What Are The Things You Dislike most about Modern Horror Movies ?

BAYLOR

There Are Always new Things to Learn.
Joined
Jun 29, 2014
Messages
23,775
I tend to like the classics even though they don't really scare me anymore. They seemed have craftsmanship and care and entertainment value that modern films with some notable exceptions seem to lack .
 
For me, it could be the lack of restraint. There doesn't seem to be much that can't be shown on screen.
When, even in to the 70s, things had to be suggested and hinted at, there was tension. It built and built and then you got your release as a gag or a shock.
Now films seem to go from 0 to 11 in no time at all. There is no middle ground.
But I am far from an aficionado of the horror genre. I can't remember the last horror film I watched let alone enjoyed.
Except for maybe Rare Exports: A Christmas Tale. That was great fun but not only a horror.
 
No real horror. Or maybe I'm just jaded.

One of the most effective horror films I saw recently was I am a Ghost. No gore or any CG terrors. Just a gradual revelation to the protagonist of her true nature and her utterly horrendous fate when that revelation is complete.
 
Horror is a really tough genre to get right.

I think jump scares are a pretty cheap trick in horror movies.


I agree, although they can also be very effective, especially if you've built up the tension successfully.

Sound can also play an important part in building the horror/scares. Two of the most effective for this are Jaws with the incidental music playing when the shark is lurking, and Aliens with the beeping of the scanners on the marines' rifles.

I think the toughest thing for modern horror is the number of quality horror movies that have gone before. Whereas other genres can use modern effects to bridge the lack of quality, CGI only serves to decrease the overall experience when it comes to horror. Because there's nothing that the movie director can put on the screen which will be as scary as that which is in the imagination of the viewer.
 
Do you think Horror loses something when it becomes a franchise?
 
I love the jump scares.
Give me nothing but jump scares.

Evil Dead is the good stuff.

Evil Dead 1 and 2 are great stuff :cool:

Army of Darkness is flat-out funny as a hell and, a terrific time travel fantasy adventure film.:D:cool: It was foreshadow by the second film and its original title was The Medieval Dead. I kid you not. :D
 
Cool! :cool:
What I dislike is the people who have complained so strongly about jump scares that they’ve replaced them with superstitious/religious phooey that is just plain corny and dumb.

People don’t like jump scares for the same reason they don’t like needles. It hurtz! It hurtz! Oooh, that wasn’t so bad!
 
I've lost interest in horror for a long time. Thinking of a couple--they are 20 years old yet somehow it doesn't feel like a long time--the House on Haunted Hill 1999. I watched that recently.

That had some good things in it--I liked the black vapor ghost at the end but the CGI was so dated that it doesn't impress or scare.
If they had done a practical version I may have liked it more. It would have felt more real--using a water tank or something. It was a neat design with the faces appearing on it.

Plus the film was so brightly lit--the sets seemed artificial and you couldn't be creeped out when you assumed 100 crew people were standing by the lights. The Shining never gave that impression.
You knew it was expensive but it didn't seem like it--the outside snow scenes--I assumed that was a real outdoor location.
I liked Geoffrey Rush's Vincent Price homage. That was a nice touch but otherwise, the movie didn't do anything for me. And I am not a fan of the original either so...

Another was 30 Days of Night--it had potential but got bogged down by a few things.
The cast was good, and it had a spooky idea but something just didn't work. The vampires were interestingly weird.

Oh I know one that was effective.
The Ring--the asian version.
I am not interested in rewatching it--it did have atmosphere and some creepy things like the blurry photos--but that scene with the TV really creeped me out.
I was squirming in my chair and swearing outloud about how creepy it was.
So effective and yet simple--the guy doesn't see the long hair shape coming out of the tv--the shot is one continuous sequence with no edits (I hear the US version cuts away).
Ironically I watched it on VHS-it was a tape someone had sent to me!
 
Horror lost a lot when they moved to colour. There's something so much more atmospheric and uncanny about a b&w horror movie.

I think the last one I saw that creeped me out was probably the original Blair Witch Project.
 
Jump scares, I think, are the worst feature of more contemporary horror films. And they're just not that scary.
 
Eh, I like them though.
Instead of feeling completely underwhelmed with the anticipation of something only to be left hanging. That throws my serotonin out of balance.

they’ve replaced them with superstitious/religious phooey that is just plain corny and dumb.
I’d like to retract this statement as a personal bias after seeing The Conjuring I and II, and also a really bogus short film.
 
I dislike franchises. The first movie may have some impact, but the photocopies rarely do. Usually that ties into my next dislike ...

Poor scripts. You can have a director with a distinctive style and you can hire talented actors, but you need to give them material to work with. And the scripts don't need to be overly complicated. I saw Sinister for the first time recently, and it's not a complex story, but the way it's filmed and acted, with direction and editing that enhances the creepiness. (Yeah, I know it's a franchise, and I doubt I'll ever watch the 2nd one.)
 
I would also have to agree with making everything a franchise. Why can't we just have a standalone movie, or at least a movie series that has a concrete ending?

I would say there have been some good modern horror movies, but some seem to just go for trying to be scaring and either not working, or not having a compelling story along with the scares.
 
I dislike franchises. The first movie may have some impact, but the photocopies rarely do. Usually that ties into my next dislike ...

Poor scripts. You can have a director with a distinctive style and you can hire talented actors, but you need to give them material to work with. And the scripts don't need to be overly complicated. I saw Sinister for the first time recently, and it's not a complex story, but the way it's filmed and acted, with direction and editing that enhances the creepiness. (Yeah, I know it's a franchise, and I doubt I'll ever watch the 2nd one.)
I would also have to agree with making everything a franchise. Why can't we just have a standalone movie, or at least a movie series that has a concrete ending?

I would say there have been some good modern horror movies, but some seem to just go for trying to be scaring and either not working, or not having a compelling story along with the scares.

The Resident Evil films for example should have been maybe 3 films tops with a definite ending. Better writing and script would have also helped here.
 
Last edited:
The Resident Evil films for example should have been maybe 3 films tops with a definite ending. Better writing ans script would have also helped here.
Exactly. Many companies just want to milk a series for as far as possible instead of just ending it at a coherent and reasonable spot.
 
Exactly. Many companies just want to milk a series for as far as possible instead of just ending it at a coherent and reasonable spot.

Thats standard practice in Hollywood.
 

Similar threads


Back
Top