Horror movieology!

Ethan Perez97 said:No, Phantasm 🙂

Oh, absolutely! 👍 The first two Phantasm films are total masterpieces! 😉

Romero said:Zombie 2 from '79 and Zombie 3 from '88 by Fulci.

Definitely Zombie 2 from '79 👍

Though I could really go for some Hellraiser too...

Brian Foster2 said:It might not be your typical Horror / Thriller, but I'm pretty sure it gets an R rating in most places, and some countries even banned certain versions entirely.😳

The movie touches on just about everything and features plenty of violence, so it'll definitely need an R rating in civilized countries.

Ugh! Americans and their damn obsession with cataloging every single movie ever made!! 😠 Those cursed predicates!

Ethan Perez97 said:Wait, have you even actually watched the first Evil Dead??

I have. I've seen it. I own all three movies.
So what?

placidraven22 said:So, what's the deal?
Maybe they’re actually funnier than any straight-up comedy?
Especially something like Evil Dead

The true masters of the genre realized a long time ago that you have to approach horror with a certain sense of absurdity—kind of looking at it through a lens of detachment. Those "serious" horror flicks often just end up being unconvincing and unintentionally hilarious. That’s where the real cult directors—think Sam Raimi or even Peter Jackson—really shine. They lean into the "trash" aesthetic with this mindset: if the movie is going to be ridiculous, let's make it intentionally bizarre and over-the-top.

My bad—posted this twice by mistake!

Gerald Rivera60 said:I don't really consider Cannibal to be a horror movie... I mean, I suppose everyone has their own definition of what counts as horror, but in my opinion, just because there's a ton of blood doesn't automatically make it a horror flick...
... though, let's face it, it can be pretty tricky to draw a line between pure horror and a solid thriller.
... and look, I know I'm drifting a bit into off-topic territory here, but why is it that something like Friday the 13th is classified as horror, while Silence of the Lambs falls under thriller... even though, personally, I find the Lamb much more terrifying than Jason Voorhees?
Are horror movies defined by their actual content, or by the specific reaction they provoke—or intend to provoke—in the audience?
... honestly, I don't think it's all that vital to pin these things down perfectly. There's a general consensus on certain classics, sure, but on other films, everyone has their own unique take... and that's just how it goes! Everyone will agree that The Exorcist is a horror masterpiece, but you'll never get a consensus when it comes to Cannibal or the Lamb.

I think you might be mixing up a few things here. If you check out www.imdb.com, you'll see that even "Silence of the Lambs" is tagged as horror, but it’s also listed as a thriller and a crime movie too.

On the flip side, Friday the 13th carries the Mystery / Horror / Thriller label.

So, both movies actually fall within the horror genre! However, it's common knowledge that if you sit through all ten installments of Friday the 13th, you'll walk away concluding it's much more of a pure horror series—because after the third entry, there isn't even a plot anymore; it's just about the carnage!

placidraven22 said:was watching

Oh, I see where this is going now... 😁

Ethan Perez97 said:Oh, now I finally get it. 😁

You're ridiculous....

I was doing a little reading earlier

Has anyone brought up
the Texas Chainsaw Massacre and its sequels

ps. I don't think Romero's zombies are technically sequels in the literal sense—unless I'm totally off base here.😁 😁

you're mistaken😉

Hmm, I can think of one movie series, though I've only managed to catch the first installment!

Jeepers Creepers 1 and 2

Brian Foster2 said:I think you’re mixing up a few things. Check www.imdb.com and you’ll see that "The Silence of the Lambs" is also tagged as a thriller and a crime movie, even if it carries a horror label.

On the other hand, Friday the 13th is categorized as Mystery / Horror / Thriller.

So both films fall under the horror umbrella. However, anyone who has sat through all ten installments of Friday the 13th will tell you it leans heavily into pure horror. After the third entry, there isn't much plot left—it's just a slaughterfest.

Personally, I find these genre distinctions somewhat pointless. The best films always transcend these labels anyway.

(...under every horror title, you'll see Horror/Thriller, and under every thriller, it's Thriller/Horror).

Our dear legend, Romero, basically paved the way by spitting out Night of the Living Dead... which started the whole craze... then he gave us Dawn of the Dead... and, believe it or not, today he's working on... hmmm... Land of the Dead! 😉 BTW, regarding that remake of Dawn... the one that hit theaters back in the day—I actually think it’s much better than the original! Quite interesting, really! I was so against anyone touching a sacred classic that I was practically geared up to spit on it before the credits even rolled! I'm honestly glad I was "disappointed"! If we get more high-quality remakes like this... things might just be looking up! 👍

Noah Watson4 said:Our favorite little legend Romero basically spat out Night of the Living Dead to start it all... then came Dawn of the Dead... and now, I guess, he's actually working on... hmm... Land of the Dead! 😉 BTW, for me, that remake of Dawn... you know, the one that hit theaters back in the day... was actually way better than the original! Pretty wild, right? I think I was so against anyone touching a classic that I was basically ready to just trash it before I even sat down to watch. I'm kind of glad I was wrong! If we get more quality remakes like this... it might actually be pretty cool. 👍

we're disagreeing again 🙄

😁

ps

you forgot Day😉

quietdriver3 said:We're at odds again, I see.🙄

😁

ps

you forgot about Day😉

Uh-oh! Here we go again!!! 🙂
Yap, I totally blanked on "Day..."! 😉
But listen, this remake actually caught me off guard more than any of Romero's originals! 🙂 It's gotta be that intense factor that really tipped the scales here!

I was actually a bit hesitant to brag about the Dawn remake because I was worried you all might tear me apart, but honestly? It was so incredibly good that I ended up going out and buying the original DVD just to have the complete experience!

As for Romero's "Land of the Dead," I've been hearing some buzz from folks who caught it on digital downloads—they’re saying it’s an absolute blast and feels totally different from what you'd expect. Apparently, it gets pretty intense and gory, too. Honestly, you’d probably have to trim at least thirty minutes of the bloodier scenes if you wanted it to pass the rating boards here in the States!

Well, I guess we'll just have to wait and see how it plays out!

Brian Foster2 said:I was actually hesitant to brag about the Dawn remake—honestly, I thought you guys would tear me apart for it—but I have to admit, the remake was so incredibly good that I ended up going out and buying the original DVD just to complete the set.

As for Romero's "Land of the Dead," I’ve been hearing from some folks who watched it back in the day on digital downloads that it’s actually a fantastic movie, though quite different from his other stuff. They also mentioned it gets pretty gruesome; honestly, you’d probably have to cut at least thirty minutes of footage just to get a thumbs up from our local US movie ratings boards!

Well, we can only wait and see!

Man, that's awesome! Now you'll have to point Noah Watson4 in the right direction and tell him where on earth he can pick up an original copy of the Dawn remake...! 🙂

Brian Foster2 said:I was actually hesitant to praise the Dawn of the Dead remake because I figured you guys would tear me apart, but honestly, the remake was strong enough that I felt compelled to go out and grab the original DVD...

The remake holds its own, though it doesn't quite hit those pure horror notes; Zack Snyder clearly leaned more into the action side of things, but considering it was his debut, you have to give him credit where it's due...