Horror movieology!

I'll say 'Halloween' strictly because I have a massive soft spot for those first two films. As far as I'm concerned, everything after that is just unnecessary filler—completely mediocre.👎

The 'Nightmare on Elm Street' series isn't terrible either, though I haven't sat through the whole thing—just the first one and maybe the third. It works for me mainly because it hits those teen horror tropes, but let's be real: 'Halloween'—specifically the first and second entries—is superior to the entire 'Nightmare on Elm Street' franchise.👎

Brian Foster2 said:Forget that mouse

It’s one of the best horror parodies—one of those postmodernist self-aware films...
Almost my favorite movie from the nineties.

The absolute peak of the new generation of filmmaking.

I’ve watched it at least 8 times.

😢

🙏 I bow down before Scream.

You definitely haven't seen it more than I have!😉 😁

I saw it in theaters once—that was the summer right after 6th grade—then I watched it twice on video the very same day it came out, and then I had the VHS at home. Back then, I was watching it every two or three days whenever I was bored.😲
Now I have it on DVD, so I don't watch it quite as often. But all told? I've seen it over 30 times, for sure.

I know my obsession sounds a little unhinged, but hey—love is love.
Scream is my favorite movie of all time, second only to The Exorcist.

🙏 🙏

Mad Scientist said:I don't consider Cannibal to be a horror movie... look, everyone clearly has their own definition of what actually counts as horror, but in my opinion, just because a movie is drenched in blood doesn't make it a horror film.
... then again, drawing a hard line between horror and a thriller can be tricky sometimes.
... I know I'm drifting into off-topic territory here, but why is something like Friday the 13th considered horror while Silence of the Lambs is labeled a thriller? Even though—if you ask me—Silence of the Lambs is way more unsettling than anything involving Jason.
Does a horror movie get defined by its actual content, or by the specific reaction it aims to provoke in the audience?
... honestly, I don't think defining this one way or the other is even that vital. There’s a general consensus on some things, while other topics are purely subjective—and that's fine. Everyone will agree that The Exorcist is a horror, but you'll never get a consensus on whether Cannibal or Silence of the Lambs fits the bill.

It's because there isn't a single supernatural element in Silence of the Lambs or Cannibal.
Purebred horror has to have something supernatural involved—otherwise, it simply isn't horror.
Silence of the Lambs, Scream... those are all essentially thrillers with horror elements. You've got the tension, the dread, the terror, the gore, and the sense of unease—but nothing supernatural is present.
That's why I believe horror movies are defined primarily by their content.🙂

Brian Foster2 said:The first Creeper movie was way better—total waste of time they even made a sequel.
The whole thing reminds me of The Texas Chain Saw Massacre, which itself just feels like a cheap knockoff of Rob Zombie’s House of 1000 Corpses.

A few decent flicks:
Rosemary's Baby
The Last House on the Left (
Ebola Syndrome
Burnt Offerings (I've seen the source material, but the movie is worth a watch)
I Spit on Your Grave
Necromantik
Bunman: Untold Story
etc., etc.

By the way—anyone else here into Japanese horror?

I honestly don't get why people claim 'Last House on the Left' is any good.
Sure, there are a couple of decent moments, but overall? It feels hollow and unfinished—plus, the title has absolutely nothing to do with the plot.😕
I get that it set some benchmarks for the thriller/horror genre, but I fail to see why everyone treats it like a masterpiece.
Maybe it's just because it was one of Wes Craven's early ones? Who knows...😕
😉

Brian Foster2 said:Man, I remember when Scream hit theaters—I had just gotten back from a summer trip and went straight to see it. Honestly, I didn't know what to expect, and I have to say, I was genuinely surprised.

I was convinced the sequel would be total garbage. Turns out, I was right about the quality being different, but I won't even get started on the third one!

Scream 2 isn't trash.
It’s actually one of those rare sequels that manages to be better than your average flick. Sure, the original will ALWAYS be the gold standard, but the second one does its job perfectly. It builds on the plot, pushes the comedy even further, and honestly, feels a bit more intense at times (that scene with Sidney and her roommate in the car, or the Country Cox scene in the recording studio). Everything works. Even the ending actually makes sense. Maybe people just have a hard time admitting it’s good simply because it’s a sequel.😕
My only gripe is how "immortal" certain characters feel—looking at you, Dewey—but since the franchise wouldn't be what it is without him, I can live with it.
As for the third movie, we are definitely on the same page...😢
😉

Dennis Long7 said:I’ll say 'Halloween' just because I have such a huge emotional connection to the first two movies in that series. In my opinion, all the other sequels are just unnecessary and plain bad.👎

'Nightmare on Elm Street' isn't a bad series either, but I haven't actually sat through the whole thing. I think I’ve only seen the first one and the third? I enjoy it simply because it fits that teen horror vibe, but 'Halloween'—specifically the first and maybe the second—is better than the entire 'Nightmare on Elm Street' franchise combined!👎

Whoa there, buddy! You might want to tuck that subjective opinion away for a bit! So you've seen Freddy 1 and 3, but you missed the absolute best parts? How about 4 and 6? Or even the New Age horror vibes of 7, or New Nightmare? Seriously, part 6 is one of the most original horror films I have ever laid eyes on—it was practically begging for those 3D glasses!

As for me, I’ve watched every single 'Halloween' movie. I loved 1, 2, and H2O, but honestly? Not one of them beats Freddy! So, maybe your take was a little too biased, don't you think?

Dennis Long7 said:Scream 2 is definitely not garbage.
It’s actually one of those rare sequels that turns out to be above average! Sure, the original will always be king, but the second one does its job perfectly. It deepens the plot, leans even harder into the comedy, and at times, feels even more passionate (like that scene with Sidney and her roommate in the car, or the scene with Courteney Cox in the recording studio). Everything works! Even the ending makes sense. Maybe people just find it hard to admit it's good simply because it's a sequel?
The only thing I’d nitpick is how "immortal" certain characters seem (looking at you, Dewey), but since the franchise wouldn't be what it is without him, I can live with it.
As for the trilogy, I think we are on the same page...

Man, I’ll give you a pass if you're speaking through a heavy buzz, but you are seriously tripping! Even Wes Craven himself mentioned that Scream 2 and 3 were kind of rushed junk because they were just trying to scrape the money together and get the movies made as fast and easily as possible.

Dennis Long7, hurry up and run to the local video rental shop and grab a few cult horror classics!

Brian Foster2 said:Man, you should probably just keep those hot takes to yourself. You’ve seen parts 1 and 3 of Freddy, but you clearly missed the best ones—4 and 6—plus that new age horror, part 7, New Nightmare. Honestly, 6 is one of the most original horror movies I've ever watched; it was pretty much made for 3D glasses.

you're out of your mind

Parts 4 and 6 are the best Freddy movies??? 😵

6 is one of the most original films ever??? (I really hope that was some kind of subtle sarcasm I just didn't catch 🙂)

I mean, 1 and 3 are basically the only things keeping Freddy from becoming just another typical sequel mess like Friday the 13th...

Brian Foster2 said:Well, Wes Craven himself mentioned how Scream 2 and 3 ended up being total garbage because they were rushing to collect the money, trying to make the movies as fast and cheap as possible.

When did Wes Craven actually say that about Scream 2??? And I don't think everything was quite that rushed, since Kevin Williamson had the drafts for 2 and 3 ready from the start

🙂

Dennis Long7 said:Pureblood horror has to have something supernatural in it; otherwise, it isn't horror.

that's such a silly thing to say 🙂

So, by your logic, the first Halloween movie isn't horror either?

Then why did you even post it in this thread? 🙂

C2V3N said:Man, save your little subjective opinion for someone who cares! You’ve seen Freddy 1 and 3, but you clearly haven't touched the best ones—parts 4 and 6—or that New Age horror mess, part 7, New Nightmare! Part 6 is actually one of the most original horror films I've ever laid eyes on; Josh Raden was practically made for those 3D glasses.

I’ve seen every single Halloween movie. I liked 1, 2, and H2O, but honestly? Not one of them beats Freddy! So yeah, your take is way too biased.

Look, I'll give you a pass if you're just talking through an alcoholic haze, but seriously—you aren't making sense. Wes Craven himself basically admitted that Scream 2 and 3 were total garbage because they were rushed through production just to grab the cash as fast as possible.

Dennis Long7, get your ass to the local video store and rent some actual cult classics!

If our local video stores actually carried the real cult horror gems, we'd be living in paradise...
Regarding "Nightmares..." maybe my opinion is subjective since I obviously haven't seen the "best" parts of the series. I saw the first one, liked it, but Halloween is still better. I'll try to hunt down the rest.

And as for Scream 2...
It's weird that I, as a die-hard fan of the Scream franchise, have never heard Wes Craven say anything negative about that trilogy.
Since I don't know you, your word doesn't carry much weight here—basically, I think you're talking nonsense (no offense intended)...
I'd appreciate it if you could send me a link so I can actually see this "statement" of his.
Even if he did say it (which I highly doubt), Scream 2 is still a solid movie to me.
And looking at IMDb, I'm certainly not the only one who thinks so...😉

Undertow said:Oh boy, here we go again!!! 🙂
Yap, I totally forgot about the day... I guess I just lost track of things. 😉
Man, I don't know... this remake actually caught me way more off guard than any of the Romer originals ever did. I guess it just hit different, maybe? 🙂 It’ll probably be here soon, I guess. Maybe. I guess I was just thinking about gore... maybe it’s just me, but there's something about that kind of stuff that really sticks with you. It’s weird how some movies can just go there, you know? I don't know. Just a random thought I had floating around. I mean, I guess you could say the factor had its hands in this one... maybe.

I mean, I have to admit, even I was a bit caught off guard... that remake actually wasn't half bad.

I mean, trying to compare that one to one of the greatest horror movies ever made... I don't know, it just doesn't really work, does it? Maybe it's just me, but it feels like a bit of a stretch. 🙂

quietdriver3 said:you're out of your mind

So 4 and 6 are the best Freddy movies??? 😵

And 6 is one of the most original films ever??? (I really hope this is some deep sarcasm I'm just not catching 🙂)

Look—the only reason 1 and 3 even matter is because they save Freddy from becoming just another generic sequel mess like Friday the 13th...

When did Wes Craven ever say that about Scream 2??? And things didn't happen that fast—Kevin Williamson had drafts for 2 and 3 ready from the jump.

🙂

What an absolute load of garbage. 🙂

By your logic, the first Halloween isn't even horror either, right?

Then why did you even include it in this thread? 🙂

If you had watched Halloween even ONCE, you'd actually know what I'm talking about. 🙄
At the end of the movie, Michael gets back up after Dr. Loomis hits him six times... the whole film hammers home that Michael Myers isn't some human being—he's pure, primal evil. Maybe you (and I) would prefer if Michael were just a man, but Michael Myers ISN'T.
That is EXACTLY what places that film—and the sequels—firmly in the category of PURE-BLOOD horror!🙂
😉

Dennis Long7 said:I mean, at the very end, Michael Myers actually gets back up after Dr. Loomis shoots him six times...
😉

I guess I see more supernatural stuff in your average action movie when the hero goes full "one-man army" against an entire battalion of bad guys... (if we're talking about your logic, maybe Commandos is basically straight-up sci-fi 🙂)

Dennis Long7 said:Throughout the whole movie, they keep repeating that Michael Myers isn't just some guy, but like, pure primordial evil.

Has anyone here ever heard of an allegory? 🙂

It’s honestly such a head-scratcher—how does someone who managed to nail a cult classic like The Serpent and the Rainbow end up making something like Scream? I mean, sure, it works as this catchy, crowd-pleasing thriller for the masses, but as a pure horror movie? It feels like a total disaster on par with Wrong Turn and similar flicks.

I guess it just depends on how you look at it

Personally, since I'm such a huge horror buff, I ended up seeing it more as a solid parody

So, yeah, it wasn't bad at all in my book

Actually, quite the opposite

Dennis Long7 said:The issue is that movies like The Silence of the Lambs or those cannibal flicks lack anything supernatural...
Pure horror requires a supernatural element; otherwise, it isn't true horror.
Films like The Silence of the Lambs or Scream are essentially thrillers with horror elements. Those elements consist of tension, dread, terror, violent scenes, and creating a sense of unease... but there's nothing paranormal involved.
That’s why I believe horror should be defined primarily by its content.🙂

I'm almost on the same page as you...
... and honestly, all these subgenre divisions are pretty arbitrary anyway...
... I agree with your point regarding the supernatural criterion...
... though even by that standard, some films we call horror would barely make the cut...

quietdriver3 said:Look, man—I see way more supernatural nonsense in standard action movies whenever some hero goes full "one-man army" and wipes out an entire battalion of villains. I mean, if we’re going by your logic, Commandos is basically straight-up sci-fi. 🙂)

What, you’ve never even heard of an allegory? Seriously? 🙂

I don't get what you're trying to pull with this comparison to action movies—what's your point?😕
An action movie is an action movie, and horror is horror. It’s honestly pathetic if you can't tell the difference—it really is.
And have you even considered—not that I doubt it—that stupid movies actually exist?

Maybe Dr. Loomis is just speaking metaphorically throughout the film—if that’s what you’re getting at—but when Laurie asks him if he was really the Boogeyman, his response makes it crystal clear that he knows exactly what Michael is. It's confirmed once again when he looks out from that balcony and realizes the guy is gone.
I get the feeling you haven't even actually watched the movie—you’ve just skimmed some trivia or read a summary online—so I honestly don't see where this discussion is headed. 🙂

Gerald Rivera60 said:I’m almost on your side here...
... though let’s be honest, all these genre divisions are pretty much arbitrary anyway...
... I can get behind the whole supernatural criteria...
... even if some movies we straight-up call "horror" would barely even pass that test...

That’s why—in my book—it’s always smarter to just be precise. Just say 'When a Stranger Calls' is a horror/thriller, or 'Alien' is sci-fi/horror...🙂

Dennis Long7 said:I don't really get what you're trying to say with that comparison to action movies.😕

I mean, I tend to see the weirdest stuff in genres where supernatural elements aren't even part of the deal.

I guess maybe you're mixing up "unlikely" with "actually impossible."🙂

Dennis Long7 said:the way she responds...

Yeah, I think you might have a slightly childish way of looking at movies.

No offense, though.😉

Dennis Long7 said:I feel like you haven't even watched the movie, just read some vague summary about it.

Well, if that's how you feel, then those gut feelings probably aren't doing you any favors.😁

quietdriver3 said:I see the most supernatural stuff in genres that have absolutely nothing to do with the paranormal.

I think you’re confusing "highly unlikely" with "impossible."🙂

Yeah, you have a pretty infantile way of looking at movies.

No offense,😉

But I can tell you right now—those "feelings" aren't doing you any favors.😁

It’s obvious you completely missed my point if you think my take on films is "infantile."
Like I said, I’m still stuck on the idea that you either watched the movie far too superficially or didn't watch it at all—so I’m ending this debate right here.🙂
P.S. For Halloween, it doesn't even matter if Michael Myers is a man or not... there are much bigger themes at play in that film that make it special.
We could argue about your theory if sequels weren't constantly being churned out, but unfortunately, that's just the curse of the horror genre.😉

I didn't get through the whole thread... but I noticed a couple of people claiming *Scream* is somehow the greatest horror movie ever made.
Was that an actual opinion or just people trolling?
🤔

Has anyone mentioned this yet?

Ginger Snaps and its two sequels

🙏