All Horror films are boring. Psychological thrillers and the unseen monsters are the only interesting things to watch. Zombie films are usually the only good films. Usually.
Thank you for once again saving me the cost of admission to a terrible movie I hadn't planned on seeing anyway. Either way, it's still a win for me.
I actually thought it was ok, but as a film in general, not exactly a horror movie. Not GREAT, but ok. Felt more realistic than most ghost-based films, and none of the characters acted completely out of their character. Only disappointment for me was the finale not having enough actual horror. I STRONGLY disagree with you. Horror films are only boring when you can tell what's going to happen, and how. That's why, to me, they're one of the hardest genres of film to get right. A film like "The Thing" (1982 version) shows the perfect amount of horror, suspense, mystery, disgust, and doubt meant to be honed in a horror film. It's just that, nowadays, film makers, at least in Hollywood, keep thinking horror is just gore, or ghosts. They don't understand how to get into people's heads.
Eh, perhaps older ones are better, though they usually haven't aged well and turn out to me to be a bit too fake if you know what I mean. I just think if you're objective is to scare someone and play on their fears, your going to be playing on common and clichéd fears that people have and for some that's just not applicable.
I really enjoyed the movie. It had a strong message of family and unity, some of the scares actually got me, the acting was well done, and I'm impressed that most of the effects were practical.
the conjuring was good, you're a dweeb. it's been a long time since a horror movie actually had an enjoyable cast that i genuinely cared about.
Alright, hooray! Wasn't planning to anyway . . . mostly because I'm the biggest wimp and I flipped seeing the trailer sobs
If I was to go to the cinema again in the coming future it would be to see Monsters university like a good little schoolgirl.
My problem with horror movies is that I'm fascinated by them, but I can't ever go see them. I'm still afraid of The Amityville Horror and I saw that probably six years ago (which, btw, I heard The Conjuring's sequel might be based around it). So I end up reading the plot synopsis on Wikipedia.
Spoiler I love at the end of the movie that they made a nudge at Ammityville, but if you look at the timeline of the movie, that isn't supposed to happen for another several years when I looked it up. I've actually heard that the actual true story lasted nine years. I don't care if movies embellish on reality; the main job is to tell a story that entertains, and they did that well. I really need to pick up that book, after I finish The Cockoo's Calling of course.
Yeah it is a bit out of timeline, but the Amityville story is one of the pretty well known ones that I'm not surprised they would include it. & which story, the Amityville one? I mean I'm quite skeptical of all this paranormal stuff, the events leading up to the guy killing his family did extend over several years, but most of them were drug use and violent behavior rather than there are ghosts in my house. The family that moved in afterwards weren't there for very long, I don't think--I think it was around a month.
Yeah, and it gives a new take on a well known story. And James Wan does a great job behind the camera; I'd love to see what he does with it. And I was talking about The Conjuring; the family actually lived in that house for nine years while in the movie,they probably lived there for a few months. Again, I don't really care that they embellished on the facts. And one of the victims wrote a book about the experience (one of the daughters, and it was published rather recently), House of Darkness, House of Light. That was used to help bring The Conjuring to life as well as aid from Lorraine Warren (first hand experience, documents, and other stuff).
I agree with PaW in terms of the newer trend of the "monsters you can't see" being a good aspect of a horror film. I admit that the first (and only the first) Paranormal Activity was good because you never saw the ghost/demon thing. It's also the notion that people base the majority of their instinct on sight than any other sense and now that they can't depend on such, it makes it all the more great that they are truly lost and thus, fearful and have to depend on their less experienced senses like hearing and touch. Mind you, shaky-cam movies are debatable under this aspect because usually I just end up feeling motion sickness rather than actually getting scared. But nonetheless, if I were to make a horror film, not seeing the villain/antagonist/monster would convey a lot more fear and confusion for the characters and audience. It's the fear of the unknown more than anything else that intrigues me to such movies.
Just wanna throw out that the remake of The Thing was probably one of the worst movies I've ever seen ever in my life right next to Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy
The new one? I don't doubt it. Remakes of horror movies tend to be the worst remakes when it comes to films. The 1982 version of "The Thing" being the only exception. AND I LIKED HITCHHIKER'S GUIDE ACTUALLY IT WASN'T AMAZING BUT I CHUCKLED AND ZOOEY DESCHANEL OK
