What makes a good horror movie? It really depends of your definition of horror. Is it scary or gory? Seldom do the two go hand in hand. I have yet to see a torture porn movie that scared me. Sure, they're sometimes revolting and disgusting, but scary? Not in a million years. Why do torture porn movies fail in that regard? It's really very simple.

The characters.

If you got belivable, well thought-out, likeable, engaging characters and you put them in a scary situation then you're more or less there. Wrap a good story around it (though that's not even that necessary) then you've got a winner.

That's why movies like Jaws, Poltergeist, The Shinning, Angel Heart, Duel and Alien (to a certain extent) will always be ten times scarrier than anything that purely relies on blood and gore, hell even Close Encounters of the Third Kind is scarier than Hostel - and that's not even a horror movie.

Torture porn blows because the characters are annoying, stupid/retarded and generally unlikable. The only high point moments in those movies are when those same characters die. While they're a horror to watch - it does not mean they're actually horror movies.

I remember another thread like this once upon a time. Can't remember when though. It's been awhile.

In my humble opinion, the primary element is the suspense. The characters have to be placed in a situation that is truly very dangerous. Dangerous, as in, it will kill them if they fail to escape, and this could be literally anything, from knife-wielding maniac to a dangerous machine (i.e. Cube). Once they're in that situation, every single move they make has to make you wonder whether they will survive to the next scene, and the story pulls you in just enough to keep you wondering, but doesn't drag it so much that you get bored.

It actually was Hitchcock (so I hear) that noted that suspense is like a bomb dropping. The scariest part of a bomb dropping is watching the drop itself. Why? Because you don't know what will happen when (not if) it hits the ground. Will it explode or not? Big boom or little one? It is explosive or chemical? Will it kill me on impact or will I survive long enough to know I've been hit and feel the pain? Will I live a long full life or will I end up surviving because I won't die? The hit at the end is the answer to all the questions, but the drop is the suspense forcing you to wonder what will come next. And of course, when it comes down, you don't take your eyes off it. You can't.

While suspense is the big part, it's not the only element for horror. Horror takes a standard suspense thriller and gives it a twist. That twist is "horrific." Think of things that are considered horrifying (and this is totally based on culture and society). If you take that horrific element and build a suspense story around it, then you've got horror.

"Scary" is a relative term. Horror movies don't need to be "scary" to be horror. Really, what is scary but a personal reaction to the suspense element? Everyone experiences fear in different ways and for different things, and to try and MAKE something scary is an instant setup for failure. Someone with a fear of dogs may have found the dogs in Resident Evil terrifying, while others just appreciated the chase for a good action sequence with no fear at all. Suspense, however, is more measurable and possible to accomplish. Putting things you think are scary into a script is cool, but judicious use of suspense will make those elements even more terrifying for those who are afraid of them while allowing those who aren't afraid of those things specifically to appreciate the atmosphere.

Now, the hardest part of the writing horror is keeping it believable. Because if you slip up even once in a sequence, the audience's suspense is broken and it turns into a laughable mess that you might or might not recover from when the scene changes (not before). That's why real characters are important. As soon as a character services the plot, it's dead obvious and the story loses a lot. It's not the plot that blows. It's the characters blowing the plot...on their knees.

And I would imagine the reason watching a DVD on the computer is a bit scarier is because you're sitting closer to the screen. You might have a 32 inch TV in your living room, but you sit usually five to ten feet away from it making the screen relatively small. When you're at your computer, however, you're sitting between one and two feet from the screen, so even a nineteen inch monitor would be relatively larger because you're so much closer to it. Add to this that you're going to be closer to the speakers, or possibly using headphones making the sound better as well. It's not rocket science.

Oh, and as for Hostel. You can't say that everyone says they hate Hostel without backing it up. Check out the Hostel review thread and I backed it up with lots and lots of examples as to why I felt the movie was inferior. I did, however, praise its eventual premise. Short version: The premise sold that movie. It was ingenius. The writing was total crap.

Quoted from George Willson It actually was Hitchcock (so I hear) that noted that suspense is like a bomb dropping. The scariest part of a bomb dropping is watching the drop itself

That's close, George, and I also believe it was Hitchcock, but the idea was a bomb under the table.

We know it's there, but it is a secret to those in the room.  They could be doing the most mundane things imaginable.  Playing cards, for example.  Perhaps someone gets mad and pounds on the table -- we hold our breath -- watching to see if that will ignite the bomb.

It's the waiting -- not so much the ultimate explosion -- that provides the tension.

I agree with your assessment that the key to good horror is suspense.

This is true for the torture films, the mad killer, and the ghost in the attic.

For any brand of horror film, it is primarily about waiting for that scare.

A good horror film knows how to ratchet up the suspense -- and then the key that separates the good from the great -- it delivers a worthy payoff.

Many films get that first part right -- far fewer manage to deliver on that second part.

I'd say what makes a good horror film is reality. Shock value cannot come from cheap effects.

Quoted from bert That's close, George, and I also believe it was Hitchcock, but the idea was a bomb under the table. (cut to...) For any brand of horror film, it is primarily about waiting for that scare.

Hm, I always heard it was the drop. But I probably got it third hand as well.

So it's not the boo! that is scary. It's wondering when the boo that you know is there will strike.

I remember a scene in Jaws where two guys were on a boat dock and something happened to where part of the dock fell into the water and one guy frantically scrambled to stay on the deck. The scene was tense, but the weird part is that the shark wasn't in that scene. He's never seen or even really hinted at being there. Yet because we know he COULD be there, the scene is suspenseful and exciting. I remember thinking afterward that ultimately nothing happened to anyone in that scene, and yet it was scary.

Quoted from Baltis. Story Characters That is what is most important

The problem is that a lot of the older so called classics to horror fans have terrible acting.

I watch a lot of movies and the problem is that I have not been entertained by 95% of the horror movies on that list.

My biggest problem is the slasher part of the genre.

How do you take these monsters who keep on kicking serious when they can't kill little crying girls? They come back for sequel after sequel and always lose to teens who cried and ran away for most of the movie.

I hate when girls beg in movies anymore and that usually is where I turn it off if I make it that far.

"I won't tell anyone, just let me go"

Of course you will tell someone and of course he's not going to let you go, he's a fucking psycho.

I have enjoyed scenes in a lot of the films but scenes don't make it a classic movie.

Evil Dead is not that classic either.

Quoted from James McClung 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 forgot how awesome Hey! video is (see first post on this thread). Never gets old. Good point too. 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 Finally, I think horror movies need to have a certain ugliness to them... 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 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. 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!

James,

All good points well made. I could quote a lot more from your post but they get the idea.

Your favourite subject? Personally I prefer talking dirty with the girl of my dreams, but this isn't the right place for that. Ahem.

Hey! is still funny. I had and iPhone for a while with it on it. Nobody I showed it to failed to laugh. And I showed it to a lot of people. I've since left the Smug Club by the way.

Story, character, ugliness, and the audience filling in blanks left deliberately for them to fill. If you listen you can hit nails being hit on the head there.

You're right about HItch. The others were thrillers. But he was breaking new ground with techniques and subject way back in the 60s.

He used to tell a story about tension in a film - rather important in a horror I'm sure you'll agree.

A group of people around a table are talking Baseball. The conversation is at best boring for the audience.
However, tell the audience there's a bomb under the table before the conversation starts. Now the Baseball conversation becomes incredibly interesting as the audience sit on the edge of their seas and think "Shut up! Get outta there for the love of God get out!"

I think the last point about 'balls' is the most interesting, to me at least. What? Bear with me, I'll endeavour to keep it clean, well, reasonably anyway.

Horror is about as dark as it gets. It's the worst side of human nature and the world. It's interesting teenage males, on the turn so to speak, are extremely interested in it. I was myself at the age. Obviously just a few years ago now.... Ho hum.

The difference between post 80s horror and its predecessors is as you said, balls. Balls to have some proper edge and tension, balls to try and make new ground. Just look at the remakes for how well those films have stood up. Trying to get some of the 70s and 80s cool to rub off by remaking films doesn't quite cut it.

For proof the public know it too look at the reception The Excorcist got upon release. Queues around the blocks for weeks. People came outta the movie and then went straight to rejoin the queue to see it again.

Tell me one horror film since that has had that effect. And if they made it they would do it again. They are there - they are just not being catered for.

Quoted from The Balt 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. 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.

Amen to that fella.

Quoted from DS 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.

See my earlier post on TnT about opinions. Still for each their own. You're outnumbered so far.

Quoted from DS 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.

Again whether it works is not is hit and miss for horror as opinions vary. People who hate 'Star Wars' will still agree it's a good film for what it is. To use a horror as an example - American Werewolf In London. I've yet to meet anyone who didn't think that was a good film. Mind you, the night is still young...

A bit of innovation in the last twenty years from a few films would have been nice though eh?

But as you say, if it works for you then it works. Job done.

Quoted from DS 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.

And here's the point on which we go in opposite directions. Lynch films are.... weird right? Very weird. Especially compared to your average film in terms of.... everything. There's no-one like him.

But, I love his stories and I really care about the characters. Both are utterly compelling and engaging. And that it why I think he's so popular with movie fans.

T.B.C. More later....

RV

Quoted from Baltis. Is it based off the Richard Yates novel? I can't say I've even heard of a movie for it... Where was I? I did some checkin' up ... Leo and Kate are in this, yea?

Yeah. And Sam Mendes directed it. It's a film about being married to the wrong person and watching your dreams evaporate. Kate won a Golden Globe for Best Actress in a Drama. Michael Shannon was nominated for a best supporting actor Oscar and rightly so. He was terrific as John Givings, the adult son of the next door neighbours, who was a brilliant mathematician until he suffered a nervous breakdown. The scene where he comes over for dinner is gold.   It’s probably not a film I’d recommend to a younger audience but I reckon anyone over 30 would get a lot out of it. It's actually much darker than it appears to be in the trailers.

Edit: Oh yeah. It's based on the Yates novel of the same name. Here's a great article I came across about Yates. It's quite long but very interesting.

http://bostonreview.net/BR24.5/onan.html

Quoted from George Willson Hm, I always heard it was the drop. But I probably got it third hand as well. So it's not the boo! that is scary. It's wondering when the boo that you know is there will strike. I remember a scene in Jaws where two guys were on a boat dock and something happened to where part of the dock fell into the water and one guy frantically scrambled to stay on the deck. The scene was tense, but the weird part is that the shark wasn't in that scene. He's never seen or even really hinted at being there. Yet because we know he COULD be there, the scene is suspenseful and exciting. I remember thinking afterward that ultimately nothing happened to anyone in that scene, and yet it was scary.

Actually the shark is in that scene. it takes the bait (a pot roast) and pulls the dock into the water. You're right though, George, we never see the shark. But it turns the dock remnants around and heads back towards the guy trying to scramble to safety. Marvellous scene from my all time favorite movie. Seeing this at the cinema aged 13 was unbelievable. I became a shark freak after that.  I must've watched the movie at least 200 times since then. Wonderful acting - Robert Shaw should receive a retrospective posthumous Oscar.

Quoted from rendevous I think the last point about 'balls' is the most interesting, to me at least. What? Bear with me, I'll endeavour to keep it clean, well, reasonably anyway. Horror is about as dark as it gets. It's the worst side of human nature and the world. It's interesting teenage males, on the turn so to speak, are extremely interested in it. I was myself at the age. Obviously just a few years ago now.... Ho hum. The difference between post 80s horror and its predecessors is as you said, balls. Balls to have some proper edge and tension, balls to try and make new ground. Just look at the remakes for how well those films have stood up. Trying to get some of the 70s and 80s cool to rub off by remaking films doesn't quite cut it.

I think teenage males like horror movies because they go for the jugular when other movies, even action movies, are merely "presented." There's exceptions, of course, but those exceptions are usually the ones that transcend genre. Even at 23, after I've expanded my tastes and horizons, I love horror for the same reasons as well as more "philosophical" reasons that have come to me with age. I don't think I'll ever "grow out" of them and I don't intend to, at this point. Why move on when you can just expand?

Clive Barker is actually talking more about the audience/fans than filmmakers in terms of "getting our balls back." He talks about both but to me, the most important issue is horror fans laying down and taking the producers' "condescending." That is, not doing anything to counteract the recent remake trend. To me, it's not enough just to condemn them. What's the point of complaining about remakes if you pay to go see them?

It's a terrific interview, even if you don't like Clive Barker, so I'm going to post it. I think it's insightful to both writers and audience members alike. Hopefully, you guys feel the same.

Quoted from George Willson I remember a scene in Jaws where two guys were on a boat dock and something happened to where part of the dock fell into the water and one guy frantically scrambled to stay on the deck. The scene was tense, but the weird part is that the shark wasn't in that scene. He's never seen or even really hinted at being there. Yet because we know he COULD be there, the scene is suspenseful and exciting. I remember thinking afterward that ultimately nothing happened to anyone in that scene, and yet it was scary.

This was actually my least favorite "shark scene" as a kid but since then, I find it a lot more intense. The shark is there like Stevie said though. Still, it doesn't defeat the technique.

The "bomb under the table" is another great one and despite never seeing a Hitchcock film I "loved," it's a technique I've tried to apply to some of my own writing.

Quoted from Old Time Wesley The problem is that a lot of the older so called classics to horror fans have terrible acting. I watch a lot of movies and the problem is that I have not been entertained by 95% of the horror movies on that list. My biggest problem is the slasher part of the genre. How do you take these monsters who keep on kicking serious when they can't kill little crying girls? They come back for sequel after sequel and always lose to teens who cried and ran away for most of the movie. I hate when girls beg in movies anymore and that usually is where I turn it off if I make it that far. "I won't tell anyone, just let me go" Of course you will tell someone and of course he's not going to let you go, he's a fucking psycho. I have enjoyed scenes in a lot of the films but scenes don't make it a classic movie. Evil Dead is not that classic either.

Evil Dead isn't classic... I agree. Evil Dead is terribly flawed... I do like the original, but 2 and Army just lost it on me. I couldn't get into either of them as much.  I like the concept that Drove Evil Dead, though. This entity in the woods. We don't know what... It's just there. How? We don't really know, but if we could understand the book maybe we could.  I think that's tops.  But, yeah... Evil Dead as a whole picture... It's  pretty paultry.

And I also agree that Scenes don't make a classic... It's the whole picture, brought together, that does. And very, very, very few  horror films have done this. I think we forgive the early horror movies we've seen due to nostalgia. A looking glass effect and over time they do not age well... but in our hearts we always want to place ourselves as we were when we 1st seen them.  I know I do.

The sad thing about getting older is that you lose your innocence and with it that fear you always knew wasn't really there... You kinda just made it up in your mind. That's a shame, but something people who write horror movies and write them well should look at and try to replicate within their work.  I know I try to.

Quoted from James McClung I think teenage males like horror movies because they go for the jugular when other movies, even action movies, are merely "presented." There's exceptions, of course, but those exceptions are usually the ones that transcend genre. Even at 23, after I've expanded my tastes and horizons, I love horror for the same reasons as well as more "philosophical" reasons that have come to me with age. I don't think I'll ever "grow out" of them and I don't intend to, at this point. Why move on when you can just expand? Clive Barker is actually talking more about the audience/fans than filmmakers in terms of "getting our balls back." He talks about both but to me, the most important issue is horror fans laying down and taking the producers' "condescending." That is, not doing anything to counteract the recent remake trend. To me, it's not enough just to condemn them. What's the point of complaining about remakes if you pay to go see them? It's a terrific interview, even if you don't like Clive Barker, so I'm going to post it. I think it's insightful to both writers and audience members alike. Hopefully, you guys feel the same.

That's a great interview. I love Clive Barker, I'm surprised more of his stuff hasn't been made. He's really a talented guy and despite being famous, I don't think he has the level of respect his work perhaps deserves. Perhaps because the films haven't always realised the potential of his creations.

In the interview he mentions that the likes of Hellraiser and Videodrome were seemingly leading somewhere new, but then film has pulled back from the creativity.

I'd like to get some peoples views on that.  What do you all think he has in mind when he discusses that subject?

Barker's work is very hard to adapt for the screen. He uses the writing medium to the fullest and it is very hard to capture the feel of his work on film.  Hellraiser (though it is good, don't get me wrong) barely accomplished it, and that was written by the man himself! Book of Blood almost accomplished it, but fell on its face in some angles.

The Midnight Meat Train was all right (minus the cheap and over-stylized special effects), but that was based on one of his more screen-friendly stories.

--Julio

I agree about Barker's work being difficult to adapt. In the first half of the interview, he talks about anime as a means to do it as some of his stories just couldn't be done practically on live action. Some are just too big and fantastic. I neglected to post the first interview because it's more about Barker's work than horror in general but the link should be there somewhere.

Also, both Lynch and Cronenberg would be extremely difficult to follow up on. Honestly, I think their sensibilities as storytellers are just so far removed from the norm to be emulated. The Dark Backward came close but still feels like a pretty grounded film as opposed to something like Videodrome which is way out there. City of Lost Children and Delicatessen also came close but both seem pretty far removed from the horror genre. In general, films like Cronenberg's require the perfect balance of focus and letting loose. Too much focus results in flat out copying. Too much letting loose results in flat out silly ideas.

I agree with Barker that there was a certain strive for creativity that was lost somewhere back then but I do wonder how many good films would've came out if it hadn't been. I'd imagine they're be more than a handful of soulless ripoffs.