I think MTDS means that it is a recent thing for him to like 'dumb and CGI filled' films and not that the films themselves have only recently been akin to this. At least this is what I infer from his post.

I would also add that films that try to please everyone end up with the 'transformers effect' with budgets so high on films and marketing so expensive the latest blockbusters need to be mega hits in order to survive. That aside we still have directors like Jim Jarmusch, Quentin Tarantino, Gaspar noe, Paul thomas anderson, wes anderson ect ect making films with clearly marked identity. About the best Blockbuster material imo is the Marvel cinematic universe stuff (by that i mean the in-house disney stuff) which actually manages to throw in some interesting subject matter into the film. (Captain America Winter soldier with its critique of the militeristic survelillance society) as well as letting the films retain some of their directors own personal identity.
Guardians of the Galaxy may be a mega budgeted blockbuster but its still clearly and identifiably a James Gunn film.

Yep, what B_E said. I have recently been converted into a fan of the dumbarse blockbuster...plotless, no characterisation and with maximum shit blowing up all the better. I see them as the ultra rich cousins to z grade rubbish imagined by ten year olds. It is more of a personal aesthetics thing then anything to do with good or bad films and film making.

This is one of the problems I had with You're Next. With slasher films, usually you can side with either the victims or the killer(s). When both are as annoying and disposable as each other you (well, at least I) stop caring/rooting for a victor and switch off. You can sometimes enjoy other aspects such as the cinematography, score, editing, or performances, but unfortunately these were lacking too. I would point out that I didn't hate it, as much as felt completely neutral towards it as a piece of film-making.

As to your points regarding 'ghost train' analogies, I do agree with you up to a point, although a lot of it is all in the technique and presentation of these ideas for me. In The Legend of Hell House, I feel that there is genuine build-up of tension and a lot of character driven development coupled with some theoretical scientific analogies being tossed about thanks to a tight script that results in a multi-layered, interesting, and overall enjoyable film. At the core, the idea is far from original but the film expands on this idea through other means. However, I don't see this in modern takes on the idea much at all. Not only are they often dumbed/watered down to achieve lower age ratings in order to generate more $ at the box office, but they are presented in a way as to almost splice in key scenes and build a story around those scenes rather than the other way around. CGI and jump scares have become the norm and I feel modern horror audiences have almost come to expect these.

A good example is The Woman in Black. The original was a made for TV film and was far from big budget fare, yet it managed to create atmosphere and tension on a meager budget aided by solid performances. The end result is a creepy and enjoyable ghost film. The remake on the other hand (baby faced Potter aside) instead relies on splicing in CGI jump scares throughout its running time almost as if we have a group of people gathered around a Mac saying: "look what I made to go into that new horror film!... "If they don't like it maybe we can splice it into that other horror film coming out in a few months... look, I can tweak the image a bit, change some colour and shadow effects around, and ta-da! Job's done." The story is still a solid one irrelevant of whether it has been copied from somewhere (an original story doesn't have to necessarily play such a big part in it, as there are no original stories really anymore anyway - everything tends to be a spin-off or a homage to something), but the overall presentation suffers thanks to these increasingly (and annoyingly) proficient devices being used by film studios and directors. Obviously, a lot of people enjoy these as patrons wouldn't be flocking to their local cinemas in droves to see them otherwise, but I just find them very lazy.

Perhaps I'm overly cynical/critical and jaded towards a lot of these modern horror offerings, but it is very rare for me to stumble across anything new in the mainstream horror genre now that I feel is worthy of more than a one watch in order to satisfy basic curiosity.

'Tis all subjective of course, though. :nod:

Really? It's only his third feature (unless you count his segment in the dire Movie 43) how can he have any identifiable style?

Edit: Changed second to third. I forgot Slither.

picked this up today. £45 i really could not afford , but its probably the cheapest i will ever see it.

I think a director can establish a style of film making that is identifiable after only a couple of films. Hell, oculus is clearly from the maker of absentia in its approach, tarantino, pt anderson ect all established a 'style' pretty quickly. I felt watching guardians that it retained a similar attitude, sense of humour and world view to both super and slither as well as tromeo and juliette.

To me The Haunting doesn't offer jump scares to the audience at all, neither do any of the great ghost stories. They rely on a slow build up of tension. Take The Haunting's most famous scene. Julie Harris is in bed and terrified by slight noise and suggestion - scraping sounds, the turn of a door handle. Not a jump scare or musical crash in sight and all the more effective for it.

Today's ghost films which are slickly edited and have music crashing round your speakers just don't work for me. I suppose it really is a question of what you find creepy - strange sounds and weird shadows in the dark of a room build up an atmosphere of horror second to none. Take Insidious - supposedly a great ghostly film. I could have turned it off after half an hour because it was so predictable in it's method of scariness and ended up just like every other film of the genre that's come out in the last fifteen years. A waste of time. The only films that seemingly try and scare the old way are Del Toro's ghost films, The Others and a mere handful more.

I agree with you about Insidious, although i watched it all i though it relied to heavily on jump scares, didn't really enjoy it much and thought it was basically a copy of poltergeist in places. Also the demon reminded me of Darth Maul.
Also really like The Others, felt like a proper old school ghost story to me.:nod:

I agree with you on The Haunting mostly, but i'm sure the scene at the top of the spiral staircase made me jump when i first saw it.:pop2:

I liked Sinister up to a point, till the creature/ghost showed up and ruined it for me.

It can still make you jump without a barrage of soulless technical effects which was my whole point. :)

I agree with you on that.;)

Technical effects the director would have used were they available ;)

Some interesting points of view being presented, I just think its all to easy to try and characterise modern effects work as being 'souless' as its no different to me as people who derieded prosthetic effects work for relying on showing the horror rather than suggesting it, and less we forget the Halliwells of this world who stated there were no good horror films made after the 1940's. Alongside the review of texas chainsaw massacre that critiqued the film for relying on too many jump scares and a lack of subtelty.

That said I do take many points here about some of the modern ghost stories. I would argue the rot set in with the overrated Poultergeist, which after spontaneous combustion was probably Tobe hoopers worst film. A lot of the modern ghost stories seem too inspired by that rather than films like the innocents, a film far, far better than either the haunting or legend of hell house, or another film I really enjoyed the other.

But they weren't and far superior films were produced because of it. :tongue1: No one seems to try and use light and shadow like Lewton for example.

You do make some good points, but i just can't see Sinister and the like being mentioned fifty years from now as great horror....what am i saying? I can't see Sinister and such like being mentioned full stop. ;)

Nice one for creating a bit of discussion by the way. :thumb:

I've enjoyed reading these posts and it reminds me of what Nigel Floyd called 'cattle prod cinema', which is discussed in this Kermode Uncut video:

Kermode Uncut: Cattle Prod Cinema - YouTube

Give me something slow burning with escalating tension and which lingers in the mind for hours, days or months afterwards every time.

I think they will as I believe people who use horror forums are actually in the minority when it comes to deciding what is good or not about modern horror. We live in our own little cult world and often forget that there is a larger audience for horror films outside of ourselves. A lot of people I work with talk about being horror fans yet when we talk about films they have no idea what I'm talking about and I them!

This is very true. Most film fans I know rarely venture very far from what is available at their local multiplex and advertised on TV and the radio - and these are the people who consider themselves fans of film in the first place.

I really liked Absentia and Oculus. Certainly I do hope that more people watch oculus which did utilise modern effects but still managed to be an effective horror. Certainly better than the conjuring or insidious.

I do want to see Oculus. I didn't think much of Absentia though.

Judging by the 'hidden camera' trailers for films like Paranormal Activity, Insidious and Sinister, it seems those who watch such films are not horror fans, but those who go to cinemas for a good time and some escapism.

True horror fans are those who know the history of the genre, all of the subgenres, the films which influenced (and are referenced) in modern horror films and occasionally despair at what passes for horror films these days.

However, we are generally the ones who are most pleased when something bucks expectations and works on the power of suggestion, atmosphere and suspense, rather than cheap shocks. I knew I was in a cinema of like-minded individuals for the first time when I saw Zombie Flesh Eaters at the GFT and everyone was really well-behaved – no noisy snacks, chatting or mobile phone use – and laughed at the same time when there was crummy dialogue. Those who shriek, talk, and munch popcorn all the way through one of the Paranormal Activity films wouldn't have enjoyed themselves at all there, nor would they have had a clue who Fabio Frizzi was and wouldn't have taken anything to be autographed.

Is it too late in the discussion to say that all ghost films scare the shit out of me, old or modern. Oddly the identically themed and filmed possession films of late don't have the same effect!

Bearing in mind everything I've just said in the post above, I thought Oculus was very good and made a refreshing change from the deluge of 'cattle prod' films; it's one to watch.

No offence Nos but you are talking out your arse if you can decide a true horror fan by how they look! Secondly you whole post is sheer snobbery and a sham of fandom.

I didn't say I could determine if someone was in the horror fan by how they looked, more how they behave and their knowledge of the genre.

This is what Mark Kermode has to say about horror fans:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWF05RMq04Q

I also want to see Oculus, mainly to see if Karen Gillan's any good.

I thought Absentia was excellent too. Very low budget but they worked up a nice atmosphere of dread and used their scares effectively.

Recently upgraded one of my all time favourite Charles Bronson films.

http://i61.tinypic.com/10mvuoj.jpg

Very nice picture quality.

Your opening paragraph certainly implies it. As to people eating, drinking and talking through the films, there is a whole history from drive ins to exploitation dives that more than justify this kind of behaviour if you want to talk history. Also I believe it is one of the themes of the academic study of Giallo "La Dolce Morte".

As to knowledge of genre, do you think everyone on here has the same knowledge and if they don't are they therefore lesser fans than you or I?

If we didn't have the multiplex horror fan then nothing would get made. I love checking out the low budget tat on supermarket shelves which always looks a million dollars because it has a nifty slip case.

People like Nos and Bizarre_Eye don't buy anything new (or at least it appears so on here) just for the hell of it, so someone has to fund these releases.

I've just been to Asda for Under the Skin, i also came back with something called Stitchface for £3. It may well be dreadful but i'll take some enjoyment finding out.

I can't tell who's a horror fan personally. They come in all shapes and sizes and all colours and creeds and all with differing areas of knowledge.

Some might say owning twenty copies of Deep Red does not make a giallo fan. Whereas owning a knackered print of something obscure and gaining enjoyment out of it perhaps does.

Behaviour has nothing to do with how people look (at least in terms of appearance) – I meant in terms of their appreciation of the film and respect for the cinema and other audience members. There is a huge difference between a cinema, whether it's at a film festival or in a multiplex and a drive in, where you are in your own car, or an 'exploitation dive', where smoking, drinking alcohol and even just spending all day there to keep dry and warm was the norm.

Everyone has a different knowledge base and I certainly wouldn't advocate a quiz, test or anything like that to determine whether someone is a horror fan or not, merely that they know something about the type of film they are watching and watch it in a manner which would not irritate other people in the cinema.

So basically being a horror fan is being polite.:tongue1:

More or less – yes! As Mark Kermode explained in the video I posted earlier, it seems horror film fans are the best behaved and most tolerant of films in different languages, from different eras and generally most respectful of the unwritten rules of being in a cinema.

Oooh i would. Then i could really show myself up just as i do in the Guess The Movie thread. :woot:

We'd ask the odd question about Shannon Tweed films to bump up your score.

I still enjoy the modern ghost films in spite of recognising their weaknesses> I also like Val lewton and Silent horror and a bunch of other stuff. Which leads me back to the origional point I made that while 'different' modern horror can't be all bad if lots of people are getting enjoyment from it.

No, I rarely blind buy now and tend to only buy things that I know I like and will get plenty of re-watch value from - however I also do like to support certain niche studios and occasionally buy certain releases that whilst I still enjoy may not be something I'll re-watch a great deal. I just can't justify (both economically and spatially) buying every film that I want to check out. However, if there's something new that I've seen and I like I will probably buy it. I'm also a member of Lovefilm and associated sites and also watch a fair amount of stuff on YT and the like, which cater for my curiosity but at minimal/no expense. There are plenty of films I want to watch, but unfortunately my free time is only finite and my moods dictate that I generally only fancy watching a certain film at a certain time.

Remember, I'm a little younger than you old farts too, so I maybe have a little more catching up to do where historical cinema is concerned! ;)

Nor can I, and it's something that would be impossible in my opinion to quantify. What one individual would classify a 'fan' another may not. I really dislike pigeon-holing people anyway.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

I think there are very few directors who develop an obvious style within there first 2 or 3 features. Of the examples you give Tarantino is the only one I would accept.

I would never have guessed that Gunn directed GotG if I had gone into the film without knowing. The same for Oculus and Absentia (which are both films I really like). I'm not sure that many people would have recognised Magnolia as coming from the same director as Hard Eight and Boogie Nights.

Its very easy with hindsight and a sufficient body of work to recognise the themes and styles of a directors work in their first couple of films but to claim to be able to dos so on the basis of 2 or 3 movies? Your obviously far smarter and culturally sensitive than me.

Especially for Gunn who has written 6 films (I think off the top of my head - Tromeo and Juliette, Scooby Doo, Super,Evil Dead, Sliver and GotG) of which only Sliver and Super are original works (Tromeo and Juliette is obviously constrained by the Troma house style, Evil Dead is a remake and Scooby Doo and GotG are all based on the works of others) and directed 3.

I'm sorry if I offended you. I didn't mean to. I do disagree however. Magnolia was very similar in style to Boogie nights. Not so much Hard eight but then that was cut to buggery but some of the style was still there. Certainly styles can evolve over time. There will be blood and The master are all from a more mature director but still bare the hallmarks of his work.

Guardians of the Galaxy is full of Gunns humor both in screenplay and visual jokes, he even threw the slugs from slither in one background scene as an in-joke. Yondu's Michael rooker) space pirates were re-written from the source material to fit gunns sensibilities and a lot of his friends and family are in the film. Gunns brand of humour appeared in all his scripts to some extent. Certainly it was a little watered down for scooby doo but Dawn of the Dead had a lot of his sense of humor in it. This carries through to guardians which is probably the best of the summer blockbusters this year.

Nipped home from work for a minute and this arrived I'm happy for the rest of the day now give it a watch after work. Thanks again Kyle

Attachment 142281