Following on from a debate on a thread about what I'd consider a mediocre film (but which many seem to rate) and following on from Bert's prompt about starting a thread about this I thought I'd dive in.

Alright. I laid my cards on the table in that thread. I prefer older horror films such as The Shining, The Exorcist and Dawn of the Dead as opposed to the latest wave of films known as 'horror porn'. That phrase is an abuse of two of my favourite words.

But one of my favourite horror films is the grandfather of all good horror films - Psycho.

Why? Well I'm glad you asked. Firstly if you watch Hey! you'll realise just how important sound is to a horror film.

And Hitchcock was always wise to use Bernard Hermann to score his films. The shrieking violins in the Shower Scene are the sound effect. From adverts, tv shows, films, music: it's everywhere. It has become horror music personified.

In the shower scene you don't see the knife cutting her, you just see her reaction and the result. Modern horror film makers could learn a lot from Hitch. He made you care about characters and he didn't have to shock you by showing you gore: Like Tarantino in Reservoir Dogs - both knew that your mind is a far scarier place than the screen for real horror to take place.

RV

You realize this thread is gonna go on forever, right? It's happened before. Just so you know. I don't mind. It's my favorite subject.

I think the two main things that make a good horror movie are the same things that make any good movie. Story and characters. Both need to be up to snuff. Otherwise, who cares? I've seen horror movies get away without one or the other but never both and even in those cases, the one element was always strong enough to carry the other's weakness/absence. Generally speaking though, story and character should go hand in hand. IMO, the characters are slightly more important. I'm usually more drawn to the story but the characters have a greater capacity to ruin everything.

I wouldn't say a good horror movie requires gore. I prefer it but to say it's required would discount all the bloodless horror movies I love. I do think a good horror movie should try to break or at least push some boundaries. I read an interview with Pascal Laugier (director of Martyrs) recently and he said that the problem with horror movies nowadays is that the world is much more politically correct nowadays. Everyone's afraid of going too far so they feel better settling for a joke. This interview was the inspiration for my next script, Complete. He also quoted H.P. Lovecraft as saying horror movies are supposed to be against the world. I also agree. Horror movies have always been sort of a counter culture for me which is why I hate to see them mass produced to please the general public, at least here in America. The rest of the world seems much more on their game. Clive Barker said we need to get our balls back. Truth!

Finally, I think horror movies need to have a certain ugliness to them. This is my number one issue with American horror movies today. Horror! Isn't! Pretty! Dario Argento's films are beautiful but have enough savagery to balance them out. Same goes for Park Chanwook. Nowadays, it's all kit gloves style with commercial and music video directors jumping on everything. They only know how to package a product, not something with any real character. Horror is supposed to be down, dirty and dark. Physically. Psychologically. Preferably both.

I've always been on the fence about the role the mind plays in horror movies. That is, the audience filling in the blanks. I think there definitely needs to be some of that in any horror movie. Alien is a prime example. Jaws is another. What kind of film would that have been if that hunk of junk robot was in plain sight from the start? Still, I like to be taken out of my element when I watch a horror movie. When something's held back or kept in the shadows too long, I feel like I'm missing out on part of the experience. Honestly, I think I share Sam Raimi's stance when it comes to the subject. Less is more and more is more. Too many possibilities in the horror realm just to take the one root.

And for the record, while I enjoyed Psycho, both as its own film and a landmark in the genre's history, I think people need to cool it with bringing up Hitchcock in horror discussion. He's an excellent director but his dabbling in horror has been minimal. Honestly, I think it was just Psycho and The Birds. The rest seems like mysteries and romantic thrillers. Everything you've said about him has merit. I'm not going against it. I'm just saying. I also hate the fact that he's sort of become the poster boy for people who don't like horror movies. I'm not saying that's the case with you but I've met plenty of people who feel exactly that. Besides. Does anyone think M. Night's ever seen a Lucio Fulci movie? I have my doubts. That's why he uses the phrase "psychological thriller" to describe all his movies. Silence of the Lambs, sure. The Sixth Sense is a horror movie. Too many directors who are ashamed to admit what they're really doing.

Quoted from rendevous Firstly if you watch Hey! you'll realise just how important sound is to a horror film.

I forgot how awesome that video is. Never gets old. Good point too.

Story
Characters
Mood
Music
Setting
Pace

That is what is most important to "ME" when watching or writing a horror movie... All of these things must fall into place and if they don't you'll be left wanting more.

Reiterate -- I would like to add that the best horror movies ever made were in the 60's clipping through the 70's and coming to a stop somewhere around mid to late 80's. There hasn't been 1 really good, amazing horror movie since. There have been watchable horror movies. But none that stand out ahead of the pack.  There is, as James said above, a certain level of charm to a dirty... rough looking horror movie. A horror movie shouldn't be clean. It should be visceral. It should have some off color to it. It should be viewed through a welding mask so to speak... Not rose colored glasses. That is one of my biggest gripes, aside from shitty actresses and rehashed plots, with new horror movies.  They're just too clean.  I love the unsettling feel of H.G. Lewis movies... I absolutely love watching his movies because they are time capsules to the period in which they were filmed. I have never had that feeling watching any other movie from the 60's.  H.g. Lewis has this vibe and mood to his movies that put you there. Right there while he's filming... Cheap, low budget as they may be... They are some of, if not the best, lot of horror movies ever made. He's one of my biggest influence in writing.

Yeah, this thread could go on forever, and that's not a bad thing at all.

I agree with James for the most part in just about everything he said, including the stuff about Psycho, which IMO is hugely over-rated, and does not stand up well at all in this day and age.

What makes a good or great horror movie?  For me, it's very simple, and it's bascially the same for any genre movie...whether or not it works over all.  Whether or not it's well done, well put together, well thought out, whether or not the payoff is worth the ride.

For me, it's not so much whether or not it brings something brand new to the table, but more how it brings it to the table, and what it brings.

There have been many "good" slasher flicks that are basically carbon copies of Friday the 13th or Halloween.  I'm not saying in any way that that's a good thing, but if they work, then damnit, they work.  Same deal with a vampire, werewolf, or creature feature.

Production value is important to me.  Look, feel, and atmosphere are important to me.  Attention to detail and reality checks are all very important to me.

Acting, FX, and music are all important, as well.

I'm not saying that a horror movie has to have great acting for it to work, but it can't be piss poor and expect to get away with it.  Same deal with FX...they don't have to be jaw dropping, but they also can't be piss poor, or the movie isn't going to work for me.

As for characters and story, I honestly don't really care all that much.  Again, they have to be decent at least, but that's not what I'm going to be focusing on, and when other aspects totally work, it's not going to be a deal breaker for me at all.

Some may think I have low standards because of these comments...or that I'm easy to please.  Totally untrue.  I am extremely picky when it comes to movies, especially horror movies, because they're my favorite genre.  There are very few horror movies that I really like and think are well done movies...very few.  Most, I absolutely hate...laugh at...pick apart...mock.

There you go...

The first, most defining aspect is that it's scary.

That is what defines horror. The same way comedy needs to be funny, horror needs to be scary.

It helps to understand why people watch horror:

There is a lot of research out there, some of it really good, where they connect people to brainwave machines and see what they get off on. Here's one little overview:


"Researchers have identified various motives for viewing horror films, including the need for excitement, the desire to feel intense emotions, and distraction from everyday concerns. Although dramatic films can fulfill some of these needs, movies depicting violence and horror have features that other forms of drama do not, including the violation of social norms and the portrayal of events seldom seen in real life. [Dec's note: It's also apparent that people like to be able to explore dnagerous situations and face fear in a safe enviroment. Horror offers you the chance to see the most traumatic experiences close up without causing you harm].

People rarely view horror films alone. Violent entertainment appeals primarily to males, and it appeals to them mostly in groups. For many young people and adults, horror films are a topic of conversation, a source of shared experience, and a means of self-presentation. Not everyone will like the blood and gore, but many may continue to watch because of other goals, such as demonstrating their ability to tolerate it, or the desire to master the threatening images.

One study identified three factors that were important in the appeal of horror films to males aged 15-45: the excitement generated by the film (called "sensation-seeking" by psychologists, the enjoyment of stimulation or physiological arousal), the wish to see the destruction found in horror films, and the satisfying resolution usually found at the end of the film."


One aspect of horror films that I've always found interesting is that they've shown that people like to see people whose views disagree with their own, hurt. That's the reason why you have all those rules in horror films (the guys that have sex get killed etc). A lot of the people who get off on horror tend to be quite young (hence virginal) and so they like to see the guys having sex get their comeuppance. Obviously that's just one example, there are others.

In terms of specifics, IE how to create a good one. The atmosphere and setting are critical. There's a reason they are set in dark, abandoned places more often than not. If they are set in everyday places (28 days later) you will tend to subvert the area completely to make it unsettling (EG Empty London).

The music and sound FX/design also tend to play a huge part, hence people tend to turn the sound off when they are scared.

Character is probably the least important in a horror. It depends on the specific sub genre (the bad guy can be exceptionally important), but generally I think character is less important in a horror than in any other genre. off the top of my head, I couldn't name a single character, notwithstanding the bad guys, of any of the horrors I've seen. I think horror works by placing you in the situation, so you only really need an everyman kind of figure as a vehicle to follow the story. They don;t need to be particularly outstanding in anyway.

Story is important, but it must surely be subservient to atmosphere in a horror. If the story is excellent, but it's not scary, it's not much of a horror. It would probably play better as some kind of thriller.

Quoted Text I prefer older horror films such as The Shining, The Exorcist and Dawn of the Dead as opposed to the latest wave of films known as 'horror porn'.

I don't think that's really fair. There are films in the vein of The Shining and The Exorcist that are just as crappy as films like Hostel or Turistas (example: The Haunting remake, The Haunting of Molly Hartley, Beyond The Door -- just to name a few).

What matters is the execution. Even the new "torture porn" fad HAS indeed spawned at least one excellent Horror film recently -- Martyrs, whereas the more subtle, classic type of Horror has also spawned at least one excellent film recently -- Let The Right One In.

Both "styles" of Horror you are discussing have more than their  fair share of crappy Horror movies, and it's unfair to lump them all together.  

Quoted Text In the shower scene you don't see the knife cutting her, you just see her reaction and the result. Modern horror film makers could learn a lot from Hitch.

Again, you are assuming modern Horror movies never use this technique. They do, and they do it excellently sometimes. Example: Again Martyrs -- a 2008 film fitting squarely into the "horror porn" catergory -- applied the technique masterfully near its climax.






















***************MASSIVE SPOILERS FOR MARTYRS HERE ON! *****************














You never see Anna being skinned. You just see the expression on her face and the aftermath of the procedure, which, to me, was terrifying and it almost rivaled the scene in Psycho. In fact, I would put it ABOVE Psycho if Psycho hadn't been so revolutionary when it was released




















***************END SPOILERS****************************************

Interesting article Rick.

Quoted from Scar Tissue Films People rarely view horror films alone. Violent entertainment appeals primarily to males, and it appeals to them mostly in groups.

I think everyone who loves horror should try to see it at a theater alone. I mean an empty theater too. I've done that and it makes a huge difference.

When I was a kid I saw Black Christmas. That movie scared the hell out of me for years. I watched it again a couple of years ago and thought it was horrible. I think people tend to like/scare differently depending on where in life we are. A teenager will probably not find the same film scary as let's say a cranky old woman.

Totally agree, Pia!  I usually watch horror movies by myself, in theaters that are either completely empty or mostly empty.  I hate seeing movies in crowded theaters because i don't like any noise coming from irritating spectators.  I cringe when I have to see a movie at night, opening weekend, cause I know it's gonna be full of loudass, A-Holes who will surely piss me off.

Yes, I have been that guy who stands up in a theater, turns around, and literally yells out, "Shut the fuck up, Asshole!".  I don't like being that guy, but I'm not going to let someone ruin the movie experience for me.

But then again, when I was much younger, I was that guy who came into the theater with my friends, all drunk off our asses, and sometimes, someone in the group would actually end up puking like crazy in the theater, so that it would actually run down the floor from aisle to aisle.

A tale of 2 cities, I guess.

I almost always see horror movies alone, at least the first time. Later on, I watch it with other people, sometimes just to get them to check it out. I rarely watch them in theaters. The audience almost always ruins them. I remember seeing 1408 in theaters and having a group of teenagers cracking up at a scene with no music where John Cusack was crying and holding a dead girl in his arms. Then there was the time where a couple brought a baby to Freddy vs Jason. I did see Drag Me To Hell in a group though and it was a blast. Plus horror movies don't scare me all that often. I was terrified of Pet Semetary for a good ten years then was cured of it over the summer when me and a buddy passed out drunk watching it after a night at the bar. Other than that, I think the last horror movie that scared me was a Tale of Two Sisters which I've since gotten over.

Quoted from ReaperCreeper What matters is the execution. Even the new "torture porn" fad HAS indeed spawned at least one excellent Horror film recently -- Martyrs, whereas the more subtle, classic type of Horror has also spawned at least one excellent film recently -- Let The Right One In.

While I appreciate using Martyrs as an example of a good horror movie, I'm going to have to disagree that it has anything to do with the "torture porn" fad. There's torture in it but it's minimal and I think it serves a completely different purpose than any of the movies that fall into that category, both to the plot and to the audience. Its the after effects of the torture that are the primary focus.

Still, a good point. Whatever subgenre you're talking about, there's going to be a fair share of garbage under it and a handful of golden ones. I don't particularly like ghost movies but damned if Session 9 isn't better than most slashers.

It seems like most are not fans of torture porn.  As far as I know, Hostel was the one that started this craze, and sub genre, although there are numerous examples of far older flicks that really started it. Hostel proved there was money to be made and the lot that followed weren't very good, to say the least.

But, as I've said again and again, Hostel is easily one of my all time favorite films. I thought it was amazingly well done and concieved.  It was truly horrific in its depiction of the ugly under belly of mankind.  I think its box office and critical reviews tell the story that something was working here.  Those that pan it and put it down at least have to see where it worked and why it worked.

I still haven't seen Martyrs, but have wanted to since I first heard about it.  If it's sub titled, that's an issue for me, as it takes away from the experience, having to constantly read, as apposed to just watch.  If Blackbuster carried it, I'd rent it in a heartbeat, but I've never seen it there and when I asked (about 6 months ago) they had no clue what I was talking about.

Quoted from Dreamscale It seems like most are not fans of torture porn.  As far as I know, Hostel was the one that started this craze, and sub genre, although there are numerous examples of far older flicks that really started it. Hostel proved there was money to be made and the lot that followed weren't very good, to say the least. But, as I've said again and again, Hostel is easily one of my all time favorite films. I thought it was amazingly well done and concieved.  It was truly horrific in its depiction of the ugly under belly of mankind.  I think its box office and critical reviews tell the story that something was working here.  Those that pan it and put it down at least have to see where it worked and why it worked. I still haven't seen Martyrs, but have wanted to since I first heard about it.  If it's sub titled, that's an issue for me, as it takes away from the experience, having to constantly read, as apposed to just watch.  If Blackbuster carried it, I'd rent it in a heartbeat, but I've never seen it there and when I asked (about 6 months ago) they had no clue what I was talking about.

Your loyalty to dear Eli is commendable, but you'll never convince a forum of writers that Hostel was anything other than a pile of manure.

It did well at the Box Office because the marketing was outstanding. They got Tarantino's name on there, got the hype going about how it was the most disgusting film of all time etc

You can see from the reception of Hostel 2 what people really thought of it, they weren't exactly desperate to see more.

It was an embarrassing film in lots of ways and was frankly a bit retarded. It's supposed to be set in Slovakia, but Roth writes that there aren't many males there "because of the war". The guy managed to confuse Slovakia with Slovenia (I presume at least, because the Slovaks split from the Czechs was bloodless).

It did have a good premise. It was brutal and powerful in its own way, but the story and the writing were of such a low standard that it destroyed it. I said before that story is probably subservient to atmosphere in horror, but there are limits to just how stupid and ridiculous you can go. In the end it became laughable.

Anyway, Hostel has been doen to death. It's got its own little paragraph in the history books and no-one is ever going to convince the otehr side of their views. Quality is completely subjective anyway. You can't please everybody, you've just got to please enough of the right kind of people, whatever film you are making.

Quoted Text I almost always see horror movies alone, at least the first time. Later on, I watch it with other people, sometimes just to get them to check it out. I rarely watch them in theaters. The audience almost always ruins them. I remember seeing 1408 in theaters and having a group of teenagers cracking up at a scene with no music where John Cusack was crying and holding a dead girl in his arms.

I agree, audiences can suck, but I've learned not to take any of it. If people are ruining it for you, talk to management. If they don't do anything, demand your money back. Simple as that. It always works for me. I never did any of this until I actually started paying for my own movie tickets.

I think Horror films are better when watched in the theatre. And you know what? They are actually more effective to me on a computer too. I don't know why. Maybe it's the speakers. TV is always my least favorite choice unless it has a decent sound system and image quality. I think I've played more DVDs on my computer than on my DVD player recently. I did watch Martyrs on the television though

Quoted Text There's torture in it but it's minimal

I don't think so. The entire movie -- the entire premise and the point of the film -- revolves around the acts of torture. Personally, I liked the film better when the angle was dealt with through flashbacks and suggestive imagery (the female prisoner almost gave me nightmares) than when it became another Hostel, but that's just me.

But even if you want to make the argument that the torture takes a backseat for most of the film, I believe the movie still fits squarely into the torture porn trend.

The film has exactly seventeen minutes of non-stop torture near its climax. NON-STOP. That's not "minimal." In fact, it's more than the Hostel torture scenes combined.

Quoted Text I think it serves a completely different purpose than any of the movies that fall into that category, both to the plot and to the audience. Its the after effects of the torture that are the primary focus.

I would have agreed if not for what I wrote above. Overall, I agree the after-effects are the main focus, but the film concentrated TOO MUCH on the torture during the last act. I'm not afraid or embarassed at all to call Martyrs "torture porn."

Quoted Text Still, a good point. Whatever subgenre you're talking about, there's going to be a fair share of garbage under it and a handful of golden ones. I don't particularly like ghost movies but damned if Session 9 isn't better than most slashers.

Precisely my point. I hate it when people condemn films just for the subgenre or catergory they belong in.

--Julio

Dec, I agree that I will not be able to sway anyone who already has their mind set about Hostel or Hostel 2, but I do want to throw this out.

First of all, Hostel 2 was in no way not a success story when it's all said and done.  It was made for around $10 Million, and grossed almost $36 Million WW.  It also did very well on DVD rental and sale.

A big problem it had were piracy leaks in the film, prior to actual release.  Roth and the rest of teh Producers said this really affected its Box Office.

The other big issue it had was that the sequel had to be so differnt from teh original because teh original had surprise and shock going for it.  The sequel, obviously didn't...and couldn't.  Unless you read about it up front, you had no clue where teh original was headed...espeically based on teh entire first half of the movie being so completely different and meandering.  You had no idea who the bad guys were, no idea what was going on or why.  The sequel didn't have those luxeries, but IMO, pulled everything off very impressively, and for what it was, I thought it was also a great movie experience.

Different strokes for sure, but these re 2 horror movies that i watch over and over when they're on a movie channel (I own both DVD's as well).

Call me crazy if you want to, but I don't see any bad writing here at all.

I still don't understand the Hostel hate. Nobody seems to back themselves up about it at all. Not that I thought it was all perfect. No way! I wish Eli Roth would stop blabbing about the film's generally childish political undertones, whether or not they actually exist. He seems pretty knowledgeable about horror movies in general but is an ace at making himself sound like a frat boy douche bag and absolute tool who thinks he's more cultured than he really is. Also, Hostel 2 was awful and actually ruined everything that made the first one good. I'll back myself up here. In Hostel 2, these guys have dogs, surveillance cameras, lock down and even those glowing buzzer things they have at the Cheesecake factory. It's just completely wacky and borderline sci-fi. I can't imagine these criminals would wanna draw that much attention to themselves. The first one was a lot more meat and potatoes which is exactly what I imagine the operation would be like in real life.

I thought the first one was generally good. The characters weren't as stupid or obnoxious as they were in Cabin Fever and the idea was brilliant. Maybe the execution was a little shoddy but I can't imagine anyone calling the general concept stupid. I also don't think it followed any particular formula. I wouldn't say it wasn't predictable but the story unfolded rather than following a list of splatter movie requirements. The sex scenes were dumb and the dialogue could've been better but overall, okay. Why this, out of all the other horror movies, is so incredibly hated is beyond me, even if I was sort of let down by it.

I do however despise the term "torture porn." It's a bullshit phrase made up by someone who hates these movies and it's an incredibly cynical implication. I wish they'd just call it torture horror or something. That's what it is even though Saw 2-6 are genuine torture porn. I think Audition was actually the one that started the trend as that one kind of got bigger after Hostel took influence from it. Torture's not exactly a new element in horror (Blood Sucking Freaks did it before it was "cool") but it's never been a trend before now. I think a lot of the movies in the genre are pretty bad but not for reasons exclusive to the genre. Nevertheless, I lost interest in it pretty quick.

Quoted from ReaperCreeper I would have agreed if not for what I wrote above. Overall, I agree the after-effects are the main focus, but the film concentrated TOO MUCH on the torture during the last act. I'm not afraid or embarassed at all to call Martyrs "torture porn."

SPOILERS!!!

You're right. The only thing is that I didn't think the torture was meant to shock or scare people. More so to make the viewer bored and indifferent which is part of the point, I guess. That's how I felt anyway and how the girl feels by the end. Plus the torture was just relentless beatings. It wasn't meant to be a huge gore set piece. I guess that's what I meant by minimal as it did go on for 17 minutes. Minimal might not even be the right word. Other than that, they don't show any torture, not even at the factory. Not that I remember anyway.

Whatever. I'm glad we both agree the movie is awesome.

END SPOILERS.

Consequently you might be right that I'm embarrassed to call the movie torture porn even though I really don't think it was.

Quoted from James McClung Also, Hostel 2 was awful and actually ruined everything that made the first one good.

Interesting... I liked both Hostel films, but liked #2 the best. I guess we're all different.