Horror can be so many different things. A court room drama is limited to a court room. A war movie is limited to war scenes. Therefore, you can just compare them all and make a nice list of the 5 best. With Horror, we have Alien, which is vastly different from The Exorcist, which is vastly different from Psycho, which is vastly different from Nosferatu. Horror is anything that horrifies...and that can include ANYTHING (and if you've seen lots of slashers, it can be any career choice).

However, I think that if you took a wide enough survey of true horror fans, then you'd still end up with a pretty short list of the best ever movies...and my guess would be a clear cut winner on points (likely The Exorcist).

Actually, there have been horror films that have taken place in courtrooms (The Exorcism of Emily Rose) and in war zones (Deathwatch).

 

[Heretic]

Actually, there have been horror films that have taken place in courtrooms (The Exorcism of Emily Rose) and in war zones (Deathwatch).

Exactly. Horror overlaps every other genre. You can have a romantic horror, a comedic horror, a sci fi horror, a war horror...but once you add horror, it becomes a horror film. That's why there are so many great horror films of different styles.