Echovoid_52 wrote:


I'd call each and every one of them a horror movie, although I'm learning that the public has a very narrow view of what "defines" a horror film these days. For example, I'd call a lot of Lynch's films horror films because they scare me and are genuinely horrifying. Black Swan has been deemed a " physiological drama" by some but if you look at the film as a whole it's clearly influenced by midnight cult horror flicks such as Argento's Suspria, except it won Oscars, so it's too "high-art" to some people to be given the horror title…I guess… even though it clearly is.


Also, just because you don't find a film "scary" doesn't mean it isn't horror. I wasn't scared by "The Witch" but that's because I'm pretty desensitized. Last movie that I really struggled to watch was Inland Empire. RZH2 might not be scary, but it's one of the best, if only horror films to accurately portray survivors trauma and PTSD in the aftermath of a murderous tragedy. I'm a huge fan of the series who thinks Zombie's 2007 film is a bit of a mess, but the 2009 sequel is the only film in the franchise that holds an artistic candle to Carpenter's 1978 original. The directors cut is a near-masterpiece and I'm just waiting for everyone to get onboard with it as this point. Time will tell on how great and overlooked a film it is. It's Zombie's "Fire Walk With Me", which was also "boo'd at Cannes" initially.

xWhereAmI? wrote:

Echovoid_52 wrote:


I'd call each and every one of them a horror movie, although I'm learning that the public has a very narrow view of what "defines" a horror film these days. For example, I'd call a lot of Lynch's films horror films because they scare me and are genuinely horrifying. Black Swan has been deemed a " physiological drama" by some but if you look at the film as a whole it's clearly influenced by midnight cult horror flicks such as Argento's Suspria, except it won Oscars, so it's too "high-art" to some people to be given the horror title…I guess… even though it clearly is.


Also, just because you don't find a film "scary" doesn't mean it isn't horror. I wasn't scared by "The Witch" but that's because I'm pretty desensitized. Last movie that I really struggled to watch was Inland Empire. RZH2 might not be scary, but it's one of the best, if only horror films to accurately portray survivors trauma and PTSD in the aftermath of a murderous tragedy. I'm a huge fan of the series who thinks Zombie's 2007 film is a bit of a mess, but the 2009 sequel is the only film in the franchise that holds an artistic candle to Carpenter's 1978 original. The directors cut is a near-masterpiece and I'm just waiting for everyone to get onboard with it as this point. Time will tell on how great and overlooked a film it is. It's Zombie's "Fire Walk With Me", which was also "boo'd at Cannes" initially.

I think you also have to put into consideration of all time horror flicks on how well the scares are handled. Story/character does matter over everything, but the essence of a horror movie is the scare/tension. And I'm not talking about jump scares at all. Mostly the execution. Hell, you could say a mob movie is a horror movie by the way you described your reasoning with the whole "struggling to watch" aspect.

Echovoid_52 wrote:

xWhereAmI? wrote:

Echovoid_52 wrote:


I'd call each and every one of them a horror movie, although I'm learning that the public has a very narrow view of what "defines" a horror film these days. For example, I'd call a lot of Lynch's films horror films because they scare me and are genuinely horrifying. Black Swan has been deemed a " physiological drama" by some but if you look at the film as a whole it's clearly influenced by midnight cult horror flicks such as Argento's Suspria, except it won Oscars, so it's too "high-art" to some people to be given the horror title…I guess… even though it clearly is.


Also, just because you don't find a film "scary" doesn't mean it isn't horror. I wasn't scared by "The Witch" but that's because I'm pretty desensitized. Last movie that I really struggled to watch was Inland Empire. RZH2 might not be scary, but it's one of the best, if only horror films to accurately portray survivors trauma and PTSD in the aftermath of a murderous tragedy. I'm a huge fan of the series who thinks Zombie's 2007 film is a bit of a mess, but the 2009 sequel is the only film in the franchise that holds an artistic candle to Carpenter's 1978 original. The directors cut is a near-masterpiece and I'm just waiting for everyone to get onboard with it as this point. Time will tell on how great and overlooked a film it is. It's Zombie's "Fire Walk With Me", which was also "boo'd at Cannes" initially.

I think you also have to put into consideration of all time horror flicks on how well the scares are handled. Story/character does matter over everything, but the essence of a horror movie is the scare/tension. And I'm not talking about jump scares at all. Mostly the execution. Hell, you could say a mob movie is a horror movie by the way you described your reasoning with the whole "struggling to watch" aspect.

It's true the line has to be drawn somewhere. For example, I probably wouldn't called Gaspar Noe's "Irreversible" a horror film even though my gut reaction to it is nearly the same (possibly even more amplified) as most horror flicks, but overall I think we need to be a bit more open about what we call horror. This very narrow view of horror that's limited to films like: Sinister, Paranormal Activity, The Conjuring etc.. is hurting the genre. Don't get me wrong, sometimes those type of films can be fun, but they're not the artistically bold horror films that I prefer and, more often the not, leave a lasting impression on me.

shauner111 wrote:Horror films should be horrifying in some way or another, or it shouldn't be classified as horror. You wouldn't call a film a crime film if there were no crimes being committed in the film now would you?

Cabin in the Woods? That was a comedy disguised as "horror". If anything it's a spoof. Halloween 2 would be classified as horror, there's some horrifying shit there, but i just don't think it's a good one. Black Swan? Fair enough. I can see that, but for me it's a psychological thriller. Nothing really horrifying there. It's dark and mysterious, but that doesn't mean it's a horror movie. Under The Skin? Sure. Exorcist, Shining, Audition...that's horror to me. Not It Follows, even if it tries to be. I hope The Witch is what i want to see from the genre.

shauner111 wrote:It's not even that scary.

m4st4 wrote:The majority of the horror flicks started using same mechanics over and over again = it degraded. It happened because the audiences for that sort of genre re-making were mostly teenagers and young adults looking for cheap thrills, they wanted to be scared by blood fountains and cheap visual effects. Real horror was never about just getting scared, it was a regular movie that happened to have underlying horrific themes, fear of the unknown in our own real world, movies like The Haunting, Rosemary's Baby, The Exorcist, those movies primarily talk about something else. Of course, even the slasher genre gave us unforgettable gems like Texas Chainsaw Massacre (not a drop of blood was spilled), Evil Dead or Scream in the 90s, but in essence, horror was always just one color on the psychological palette.

Next we have The Witch, which delivered the best opening ever in A24's young history. The film delivered an estimated $8.68 million in its first three days from 2,046 theaters. This is the widest opening for an A24 film by far, with Kevin Smith's Tusk previously owning that distinction, opening in 602 theaters. It's not all sunshine and roses for the film, however, as the "C-" CinemaScore doesn't bode well for the weekend holdover.

On average, films with a "C-" CinemaScore drop over 53% in their second weekend, though horror films tend to have a little better hold, averaging a 51.5% second weekend. There is some precedent for a strong second weekend for a film in this range as 2011's Don't be Afraid of the Dark scored a "C-" upon its $8.5 million opening and dropped only 39% in its sophomore session. That was, however, a long Labor Day weekend, which likely played a role in the film's stronger Sunday hold.

The Witch's second weekend hold could mean the difference between a theatrical run that ends around $19 million and one that attempts to push toward $25+ million. Either way, A24 is already in good shape having purchased distribution rights for the film for only $1 million.

Master Virgo wrote:Just a reminder, some of the classic horror films that were received poorly by the critics at the time their release.


Psycho
Texas Chainsaw Massacre
The Shining
Alien
The Thing
Halloween
The Exorcist
Peeping Tom


Yeah we sometimes like to pretend how dumb general audience are and how critics get it right a lot better, and it's a strange thing, being said on Nolanfans.


Interstellar

RT Top Critics: 67% (Average Score: 7.1/10)
Audience Score: 85% (Average Score: 4.1/5)


The Prestige

RT Top Critics: 59% (Average Score: 6.2/10)
Audience Score: 92% (Average Score: 4/5)


Batman Begins

RT Top Critics: 63% (Average Score: 6.8/10)
Audience Score: 94% (Average Score: 3.9/5)



£

mchekhov 2: Chek Harder wrote:it had some nice moments